BHA: DPF introductory chapter

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

How long can we talk about what we're going to talk about?

I've begun reading the introduction chapter of DPF. It's my second time
through the introduction. My first time did not go well. I got bogged
down. This time, I think it's best to breeze through the introduction
without trying to nail down every concept. Once we get to C2 (Chapter
2), then we can begin getting a tighter grip on Bhaskar's concepts. If
necessary, we can re-read the Introduction (C1) after the rest of DPF.

My notes so far include lists of the d's, including dc', dr', and the
like. Also, I've listed the types of negation: real, transformative,
radical, and determinate. It's not clear yet how these fit together.
Meanwhile, I am looking for a concise Greek alphabet--preferably with
lower case and upper case letters, along with their English names:
alpha, beta, gamma, etcetera.

At the end of C1, section 5, (on page 15), Bhaskar says something
particularly interesting. He links Hegel to Lenin, indicating that
Lenin used the power of the Hegelian dialectic to create diamat
(dialectical materialism). Bhaskar thus blames Lenin's nefarious diamat
indirectly on Hegel. Although Bhaskar doesn't mention how, this is an
especially probing statement. Lenin once said that he read much of
Hegel, and only then did he read the Old Man. Lenin urged his followers
to follow the same order: Hegel first, then the Old Man.

The Old Man himself read Hegel. Then he wrote what he did. Thus,
Lenin's suggested order seems natural. The Old Man, however, is said to
have discovered the true genius behind the Hegelian dialectic. The Old
Man felt that Hegel mystified and corrupted dialectic. The Old Man went
on to attack Hegel for his mystifications. He famously said that he
stood Hegel on his head. Thus, the Old Man tried to undo Hegel and
de-mystify dialectic. The Old Man wanted to open up dialectic for
purposes of liberation.

Unfortunately, most people, including Lenin, did not understand the Old
Man. In the passage, Bhaskar says they received their understanding of
dialectic from Hegel, not the Old Man. In my view, the impact of the
Hegelian dialectic has been widespread, extending to not only Lenin,
but also to the capitalist world. The result has been the unmitigated
tragedy and horror of two bloody centuries. In DPF, it is up to Bhaskar
to re-invigorate the Old Man's thinking and free dialectic from its
Hegelian shell.

Can anyone deny that Bhaskar is against Leninism?

Unfortunately, "Lenin" does not appear in the Name Index. For other
errata, I believe I found a typo. On page 23, in the sentence beginning
with "In virtue of," the word "is" should be replaced with the word
"makes." Thus, the interrogative sentence would read:

"In virtue of what makes this transformative negation a real negation?"

This would be simpler: "What makes this transformative negation a real
negation?"

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx




     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---