Comradeship // Freechat

2353 readers

42 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

felipeforte@lemmygrad.ml

I wrote an intro to diamat from the perspective of thermodynamics (theunconductedchorus.com)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is a culmination of a lot of ideas I've had over the years that constitute my world view and understanding of our reality.

Some key realizations I've had are that there are many parallels between concepts of energy gradients driving evolution of dynamic systems, emergence, and self-organization with the core concepts of Dialectical Materialism rooted in contradictions, transformation of quantity into quality, and the negation of the negation.

Dialectical Materialism describes the cyclical process of development where an initial thesis is countered by an antithesis, leading to a synthesis that retains aspects of both but transcends them to a new level. This directly mirrors the idea of energy gradients driving systems towards higher levels of complexity and organization. In both cases, emergent properties arise from the interactions within the system driven by the selection pressures.

I see nature as having a fractal quality to it where environmental pressures to optimize space and energy use drive the emergence of similar patterns at different scales. I argue that our social structures are a direct extension of the physical reality and simply constitute a higher level of abstraction and organization that directly builds on the layers beneath.

If you're simply interested in a standalone introduction to dialectics can skip to chapter 8, which is largely self-contained. The preceding chapters build a foundation by illustrating how self-organization leads to the emergence of minds and social structures.

One of the goals I have here is to provide an introduction to diamat for people in STEM who may be coming from the liberal mainstream by demonstrating a clear connection between materialist understanding of physical reality and human societies.

Feedback and critique are both very welcome.

an audiobook here (it's LLM narrated so not perfect) https://theunconductedchorus.com/audio.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Comrade_Improving@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Repeating something over and over isn’t going to make it true. Throughout this discussion, you’ve consistently avoided engaging with what I’ve said to you and kept misrepresenting what I said. I did not avoid anything here. I simply rejected your misrepresentation of what I said.

Wow, this is literally what I was saying a couple of comments ago. You have "engaged" so much with what has been said to you that you can't even point out the flaws in my comments and can only attempt to reflect your own mistakes at me.

I do not use Fchtean dialectics in diamat, but you’re clearly going to keep repeating that

Well, I am only repeating that because you keep avoiding it. And you might say that you are not using Fichtean dialectics but there is a source that disproves you on that, your own post:

Dialectical Materialism describes the cyclical process of development where an initial thesis is countered by an antithesis, leading to a synthesis that retains aspects of both but transcends them to a new level.

In case you didn't make a quick search (which would be on character), from the very first paragraph on Fichte in Wikipedia:

Fichte was also the originator of thesis–antithesis–synthesis, an idea that is often erroneously attributed to Hegel.

Back to you, on your text linked at the top of this post:

Finally, the principle of the “negation of the negation” describes a spiral of development where a thesis is challenged by an antithesis, leading to a synthesis that incorporates elements of both. (Chapter 8)

A mishmash of an attempt to explain Hegelian concepts using Fichtean logic, the fine work of a true muddler.

So even tough you might claim to not use Fichtean dialectics in diamat, your own writing proves otherwise, I wonder why that is.

There is no point trying to have a good faith discussion with such characters. Bye.

And there it is, the ultimate way of avoiding your mistakes, blaming others and turning away, no surprises here.

If there is anything out of this discussion that I hope has become clear to you, it is that if you are going to write a text on a matter that you don't understand, only to stroke your own ego, be aware that there might be people out there that have actually studied it and will call you out on your mistakes.