Skip to main content

Teaching You Zazen 29: Those Idiots of the Theory of Contradiction and Dialectics

2008/7/13 8:41:48

First, let me report on the physiotherapy activities from Friday. Before the treatment, my left side was extremely uncomfortable. This ID's brother didn't know certain techniques, and the person from the Nineteenth Road was nowhere to be found, so this ID had no choice but to go out foraging and found a passable Chinese medicine doctor. This ID initially tried to persuade him to launch a full attack on the root cause the extraordinary healer had identified, but he was middle-aged-ly and excessively cautious, repeatedly asking about the condition of the lumps on this ID's neck. This ID had no choice but to tell some well-intentioned lies, luring him to the layer of symptoms outside the root cause, then saying: "You're afraid of that thing, so just work on this—surely that won't be a problem." After the monetary transaction, a flurry of activity ensued involving one of the most common Chinese medicine techniques. He couldn't do what the extraordinary healer had prescribed, but he managed reasonably well. Half an hour later, this ID could swagger out.

Back at the apartment, it was like a flood—sometimes blocked, sometimes flowing. In less than 2 hours, not only did the left-side trouble disappear, but the neck lumps also visibly shrank. It seems the root cause as identified by the extraordinary healer and now confirmed by this ID was verified again—using the most ordinary means on the periphery actually produced such an effect. My brother also finally said definitively: "It seems that man was right."

However, since then, things became quite unhealthy: first, I rounded up two people to form a Gang of Four and launched a severe Cultural Revolution against a table of fine food for N hours. Then, upon returning, a 16-round overnight battle was waged at the mahjong table. The ceasefire wasn't sounded until dawn broke in the east. After getting up and having lunch, I went house-hunting again. The location is basically decided now—the apartment is in the CBD, a top-floor duplex that can come with a swimming pool. Because major construction would be needed, I went for on-site inspection and to see whether a designer could achieve a satisfactory renovation. What an ordeal.

Coming back in the evening, I discovered the lumps hadn't grown larger. Late at night they even became conical. Now that I'm up, they've basically maintained that shape. I don't know if something peculiar happened—this ID is waiting to see.

Now there are two apartments to choose from. Besides the one above with the swimming pool, there's another flat unit with considerably less floor space. If I want to watch the Olympics in the new place, I'd have to go with the latter. That's basically the two choices. The reason I can't fully confirm yet is that I need the designer to give this ID confidence about whether the renovation of the former would be satisfactory, so I'll have to wait until the end of the month to decide.

Alright, everything that should be reported has been reported. Let's continue with zazen.


In the academic farces of the 1950s and 60s, there was the so-called "combining two into one" pseudo-challenge to Chairman Mao's "dividing one into two." Setting aside the results, both were nothing but tricks of fifty versus a hundred. Whether "combining two into one" or "dividing one into two," both were merely self-gratification within the moronic word games of the theory of contradiction and dialectics.

From an academic standpoint, there are probably few things in the world more laugh-inducing than the fact that, well into the latter half of the twentieth century, people continued to discuss the "correctness" of so-called "matter is infinitely divisible" in the tone of quoting some great figure, and in a country of over a billion people no less—and this actually became "evidence" for the moronic thesis of "dividing one into two." In reality, anyone doing academic work after quantum mechanics who isn't brain-dead should know that "division" has boundary conditions, and "divisibility" must be established at the quantum mechanical level. "Matter is infinitely divisible" is nothing but the moronic fantasy of the uneducated.

If you can't even establish "one," where does "two" come from? Only those who are thoroughly "two" would "divide one into two" or "combine two into one" to display their two-ness.

Some might invoke Engels to argue against this ID: since you want to defend Marx, well, Engels still wrote Dialectics of Nature. But in reality, Marx is Marx. The intellectual differences between Old Marx and Engels have been extensively discussed by previous scholars, and Engels' most "two" work is precisely that Dialectics of Nature. Engels is more like the transitional bridge from Marx to Lenin's alienation. The historical origins and evolution therein are actually a very interesting topic—but such a topic is probably unsuitable for children, and unsuitable for great nations as well.

The so-called theory of contradiction and dialectics is nothing but a string of logical delirium uttered after humanity drew a prison on the ground of its own games. And those who academics-ly treat it as treasure (setting aside intelligence issues, which more often relate to political performance) then take it as their prison, "infinitely dividing" themselves into an infinite K-powder trip.

The moronic delirious statements of the theory of contradiction and dialectics are too numerous to refute one by one—that would be too far off this series' topic. So here I'll just use one of the earliest examples: "A man cannot step into the same river twice"—to show you all its tedious tricks.

Any claim of "sameness" must be established from an observable standpoint, and observability implies repeatability. One-time events do not possess observability. Therefore, the judgment of "the same river" must also be established on a repeatable, observable basis; otherwise, "the same river" is merely a tremor of brainwaves with no observable relationship to the actual world.

Therefore, if there are no means to repeatedly confirm the observable objectivity of "the same river," then the logical delirium of "a man cannot step into the same river twice" is even less establishable. If, however, some means exists to repeatedly confirm that "the same river" is observably and objectively establishable, then observability cannot become unobservable just because the observer steps into the river. However many times observability can be repeated, that is how many times one can step into "the same river" guaranteed by observability. Who says we can't stand in the water and observe the river?

Nowadays, the environment is terrible—those rivers are all filthy. If you don't have a certain capacity for detoxification, go soak in bars, soak in the internet, soak your feet, soak in whatever you want—but whatever you do, don't step into that tedious river of the theory of contradiction and dialectics for a soak. Too filthy!

As for this ID, heaven and hell are mine to traverse freely—let alone this filthy river of the theory of contradiction and dialectics. To drink dry the dirty waters of a thousand rivers, to consume all the poisons of the world—that is true cultivation, true zazen. Without this vision and practice, go home, have babies, and study your theory of contradiction and dialectics.