ellauri063.html on line 67: Rosa Lichtenstein is no authority on anything dialectical. She is only a committed ideolog: whose apparent life-goal has become the complete rooting-out of dialectical-materialism from the workers' movement, in every aspect. And in this, she is single-minded -- to the point of very unhealthy obsession. Others can attest to this, and have.
ellauri063.html on line 70: Anyway, what do you mean 'random blog'? It's not even a blog! In fact, my site contains the most detailed and comprehensive demolition of this 'theory' (dialectical materialism) ever written by a Marxist -- i.e., me. Rosa Lichtenstein. Listen:
ellauri080.html on line 514: On the NI side, a good example would be Karl Marx, who spent hours upon hours researching and observing social and economic conditions in society, from which data he developed his comprehensive theories of capital and dialectical materialism. On the SE side, a good example is Dale Carnegie, who, as CelebrityTypes pointed out in one of their function axes articles, is one of many SE types who concretize their wealth of experiences into practical wisdom, such as ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’.
ellauri099.html on line 221: What was the garden for? Was it a space for leisure, strolling and quiet dialectical chitchat? Was it a mini-laboratory for botanical observation and experimentation? Or was it — and I find this the most intriguing possibility — an image of paradise? The ancient Greek word paradeisos appears to be borrowed etymologically from Persian, and it is said that Darius the Great had a "paradise garden," with the kinds of flora and fauna with which we are familiar from the elaborate design of carpets and rugs. A Persian carpet is like a memory theater of paradise. It is possible that Milesian workers and thinkers had significant contact with the Persian courts at Susa and Persepolis. Maybe the whole ancient Greek philosophical fascination with gardens is a Persian borrowing, and an echo of the influence of their expansive empire. But who knows?
ellauri198.html on line 129: Events convince Jack that dialectical materialism is an insufficient paradigm to explain history. "Though doomed, they had nothing to do with any doom under the godhead of the Great Twitch. They were doomed, but they lived in the agony of will." Huoh. Samanlainen tahtoihminen kuin Belovin Sale. "Minä tahdon!" huusi Riitta ja takoi päätään lattiaan. Lukisivat Rami Tuomelaa.
ellauri389.html on line 65: Elia, in contrast to Bridget (qua Mary) speaks for a modern sensibility that is attuned to constant stimulation and that revels in the contemporary industrial and imperial economy of surplus and novelty goods. His teacup is an object of debate because it epitomizes precisely the kind of dangerous indulgence Bridget fears: it is a luxury commodity and, with its fashion-dependent pattern and place in a "set" of companion pieces, it inevitably entails additional purchasing. Elia's dialectical opposition to Bridget thus is underscored by his capacity to "love" one pattern of porcelain, and "if possible, [love another] still more". Indeed, Elia's susceptibility to new-sprung marketing strategies is suggested by his acknowledgment that china jars were "introduced" into his imagination by the recently invented tactics of advertising.
6