Think it’s important to say that Diamat - it is probably incorrect to label it thus but we know whatwe are taking about - is not just an ideological framework but an active method. There is a two-way dialectic between our engagement in objective reality and our interpretation of that reality. No correct practice without theory and no correct theory without mass practice.
True, that’s what I was trying to get at with my last paragraph, but re-reading it I can see the emphasis was not really strong enough and the point wasn’t quite clear as I didn’t explain it fully. I’ll edit my first paragraph to include this to forefront the idea. Thanks for the feedback!
Think it’s important to say that Diamat - it is probably incorrect to label it thus but we know whatwe are taking about - is not just an ideological framework but an active method. There is a two-way dialectic between our engagement in objective reality and our interpretation of that reality. No correct practice without theory and no correct theory without mass practice.
True, that’s what I was trying to get at with my last paragraph, but re-reading it I can see the emphasis was not really strong enough and the point wasn’t quite clear as I didn’t explain it fully. I’ll edit my first paragraph to include this to forefront the idea. Thanks for the feedback!