Intro to Dialectics | Infrared Stream

yeah it's okay let's get right into this

okay

the first thing i wanted to do

was

preface this by saying

i want to put a disclaimer

disclaimer right

because this is something i noticed with

our last educational stream and it's

something i noticed with all of the

attempts we make to introduce new

concepts and new ideas to you guys or at

least present old concepts in new ways

i'm going to add a disclaimer

disclaimer

right

and what are we gonna say here we're

gonna say

um

disclaimer

the following stream

is going to

going to present

dialectics in a way

that you will not be immediately

familiar with that means we are not

not going to virtual signal any of the

phrases talking points

or things you've heard about what

dialectics is in the past

we're going to start from scratch

based on simple common sense and

hopefully relate

what we arrive at to some of the things

you're

you're familiar with

we want to present

something old in a new

in a

brand new way

putting it in new words in order to

clarify many confusions

and dogmas

that now prevail

regarding

the concept

this is our disclaimer

yeah this is our disclaimer

okay

so i want to give you guys this

basically you're not going to be

familiar with

how this is something i noticed

many people are looking for us

to hit

tick boxes

of talking points they've heard before

because they don't actually want to

learn anything new they want to test us

and see if we're familiar with the

things they're familiar with

well you're just gonna have to take my

word at the fact that i am fully

familiar with all the [ __ ] that you're

familiar with when it comes to

dialectics i just think they're very

vague and confusing and leading to a lot

of errors and opportunism so i want to

present it in a new way

from scratch completely bypassing all of

that if you can do the work of thinking

you'll see how it's all related you'll

see how this is related to what lenin

said and what mark said and what angles

directly said but i'm not going to

repeat you phrases and sentences and you

know mantras and all sorts of

um textualistic talking points just to

kind of confirm and scratch that itch

you might have for me to just

speak from this legitimate

you know official and orthodox

perspective and the and and the bible

said it so you know it's not where

infrared is coming from whatsoever so

you're just gonna have to get over that

i'm also gonna make another disclaimer

another disclaimer

how you

how

you

what you take away from this stream is

going to be entirely

up to you no matter what we say or how

we say it

people

are

are going to try and say it is

completely meaningless [ __ ] that

makes no sense whatsoever

and

is ultimately the

equivalent to saying

nothing

at all i can't help i can't control this

i can't do anything

anything to stop

people from making

from making

those claims so it is ultimately up to

you the viewer to decide whether

a meaning is being communicated here or

not i am not going to

um

i'm not going to try and convince you

that i'm

a human being

trying

to communicate something meaningful for

a reason you either accept this

assumption or don't

your choice

okay

thesis antithesis

synthesis dude shut up needs

absolutely the opposite of what we're

gonna [ __ ] do

okay

yeah

all right

all right so

now we're gonna have the intro to

dialectics

let's begin

now

believe it or not

i was going to make a video

in the beginning

addressing this issue of language

what's up agent of cast there seems to

be a problem when it comes to language

there seems to be a problem

when it comes to the use of language

um

uh

oh my [ __ ] god dude i just got a

discord message hold on

[ __ ] god

okay jesus [ __ ] christ dude this guy

won't leave me the [ __ ] alone

all right sorry

um dialectics okay

four dislikes from the mossad agent yeah

okay

i was gonna make a ten minute video but

i decided not to and i was going to make

this about this issue of language

whenever i see for example the tweet the

tweet i made about

i don't want to bring it up i don't want

to like rehash all this [ __ ] but i

basically said something about the

difference between

these empiricism kind of things in the

dialectic approach and i said most of

the time when people on the internet for

example or in on youtube and all that

[ __ ] when they're asking for empirical

evidence

the reason isn't because they're curious

about sensory sensory phenomena they're

unfamiliar with but they want some type

of idle guarantee of truth what is an

idle guarantee of truth what did i mean

by that well over on lefty pull a very

smart guy decided to just say that i was

speaking nonsense why because the phrase

idol guarantee of truth was a new

combination of words he wasn't familiar

with

and according to him

the only type of words or phrases you

can say are virtue signaling talking

points someone else already said but i

find this approach to what a concept is

radically unfamiliar and radically alien

and foreign to me

i have an active understanding of

language the main thing the main essence

is trying to convey a meaning the

meaning is what is essential to me

the form in which the meaning

is instantiated comes second the meaning

is primary so using strings of words in

ways you're unfamiliar with in order to

convey the deeper meaning to me is more

important than using strings of words in

ways you're already familiar with in

order to virtue signal about conveyances

of meaning you're familiar with in the

past

okay

oh you debunked that thanks bro i

appreciate it appreciate you soldiering

doing all the work

doing this kind of work out here

but anyway

i was going to make it about language

because it it kind of

had me start thinking returning to some

things i've thought about many years ago

but haven't returned to and which is

that the relationship the english

language has

to the conveyance of meaning

is i think very unique

and very bizarre compared to every other

language that i've ever encountered in

the world especially as someone who is

moderately

uh

an arabic speaker not completely 100

percent fluently but

i can have a gift of the language you

know i was born i grew up with it

um

to me

the english language

unlike other languages does not rest

upon

well for any type of vernacular

english is going to be a different story

uh black vernacular english is similar

to the rest of the languages of the

world southern united states vernacular

english similar to the rest of the world

but when it comes to east coast or west

coast formal and official english the

one that's relevant for intellectual

discourse and academic discourse and all

that kind of stuff

english seems unique

in its attempt to pre preemptively

premise the meaning it attempts to

convey

