Talk:Science of Logic

message: There's too much Hegelese bullsheet in this article.  What we need is something that has the least possible Hegelese in conjunction with somebody's interpretation of the hegelese.  The Science of Logic is an ontology, an organization of reality.  It conforms to both definitions of ontology: 1.  the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.  There is no opposition of dialectics to ontology.
What editors can do is to translate this obfuscating work into something that would be of benefit to somebody no already acquainted with it.  The foolish updates of Xianmw do nothing but confuse anybody not already intimate with the work.  I propose a shorter, mostly layman-understandable article which is what I had started before Xianmw came along and stamped it out, replacing it with his/her Hegelese, which only few can hope to grasp.  
Jazzbox (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite/reorganization needed 

message: Some of the writing includes hypothetical examples given the topic under discussion -- some have been marked "citation needed."  My opinion is that the use of these examples is akin to, for example, a mathematical example which conforms to the formula under discussion.  An alternative would be to try to reproduce Hegel's examples; this strategy could be adopted but I wonder who will take the time for such an attempt. Jazzbox (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding "citation needed" on examples 

message: I haven't worked on this in some time.  I think what I have written is pretty good up through the sections I covered (just getting into the doctrine of essence).  I have finished my analysis of the book and have handwritten a narrative similar to this.  I don't think I will undertake translating that to wikipedia however.  Perhaps though I will write some shorter entries for the rest of the book.  I do think what I have written is fairly accessible and should be left roughly as is.   Jazzbox (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  resumption of narrative 

message: Most of my writing at least is not in hegeleze... just deleting what I have and inserting a modified table of contents is not  going to help.  I reverted to original.  Please respect efforts others have put in by not just deleting what is there and inserting your stuff... Jazzbox (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  would be better to modify / embellish current version than erase and start over 

message: i have decided to completely rewrite this section for the following reasons:
1. there is no textual citation whatsoever, and so is not verifiable as per wikipedia's quality standards. it is therefore, according to policy, subject to removal.
: it is debatable the extent to which text has to be cited.  Just making up an example based upon the meaning of the text so long as it conforms to the meaning is within bounds IMO.  Jazzbox (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "starting point" is covered in the introduction above.  "Starting point" could just mean that he started writing about Quality.  "Quality" is the title of section 1 in my book, Quality.Jazzbox (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Understood, that is not a great sentence, not clear... my translation has being subordinate to quality just in the table of contents.  Section one is titled Quality with Being subordinate to it.  It seems to imply that quality needs being. I understood this that at least in the doctrine of being, that being/nothing were the opposites used by quality, and quality could become "something" or "other." But even Hegel would probably get tangled in the distinction of whether quality was being, because he always seems to try to lose you defining something as being exactly the same as something else.  You've got one extraction above, fine, but I wonder where else he has stated the reverse.    I guess my point is that he does seem to kickoff his book with quality; we are using becoming as a substrate to get from being to nothing, and qualities are made determinate.  Also I have no recollection of Pure Knowing anywhere in the SOL.  That sounds like it is from the phenomonology. Jazzbox (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: but the point is that his whole aufgehoben/sublation issue is that we have to think of being and nothing together.  The sentence could be made more clear, but that is the whole point of Hegel's approach... sublation Jazzbox (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: see Carlson's work, in the footers.  He has described in detail.  "Becoming" mediates Being and Nothing.  Becoming is a substrate.  When Hegel says sublation (aufgehoben) he means that one thing "is" the other, and he delights in keeping up that (mostly confusing)  phrasing.  So summer is winter, dark is light, something is other,... "becoming" mediates these pairs.  Reading your comments I wonder if you really do understand Hegel.  I mean, you have read parts of SOL and can quote, but it is the meaning of what he is talking about that I wonder if you get. Jazzbox (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: But I think you miss the point.  Reality is common sense reality.  A light is on, later it is off.  We have a quality on, later quality off.  Becoming is the substrate.  The whole thing taken as a whole is aufgehoben.  This is a good example on how we are different.  You want to take this obscure book, Science of Logic, and explain it in terms of itself using Hegel's terms.  The result is only a compact version of the book, equally confusing.  It would be better to try to expain it so that it can be understood.  It is a very confusing and obscure book, but with hidden beauty and meanings.  Mure wrote that part of Measure was a "blind alley."  He says he spent his whole life studying it.  It would be better for you to try to graps what Hegel really means rather than argue about how many ways we can define reality.  You know what reality is. Jazzbox (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I think you prefer the pedantic approach that tries to isolate technicialities, and you focus on a specific assertion.  But the problem again with that approach, especially with Hegel, is that it doesn't yield an overall understanding of what he means.  Hegel talks a lot about some determinate being changing to some other determination.  That means change.  But change could only happen via "becoming" which Carlson at least defines as a substrate.  At least that is my recollection.  But even just looking at the table of contents we see becoming as the mediating whatever (call it substrate, property, or what you will).  Jazzbox (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Being" Section 

message: what had been previously written about infinity was loose, inaccurate, contained no citations and was in large part invented by its author and falsely ascribed to hegel. Xianmw (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not falsely ascribed to Hegel, it is a reasonable interpretation of an obscure work. Jazzbox (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  new "Infinity" section 

message: the narrative for the science of logic is now in kind of uneven form.  Xianmw started a rewrite which  essentially condemned the work that I did and his rewrite I would say made it about a quarter of the way through the book.  actually like his writing but it strikes me that it would be difficult to understand IF the reader had not spent considerable time already on the Science of Logic.  I find his writing useful  now but anyway he does not seem to be contributing and his username is deleted.  I only really objected to the arrogant way in which he criticized my interpetation.  if somebody else wanted to pick up the ball and run with it would be fine.  I may make a couple of small additions but will not undertake  any major work. I do however have a complete set of notes handwritten on it, which someone might be able to use for the narrative.  As it stands now much of the book has no narrative here.  Jazzbox (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm still working on it. Xianmw (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I can understand your writing, having read Science of Logic, it would be nothing more than a mystery to an interested reader wishing to become acquainted with the SOL.  I stand by all my comments in here.  Since the narrative has apparently dwindled to little, i again suggest a rewrite which is not in Hegelese, but in some form understandable to everyone.  That is what an encyclopedia is for.  Jazzbox (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  evidently Xianmw is no longer contributing 

message: Is anyone planning on expanding this section? I can work some on expanding it but would appreciate someone else working on it also to ensure a cogent interpretation for each subsection.
Таракантино (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a good idea. I might be able to help. I gave up on this article after xianmw commandeered it. In my opinion his writings are not particularly helpful to somebody trying to understand the SOL, although he does seem to understand the SOL, then he gave up the effort.
Jazzbox (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool, I'll start going through the sections of the Subjective Logic in the next couple of weeks then and try to keep the general style, format, etc., in keeping with the Objective Logic sections. I haven't edited Wikipedia for years now; are the Objective logic sections from xianmw?
Таракантино (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  A few years ago xianmw removed all that I had written and inserted that pompous hegelese type of writing you see in the Objective Logic. I don't think you should copy that style! I don't like it. What little remains of my writing is the "Ground" section. Why not make it more like that, and then when we finish the Subjective Logic, let's rework the Objective Logic to make it human readable? Jazzbox (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

text:  Looking at xianmw's writing, I'd grant that I can understand it -- but I've read the SOL. What bothers me about the present format, and I tried to make it known above before giving up, is that a newbie is going to have a hard time orienting him/herself to Hegelese. It would be easier just to put a link to the "short logic" version of his ontology IMO than the type of writing xianmw was doing. Jazzbox (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleshing out "Subjective Logic or the Doctrine of the Notion"