Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think the inclusion of Andrew Neil et al adds a bit of credibility to the average viewer. the fact that it comes from a "serious politics" programme gives the message that we are a serious political party. I think it's an excellent piece of work, my only other thought is how well Cliff Slapper has aged, he doesn't look a day over 30.
L Bird wrote:'Ideas' are not 'material' (ie. being, of 'matter'); they are 'ideas' (ie. consciousness).If ideas, part of our mental processes, part of our consciousness are not material, perhaps you could explain the following:http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/meet-two-scientists-who-implanted-false-memory-mouse-180953045/?no-ist or is that just another example of Bourgeoisie science
I think L Bird is confusing the concept of thought and the concept of consciousness. Thought is only one aspect of consciousness, it also includes feeling, perception, etc. He appears to further compound this by assuming that all thought takes the form of language, which clearly it doesn't. If you consider a baby before it develops language, it still has thought, however it doesn't have language with which to think, this is known as pre verbal thinking. This leads us to the conclusion that human consciousness is far more complex than L Bird appears to consider. It also follows that the development of consciousness, what we could consider to be cognitive development, is more complex and complicated than L Bird's bizarre reductionist theory that consciousness can be divided into Bourgeoisie consciousness and Proletarian consciousness. That is not to say that aspects of consciousness have their roots in social class and the relationship between workers and the means of production, however that is not the only aspect of cognitive development. Environmental facts may have an impact on cognitive development, for example a child may suffer from Feotal Alcohol Syndrome, which may impact massively on their cognitive development. There are many theories of cognitive development, for example according to Piaget's theory of cognitive development, intelligence is the basic way in which we manage interactions between the ourselves and our environment. This is achieved through the actions of the developing person on their world. At any moment in development, the way the outside world presents is in terms of our individual understandings of the individual objects and people we encounter. If our understandings are not completely accurate we need to alter our understandings. In this theoretical approach the development of intelligence is a continuous process of assimilation and accommodations that lead to increasing expansion of the understandings of the world with increased coordination between them, increasing internalisation of understandings. These mental operations are gradually coordinated with each other, generating structures of understandings. These structures of mental operations are applied on representations of objects rather than on the objects themselves. Language, mental images, and numerical notation are examples of representations standing for objects and thus they become the object of mental operations. It has been argued that we develop schema, models of the world and areas of the world that fit represent our experience of a particular area of our existence. As my personal schema of supermarkets has elements of geographical layout, how to park, how to get in and out as quickly as possible as well as the associated feelings of dread and loathing which accompany my experience of going to the supermarket. Similarly one of the biggest factors in cognitive development is the attachment that develops between the growing child and their main carer. Attachment has been shown to have impact on vocabulary, cognitive development, brain development, memory, physical growth, etc. etc. Developments of John Bowlby's original theories of attachment have been developed to explain the cognitive, social and other differences between children with different attachment patterns (Van Ijzendoorm and Sagi) have led to the competency hypothesis. Similarly Lev Vygotsky put forward the idea that there is an explicit link between language and both inner and external speech and the development of mental concepts and cognitive awareness, as our internal speech (intra psychic conversation) is the basis of most of our mental activity and given that language is developed socially it follows that thought has developed socially and can be only understood socially. (interestingly Vygotsky was accused of idealistic aberration in the 1930s Stalinist USSR and his work was suppressed until the 1990s) However the social aspect is much more complex that social class, for instance it may include family composition, culture, etc.etc. How we understand and relate to the "material" world is far more complex and nuanced than L Bird's rather infantile ramblings.
alanjjohnstone wrote: People with empty bellies don't hunger for a head full of ideals.L Bird wrote: Just as easy to say: People with empty heads don't hunger for a belly full of ideals.it may be just as easy to say it, but saying it doesn't mean that it makes any sense, like most of the pretentious drivel you write. However let me see if I get this right, every idea you have is, without question, in line with the thoughts of Marx, is therefore correct and is a proletarian idea. In contrast ideas that contradict your ideas are not in line with the thoughts of Marx and are by definition a bourgeois idea.You then go on to state"whilst workers are reluctant to engage in the drawing of the architectural plans, that Marx argues are required for the creation of the new building, then the plans will be provided to the intellectually passive"So presumably the provider of these plans will be the intellectually active, the vanguard party, the elite. I wonder who you envisage at the front of this intellectually active elite, leading the way with his proletarian ideas, perhaps it will be L Bird, hero of the revolutionary working classes. Talk about delusions of grandeur!
"'Practical! people have no time for mere philosophising.. that's for the clever shites at the top, with time on their hands" presumably, despite the evidence to the contrary, you classify your self as one of the "clever shites" at the top. (at least you were half right). So presumably you and your fellow, philospohising elite at top form some kind of vanguard that are going to lead us all to the Materialist – Idealist promised land, with you as some modern day blend of Lenin and Walsby, sounds fascinating, can't wait for it to happen, won't hold my breath though.
Dave B – "Or wathcing Newcastle United getting stuffed at St James' Park"Howay bonny lad, there's no need for that. Don't you think I've had enough chew to put up with today from that clown L Bird without you intruding on personal grief.
to quote"when I'm insulted, I'll return the favourand I include bogus psychological diagnosis in the "insult box"Criticise my politics not my alleged mental state and all will be fine"A few points follow from this.1) I am not concerned that you insulted me (Wanker, Dim, Nasty, etc.) I am concerned that you defamed me (Locking people up in asylums, etc.), there is a legal difference. One is actionable, the other is not. I still await a withdrawal and may have to consider other options.2) I did not offer a diagnosis, bogus or otherwise, I have suggested some possible motivations for your actions (stroke seeking, ego defence). I offered this because your postings and responses appear to me unusual.3) Your final statement seems extremely strange and fully at odds with what you are attempting to argue, i.e. that your politics and your mental state, i.e. your values, your attitudes, your perception of the world, your cultural understandings, etc can in fact be separated. Surely the crux of your Idealist-materialist position is that the two are intertwined. If I criticise your politics I am by definition criticising your ideas, thoughts, perceptions, etc. in short your mental state.
