Dialectics and conspiracy

[Mike Weaver]

Annoy wrote
>A Hegelian/Marxist/Dialectic totality consists of parts predetermined by
>the whole.
>Of course the latter is a conspiracy.  Demanding, unknowable. Quite Likely
>Hostile.

Not the language I'd use.  A dialectic is a whole seen to be no more or 
less than the sum of the tensions within it, motion/change being generated 
by the ascendance of polarities over their opposites.
"Motion considered as the essential state of matter."
No conspiracy, just continual development.

"He who is not busy being born is busy dying..."
Bob Dylan said that.  Dialectics in a nutshell.

Reading Gleick's book, Chaos was interesting.  Much of the science 
described felt to me like scientists catching up with Marx and Engels after 
they hauled Hegel's thought back down to earth.

Tchitcherine's  comments from p701 quoted by Annoy:

>'He could be anything. I don't care. But he's only real at the points of
>decision, The time between doesn't matter.'
>'Real to a Marxist?'
>'No. Real to himself.'


Personal reality as a continuing cascade of bifurcations?