May 20, 2022SEGA GOONx75/images/cdf91f76c8830e1fd5ed238e21b1190b29b01bad990c33dbb4d3426e86c14ec0_1.jpg
May 20, 2022SEGA GOON- May 20, 2022·1 replyspongebob
yeah but lowkey ig the althusser / maoian conception of contradiction as minutiae to the point of discombobulation, and therefore being unable to strictly convey where contradiction and "natural causes" are delineated
or in other words how would you define contradiction if not the fusion and subsequent resolution of granular natural phenomenon?
May 20, 2022·1 replySEGA GOON- May 20, 2022Scratchin Mamba
true except i feel like you left out ig the althusser / maoian conception of contradiction as minutiae to the point of discombobulation, and therefore being unable to strictly convey where contradiction and "natural causes" are delineated
or in other words how would you define contradiction if not the fusion and subsequent resolution of granular natural phenomenon? - May 20, 2022·1 reply
deadaccig the althusser / maoian conception of contradiction as minutiae to the point of discombobulation, and therefore being unable to strictly convey where contradiction and "natural causes" are delineated
or in other words how would you define contradiction if not the fusion and subsequent resolution of granular natural phenomenon?
well i mean this is stuff worth writing entire dissertations on but ill see if i can respond concisely
the original conception of contradiction was a means of showing how social forces bear inconsistencies in relation to the wider system they exist in. i don't really have any issues with this in principle.
before i get to the next part i want to note i've always thought mao literally just copied taoist ideas for On Contradiction
which is funny because he like hated taoism . regardless thoughmao builds on the initial definition of contradiction to basically expand such as a principal of forms and means of phenomenological change. there is nothing which is, again, inherently a problem here
i think to me where the issue begins is when you begin to frame contradiction within a wider system of observation. contradiction can clearly only exist from a structural lens because contradiction will always be based on the paradoxical nature of movement of a phenomena in comparison to an assumption borne from pretextual definition of the phenomenological observer; i can't really see how anyone can argue against this. The issue is here is that you must humanize the phenomenon from the angle available the observer which removes the scientific observation of such and casts a net where the contradiction must be assumed based on the knowledge relative to the knowledge provided by the observed contradiction. Although some may say it is and I can understand why, I do not see this as de-constructive anymore than scientists looking at protons/neutrons/electrons rather than atoms themselves. To me, it is not that the ideas of contradiction from Mao or Marx are "wrong", I do not have any issues with them within their place in theory, at least in a vacuum. It is instead that the inability of one (due to Althusser's idea of ideological apparatuses just to rope him back into this) prevents a coherent separation or distinction of contradiction from natural phenomena. So to really loop back around this is actually why I think non-base struggle is not only inevitable but bears a need for intrinsic separation
- May 20, 2022SEGA GOON
- May 20, 2022spongebob
- May 20, 2022deadacc
ig the althusser / maoian conception of contradiction as minutiae to the point of discombobulation, and therefore being unable to strictly convey where contradiction and "natural causes" are delineated
or in other words how would you define contradiction if not the fusion and subsequent resolution of granular natural phenomenon?
fr though imagine showing this post to a child from 1810
- May 20, 2022·1 replyspongebob
yeah but lowkey ig the althusser / maoian conception of contradiction as minutiae to the point of discombobulation, and therefore being unable to strictly convey where contradiction and "natural causes" are delineated
or in other words how would you define contradiction if not the fusion and subsequent resolution of granular natural phenomenon?
- May 20, 2022deadacc
May 20, 2022SEGA GOON- May 20, 2022
long Krishna post discussing concepts I only understand on a surface level gotta be one of my favorite genders
- May 20, 2022·1 replydeadacc
ig the althusser / maoian conception of contradiction as minutiae to the point of discombobulation, and therefore being unable to strictly convey where contradiction and "natural causes" are delineated
or in other words how would you define contradiction if not the fusion and subsequent resolution of granular natural phenomenon?
Not a single one of these words are in the bible
- May 20, 2022Scratchin Mamba
Not a single one of these words are in the bible
nah u remember the disciples Althusser and Mao
- May 21, 2022krishna bound
well i mean this is stuff worth writing entire dissertations on but ill see if i can respond concisely
the original conception of contradiction was a means of showing how social forces bear inconsistencies in relation to the wider system they exist in. i don't really have any issues with this in principle.
before i get to the next part i want to note i've always thought mao literally just copied taoist ideas for On Contradiction
which is funny because he like hated taoism . regardless thoughmao builds on the initial definition of contradiction to basically expand such as a principal of forms and means of phenomenological change. there is nothing which is, again, inherently a problem here
i think to me where the issue begins is when you begin to frame contradiction within a wider system of observation. contradiction can clearly only exist from a structural lens because contradiction will always be based on the paradoxical nature of movement of a phenomena in comparison to an assumption borne from pretextual definition of the phenomenological observer; i can't really see how anyone can argue against this. The issue is here is that you must humanize the phenomenon from the angle available the observer which removes the scientific observation of such and casts a net where the contradiction must be assumed based on the knowledge relative to the knowledge provided by the observed contradiction. Although some may say it is and I can understand why, I do not see this as de-constructive anymore than scientists looking at protons/neutrons/electrons rather than atoms themselves. To me, it is not that the ideas of contradiction from Mao or Marx are "wrong", I do not have any issues with them within their place in theory, at least in a vacuum. It is instead that the inability of one (due to Althusser's idea of ideological apparatuses just to rope him back into this) prevents a coherent separation or distinction of contradiction from natural phenomena. So to really loop back around this is actually why I think non-base struggle is not only inevitable but bears a need for intrinsic separation
May 21, 2022·2 repliesXi bout to say "COVID? What COVID? Get back to work"
- May 21, 2022the reds
Xi bout to say "COVID? What COVID? Get back to work"
https://twitter.com/lisaabramowicz1/status/1527565955458650112I guarantee they know this and chose to have the lockdowns for the good of society
- May 21, 2022the reds
Xi bout to say "COVID? What COVID? Get back to work"
https://twitter.com/lisaabramowicz1/status/1527565955458650112USA also had a recession in 2021 while China didn't
The USA is just catching up on what they lost in 2021, while China had growth in 2021
May 21, 2022·2 repliesRIP giovanni arrighi always had some smart s*** to say
- May 21, 2022·2 repliesLein
RIP giovanni arrighi always had some smart s*** to say
Sir he has been dead for nearly 13 years
- May 21, 2022·1 replyYuzzy
Sir he has been dead for nearly 13 years
- May 22, 2022the reds
man. … free slime - May 22, 2022
- May 22, 2022Yuzzy
Sir he has been dead for nearly 13 years
Lol I know... just read a piece of his and got sad about his passing