Dave B
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
use this as an excuse to post a link to an excellent article today.i can't plug ICH too much there is 'some' really interesting stuff put up on it. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43880.htmRT news is 'good' as well despite the fact that you can argue that it is just another media outlet for another set of capitalists.As with Karl when in volume one he praised the English proverb;When two liars come together the truth comes along on its own.
Well as L Bird is making a complete dogs bollocks of his argument I have decided out of pity to give him a helping hand. We actually discussed this issue in depth not all that long ago re the Zietgiest people. Although there is a qualitative difference between the democratic control of scientists and the democratic control of science. I think the science thing can be left on its own as scientists like nothing better than making a name for themselves trashing other peoples science. In fact that is what most of it is. I Know as I have actually been doing just that this week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/010/7-technocracy-1.htm
As a scientist I am getting too pissed off with this ignorant attack on science and scientists. Scientists do no not believe in any ‘eternal truths’, it is not even passive, they are opposed in principal to believing in eternal truths. Scientists are, or should be, even uncomfortable with words like ‘facts’; there is data and information which can be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or ‘misleading’. (This can degenerate into semantics but scientists have to work with the ‘value’ laden words and language they are provided with.) Wittgenstein, of the ‘poker’ fame, as if anybody really understood him properly, appeared to be interested in this kind of thing. He was one of the successful group of bright young talent that were recruited around 1905 and founded the scientific reputation of ManchesterUniversity. And stuff about how words and language lag behind and are inadequate to the development of ‘scientific concepts’ etc etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein So to deal with some of the material issues? The idea that of the way we experience things? And the new and original term ‘sense perception’ in the middle 1800’s; I think that must be begging for a non trivial wiki entry. Can be, err, different to how scientist, well err, think about it. I will certainly come back to that bit later with Karl’s materialist mentor Feuerbach. So lets take temperature it doesn’t ‘exist’ as we experience it. It is atoms and molecules flying and jiggling around like excited ping pong balls faster or slower or whatever; so it seems at the moment as a working hypothesis. Pressure doesn’t ‘exist’; it ‘is’ jiggling atoms/molecules pummelling the inside of a barrier with more force than the ones outside it. Moving on into the 20thcentury, and testing the headache to the extreme, there is no gravity in the ‘sense’ of an invisible elastic band or force keeping the moon in its orbit. The moon ‘is’ according to current scientific thinking travelling in a straight line through curved space time etc etc. Before we disappear up our own arseholes on this kind of shit lets go back Sidney Hook on Feuerbach of 1840. "That systematic knowledge cannot be developed on the basis of sense-perception alone, Feuerbach of course does not deny” Eg gravity, apples falling from trees, Galileo cushions falling from the tower of pizza and Newtonian invisible elastic bands operating through ‘empty space’ (even Newton didn’t believe that and he believed in some crazier stuff) whilst rooted in more familiar sense perception concepts is no longer, Einstein like, “systematic knowledge”. Then; “He admits that even science, which he holds up as an illustration of the fact that sense-perception can be important element in systematic knowledge, must recognise an inescapable opposition between objects of sense perception and scientific objects." So we in our interest in the ‘element’ gravity as a ‘sense perception’ led to the development of the Einstein like ‘systematic knowledge’ or ‘scientific object’. Anybody who thinks that there isn’t an ‘inescapable opposition between objects of sense perception’ eg gravity and Einstein’s curvature of the space time continuum is a liar. It gets worse in quantum mechanics which was even too much for Einstien and isn’t called ‘Alicein wonderland’ for nothing. But we couldn’t give a shit, because it works; or in other words we ‘believe’ for the non eternal moment in time from our ‘sense perception experiences’ it is an ‘effective human method of controlling experience’, like for what?; or predicting what will happen next if we do one thing or another. Thus;"But in science as distinct from philosophy this opposition between sense-perception and thought (in modern terminology sense data and hypothesis) is not unmediated.” Like personal experience or sense perception doesn’t come into it. Like it didn’t with Bishop Berkeley and his stone. http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html “That is to say, scientific thought even though it must transcend sense-perception takes its point of departure from it and returns to it somewhere in the process of scientific proof.""Science is not opposed to ordinary experience. It does not deal with another order of being but is an effective human method of controlling experience." It is functional and materialistic. What kind of experiences we wish to control or what we desire to predict as a ‘use value’ is outside the immediate remit of science of itself. Just as the ‘eternal truth’ of the use values of commodities was outside the remit of the labour theory of value. Eg Opera, branded Calvin Klien underpants or watching Newcastle United getting stuffed at Saint James Park. Kline knows jackshit about Karl’s ‘materialism’ when she says that our desires are often not concrete material. Karl dipped into it in Volume Four; like getting a blow job off a prostitute or listening to an opera was concrete material; he juxtaposed the two 50 years before Freud did. So to move on to producing leafcutter ants, social instincts, instincts in general, the so called ‘special supernatural nature’ and ‘anti-materialist’ and thus idealist concept of consciousness and Darwin etc. And the dialectical analysis, or approach, of ‘content and form’. On life; which is admittedly a very special category in the universal scheme of things and in fact sticks a finger up and spits in the face of ‘entropy’. It evolves or ‘finds’ ‘better’ ways of doing things, content; the terms are ‘Wittgenstein like’ loaded again. When it comes to behaviour most animals ‘achieve’ that by the ‘development’ of ‘instincts’. ‘Instincts’ is a loaded term as well ie do plants have ‘instincts’? It is dealt with by the Hegelian, and Wittgenstein like, concepts of ‘quantitative’ changes leading to qualitative ones? Conciousness and intellect etc etc is just an ‘improvement’ or different ‘form’ of ‘solving the problems’ or ‘challenges’, the content, of the material existence of ‘life’. We just attach special importance and ‘value’ to it because, as with Mandy Rice Davis, “we would, wouldn’t we’. Who is the ‘value’ laden ‘clever’ then? Chemosynthetic bacteria who maybe ‘happily’ trans-galactically colonizing the universe, or us? We are locked into satisfying our given biological urges, there is no supernatural 'value' to conciousness/intelligence however tempting that can be as an idea. Professor Brain Cox has no idea I expect what kind of Hegelian he is when he goes on about us being here to contemplate the 'wonders' of the universe.
