Dialectic as Multi-Dimensional-Thought

When a foolish man stumbles on reason, in contrast to superstition, he thinks himself to have arrived at the finality and axiom of thought. He takes the Either Or form as a methodological totality, whereby he can discern all the objects of being in transparent completeness. But in truth, such a thinker is deceived by his psychological desire to obtain conceptual mastery over the world. In itself there is nothing wrong with this desire, the problem occurs when the desire traps the thinker in a shallow methodology, when desire's aim lacks world-comprehension. When such a desire results as a yearning for existential quality (social stability through democratic communication) its ethos is absent of violence, but when this desire is akin to a desire for domination, a desire to take revenge and control, both on man and nature, then it has its root in pathology. Such a seeker will always attempt to use knowledge in a malignant way, to suffocate freedom in order to quench his desire for power. Existential maturity and awareness does not seek knowledge for the purpose of power but for reasons of liberation, in order to realize a greater quality for life's experience; its orbit circles a species-consciousness in totality. (Liberation as motive is the opposite of power).

That form of reason which presupposes the error of immediacy's completeness, at the same time it assumes the eternality of the categories which stand before it, is a deceiver far worse, and more dangerous, than any religion. At least one can work within the subjectivity of religion to shift it in the direction of social sanity, but the rigid and fallacious rational form, which presupposes its own absolutism, though this assumption is shattered by the linear and material progression of reality, creates a superficial narrative which eventually leads to the justification of tyranny. (Here violence is posited as the solution to contradiction). [This should in no way be interpreted as an admission of subjectivity, but a criticism against that form of objectivity which is merely a caricature of reality, relying as it does, on the isolation of phenomena and concepts from their material base.]  

Thinkers don't want to think, which is a way of saying, those who fancy themselves thinkers refuse to challenge their thought. Those who advocate critical thinking as a science, often fail to realize the danger and error of their own presuppositions. If the assumptions on which this process stand are lacking the capacity of historical consciousnesses, dialectical analysis, then they will end by creating and validating a superstructure that remains ignorant of the foundation on which it sits. That is to say, categories will be eternalized, what is immediate will be analyzed as though it popped into existence out of nothing, without trace, without past. The material premisses that make such a superstructure possible in the first place, are superior to the superstructure itself, but it's a characteristic of idealism that it's not conscious of its foundational betrayal or ignorance, instead, it continues to multiply abstract delusions, even though they remain materially impossible from the foundation of idealism's material commitments.       

Detecting this fallacy is nearly impossible, in the first instance, because the shallow thinker is satisfied with the results of his superficial thought. The Either Or narrative gives him authority over those who still operate by crude superstition, it divides the world in terms of simple categories that are not actually representative of the world itself. Essentially, it gives him power and a feeling of superiority, safety and comprehension. As a thinker I find this both disgusting and contemptible, and yet it seems to be the common psychological symptom of even the most sophisticated.

Superficial thinkers resent dialectics, precisely because dialectics threaten their power. Dialectics are not a form of malignant thought, precisely because they presuppose the humility of social necessity in order to account for the existence of quality (this includes their own existence). This fact shatters the ego of the individual. It also guarantees that dialectical thinking cannot regress into social violence without negating itself. In order to be a dialectical thinker one must essentially already possess a transcendent psychology. Dialectics, while vastly superior as a form of thought, will not play into the hands of the individual seeking to use them as a weapon... that is to say, the conclusions of dialectical thought explode the unconscious use of thought itself, thereby locating thought and life within a social matrix. This means a dialectical thinker will comprehend the destructive and confused nature of using thought as a means of control. Essentially, dialectical consciousness exposes this as self-negating, but what is more, it manifests the ignorance and pathological automation of that psychology which is driven to seek a form of destructive domination. Dialectics make man aware of the fact that he must work with nature, to work against nature eventually leads to the negation of the species, hence the negation of the self, absolute downfall of the individual. Dialectic thought is not duped by immediacy, but strives to see existence in terms of totality. The thinker who is merely seeking power will never obtain comprehension, he might obtain a superficial power, but this power will never rise to the level of dialectical intelligence. Beyond this scheme of power (which is sustained by violently suppressing contradictions; by actively encouraging naivety) lies a world-historical-comprehension which contextualizes man's existence in such a way as to allow for the demarcation and execution of authentic intelligence. That is to say, dialectical consciousness, sweeping-ontological-awareness, increases man's power of probability toward solution and intelligence within the concrete domain of his existence. Thought is the mechanism by which one obtains multi-dimensional-awareness; dialectics is the procedure through which this awareness is realized.     