um in the very form of the word and that

seems self-evident doesn't every

language do that no every other language

rests upon something called common sense

a common sense of your kind of some kind

why is that because a word

what is the meaning of a word

what is the meaning of a word ultimately

the meaning of a word

is ultimately

not simply reducible to a string of

other words a meaning of a word is going

to conjure associations that are based

on your sense and i'm going to clarify

what i mean by sense

later but the meaning of a word conjures

up a string of unconscious associations

unwritten and unspeakable associations

that are ultimately rooted in your

common sense your incense

this sense is individual and particular

uh and non-universal non-universal

what does that mean it means let's say

i'm speaking

polish there's a polish guy here right

and i'm in the polish countryside

um

the s there's going to be the meaning of

a word the meaning of a word in polish

for example

is not going to be reducible to any kind

of universal definition there's some

meanings of words that only other polish

people are going to be able to

understand why is that because

despite that everyone individually is

different and everyone individually has

different associations and meanings of

words unconsciously based on their

experiences and based on their

backgrounds

the fact of the matter is that a nation

or a community or a local

tradition of some kind for example is

based on a dialogue and a dialectic of

establishing by unwritten and

unconscious means common sense and

common meaning

common meaning

it's like

oh [ __ ] hold on sorry

um

okay sorry about that common meaning in

common sense

what this means

effectively

is that this site of meaning must take

into account what is unwritten not just

what it's written but what's unwritten

what's unwritten

it's like how they say you're either in

the know or you're not in the know right

you either get it or you don't get it

when it comes to vernaculars when it

comes to languages it's spoken in their

everyday use that's the case you either

get it or you don't you get what it

means or you don't and i think

officially and medically speaking

some people say that people who have

autism

have a really hard time understanding

unwritten and unspoken meanings and

unconscious meanings lacon had the very

controversial view that autistic people

don't have an unconscious for that

reason

um

so i don't mean to offend people with

the whole anglo-autism box [ __ ] but you

know i'm not really that nice of a guy

and it is what it is and

sorry i don't want to offend people

but that's what we're dealing with here

okay

so

what does this have to do with

dialectics

well okay one other thing

i just mentioned it's also based in

sense

english

um english

is unique in the fact

that it attempts to impose

a universal common sense preemptively

whereas other language can convey

meaning and must accept

in good faith that other people will

just get it

english tries

to define the meaning preemptively

and contain the meaning in the word

against the void not against the

determinate addressee such as the person

in your community such as your

countrymen such as the people in your

nation or in your community or in your

locale or a definite other person which

requires a dialectic of mutual

engagement and the construction of

mutual meaning english rather arrogantly

says

that the meaning is already

pre-emptively defined and can be imposed

universally

such that to say a certain string of

words doesn't actually require

determined address c

the word itself self contains the

meaning qua the void even

even something like the void it is

meaningful even cuad of void how do have

the english come to justify this

in this sense english is the first

modern language the reason is because

for them they have reduced the deeper

sense of words the deeper unspeakable

sense of words to the empirical sense

to the empirical sense

to the literal

object reducible to the five senses

touch smell sight hearing this is all

you have to go on in the english

language empirical truth

plus

some kind of pre-written definition

these two things for the for the english

language supposedly exhaust

the exhaust meaning

an analytic figure called rudolph karnap

critiqued heidegger precisely on these

grounds for him

empirical truth

and discrete

predefined definitions

encompass and define the whole of human

meaning the whole of human meaning can

be reduced to this

but most people in the world who do not

who have english as a secondary language

have as their primary sphere of

communication a somewhat criminal

uh a criminal uh language they have a

language which they know can never be

made innunciable and

and directly apparent in the english

language and they know this if you're a

secondary english speaker you know what

i'm talking about there's something

subversive

there's something uh

almost criminal

and off the books

about speaking in a non-english language

within a formal english setting because

england english has become

a global language but the reason it's

the global language is because english

is also a technical paradigm

english is also a technical paradigm

um

it's what i mean by that is that english

as the first modern language

doesn't have as its primary object human

conveyance of meaning and communication

but some type of relation to the inhuman

estranged

let's just say technical

forces of production

that's why the english language is so

fixed and predefined it's pegged to a

predefined

empirically airtight and absolutely

scientifically certain meaning because

this scientific certainty is operative

in modern technology for example or in

formalistic modern

uh anything in modern form in general

legal whatever

matt j not really

well

poland is not based

well it depends on the context maybe

within poland this isn't the case

because everyone just speaks poland

poland anyway but i guarantee you if

you're an immigrant in the united states

and you're living in a polish community

you know your native polish language is

going to feel criminal

in a sense

with french there's a lot of context

towards the change meaning english

is really is more predefined with words

exactly exactly

you look like baked alaska

i don't know who the [ __ ] that is that's

like a food right it's a cake

okay anyway

um

okay

why am i talking about language what

does that have to do with dialectics

well

etymologically

i don't know if i'm pronouncing that

right etymologically

dialectics

dialectics

just responding to chat has okay

dialectics

um

sorry i [ __ ] that up

dialectics

is

has its roots in dialogue discourse

debate

some type of back and forth conversation

sorry i just got a i got a message on

twitter

by genjit

um oh he wants me to check out a thread

