Chaos - Revision history

imported>0x0x: Copyediting

2024-04-28T08:44:29Z

Copyediting

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:44, 28 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Chaos''' is a world which is inclusive, it carries itself all the possibilities ~~within itself~~, including the possibility of exclusion (a feature of [[Logos]]). Chaos sees itself as that which contains the Logos i.e. the Logos located within Chaos and can always be within it.		'''Chaos''' is a world which is inclusive; it carries within itself all the possibilities, including the possibility of exclusion (a feature of [[Logos]]). Chaos sees itself as that which contains the Logos, i.e., the Logos located within Chaos and can always be within it.

	[[Alexander Dugin\|Dugin]] makes the analogy that the Logos can be seen as a fish swimming in the waters of Chaos. Without this water, thrown onto the surface, the fish chokes and this is how the structures of Logos ~~gets~~ "croaked".<ref>[https://eurasianist-archive.com/2018/08/21/thinking-chaos-and-the-other-beginning-of-philosophy/]</ref>		[[Alexander Dugin\|Dugin]] makes the analogy that the Logos can be seen as a fish swimming in the waters of Chaos. Without this water, thrown onto the surface, the fish chokes, and this is how the structures of Logos get "croaked."<ref>[https://eurasianist-archive.com/2018/08/21/thinking-chaos-and-the-other-beginning-of-philosophy/]</ref>

	Haz interprets the Chaos as 'material reality'. A philosophy of Chaos which operates under the principle of inclusion and not logocentric exclusion, which means it will begin with the [[a-priori]] assumption that this human reality is meaningful in the way in which it is embedded in its own mother chaos - its own motherland.		Haz interprets the Chaos as 'material reality'. A philosophy of Chaos which operates under the principle of inclusion and not logocentric exclusion, which means it will begin with the [[a-priori]] assumption that this human reality is meaningful in the way in which it is embedded in its own mother chaos - its own motherland.

	Only someone like Dugin can allow us to appreciate what Marx means by 'material relations of production' outside of the horizon of the western logos of idealism and of philosophy itself. What Marx means by 'relations to production' is the ''real'' relations of production - humanity in its actual reality, which for Marx, towards the end of his life means the Russian 'Mir' the Russian 'commune', inherited from the past. It is not that we contrived this philosophically but that's our reality. It just in the same way the proletariat is initially for Marx the industrial proletariat of England then it's the Russian peasant of the 'Mir commune' who becomes for Marx a revolutionary subject, somehow. Relations to production which ~~does~~ not operate under the standard of the western logos. This dialectical materialism is already beyond the western logos, it's a return to mother Chaos.		Only someone like Dugin can allow us to appreciate what Marx means by 'material relations of production' outside the horizon of the western logos of idealism and of philosophy itself. What Marx means by 'relations to production' are the ''real'' relations of production - humanity in its actual reality, which for Marx, towards the end of his life, means the Russian 'Mir', the Russian 'commune', inherited from the past. It is not that we contrived this philosophically but that's our reality. It is just in the same way the proletariat is initially for Marx the industrial proletariat of England; then it's the Russian peasant of the 'Mir commune' who becomes for Marx a revolutionary subject, somehow. Relations to production which do not operate under the standard of the western logos. This dialectical materialism is already beyond the western logos; it's a return to mother Chaos.

	However, Jordan Peterson's "mother Chaos" is not enough, it is undialectical.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/live/sysTJu0ECOo?si=6rVUEOvETnLWzrdU]</ref> He proposes chaos as an eternal force with no beginning or end, ignoring how it arises in the contradiction of reality with the reality-transcending Order.		However, Jordan Peterson's "mother Chaos" is not enough; it is undialectical.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/live/sysTJu0ECOo?si=6rVUEOvETnLWzrdU]</ref> He proposes chaos as an eternal force with no beginning or end, ignoring how it arises in the contradiction of reality with the reality-transcending Order.

	== Sources ==		== Sources ==
	<references />		<references />

148.74.11.178: Explained how Jordan Peterson is undialectical

2024-04-23T05:15:23Z

Explained how Jordan Peterson is undialectical

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 23 April 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Only someone like Dugin can allow us to appreciate what Marx means by 'material relations of production' outside of the horizon of the western logos of idealism and of philosophy itself. What Marx means by 'relations to production' is the ''real'' relations of production - humanity in its actual reality, which for Marx, towards the end of his life means the Russian 'Mir' the Russian 'commune', inherited from the past. It is not that we contrived this philosophically but that's our reality. It just in the same way the proletariat is initially for Marx the industrial proletariat of England then it's the Russian peasant of the 'Mir commune' who becomes for Marx a revolutionary subject, somehow. Relations to production which does not operate under the standard of the western logos. This dialectical materialism is already beyond the western logos, it's a return to mother Chaos.		Only someone like Dugin can allow us to appreciate what Marx means by 'material relations of production' outside of the horizon of the western logos of idealism and of philosophy itself. What Marx means by 'relations to production' is the ''real'' relations of production - humanity in its actual reality, which for Marx, towards the end of his life means the Russian 'Mir' the Russian 'commune', inherited from the past. It is not that we contrived this philosophically but that's our reality. It just in the same way the proletariat is initially for Marx the industrial proletariat of England then it's the Russian peasant of the 'Mir commune' who becomes for Marx a revolutionary subject, somehow. Relations to production which does not operate under the standard of the western logos. This dialectical materialism is already beyond the western logos, it's a return to mother Chaos.

