>Hi Squeers,

>Marx himself either did not know or ascribed little
significance to the fact, but Hegel was certainly
aware that the roots of the dialectic lie predominantly
in the concept of yin/yang polarity.
>Posted by GilbertHolmes

This is a *demonstrably (and frankly, ludicrously) FALSE statement*.
(And no, I am NOT going to be demonstrating that anytime soon. *You* prove otherwise -- unless I luckily stumble across Marx writing on Hegel's antecedents, in the next little while.)

And actually: the 'roots' of the dialectic lie *wholly* IN PHYSICAL REALITY, Gilbert Holmes... *Remember* that, please. Be accurate -- and critical -- in your thinking. Especially if you are intending to write a _book_ on the matter...
!!
??

Dear Grok,
it looks like this sorry chapter is going to close, and without GH evincing the least embarrassment, let alone apology (to Marx or Hegel) for his ignorant effrontery:
<Marx poisoned modern political philosophy because he didn't understand the dialectic>

But then the beauty of wilful ignorance is that its meditations are so self-sufficient. It must be wonderful to have such a blithe unconcern for even rudimentary understanding of a topic in professing oneself an expert.
I suggest vanity-publishing for your ideas, GH, or better still save yourself the expense and post it online gratis. If on the other hand you're interested in truth and rigour, try an academic journal, though I fear such would be far more scathing than I've been, that is if they bothered to skim past the first paragraph.
Sorry, but you deserve excoriation.

I said, "Hegel was certainly
aware that the roots of the dialectic lie predominantly
in the concept of yin/yang polarity."

I have looked, and although I am sure I read in a good source that Hegel did recognize the influence that yin/yang had on his thought, I cannot find it. ..and it is not mentioned in the texts that I have reviewed. Neither does it seem to be a widely considered idea. In the light of that I probably would have written both my article and comments a litte differently, but not significantly.

Hegel did study and lecture in Chinese philosophy, however, and there are certainly strong parallels between dialectics and polarity. ..and I am far from the first to recognize that. Being quite anthropocentric, Hegel was also quite anti-chinese generally so it would be relatively easy for him not to have credited influence from that source.

"Marx poisoned modern political philosophy because he didn't understand the dialectic." That was written by the people at OLO, but I'm definitely not about to say sorry to Marx. I am happy with my belief that his interpretation of the dialectic was poor.

I looked up excoriation and came up with this:

excoriation
the act of stripping of possessions wrongfully and by force; spoliation or robbery.

the process of removing the skin or outer layer; flaying.

You begin with insults and end with threats Squeers. Perhaps you would like to say sorry.

Dear Gilbert,
I don't take any pleasure in insulting you, and I'm certainly not threatening you (words also have figuralive and metaphoric values. The word excoriate stuck in my mind when I read Tolstoy's use of it to describe an old tree). But you have made outrageous claims. I've spent hundreds of hours trying to appreciate Hegel's and Marx's thought, and am truly humbled at how far above me they are in learning and comprehension. It's bloody galling when someone denounces these great thinkers in a few glib sentences.
It doesn't matter if Hegel did use the concept of yin-yang (who hasn't), dialectical thought is much more than syllogism. Even with Hegel it was more a negative dialectic, a way of thinking that was not resolved in synthesis. Neither was Marx's dialectical materialism the simplistic grand narrative it's popularly made out to be.
You say, "I am happy with my belief that his [Marx's] interpretation of the dialectic was poor". Well sorry, but your "belief" don't cut no mustard. Of course you'll have no trouble getting applause since the masses have been conditioned for decades to hold the same "beliefs".
I think your intentions are honourable, and I salute them, but the situation is more complex than you appear to realise.
I look forward to more articles from you, but I hope you'll be more circumspect.

>the beauty of wilful ignorance is that its meditations
are so self-sufficient. It must be wonderful to have
such a blithe unconcern for even rudimentary understanding
of a topic in professing oneself an expert.

Trying to run down all the sophistry and mistakes in each post of these rightwing commentators here would take dozens of replies each. Tackling such willful ignorance would balloon exponentially: a truly augean labor. Then there are the committed ideologs like Yabby. Not worth the effort, because they are not swayed by inconvenient truths.

>I suggest vanity-publishing for your ideas, GH, or
better still save yourself the expense and post it
online gratis. If on the other hand you're interested
in truth and rigour, try an academic journal, though
I fear such would be far more scathing than I've been,
that is if they bothered to skim past the first paragraph.

It would have to be a vanity press: because Holmes couldn't possibly pass peer review anywhere with this rubbish -- other than with some ideological 'think tank', maybe, that might publish anything remotely anti-communist... he could try that angle.

Who could think to write and publish a book on a subject of which they are so incompetent in? I've never considered writing one, even tho' I'd be much more competent: simply because I understand the effort that would be involved -- and the level of professionalism required... and I have more important things to do.

Squeers:
>Dear GH,
so far you've said nothing to indicate you have the
faintest idea what "the dialectic", as you call it,
is. You've just found a shiny little something you
like to equate childishly with yin yang. And yet you
have the nerve to pretend to understand Hegel! And to
disparage the monumental thought of Karl Marx and
others who followed after him!

Holmes' strategy seems to be to pick up his ball and go home and pout, and not seriously try to learn anything here (and no, this is not a 'mirror'-type situation. The leftists here have little to learn from the Right. We've lived our entire lives in bourgeois society and understand it quite a bit better than they do).

>The "right wing" ought to enlist you as an ally, for
you're no friend to the left with your heedless surmise
and puerile prognostications. Unless you care to show us
some depth of understanding, I see you as a rather
ordinary figure skater.

Like most people, GHolmes does not rise to the occasion when caught out -- and instead defends his wounded ego past all reason. Quite pedestrian response, indeed. This, of course, is NOT the road to Enlightenment... He could have learned quite a lot here from us, actually. Wonder what he could have been thinking the response would be to his little dismissive anti-communist essay. I suppose he is not too critical of the ideological environment he has grown up in -- not a good sign, when one wants to be a professional critical thinker...

I'm still hoping Loudmouth will come back with some questions. THAT is a useful way to spend time here. The rest is mostly garbage.