okay maybe i'll check it out um

okay sorry about that detracting my

bengali is a heritage language speaker

is not the same as bengali bengali

interesting okay

this is what dialectics mean though

i hope it sounds like that for you guys

right doesn't sound like this

dialectic

they say for example

there's a local dialect

right you know what that means a dialect

and it's a language

it's a way in which things are spoken a

local dialect some kind of dialect a

variant of a language of a formal

language of some kind

dialectics etymologically has its roots

in dialectics discourse debate some

other type of back and forth

conversation okay

well let's start getting visual

and

do we pick on poor sage

do we pick on poor sage here i'm not

sure

um

here we have poor sage

in ancient greece or something classical

philosophy

and

i'm being very generous with how i'm

drawing him

sage

speaks

and

another person responds

i know this is all really simplistic

it's taking too much time to illustrate

a very simplistic point but maybe some

people like to see it visually

someone else

responds

right

here a dialectic

is initiated

why why is something like a dialectic

initiated

by this

by this encounter right here

well let's

ignore

this

debater here

let's delete him

here's the question

who is the address c

who is the address c

of sage's speech

this is a big mystery

who is the addressee of sage's speech

when you speak

you convey meaning

with intention

you're trying to convey something

meaningful to

ultimately to something

otherwise why speak

right isn't there always a reason why

you're going to expend effort to speak

um

to say something

the question is who is the addressee

of

some person's speech

who is the address c

well

this question mark

is always going to result

in an addressee of some kind

who's going to give you knowledge

who's going to tell you something

that you didn't know

before

you

enunciated

before you engaged in the speech

you got a low everyone's leaving now

sorry

red dundonian see you later man

bye guys

bye guys

i guess only the enlightened will we'll

see this okay

no whenever it doesn't matter who the

addressee of speeches sage's speech is

what every address see is going to have

in common otherwise there is no reason

for any dialogue whatsoever is

ultimately

this other

let's just call them the other

this other

is always going to have in common the

fact

that the other

is expected

to return to you

return to you

something that could not have premised

the speech

itself

no this is not from noam chomsky

okay

so

if it's a determinate other

there is no reason to speak to them

unless

and we're speaking about a very abstract

philosophical dialogue whatever there's

no reason to speak to someone unless you

can have the assumption

they're going to tell you something that

could not have premised

your speech

in relation to them in the first place

otherwise

otherwise

speech

is not communicative

it is not a dialogue otherwise

otherwise

it's not the dialogue

but a form of domination

but a form of domination

if you are absolutely certain about the

content of your speech

irrespective

of to whom it may be addressed

your goal is not

to receive something from the other

which could not have premised your

speech

your goal is some kind of

domination

not just giving orders it can even be an

sos come please help me

but you're ultimately

you're ultimately exacting a result

you're trying to exact a result of some

kind

maybe i should not say domination i

should say order it's a it's a

it's an order right

um

it's an order

no i don't want to see what you wrote

um

you keep using words without defining

them

premised your speech what does that mean

okay g-u-n-u linux chill the [ __ ] out

okay chill the [ __ ] out premised your

speech means

if it's a dialogue of some kind

then

whatever it is the other is going to

return to you

could not be something that

pre-emptively premised the reasoning and

the rationale

in your own head

and also the objective material causal

reason as to why you said it

they're going to give you a result that

is not only unexpected but could not

possibly have been premised in the

original speech

you say a string of words you convey a

meaning and they're going to tell you

something that in a sense surprises you

that's what i mean

this sounds dumb to be honest

okay i'm just trying to begin somewhere

simple guys this isn't easy stuff

okay okay you can't use the word in the

definition

what are you talking about

what are you talking about g in you why

what do you mean you can't use the word

and what does that mean

explain to me what that means

explain to me what that means

ignore chat no i want to help this guy

he's coming he's asking for help

what does he mean

the sage wants a [ __ ] surprise then

why spe why engage in a dialogue of any

kind

why why speak at all why speak at all

is the question why speak at all

uh so a premise that is not part of your

argument not a part of is doesn't go

into your speech it's not going into the

input that re that leads to the output

of your speech

is what i'm trying to say

no being shut the [ __ ] up

people enjoying themselves are quiet

thanks appreciate it

okay

basically what i'm trying to get at does

premise your speech mean it was not a

premise in your original argument no

you're overthinking it

you're over i'm not saying a logical

premise in your original argument i mean

it objectively did not premise the

reasoning the cause the rationale

behind your speech it did not

objectively premise your speech it was

not part of the input that gave rise to

your speech in the first place

okay

[Music]

i get it okay

jesus

a premise is a part of an argument

premise conclusion sort of which means

i didn't mention a [ __ ] argument

though but even then i disagree but even

then i didn't say anything about an

argument okay i didn't say anything

about an argument

sorry i'm sorry for getting mad i i'm

catching up with the chat okay sorry

let's delete all this

and go back

okay

so what am i trying to get at here what

am i trying to get it here i'm trying to

establish

in the form of a dialogue let's say a

socratic dialogue

where you guys notice socratic sorry not

a socratic that's an example of one but

the platonic dialogues plato was one

author the way in which he develops his

philosophy plato is that he has one guy

sorry he has one guy

here

sorry let me copy that and then paste

that he has one guy

flip

vertical no [ __ ]

flip horizontal he has one guy

plato right

plato is right here he's the author one

author

okay

he's in he's using both of these as his

puppets right for his dialogue why is he

doing this because plato

is developing his philosophy his

dialectic

by having one guy say something right

one guy's gonna say some [ __ ]

