I had to interrupt my reading to do research on membranics with which I was clueless. Of course such a big subject can't be understood in a few minutes of research, but I think I caught the gist of what you said. This was a deeper dive than I am accustomed to, but very worthwhile.
I read especially informative on membranics in a piece by Bernardo Kastrup, The membrane metaphor in images. I hope I wasn't too far afield.
Kastrup is brilliant. I will have to look at his commentary on that. My influence on membranics is my friend, Alexander Bard, and to some extent, Sloterdijk (Spheres). But the idea that dialectics requires us to consider what some membrane lets pass (or ejects as waste), for example, is an important feature of the analysis.
Hegel's ideas are an interesting formulation of the flow and everchanging nature of historical time.
They also contain a truth: once an idea or a movement has been introduced/instigated, THERE IS NO GOING BACK. Even if the newcomer is decisively defeated, its emergence will mean that things have changed (into a new synthesis). That's an uncomfortable fact I often consider when reflecting upon woke ideology in our society...
"That's an uncomfortable fact I often consider when reflecting upon woke ideology in our society..." I have been sitting with this for days because I remember the first woke wave that happened in the early 90s. Of course, it was beaten back by 2000, as if it had disappeared. But it came roaring again in about 2015. It seems in retreat again, but I have my doubts. And to the degree this isn't oscillation but synthesis, we are seeking some subtle integration of woke along with some overcorrection.
I don't see the advantage of coining new words except to designate new ideas. A rare exception might be Heidegger, whose prolific Wortbildung (Zuhandenheit/"ready-to-hand," Vorhandenheit/"present-at-hand," & other neologisms) forces us to re-think commonly assumed ideas.
So, I see no significant difference between "sublation" (which you define as "a process that negates, retains, and transforms aspects of the original relation") and plain old "synthesis." As for "membranics," I have no clue.
The trouble with the thesis-antithesis-synthesis business (whose inventor was Fichte, not Hegel) is that it can be elastically applied to "explain" anything whatsoever. And a theory that purporting to explain anything effectively explains nothing.
I don't know about the degree to which Hegel cribbed the triadic structure from Fichte. I had heard the original thesis/antithesis idea was first set out in Kant and that Fichte used the synthesis concept to discuss the self (I). But I haven't read Fichte in thirty years. To be fair to Hegel, though, I'm pretty sure the thesis/antithesis/synthesis terminology never appears in Hegel's work or Fichte's (Marx?). Aufhebung (sublation) is Hegel's coinage, but I am nowhere near an expert on Hegel.
As far as a theory that purports to explain everything, I don't see methodological dialectics that way. But I'm sure a lot of people do. I think it can and does explain a lot, though. I also think the key difference between dialectics and the reductive triadic structure has to do with 1) includes context and subtlety, 2) is more fluid and less mechanical, and 3) is ongoing and open-ended in a way that triadic structure seems to stop with synthesis.
That's one possible outcome, which means you cave or the housekeeper loses the job. Another is the housekeeper doesn't want to lose her job over the extra bag. Another is that the housekeeper washes and you dry. But the question becomes: What is the new agreement going forward? Is this a renegotiation of the agreement with said housekeeper? Another is: Is this the appropriate application of dialectic reasoning at all? Maybe. Maybe not. But if you created a tension with your request, *something* changed and a new equilibrium is struggling to be born out of the decoherence in your proposed change to the original agreement.
Remember also that any heuristic is not designed to limn the ultimate nature of reality, but to provide an analytical tool or model to reckon with complexity. I think dialectical heuristics can help us be better Bayesians.
I had to interrupt my reading to do research on membranics with which I was clueless. Of course such a big subject can't be understood in a few minutes of research, but I think I caught the gist of what you said. This was a deeper dive than I am accustomed to, but very worthwhile.
I read especially informative on membranics in a piece by Bernardo Kastrup, The membrane metaphor in images. I hope I wasn't too far afield.
Kastrup is brilliant. I will have to look at his commentary on that. My influence on membranics is my friend, Alexander Bard, and to some extent, Sloterdijk (Spheres). But the idea that dialectics requires us to consider what some membrane lets pass (or ejects as waste), for example, is an important feature of the analysis.
Hegel's ideas are an interesting formulation of the flow and everchanging nature of historical time.
They also contain a truth: once an idea or a movement has been introduced/instigated, THERE IS NO GOING BACK. Even if the newcomer is decisively defeated, its emergence will mean that things have changed (into a new synthesis). That's an uncomfortable fact I often consider when reflecting upon woke ideology in our society...
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-return-of-the-spiritual
"That's an uncomfortable fact I often consider when reflecting upon woke ideology in our society..." I have been sitting with this for days because I remember the first woke wave that happened in the early 90s. Of course, it was beaten back by 2000, as if it had disappeared. But it came roaring again in about 2015. It seems in retreat again, but I have my doubts. And to the degree this isn't oscillation but synthesis, we are seeking some subtle integration of woke along with some overcorrection.
I don't see the advantage of coining new words except to designate new ideas. A rare exception might be Heidegger, whose prolific Wortbildung (Zuhandenheit/"ready-to-hand," Vorhandenheit/"present-at-hand," & other neologisms) forces us to re-think commonly assumed ideas.
So, I see no significant difference between "sublation" (which you define as "a process that negates, retains, and transforms aspects of the original relation") and plain old "synthesis." As for "membranics," I have no clue.
The trouble with the thesis-antithesis-synthesis business (whose inventor was Fichte, not Hegel) is that it can be elastically applied to "explain" anything whatsoever. And a theory that purporting to explain anything effectively explains nothing.
I don't know about the degree to which Hegel cribbed the triadic structure from Fichte. I had heard the original thesis/antithesis idea was first set out in Kant and that Fichte used the synthesis concept to discuss the self (I). But I haven't read Fichte in thirty years. To be fair to Hegel, though, I'm pretty sure the thesis/antithesis/synthesis terminology never appears in Hegel's work or Fichte's (Marx?). Aufhebung (sublation) is Hegel's coinage, but I am nowhere near an expert on Hegel.
As far as a theory that purports to explain everything, I don't see methodological dialectics that way. But I'm sure a lot of people do. I think it can and does explain a lot, though. I also think the key difference between dialectics and the reductive triadic structure has to do with 1) includes context and subtlety, 2) is more fluid and less mechanical, and 3) is ongoing and open-ended in a way that triadic structure seems to stop with synthesis.
What would be invalid about this use of dialectics?
Thesis: I ask my housekeeper to wash an extra bag of clothes.
Antithesis: She tells me to go to hell.
Synthesis: I wash them myself.
That's one possible outcome, which means you cave or the housekeeper loses the job. Another is the housekeeper doesn't want to lose her job over the extra bag. Another is that the housekeeper washes and you dry. But the question becomes: What is the new agreement going forward? Is this a renegotiation of the agreement with said housekeeper? Another is: Is this the appropriate application of dialectic reasoning at all? Maybe. Maybe not. But if you created a tension with your request, *something* changed and a new equilibrium is struggling to be born out of the decoherence in your proposed change to the original agreement.
Q.E.D.
Remember also that any heuristic is not designed to limn the ultimate nature of reality, but to provide an analytical tool or model to reckon with complexity. I think dialectical heuristics can help us be better Bayesians.
Okay, fine. I guess it ain't for everyone.
That said, I would love to add you to a group of mostly European thinkers who get into this stuff. It'd be fun to see you antagonize them.