Dialectics of the ‘dialectic’…

Dialectics of the ‘dialectic’…
May 20th, 2018

The classic Dialectic of the Enlightenment is a cogent analysis,classic, but flawed by its own marxist assumptions and the tone of superiority that marxists tend to get into in the sense they have a universal standard of judgment.
But there can be no doubt the basic idea is completely reasonable, as such. But the mystery of the Enlightenment is the mystery of world history itself, and of the eonic effect lurking in the background. The dynamic of history doesn’t really follow a dialectical path, pace hegel, and in any case the ‘marxist’ dialectic is not really a well-founded ‘logical’ (!) discourse.
Beyond that the confluence of terminologies, indic/buddhist, and philosophic/rational confounds the whole debate: what is the relationship of yogic enlightenment and rational enlightenment? A strong case should be made that the two are basically the same, the western rational version however remaining as yet in the foothills of a new take on the tradition of meditative enlightenment. Despite its counterintuitive echoes the notion of the equation of the two makes more sense than one might realize, this despite the instant banishment by the putative philosophes of ‘mysticism’ to the ‘counterenlightenment, also a useful line of enquiry. But a perusal of schopenhauer will show the connection forthwith and its is often forgotten that the ‘Enlightenment’ period was a first ‘archaeological’ expedition into realm of buddhsim/yoga and its legacies, which have flooded the west, with whatever result…
The limits of instrumental reason are really a later development of the ‘Enlightenment’ focus on reason in a more general sense, consider how the idea of ‘Reason in History’ emerges in its own counterpoint to the rationalists and scientists of scientism…
The enlightenment? how about a dialectic of ‘marxism’?
March 23rd, 2017 •

The leftist critique of the enlightenment was misguided: the Frankfurt school produced a false judgment in the way it wished to blame the holocaust on the enlightenment, a disastrous misunderstanding. The leftist needs a foundation in the modern in a fashion more general than the enlightenment theme as such, but the basic point is clear.
The eonic model solves this problem in a flash by suggesting by stepping back and showing the way the period of the enlightenment is part of a far larger process that constitutes the modern transition. The danger here is the suggestion that marxism could critique and recreate modernity in a kind of self-enclosed ‘postmodern’ recreation of a new era. It does not have the resources to do that. There is absolutely no problem trying to critique the enlightenment but it is essential to see the complexity of the period and its multiple versions in descant. How can we critique enlightenment values if they stretch between french, german, etc…realizations?
What we need is a ‘dialectic of marxism’ to enable a recasting of its foundations and a movement to a new and creative successor…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s