The Hegelian Dialectic: the Corruption of Deductive Reasoning
Does anyone follow his legal case? I’m kind of surprised no one posts the Princeton Economics reports on CM.com when they come out.
I see this is an old link, brought back to life with an interesting topic. There probably won’t be much interest in resurrecting this rather arcane subject, but in the oft chance that there might be, I’d add some commentary.
First off, conflating Hegelian dialectic with communism and totalitarianism is not really appropriate. The derivatives of the dialectic methods used by Marx and then Lenin had little to do with Hegelian dialectic.
For example, Hegel never used the specific example of thesis-antithesis-synthesis in his work, “The Science of Logic. He did use a three sided argument structure that he termed abstract-negative-concrete, which has a very different meaning, in that the abstract was deemed to be just that, with is to say a theory without observable basis. The negative was the pragmatic side, or observable event, and the concrete was the reconciliation between the real and the abstract.
This is actually a very effective way at reconciling a scientific theory with experimental results- and not a deviant philosophy designed to enslave humankind.
The strains of dialectic used by Marx in Das Kapital were quite different and not directly comparable.
These (rather large) discrepancies are no doubt a result of some think tank concoction designed as part of a structured attack on thinking and ideology that may, somehow, someday, be used in a way deemed to be an affront to some right wing initiative. A campaign of misinformation, deliberately designed to malign a way of thinking that if widely embraced, very possibly could illuminate tactics and mass media strategies that are frequently used today, such as providing two seemingly different party choices that will inherently result in the same result.
We’ll see if there are any other interested commentators.
I’m not familiar with Martin Armstrong – what does he say?
Martin Armstrong is a historian who found a mathematical pattern throughout history that seems to cycle within a culture (in fact, he claims this cycle and all sub-cycles of it can be used to predict the rise and fall of said culture).
I’ve only just stumbled upon Martin Armstrong and the legal case (read: stich-up) that he was (is?) embroiled in. The history of the case, from his side, is detailed here and I found it utterly compelling reading. He seems to be quite a prolific writer and you can see them here. Whilst Madoff was jailed for stealing from the Elites, it seems Armstrong was imprisoned for exposing and refusing to join the Elites (he calls them the "CLUB").
There are a couple of things that have really interested me so far in reading his work (only a few hours in total currently). First is that his Economic Confidence Model strongly reminds me of the Psychohistory found in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation books (I read these 30 years ago…it pains me to type that). Predicting the future, which considerable accuracy, based on mathematical models taking data from all manner of sources (socialogical, historical etc). Armstrong’s ECM isn’t quite as in-depth as Asimov’s Psycho History but then again this isn’t science fiction. Of course, the different between science fiction and reality seems to be only a matter of time.
The other thing that interested me is his discussion of manipulation in the silver market and the lack of action by a corrupt CFTC. I’ve just finished reading The Asylum by Leah McGrath Goodwin where she also talks about the CFTC’s corruption.
Interestingly he writes that gold isn’t a hedge against inflation but instead a hedge against a loss of confidence in government or, as he says on page 2 here, a hedge against political instability and government default. With the debt ceiling antics I think gold’s time has come.