problematizing the hegelian dialectic

when i was researching that conspiracy theory i posted a few posts back, i somehow stumbled onto this site, which is ironic because a friend and i were just discussing hegelian "constructs" the other night.

critique of the method

"The dialectical method of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) consists of two main steps: the invention of artificial extremes ("thesis" and "antithesis") which superficially conflict with each other, and the synthesis from that conflict of a goal, which is made to appear to be the product of consensus. The artificial extremes are chosen and propagandized (marginalizing the population) in such a way that the goal is naturally synthesized from them. It is, essentially, a trick - a fraud. It is a strategy of ideological divide-and-conquer. The dialectic ruse dissipates the energy and coherency of its targets - unless they recognize the ruse as such.

"A central precept of the Hegelian ethic is that people are principally motivated by the desire to receive the approval and recognition of others, and to avoid their disapproval. Since this motivation is not predicated on the reasonableness of that approval or disapproval, the principle is a mechanism by which an individual delegates arbitrary control to others. This is, obviously, an enabling principle of collectivism. By encouraging people to embrace this tendency, and amplify it into a preeminent mechanism of decision making, Hegelianism works directly to subvert the individual.

"A Hegelian dialectic can be called a "triple-false dichotomy" - three lies that jail. A triple-false dichotomy is an ostensible dichotomy between two artificial, i.e. false, extremes, which are not in fact diametric in consequence (that is, the third falsehood is the precept that the extremes are related dichotomously). Each extreme is nonsensical or otherwise morally void, and by causing rhetoric to be dominated by ostensible adherents of these extremes, those exposed lose some or most of their capacity to reason about the topic. The most frightening, insidious way that reason is subverted is this: a dialectical environment is one in which the synthesis is something like a geometric bisection of the positions of two roughly equally extreme (and irrational) poles. In this environment, people at the poles (most people) fear to venture toward forthright support of a rational middle ground (solution, as distinct from synthesis) because they expect the synthesis to then be skewed in the direction of their polar opponents. People are locked at the poles and unwilling to openly discuss the domain of the solution, expecting such discussion to be interpreted as weakness, with the result that the synthesis has free reign and the solution has little chance to be realized."

hegelian dynamics and the two-party system

"In the realm of public elections... the establishment can and does enforce dialectics, shredding morale and integrity. In popular voting and in legislatures, there is a 50% threshhold for approval, an artificially low threshhold subject to flittering and hysteresis, ideally suited to manipulation by the dialectical method and by the mass media. The winner-take-all model is an obviously corrupt principle, in which the intent of those voters who voted against the victor are ostensibly represented by the victor, who then claims to command the authority not just of those who voted for him, but of all those who were eligible to vote for him. Since most of any large population - 60%, 70%, or higher - consists of people of ordinary intelligence, preoccupied with the mechanics of making a living in a specialty disconnected from politics, centralized control of a mass media apparatus can always be translated into dictation of who is elected (this centralization of control is detailed in the media chapter of my compilation). Finally, the two-party system is a prima facie dialectic, perpetuated by the mass media apparatus, and permitting a second major form of centralized electoral control by controlling who is eligible to run under the banner of one of the two politically subsidized perpetual parties. In short, this is a tyrannical oligarchy, masquerading as a tyranny of the majority, masquerading as a democracy, masquerading as a representative republic."

i love that.

the "solution"

"For each dialectic, I identify the commonality between the ostensible extremes (undermining the precept of opposition), the intended synthesis, and the solution by which the dialectic trap can be escaped. For the solutions, I crib liberally from my Innovist constitution."

the author then goes on perform his own "hegelian" analysis of several dialectics. there are a lot of good ones: love vs. hate, idealism vs. pragmatism, etc.

and the most interesting one, and relevant to this blog:

sexual regimentation vs. sexual liberalism

"Sexual regimentation is a patriarchal system in which sex is forbidden except between formally and officially married couples, and must be in the traditional "missionary position." In sexual regimentation, marriage is between people of opposite sexes, typically similar ages with the female younger than the male, equal races, equal classes, and similar religious alignments. The production of children commences soon after marriage, and the raising of children is traditional and performed principally by the mother. Divorce is considered to be a disgrace, masturbation is considered to be an unmentionable perversion, birth control is risqué, and abortion is all but verboten. There is virtually no frank discussion of sexuality. Prostitution and mistresses are components of sexual regimentation, and are names for sexual infractions by patriarchs which are forgiven if engaged in discretely. Harems are a variation of sexual regimentation. In many cases, infanticide constrained by a system of standards is an aspect of sexual regimentation. Compulsory, institutionalized eugenics is also a form of sexual regimentation. A mouthpiece of sexual regimentation is the Catholic Church.

"Sexual liberalism is a system in which a loosely defined "sex" is acceptable between one or more people who are all consenting adults or all consenting non-adults, and can involve any combination of genders, organs, fetishes, and practices. Sexual liberalism pointedly and explicitly rejects sexual regimentation in all its dimensions. Adherents of sexual liberalism do not value, or even recognize, any degree of inviolability in relationships, instead viewing the universe of candidate sexual partners as a population either without internal partitions or with constantly shifting internal partitions. No sexual morality is practically adhered to. Birth control and abortion are routine. Sexuality is discussed freely and routinely. Children, when they happen to be born, are often not part of complete families for many or all of their formative years, and are often subjected to various ``progressive'' child-raising programs and trends in which the parent or parents have little participation. The genetic parents are often not the guardians. Sexual liberalism includes androgynism, transvestitism, and partial and full transsexualism. A dimension of feminism is a component of sexual liberalism. Cosmopolitan magazine (Hearst) is an undiluted mouthpiece of sexual liberalism. "Change of Heart," seen on the WB network (Time Warner), is an extreme exhibition of sexual liberalism. Loveline, distributed via Viacom's MTV and Westinghouse's WXRK (K-Rock east, home base of Howard Stern) and KROQ (K-Rock west, home base of Loveline), is a striking though less uniform mouthpiece.

"Note also that an endless stream of movies and books portray the romantic, epic love affair as an imperative for full and satisfactory living, thereby encouraging people to fall in love without reserve. However, the practical realities of contemporary culture generally thwart the success of such affairs. In fact, such affairs are practically seen as absurd and naïve, and those who embrace them as mentally ill. The effect of this system is to manufacture broken hearts, and the utility of this to the establishment is self-evident, since the broken hearted tend toward distinctly attenuated adherence to personal principle and the dictates virtue.

commonality: neither recognizes nor permits natural romantic pairing, and denies the validity of the epic romance

synthesis: contorted laws and policies that artificially blur boundaries between overtures, relationships, harassment, and rape, poisoning the entire (socially crucial) arena

synthesis: sexual and moral confusion - manipulability of objective and of the bases of decision-making

solution: self-knowledge, honesty and forthrightness in relationships, serial monogamy, procreation only when a nurturing environment is reasonably expected for the duration of childhood"

i'm not sure how much i agree with the analysis, but i found this site fascinating nonetheless. i love studying the nature of dualism and its constructs... perhaps it's my gemini moon.

although the author writes of "democratic vs. republican", "This is not a real dichotomy: it is used to confuse and politically neuter the public, and to facilitate and conceal legislative actions that lack popular support," he does have a breakdown of "liberal vs. conservative" and their associated "poles" at the very bottom of the page. great stuff!