	However, mother Chaos is not enough, it is undialectical.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/live/sysTJu0ECOo?si=6rVUEOvETnLWzrdU]</ref>		However, Jordan Peterson's "mother Chaos" is not enough, it is undialectical.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/live/sysTJu0ECOo?si=6rVUEOvETnLWzrdU]</ref> He proposes chaos as an eternal force with no beginning or end, ignoring how it arises in the contradiction of reality with the reality-transcending Order.

	== Sources ==		== Sources ==
	<references />		<references />

217.23.3.96: Formatting

2024-04-21T19:46:31Z

Formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:46, 21 April 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:
	However, mother Chaos is not enough, it is undialectical.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/live/sysTJu0ECOo?si=6rVUEOvETnLWzrdU]</ref>		However, mother Chaos is not enough, it is undialectical.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/live/sysTJu0ECOo?si=6rVUEOvETnLWzrdU]</ref>

			== Sources ==
	<references />		<references />

imported>Priyanshurounak at 01:15, 21 April 2024

2024-04-21T01:15:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:15, 21 April 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Only someone like Dugin can allow us to appreciate what Marx means by 'material relations of production' outside of the horizon of the western logos of idealism and of philosophy itself. What Marx means by 'relations to production' is the ''real'' relations of production - humanity in its actual reality, which for Marx, towards the end of his life means the Russian 'Mir' the Russian 'commune', inherited from the past. It is not that we contrived this philosophically but that's our reality. It just in the same way the proletariat is initially for Marx the industrial proletariat of England then it's the Russian peasant of the 'Mir commune' who becomes for Marx a revolutionary subject, somehow. Relations to production which does not operate under the standard of the western logos. This dialectical materialism is already beyond the western logos, it's a return to mother Chaos.		Only someone like Dugin can allow us to appreciate what Marx means by 'material relations of production' outside of the horizon of the western logos of idealism and of philosophy itself. What Marx means by 'relations to production' is the ''real'' relations of production - humanity in its actual reality, which for Marx, towards the end of his life means the Russian 'Mir' the Russian 'commune', inherited from the past. It is not that we contrived this philosophically but that's our reality. It just in the same way the proletariat is initially for Marx the industrial proletariat of England then it's the Russian peasant of the 'Mir commune' who becomes for Marx a revolutionary subject, somehow. Relations to production which does not operate under the standard of the western logos. This dialectical materialism is already beyond the western logos, it's a return to mother Chaos.

	However, mother Chaos is not enough it is undialectical.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/live/sysTJu0ECOo?si=6rVUEOvETnLWzrdU]</ref>		However, mother Chaos is not enough, it is undialectical.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/live/sysTJu0ECOo?si=6rVUEOvETnLWzrdU]</ref>

	<references />		<references />

imported>Priyanshurounak: Created page with "'''Chaos''' is a world which is inclusive, it carries itself all the possibilities within itself, including the possibility of exclusion (a feature of Logos). Chaos sees itself as that which contains the Logos i.e. the Logos located within Chaos and can always be within it. Dugin makes the analogy that the Logos can be seen as a fish swimming in the waters of Chaos. Without this water, thrown onto the surface, the fish chokes and this is how the..."

2024-04-20T19:45:15Z

Created page with "'''Chaos''' is a world which is inclusive, it carries itself all the possibilities within itself, including the possibility of exclusion (a feature of Logos). Chaos sees itself as that which contains the Logos i.e. the Logos located within Chaos and can always be within it. Dugin makes the analogy that the Logos can be seen as a fish swimming in the waters of Chaos. Without this water, thrown onto the surface, the fish chokes and this is how the..."

New page

'''Chaos''' is a world which is inclusive, it carries itself all the possibilities within itself, including the possibility of exclusion (a feature of [[Logos]]). Chaos sees itself as that which contains the Logos i.e. the Logos located within Chaos and can always be within it.

[[Alexander Dugin|Dugin]] makes the analogy that the Logos can be seen as a fish swimming in the waters of Chaos. Without this water, thrown onto the surface, the fish chokes and this is how the structures of Logos gets "croaked".<ref>[https://eurasianist-archive.com/2018/08/21/thinking-chaos-and-the-other-beginning-of-philosophy/]</ref>

Haz interprets the Chaos as 'material reality'. A philosophy of Chaos which operates under the principle of inclusion and not logocentric exclusion, which means it will begin with the [[a-priori]] assumption that this human reality is meaningful in the way in which it is embedded in its own mother chaos - its own motherland.

Only someone like Dugin can allow us to appreciate what Marx means by 'material relations of production' outside of the horizon of the western logos of idealism and of philosophy itself. What Marx means by 'relations to production' is the ''real'' relations of production - humanity in its actual reality, which for Marx, towards the end of his life means the Russian 'Mir' the Russian 'commune', inherited from the past. It is not that we contrived this philosophically but that's our reality. It just in the same way the proletariat is initially for Marx the industrial proletariat of England then it's the Russian peasant of the 'Mir commune' who becomes for Marx a revolutionary subject, somehow. Relations to production which does not operate under the standard of the western logos. This dialectical materialism is already beyond the western logos, it's a return to mother Chaos.

However, mother Chaos is not enough it is undialectical.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/live/sysTJu0ECOo?si=6rVUEOvETnLWzrdU]</ref>

<references />