and then another guy's gonna say

probably he's gonna respond or he's

gonna say the exact opposite thing

through this plato recognizes

there is some kind of outcome

constructive outcome

why is that why can't it just be a

monologue of one guy talking why is

there necessarily an other

why is it necessary that for plato for

example it could be anyone there is

necessarily an other who must say the

opposite thing or respond

or respond because

because

too much lines because

because

if it was just a monologue

has

starts [ __ ] spamming

i just

okay sorry

then the hope you didn't expect anything

special i mean refuse to reply and

anymore

in to various paragraphs okay daniel

what are you talking about

i think both views are too extreme so i

don't discuss them i didn't say that i

don't think you're talking about me

right you're not talking about me

sorry okay

the reason it's not just a monologue

do you realize that suckers didn't write

okay fine genji i'll just focus on this

the reason it's not a monologue only a

monologue and he needs

another person to say the opposite thing

um to get it going

is because

for him

another person

let's say this guy

is giving embodiment

giving

giving expression

embodying the necessary

ground of otherness

that

um through uh say through which or for

which or

upon

which

the truth

or essence

of the original

um

claim

can be clarified okay this is a really

big paragraph

the truth or the essence of the original

claim can be clarified

when i say something

when i say something or the person

giving a monologue says something

okay

what up sky lethal

when you speak or say something

you don't necessarily know

what it is you are saying

remember what i said about anglo

language

right

with anglo language you are already

certain as to the meaning of what you're

saying

here

here

your speech is addressed

to some kind of absence some kind of

emptiness

you speak something into existence

because you find it necessary to express

something

but you don't know

what that something actually is

another person

who's initiating a dialogue or a

dialectic for example will give

expression and embody

the ground of otherness

upon which

what you are trying to say

can actually be

revealed

because

and why is this

because

sorry let's go

delete this

because because

because

the

the ground that gives rise to the

necessity and even possibility of speech

cannot possibly be contained in the

speech itself

this ground

right here

this is the ground of otherness i'm

talking about

this is the ground of otherness

i am referring to

it is necessarily

outside of you somehow it is other than

you

right

try to explain the inadequacies of

angular language and english no you

could perfectly you do that perfectly

fine

um

it's just people are confused about what

you mean when you use the english

language

is the problem

okay

this is the ground of otherness

that i'm referring to the very ground

that give rise to the necessity and even

possibility of speech

plato for example

for

example expression

to this otherness

in the form of another person

okay

form of another person

all right

okay what if i just established right

now

i've established

maybe in this is not the best way to

approach it

keep in mind i didn't have time to

prepare for this i'm in law school bear

with me trying to work with you guys

i started this out with sage or someone

speaking

speaking

what have i done here though i've

created a contrast of some kind

you have a person

with an output for example output

you have an output

of some kind

and then

you have another

you have an other

so i'm not going to do that i'm just

going to do this and then you have

some type of otherness

that reveals the truth

review of the truth

of the input

the input

truth

let's say truth i don't want to say

essence will reveal the truth

of the input

when you speak of something else

directing your speech something in here

okay let's not get there out yet

alexander

will reveal the truth of the input

some other

some type of other

other

some type of other

he doesn't know

because

why is this

why because

because

because

he doesn't

know

because he doesn't know

the input because he cannot

contain the input

that premises his speech

in the

output

he cannot

i need to make this smaller

so i can say more

he cannot contain the input that

premises his speech

in the output

at least so far as he knows

knows this is important

at least so far as he knows

[ __ ] man i wanted to make it smaller

okay

and i know this is shitty and

complicated but this is he

see this he cannot contain the input

that promises his speech in the output

as far as he knows

this other

is going to reveal to him something

that

that could not

as far as he knows

premise

his output

that's why he speaks an output in order

to discern

what he himself is trying to say

can we get some background music turn

you on it's like a university lecture i

know this is so hard

this is so hard let's let's just roll

this back i know this is not a good

start i know i'm not i'm not doing a

really good job here

but

let's just roll this back a little bit

let's just roll this back a bit and i

want to start

with something maybe you're more

familiar with

let's think let's roll this back

okay let's roll this back sorry i'm not

doing a best job

let's roll this back to metaphysical

dualism

right

metaphysical

dualism

metaphysical

dualism okay

now this is something you guys are

probably familiar with right in

metaphysical dualism across the history

of humanity

across the history of humanity

you've got what you've got this

yin yang thing

going on

you guys probably

are familiar with

[ __ ] me man i can't stand this

ms paint [ __ ]

sorry

you got this thing going on

and then just because i'm going to be

artistic about it

jesus

and then you got

you got this whatever right

you got this

and then you've got something you

probably haven't heard of manikinism

manikinism

you got gnosticism

you've got all sorts of dualisms

you're right it's difficult i know but

we're gonna get through this trust me

we're gonna get through this

i get it somewhat i'm don't worry don't

worry about how going like on right now

at all i'm gonna try i'm trying to make

this as simple as possible but that's

why it's so hard can you get a [ __ ]

powerpoint make this beforehand daniel

the problem is i can't like i just got

out of class before i

did the stream and i had wrote a paper

yesterday and tuesday so i'm bogged down

with law school right now until i can

escape law school

i'm not gonna i'm gonna try to make i'm

gonna try to work on the imperialism one

maybe a week ahead of time and slowly

add to it and work to the powerpoint but

yeah dude

psychiatrism is to be pseudo science

though

for a second spent learning it's 5 10

spent writing i hope so dude

okay

yeah very true

okay

there's metaphysical dualism you're

probably familiar with this right

there's yin and yang monicanism

gnosticism and there's all sorts of

dualities you're going to find across

history and various mythologies and all

that kind of [ __ ] you're gonna find

that the world is being represented in

opposites right

being the world the universe whatever is

represented in the form of opposites i

hope you guys are familiar with this

right

in the form of opposites

okay

the way most people interpret this

the way most people interpret this

is two

metaphysically positive entities

that contradict one and another

okay for example

here

i want to ask you the chapter question

no i'm not going to start with value

guys i want to ask oh [ __ ] alexander

just reminded me

[ __ ]

this is this is the most important

anchor point

for all of this

this one right here

all the gods

this is the most important one sexual

difference man woman masculine feminine

this is the primary

means by which uh

metaphysical dualism

is uh

is given expression in relation to

some kind of sexual difference

i can't believe i just forgot that see

how [ __ ] tough this is for me

um

yeah sorry okay

i want to begin here

right here

right here

most people i want to ask you to chat

the question why is two so privileged

across the history of human civilization

and in general why is there metaphysical

dualism

now

in most

in today's universities you have

a um

you have a

an attack against binary logic

binary logic

but

favoring

favoring uh pure multiplicity and pure

diversity

instead

because for them

because for them

the binary is just one

the binary for them is just one plus one

so they asked a simple question

why must there be one plus one

when we can have one plus one plus one

plus one plus one why one why not two

why sorry why two why not three why not

four why not five why not six for

example this is the basic and then

you're going to see this kind of logic

expressed in other places even in

physics what do you have you have um

many worlds theory and then an

analytical philosophy you have another

type of many worlds

oh there's many possible languages in

many possible worlds and many possible

whatever you know it's like it's it's

this

privileging of multiplicity right

privileging of multiplicity over

binaries over binaries

one second

[Music]