L Bird – I did not defame you, I questioned your motivation. Motivation, action, thought, etc. are, as you appear to understand, political. By definition if I am critical of your actions on a political forum then I am critical of your politics. With regards to what you have stated about Marx's view of materialism, I have stated on two occasions now, I do not see a substantial difference between your view, the view taken by the Party historically and my perception of the view taken by the majority of members of the SPGB with whom I have discussed this.I state again what I have done is question your motivation, I have not accused you, without a shred of evidence of wanting to throw people who disagree with me in an asylum. My actions were not defamatory as I did not state that this was your motive, only questioned it. You on the other hand made a clearly defamatory statement about me a named individual (i.e That given the opportunity I would have people who disagree with me placed in an asylum),on a publicly accesible forum. As a matter of fact I have spent much of my professional life assisting people to avoid or assisting them to get themselves out of institutional care. I have no issue with the use of bourgeois law, the thought of gaining damages from you and donating the proceeds to the SPGB is very appealing, however as stated a quick apology would suffice.I also find it interesting that your response to me, the alleged Stalinist, is to tell call me a wanker, state that I am dim and nasty and tell me to do one. I would suggest that your response has more in common with Stalinism than mine. Again this leads me to question your motivation on both a conscious and sub conscious level. You should read up on games theory, it really is quite fascinating
"No doubt if you and the rest of the undemocractic Leninists on here had their way, I'd be packed off to some Stalinist asylum"In this quote you are saying that I would "no doubt" have you incarcerated because of your political beliefs. Not only is there nothing in what I have said in my contributions to back up this extraordinary statement, the statement is in itself a personal and professional slur. I would go as far as to say that, as it is directed to me by name, it could be regarded as defamatory and defined as libelous. Can I suggest you withdraw the remark immediately and apologise.
DJP – Re the Gilmac tape. I had it on cassette in the 80s so I think a cassette version may be out there. L Bird – No old political trick at all.I think you summed up your argument exactly in the quote I gave from your first post, i.e that Marx used the term materialsm to distinguish himself from the idealists. To put it simply "I am therefore I think, as opposed to I think therefore I am". I don't disagree with this point I don't think I've ever met anyone in the SPGB that has disagreed with this point. I fail to see how stating this fails to engage with the issues. I also pointed out that historically the SPGB has not been part of the Leninist trend towards the elevation of "The Dialectic" or "The interpenetration of opposites", etc. to dogma, hence the reference to Gilmac's tape, again is this failing to engage? I think not.The only real gripe that you appear to have is that you have put forward the propostiion that Marx in describing himself as a Materialist should have described himself as an "idealist materialist". Personally I am happy to go along with Marx's own description of himself, call me old fashioed, but I think he was probably the best judge as to how he wanted to describe himslef.You state that I have not engaged with the issues, although that is clearly not true, it does appears that generally speaking people are not in that much disagreement with you. This therefore leads me to examine motive.Psychological Games are not, as you imply, a sign of poor mental health, they are, according to Berne, a sub conscious phenomena in which we all engage as part of our transactional strategies, in an attempt to gain what he described as strokes of recognition. As you are continuing to engage in a thread where no one really disagrees with you, it leads me to the conclusion that you must be sub-consciously be seeking strokes of recognition. The source of these strokes may be as follows:A – Positive strokes from forum members – something along the lines of "wow that's really interesting, I'd never seen Marx in that way" (these don't appear to be on offer at the moment)B – Positive self strokes – Intrapsychic conversation along the lines of "wow, I really pointed out to those lot in the SPGB how well read and clever I am (whether these strokes are available, only you will know)C negative strokes – along the lines of "what the hell is he picking an argument about now, what a complete………" (these types of strokes appear to be very available on the forum.As Berne stated, negative strokes are better than no strokes at all!
Going back to the beginning of this thread, you stated: "Marx used the term ‘material’ as a contrast with ‘ideal’, to contrast human creativity with divine creativity.". I don't think anyone on this forum or anyone in the SPGB would disagree with this. The fact that you choose to call this "idealism-materialism" as opposed to Marx's own descripition of this concept as "materialism" and then choose to bicker with people who choose to continue to describe this concept in the same way that Marx did is, in my humble opiion a littel strange. The fact that you then go on to imply that because tehre are some members who refuse to adhere to your nomenclature this in some way ties the SPGB to the almost religious doctrine faith that many Leninists have in "Dialectical Materialsm" or as it is known to those of the Leninist faith who have reached the upper echelons of mysticism "The dialectic"appears to me to indicate a number of things.1. You have not heard Gilbert McClatchie's excellent talk on Materialism and "the dialectic", which clearly and elequently states the SPGB's position on this (if it is still available it is well worth listening to, it was recorded int helate 60s or early 70s)2. You enjoy playing psychological games with people (I humbly suggest you might like to read Eric Berne's "transational Analysis in Psychotherapy)3. Some of the members of this forum take you more seriously than they should.4. And this is only a suggestion, perhaps you should get out more
Shit! Just checked out the website and apparently Paddy Shannon is the leader, I thought it was still Bobby Gleghorn!On a serious note could we not make a small but relevant statement by just pulling a random member's name out of a hat on the last Friday of every month and then changing the leader's name on their website, or would this have a cost implication?