The path by which this comprehension is achieved is hyper critical. Axiomatically it always goes after the positive, it probes beyond appearance, it suffers toward understanding by resisting its impulse to comfort, which is to say, it negates the desires of its psychology -- instead of running from contradiction for fear of wounding, it allows itself to be destroyed for the sake of understanding truth.

A good thinker always seeks out contradiction, he is not motivated by a desire to avoid the pain of negation, but runs toward it, knowing that it leads to greater comprehension.

The greatest defect of the nominal thinker (those incapable and unwilling to ponder the premisses of their thought) is his feeling of competence, the feeling of having arrived at, both a climax and finality... over all, this manifests as a feeling of totality. This is why he cannot press into the deep, this is why he cannot transcend his shallow idealism, because his intuition, his psychology, keeps him content in the domain of mediocrity and superficiality. 

Let those who understand comprehend that this has been a rebuke of one-dimensional-thought, of that which calls itself "rational" because it makes use of the word reason; of that which believes itself to be totality because it swings the sword of reason. There is a dimension of comprehension that lies beyond the plain of identity, and that is the domain of difference. Contradiction is the event of understanding. 

-
-
-

SOCRATIC QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL THINKERS

How did we arrive at the place where it's necessary to apply critical thinking to critical thinkers?

A few questions are in order.

Should we dismiss questions based on our perception of them, or should we apply standards to determine their value? And shouldn't we apply effort to questions that have value?

How do we know when we are being engaged or confronted by a qualitative thinker? And what should we do when we determine that a thinker is qualitative?

If we are being confronted by qualitative thought, shouldn't we pursue it, even if it causes discomfort, even if we dislike the person, even if it comes from a beggar?

Who is qualified to ask questions? What qualifies a person to partake of discourse? Does one have to be institutionally certified in order to ask questions of value? Does institutional certification guarantee dialectical quality?

Are Ad Hominems a legitimate way to evaluate questions?

I don't believe the critical thinkers, I think they are phony, I think they are after authority as opposed to truth.

Am I doing something wrong by asking these questions? Are these questions valid? Should an honest and intelligent thinker engage them? The real tragedy is that they have to be asked at all!

Mature thinkers should be able to engage in discourse on the basis of substance, it should not be a matter of meeting superficial criteria in order to qualify for conversation.  

What do so many fear? Is it not, having their authority contradicted, having to start over from scratch, losing their idealistic hold on the world? But how can an academic start from scratch when they are told what to believe, instead of being taught how to think? In truth, everyone fears the thinker because his questions shatter their delusions.

To some we are not allowed to ask questions, this is their authoritarian criteria, their academic snobbery, their tyrannical and dehumanizing anti-intellectualism. At whom should a thinker direct his questions? Surely at those who import to be thinkers and intellectuals? Don't intellectuals enter into a rational arena, of the which, they don't have the right to exit without some kind of justification?

What indeed, does it mean to dismiss questions? Can one be a good thinker and evade valid questions?

If I want to be a good thinker, am I not bound by the authority and validity of the question?

If one says my questions are foolish, can they substantiate this claim, or is it just a shallow and fallacious way of avoiding the question, a way to preserve one's delusional self-image as a thinker?

In truth, I am tired of the evasion of intellectuals. I don't understand why they flee from the prospect of refutation, when it remains vital to the expansion of knowledge? This tells me they are not after truth but some kind of social or psychological validation. But their psychology is very unlikely to discern this defect, precisely because their education has conditioned them to presuppose their sufficiency and expertise. Surely this is backward, shouldn't their ability to engage questions (to think qualitatively) be the determining factor of their intellectual sufficiency?

I would prefer not to have to ask these questions, I would prefer to move on with the discourse of intelligence, but man's stupidity and ego will not allow it. In our time it has become necessary to preempt the thinker against the resistance of his own psychology. That this is required, merely to begin the conversation, is a heartbreaking disappointment that gives testimony to the lack of maturity and intelligence of our species.

Where are the thinkers who care about the qualitative development of thought?


-
-
-