okay

sorry

what the [ __ ] is wrong with this camera

okay here we go

we're back

we're back in action

okay

all right um

sorry

no forget about you i don't mean it like

bad view okay

or delivers i don't mean it like them

just in a common sensical way you know i

i want to have the least barrier entry

to this right

okay

least spirit entry possible

everyone is probably familiar with this

all of you are probably familiar with

this can i get a one in the chat if

you're familiar with metaphysical

dualism you've heard of the yin yang you

know about the way in which opposites

are used to give expression as the most

primordial state of being you know

there's

two dif two opposites that define

being right and then the whole man

women's binary logic

one in the chat if you guys understand

this

so

far

because i can i can get into it a little

more if i have to and give you more

examples and illustrate more examples of

this

everyone gets it that's awesome

everyone seems to understand

okay great great great great great great

great

okay thank you we're gonna have to do

one more on this

okay now i want to focus your attention

now

on this little box and we're going to

save this box

when we while we delete everything else

and we're going to

okay i'm gonna save this box

the way most people interpret

metaphysical dualism is two positive

entities that contradict each other so

you got a one

okay sorry i'm gonna do this

you've got

one

um

plus

one

well that is arbitrary isn't it why not

three why not

four why not five why two

why two

why two well i'll tell you what

this is a big mis

this is a big misunderstanding

of both metaphysical

or both sorry let me clarify that

both the origin of

why metaphysical dualism is so prevalent

and why

uh and what

the unity of opposites

relevant to dialectics is

okay

this is a big misunderstanding

um

yeah the mind body difference daniel

that's a really big one

mind body dualism is one you guys are

probably familiar with as well and

that's also j sext engendered right body

is female and mind is masculine you got

the logos and you have sophia you have

all sorts of different that's gnosticism

and all that kind of stuff the mind body

one

is i think

i think it's very prevalent across the

history of humanity but it's given

fullest expression i think through

gnosticism and then agnosticism

culminating in descartes

and that's what's critiqued as binary

logic in the universities

and so on

okay

but this is what i want to focus your

attention on

it is not

that metaphysical dualism is arising out

of an arbitrary imposition

of to just privileging two ones because

in that case

in that case

why not three why not four why not five

why not six

yeah bass versus trooper song is another

one which is also why

in most ways people use base for

superstructure it's on dialectical i'll

give you i'll explain that more later

but

let's

get rid of this

here's what we need to keep in mind when

it comes to dialectics

dialectics

it always begins with one

dialectics is actually monotheistic

so controversial on this [ __ ] i'm gonna

say

sorry

always begins with one

maybe i should

de-emphasize this a little bit so as to

not confuse you guys

but i'll clarify what i mean by it

but i want to emphasize that

dialectics it always begins with one

there is always a striving

and an orientation

to what is ultimately

one

thing

one thing

thing

two

2

2 is merely

the most initial

the most initial

primordial

and immediate expression given

to a difference that is

that

experienced proper to

oneness

you've got one thing first

you've got one thing

first you understand

you've got one thing first

two merely is the most initial

expression given to the fact

that

and here's where i'm gonna say

the form

instantiation

and

box if you will

if you will

we give to oneness

will always necessarily enter into

contradiction with its real content

actual and real content

there is some kind of difference

metaphysical dualism is never actually

an arbitrary unity of two ones

it's always trying to give expression to

this

primordial distinction if you will

between simple distinction

between no

guys this is another issue we're gonna

have with these education streams is

that you're looking for the

you're looking for who i'm referencing

and you're looking for

which authority this is citing but i am

just trying to get you guys to think

about this independently you know don't

worry about

how i'm arriving at this

don't worry about who's the background

i'm not talking about mao i'm not

talking about badu right now

i'm not talking about zizek right now

okay let's think actively instead

let's just think actively

right let's try to think of it

independently

so it is like multiple conflicting

deities being merged into one super i

don't know how you're you're drawing

that i don't know how you're drawing

that i just said

you begin with one

okay

now

the

multiple

is a different story right now but you

begin with one

when you're concerned with dialectics

and the abstract

it's always because the only reason

there's a unity of opposites

the only reason you privilege opposites

is because you're dealing with one and

its otherness

one and its otherness

its own otherness this otherness is that

one

do you understand

this otherness proper to the one

is the one

estranged from itself somehow

the form and the content for example

being what is so funny and you you being

what is so funny what's so funny being

i'm trying really hard here okay what's

so funny tell me what's so funny

is this like the essence of something

and the appearance sure that's another

way of putting it the essence and the

appearance

this isn't dragon wall z

your use of trigger words is very angle

okay one and it's otherness yes that's

how you should put it

one and its otherness

one and its otherness

okay

now why do we begin with one

why does one begin with one

i just said it

i just said why

because

why begin with one

because one begins with one

one person begins

sorry one

thinker

subject

individual

mind begins with one

so once you put something into a box

it's no longer reality it's the science

of biology it's no longer what's really

happening it's the model no don't worry

about that okay

i'll get to what the box is

no way of putting that is the opposite

discloses something about the one

yes

yes

pin that comment yes

very true very much what i'm trying to

get at

begins with one

we are

instantiated in a determinate

singular way

s

terminate singular way

[ __ ] i lost the text box i can't edit it

singular way

way

our object

is always one

one

there's always one

[ __ ] this text box man

god [ __ ] damn paint

insofar as

our speech our thoughts

our mind

etc etc

is determinate

and itself singular

what up kangaroo what's up

in mathematical optimization theory

duality is the principle that

optimization problems may be viewed from

either of two perspectives the primal

problem of the dual problem

the one defines the opposite

i'm not that familiar with that

um you gotta go what up all right see

you later agent chaos

um

okay

why begin with one because one

is the determinant singular way our

object is always one insofar as our

speech our thoughts our mind is

determinate and itself singular

in a sense ontology

is monotheistic itself

when we ask what is being we're asking

what is

something what is a something that

something is ultimately

implied as one something one being one

being right

being itself confronts us as one thing

and even when we divide it into several

things

it's only in so far

as those several things

uh as those several things

uh those several things

bear witness to the fact

that there cannot just be one thing

there's multiple because there cannot

just be one

for example

uh

german is more

divorced from reality in english

okay

i wanted to clarify this about

metaphysical dualism

the difference between masculine and

feminine in contrast to what they teach

you in the

american universities for example

there's no transphobia

on my part i'm not like paul cockshot or

whatever but i'm gonna just say this

because anyone who's saying otherwise is

lying

this difference between

metaphysical dualism between masculine

and feminine

is giving rise

is the very expression for example of a

dialectic between form and content

between night and day for example

darkness and light

uh body and mind

um

[Music]

these distinctions are proper to every

human civilization

now

they're all human other civilizations do

have a sense of multiplicity and so on

but this multiplicity

is ultimately um

is ultimately coming from

branching out from this original

difference

uh

man versus woman isn't dialectical okay

but you know what i mean

gentle genji you know what i mean i mean

masculine and feminine

how much do i need to smoke to

understand this i don't know

um

metaphysical dualism is trying to give

expression to one thing ultimately one

thing which is being it is not an

arbitrary privileging of two

for no reason

it is trying to give expression to one

thing being

being itself

okay

so

who is our original one

we began

initially

with someone trying to speak

one person with one addressee

okay

um

its otherness is negative

i'm not exactly sure of that hold on i'm

getting some dms and tweets and [ __ ]

um

start using what

okay sorry

sorry okay

bro just read hey go easy

okay

we're back

we began with one person speaking to one

addressee

but there's other ways

to

um to situate the contrast between

the the basic contrast that initiates a

dialectic

what is okay let me

go back a little bit and just say

we can now see

we should now be able to understand very

simply that a dialectic

is some kind of interaction some kind of

encounter

between two opposites

a one and its other

the object

of dialectic

unifies them both as ultimately

one

being

what are other examples of this

encounter between

um

some type of one a subject

so i'm talking on my ass subject

some type of one and it's an otherness

okay

for example

for example

we have

p a person

and their addressee in this case

maybe this is a crazy person

their addressee in this case

isn't

another person

but his nature

nature

nature for example

um

nature for example means what

it means

same thing

has another vegan in the chat you gotta

you if if you hear my views on animal

rights you'll stop you'll unsubscribe

not sure if you want to um

uh if you're a vegan and you hear my

word

and you hear my views on animal rights

you are going to unsubscribe for this

channel

promise you that much

um

speaking with one addressee

okay

this

i'm not sure this is the best example

actually

okay this is another example

this is another example of anotherness

another example

of otherness right here

another example of otherness

uh

okay this is another example

nature

guys by the way if you're not following

say something in the chat

if any of this sounds arbitrary and

doesn't isn't clicking

uh

isn't

clicking light bulbs and just kind of

making sense of things just say so and

i'll try to change my approach

um

like i said i need feedback i need to

know where you guys are right because

this [ __ ] is not easy

um

another example of otherness is nature

itself

okay

now here's something else i want to say

i know this is kind of schizo this is

all over the place

in a way

in a way dialectic

you

has been the default for the entire

entire history of humanity

for the entire history of humanity

there's

always a sense of the unspeakable

sublime

um

let's enter the otherness at conditions

it conditions the possibility of

meaning

speech reason

etc

okay

uh

but

only after

anglo-saxon modernity

and

sex and medicine

does the

dialectic

of being become foreclosed

foreclosed

only here is there a striving to arrive

at

what

at oneness

at the object

in is

as reducible to one form

and premised by one

universal

self subsist

and absolutely self certain form

why is that

why is this

not just like what is the reasoning

behind me saying this but why did it

actually happen in reality

no i don't get why the opposite doesn't

do the same thing for the one

non-opposite

the opposite what a thing is not

discloses something positively

because

within the standpoint

of a single person a single subject a

single speaker a single thinker

what you are what your being is for

example

is not known to you is only revealed to

you by means of the other the other is

the site at which what you are

can be revealed to you

why do you guys think people go on the

internet and seek attention

because we don't know what we are

fundamentally we search for other people

to

to reveal what we ourselves are

that's why we go on the internet and we

type on left people

for example

even though we're anonymous because we

want to type something and we want to

see how people are going to respond to

us and that's going to reveal to us what

we are

because we don't know what we are

uh should i be thinking in terms of

electric charge but no don't worry about

that that's way too metaphysical don't

worry about

that kind of stuff

but i'm already fueled to myself

that is my ego but what is your ego for

example what is the content of your ego

and in terms of lacanian thinking you

just equated angle with the process of

foreclosure which is to say psychosis

gentle ganjit i'm doing it intentionally

according to lacon

normal experience of normal reality

which i interpret as

experience of modern normal life

does result from

foreclosure is a primordial form of

psychosis

yes i i know that

i'm and i say that intentionally there's

also heidegger's foreclosure of being

i think which is what i'm aiming at a

little bit more the foreclosure of being

itself of the question of being being

itself becomes foreclosed and we only

can speak now of

particular beings being as such becomes

foreclosed to us as something that

reveals itself in a novel

and unique way

okay

okay

to proceed now

to proceed now

uh

is it is this a more refined version of

taoism well i would argue that the

world's religions in general have this

as their object not the other way around

it's not that i'm trying to reproduce

world religions in the past i think

these world religions have this

um

contradiction defining being itself as

their object

including taoism which is more explicit

about that but also every other religion

including

ones that are not

necessarily dualistic metaphysically

you should explain what foreclosed means

foreclose in the sense of um

uh sealing off sealing off

closing off right

sealing off

sealing off

uh closing off

uh okay

okay um

all right

so

we can accept

we can recognize

recognize a simple difference

a simple difference

proper to oneness

something

and it's other

form and content

thing is and it's actual content

form something is and it's actual

content

for exit

but what makes

but

how does it come to pass that the object

of dialectic is itself revealed as one

thing

one

site

one

disclosure of being

okay this is the topic question

that i want us to

focus our attention on

i haven't had psychosis in the past this

mean i'm

foreclosed

well

that's why i don't want to talk about

like lacon

you know

people over

it's interpreted in a psychiatric way

and over identify with it

why are you on the infrared stream for

example oh interesting

question alexander is going with the

deep question okay i'm just kidding

let's focus our attention on this we can

recognize the simple difference proper

to oneness something and it's other the

form of what something is and its actual

content but how does it come to pass

that the object of dialectic is itself

revealed as one thing one disclosure of

being

well

why don't we relate this to this issue

of

why are most people socialist

what does socialism mean for example for

most people it means

here i am

here i am

for example

this is a contradiction isn't it

i'm here i'm sad

and

shitty world

right isn't that the case it's a shitty

bad world

everything sucks and here i am and i'm

sad

about this

okay isn't this a contradiction

isn't

this what we're talking about

when we're talking about bread tube

and we're talking about the entire

aesthetic of socialists in 2021

doesn't this ultimately though

um

doesn't this ultimately

imply a type of arrogance

isn't this also kind of arrogant

higgle

a guy you're probably a little familiar

with the name

he referred to this aesthetic as the

aesthetic of a romantic

the romantic

uh or the

let's say the romantic

is an aesthetic

of the unhappy consciousness

the unhappy consciousness according to

hegel

is an initial encounter with the fact

that

gotta move this here

initial

initial encounter with the fact that the

inner self

enters

radically enters

into contradiction with the outer world

being unable to

being unable to find

full expression in it this is the most

important thing

so what does the socialists do and say

socialists say this is a shitty world

and how do they arrive at the conclusion

that's a shitty world because the world

does not reflect

what they what is within them the world

does not reflect

the striving in their inner striving to

be realized in the world

instead they're confronted with a

contradiction and they're confronted

with

uh imperfection or whatever right

yes gentle ganjit exactly it's the

beautiful soul we're talking about here

okay

um

the socialist says

the solution to this

is to change the world

solution to this

the world must be

itself be changed

so what is going to happen now am i

going to be jordan peterson and say no

you have to change

your own bedroom before you

um

clean your own bedroom before you want

to change the world buckle maybe you

just gotta change

your outlook

but

although

i'm not going to get into jordan

peterson time

hegel arrives at something that

superficially

might sound a little similar to this

jordan peterson thing

for hegel

the problem with

this socialist right here

who bases their entire aesthetic and

their identity upon the fact

upon this initial encounter with a

contradiction

uh initial con

contradiction

um

hegel says

what this person cannot see is how

this contradiction

sorry this looks so bad

this contradiction from here on out

every line you see like a dash like this

this is a contradiction right

this is the difference itself the

contradiction for hegel

for hegel

is actually proper

proper to the very object the world

itself

what does that mean

what does that mean

it means this

the anglo socialists you are familiar

with on bread tube and on youtube

they are this guy they think this is a

shitty world

and the goal is to change the world in

in that sense not in marx's sense but in

their sense right

special sense they're elevated above the

world they know better in their head

uh the truth whole truth of being

simply because they have encountered a

contradiction

but the contradiction is still

the contradiction

is still

purely subjective

oh boy

this is such a mess

but this is still a purely subjective

contradiction the only source of the

contradiction here

the only source of the contradiction

here

the only source of the contradiction

here is the fact that the world does not

conform to what the socialist feels is

within their very soul

but what hegel says

according to hegel what hegel says

is that to recognize the contradiction

as itself objective

means

that

you recognize the difference the

contradiction as proper to the thing

itself not just something that dwells

inside of your heart

but is actually proper to the object

itself

the object the wound is already

reconciled this is what hegel means

by the wound on the cross

we only see the world as shitty but we

do not include in the world the very

contradiction that we experience

in a purely subjective way if we did

include the contradiction that we

experience purely subjectively as a

feature of the object itself

paradoxically this is the source of an

immense reconciliation why is that

because

true because for hegel for example

because for hegel

because for hegel

deliverance to the true object

is the source of true subjective freedom

and let's say absolute knowledge

when we recognize the contradiction as

proper to the object itself

and not just something that

uh

that is instantiated subjectively as the

difference between ourselves and the

world

we put the contradiction to work

we see the contradiction as the object

itself and we see

we see it as something

which is the source of a continued

development of some kind

the contradiction sets in motion the

beginning of work

the beginning of work

the beginning of work

why i gotta clean this mess now

and explain why

and i'm gonna save this

little

arrangement

and get rid of it

too so i can

bring it back

and

make it smaller

why

make it much smaller how about like this

this is good size

uh-oh

make it smaller how about like this

this is good okay i'm fine with this

all right put this here

okay

um

why is there reconciliation

because this

whole thing

becomes proper

to the object itself

proper to the world

the object

contradiction

well if i lack a 20-inch dick there's

nothing i do to pursue this so how do i

cope

um

yes aliens subjective destitution

perfect answer

contradiction what is the implication of

this

the implication is simple

the implication is simple

the object the world's society

is no longer taken

or expected to be

a

whole form

the deviation from which

was the prior source of disappointment

and unhappiness

contradiction

is rather

recognized as a feature of the object

itself

thus placing the subject

on a new footing

that is delivered

to

that is delivered

to a relation

to

the world

uh

[Music]

uh

relation to the world

it was defined by

the active

its own active

development

the dialectic of freedom and necessity

this is kind of

all about aesthetics this turn we went

from language to aesthetics

this is such a long paragraph too

so anything that you pursue is your

other even if it is something in an

ideal self of some kind

not necessarily the other is going to be

the objective

response you're going to get

in that pursuit you're going to pursue

for example an ideal self and reality is

going to spit out something completely

different than what you expected to be

your ideal self

that is the expression of the otherness

it is only when there's a response to

you that it's in otherness

your stream is covering the box

the anglo box i know what you're talking

about don't worry

here

if i accept i will always be lacking in

anything then why pursue anything

well what is the object of that you can

pursue if you recognize the it's not

that you will always be lacking daniel

it's that the object itself is lacking

the object itself

uh

and why is it lacking it's only lacking

from a subjective perspective in actual

reality the object is positive

in such a way

that you subjectively experience it as

lacking

but this subjective experience results

from a feature an objective material

feature proper to the object itself

i feel like this would make much more

sense if it was another language than

english

i don't expect you guys to get this

right off the bat this is just an intro

and it's not the best intro possible but

i wanted you guys to take something away

from it at least something away

nice

i just saw that nice

i just saw that link in jeep nice

um

now now you guys can see on a deeper

german idealist perspective why i say

we're living in socialism partially the

reason why i say we're living in

socialism is because i want to combat

what genji rightly recognized as what

hegel called the beautiful soul i want

to combat this

aesthetic of socialism

you see

this aesthetic of socialism if we say

we're already living in socialism

and

so the meaning of we already live

this way the meaning of

the meaning of we already live in

socialism

is that

socialism is no longer

confined to a little

box in our heads forever set against the

world the very contradiction

that gives rise to our socialistic

subjectivity is recognized to be proper

to the object the world itself

hence the

the world is already socialist that's

what i'm arriving at

see

if you have terminal angular brain rot

no it's not going to make sense at work

at first

nice i'm going to come back and watch

this one later thanks for the good work

see you later saul prolet appreciate you

being here man

see you later

um

let's see what we got

so i got some

i got some

dms and some notifications

um

okay we got this we got this we got this

okay sorry

all right

oh i'm covering it sorry

i'm covering it again what the [ __ ]

there's no way to win except if i

disappear right here see this

okay

i don't remember anything i read that's

one symptom that's okay it's okay i just

want to introduce you a little bit to

the dialectic

this

initiates right here

putting it onto the object itself

initiates re-initiates

the dialectic process

what's called in marxist terms

unleashing the forces of production you

become subjectively attuned

uh

to the dialectic of freedom and

necessity

and you become delivered

to this

process of the unleashing of the forces

of production

i have a long journey to go don't worry

about it a lot of people take years and

years to understand this stuff you know

and i'm trying to condense a lot you

know

you love this lecture captain delicious

thanks man i appreciate it

like i said i didn't have time to

prepare for this and a lot of this is

coming off the top of my head

and i'm trying to take into account what

i would expect you guys to be at

and that's why it's just

i'm stumped a lot you know because i

just thinking about what i what should i

say you know and what will make the most

sense

um

okay

uh

okay i'm glad genji jinjit like knows

exactly what i'm talking about here you

know

he's very educated and well read and

stuff so he knows exactly what i'm

talking about i'm just trying to

try to make the best way to make it

understandable to you guys

all right let's

let's continue

okay now

exactly spy key exactly

exactly exactly

yes you get it

you get it

um okay

okay

dialectics i want to try and work with

your guys's associations when you see

this word dialectics

above all what you should be thinking

about

above all what

you should be thinking about when you

see this word

is the tit for tat

haha tits the tit for tat

the back and forth

the um

the movement

of something

to its opposite nothing

and

back all

inscribed

all

proper to one

object

ultimately one object itself

a dialectic

refers

to a movement

that every form

every discrete form

and tangible form necessarily

enters

into contradiction

with

its own conditions of existence in a way

that cannot be pre-emptively defined

known or contained within the form

itself

i know this is not that helpful because

i'm just typing paragraphs and [ __ ]

and i'm not doing enough visual

illustrations you know so maybe i should

do that

i know i'm being off topic here

but when i hear the word dialectics the

first thing comes to my mind is

different understandings of dialectics

western versus eastern marx's head which

itself is dialectic absolutely

absolutely

guys all of this comes together

okay the east versus west difference is

a dialectic the rule versus urban is a

dialectic

town versus country is a dialectic

mind versus body is a dialectic

um

marxist material is dialectic means

there's a unity of opposites so it is a

search for

grounding these contradictions in such a

way so as to arrive at their objectivity

their objectivity

the contradiction is itself material

object a material object

contradiction is itself what is material

that's why i speak of substantialism as

anglo-saxon 17th century metaphysics

within substantialism

the thing that is material is already a

predefined form of some kind it's a

tangible object in the clinical sense of

our word it's an object like this water

bottle it's an object like an apple it's

already a predefined form

but

the object relevant for dialectics

materialist dialectics for example

what is so material about the object

is not the fact that it is sensuously

real only sensuously real

but that

the

contradiction

reveals itself

as objective

as objective in a way

that cannot be contained for example in

a previous grounding of the dialectic

the example of this is hagel's dialectic

hegel's dialectic attempted

to ground the very

uh subjective

uh

appreciation of dialectic itself

in all ultimately one form

one form

uh philosophy through philosophy

marx simply

continued the dialectic he said hegel

can't you see

that in this movement of arriving at

absolute knowledge having exhausted the

whole extent of philosophy and the

movement of philosophy you have merely

arrived

and

[Music]

commanded if you will

compelled

an encounter with the otherness

in actual reality that is the

proletariat

the proletariat is the concrete

disclosure

of a unity of opposites

namely and this is kind of separate from

dialectics

the proletariat

just so i can

put it like this

the proletariat

a concrete manifestation

of a contradiction

and what is this contradiction

what is this contradiction

the actual living

expression of what hegel

arrives at in thought

as the unity of opposite

i know being

oh okay

philosophers only interpret the world

various the point is to change it

needs trolling as usual

uh the actual living expression of what

hegel arrives at in thought

um

primarily

a scandal for philosophy since

since

it debases

the um

the

philosophy's universal state

man

as premised by thought

form

as citizen

proletariat

is a hole

in the edifice

of hegelian

universal statehood

modern statehood in general

proletariat the one productive relations

the other

no the the proletariat then though this

is where we must escape

the one-sidedness

of merely recognizing the dialectic in

the form of a contradiction and

recognize the contradiction itself to be

objective

which means

our object is no longer one or the other

our object is the very essential

contradiction

for which

the distinction between one and other

is a secondary expression

subjectively of meaning

the proletariat is itself a concrete

unity of opposites

the proletariat is itself the concrete

unity of opposites

the unity of opposites

between

uh between what from the perspective of

the universal state which attempts to

premise man

by some kind of form the citizen

the citizen

the proletariat is the living

contradiction the unity of opposites

between man

between man and his material actual

sensuous

jesus marx

and living reality

and

the modern form of citizen

this is the unity of opposites that

defines the proletariat

this is the unity of opposites defining

the proletariat

right the other is the citizen and what

is the otherness of the citizen for

hegel

for hegel

the otherness of the citizen for example

is the void form for hegel arises forth

from the void for marx

form does not arise from the void

form arises from some type of material

content which cannot be pre-emptively

known in thought or subjectively but

which is nonetheless real and material

and objective

and in a sense

in a sense

the bourgeois state for example the form

of the bourgeois state arises in

contradiction to what

the peasantry right the the rural

countryside the vendi whatever

the proletariat is the living and

concrete manifestation

of that contradiction as it's living and

persisting

that's why marx privileges the

proletariat and not the peasantry

marx privileges the proletariat

because

for marx the dualism

of the modern bourgeoisie

uh and um

and uh

the cities and the the mass what marx

calls the mass of the

the rural poor for example

this contradiction

uh does not reveal anything to us about

what is

objective in being

itself

it's a one-sided contradiction right

it's not enough we need the proletariat

to disclose the fact that the

contradiction is itself something that

is objective and is not just

dwelling in a subject who recognizes the

difference between

town country for example or the mass of

the rural poor

and the opposite let's see

um

wow

so yeah

okay um

i think i'm gonna start taking questions

we're really kind of going down in

viewers even though we peaked at 80

which is [ __ ] crazy guys

[ __ ] crazy but this is probably a

good time to just start taking questions

unless you guys want me to explain some

more stuff that i can think of that

maybe i'll think of more things that i

wanted to say that i forgot about

what did i want to say um

i don't know this is the intro this

isn't going to be the last educational

stream about dialectics maybe i'll say

that say this

um

i will be

much more prepared

once you get the ball

get you guys

thinking

in new ways about dialectics

sorry if i disappointed anyone

or expectations

i can do more but i just need your

feedback a little more because at this

point

i need to think a little more about

what i should say and [ __ ] you know

it's just an intro stream you know this

is just

it's just my best attempt at an intro

and i can already see the lefty pull

comment saying you know what i'm talking

about this is [ __ ] stupid

remember guys next stream give me what

you think i should address and respond

to and i'll only address that

not the lefty pull-ups don't care about

this hegel 101

i don't know