To be candid L Bird I am really not interested in your ‘bamboozling product of human knowledge’ and I am not going to buy or vote for it. And intend to exit. As a matter of historical or information on; But Marx wasn't a 'Feuerbachian', so that a consideration of Feuerbach's likes and dislikes needn't worry Democratic Communists Well up to the end of 1844 he was a 'Feuerbachian' and took is humanism as well from him. They actually abandoned the humanist part of their Feuerbachian position after Stirner’s attack on it in Ego and his Own published in late 1844. Apologising for it in German Ideology as their ‘erstwhile philosophical conscience’. Ludwig’s, and thus Karl’s and Fred’s humanist position, in 1844 was that we had social instincts that were communistic and co-operative and that primitive [or essence of] Christianity was an expression of the social instinct framed in religious or supernatural terms. Which was the only possible or most likely way it could have been expressed in an oppressive non communist society of that epoch? [Although Feuerbach didn’t appear to use this material 2 of the 5 or so anti christian documents on Christianity from before 200Ad were in no doubt that the Christians were communists. True doctrines by celsus and Lucian of Samosata’s passing of Peregrinus.] By 1845 Karl and Fred had completely abandoned and hostilely criticised that position and that remains the orthodox and vulgar Marxist position to this day. And demoted it to an aggregate of social relations etc. Even though after the publication of Darwin’s second book and a bit of time to let it sink in; they realised that they and Feuerbach had been basically correct in 1844 all along and had allowed themselves to be bamboozled by a very clever ‘anarchist’. Thus; Karl MarxEconomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Feuerbach is the only one who has a serious, critical attitude to the Hegelian dialectic and who has made genuine discoveries in this field. He is in fact the true conqueror of the old philosophy. The extent of his achievement, and the unpretentious simplicity with which he, Feuerbach, gives it to the world, stand in striking contrast to the opposite attitude [of the others]. Feuerbach’s great achievement is: (1) The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned; (2) The establishment of true materialism and of real science, by making the social relationship of “man to man” the basic principle of the theory; Here we see how consistent {…Feuerbach’s…}naturalism or humanism is distinct from both idealism and materialism, and constitutes at the same time the unifying truth of both. We see also how only naturalism is capable of comprehending the action of world history. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm To keep it very and too brief Darwins argument is sort of wrapped around; ….The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable—namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts,5 would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as…. So he speculates about the likelihood or inevitability of social instincts and then ponders about how the would express themselves or what distorted form they might take in modern human society or whatever ie moral sense or conscience Feuerbach just sort of did it the other and harder way around by observing the empirical evidence ie ‘moral sense or conscience’ and deducing a social instinct. http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1871_Descent_F937/1871_Descent_F937.1.html
So what you are saying is if you consciously plan and implement something you are not a materialist; you are an idealist-materialist. Feuerbach the first self described anti idealist and materialist wouldn’t like that much I suspect. And thus conscious human beings (a tautology for most of us perhaps) can’t be materialists as they are mutually exclusive; unless they have no idea what they are doing or why they are doing it. Not quite sure what that would look like apart from alienated labour or sex; its been a long time.
You have lost me now L Bird; are you saying leafcutter ants are idealist materialist because “They produce their food”? Leafcutter antsfeed exclusively on a fungusthat grows only within their colonies. They continually collect leaves which are taken to the colony, cut into tiny pieces and placed in fungal gardens. Workers specialise in related tasks according to their sizes. The largest ants cut stalks, smaller workers chew the leaves and the smallest tend the fungus. Leafcutter ants are sensitive enough to recognise the reaction of the fungus to different plant material, apparently detecting chemical signals from the fungus. If a particular type of leaf is found to be toxic to the fungus, the colony will no longer collect it. The ants feed on structures produced by the fungi called gongylidia. Symbiotic bacteria on the exterior surface of the ants produce antibiotics that kill bacteria introduced into the nest that may harm the fungi.
L bird makes a good point that it is always worth, historically, going back to look at what someone was arguing against. Karl was arguing against ‘Hegelianism’ which was putting forward the idea that (the development of) ideas or more specifically perhaps human intelligence and intellect, including of course ‘philosophy’, changed reality or the world we live in. That is a pretty good idea on the face of it as the world we live in ie the screen you are looking at, has changed as a result of the development of ‘scientific ideas’. However there was perhaps a potential ‘elephant in the room’ problem with this; called causality or ‘Descartes’. Which is that everything remains; ……..in the same state and is never changed, unless by external causes………. Now you could legitimately argue that ideas change reality and new realities affect ideas and so on in a ‘mindless’ iterative process and leave it at that. And there is nothing wrong with that and you can pull up at this point and end with a full stop and underline. Unless you believe that you perceive a historical pattern or direction- and that is the crucial predicate on which everything else rests. Thus to pick a modern example you might have a lot of ever changing weather and the flap of butterfly wings in Norfolk causing typhoons in the Philippines etc. And the global climate maybe in an overall ‘steady state’ of a dynamic equilibrium. However if you believe you see a pattern or direction of change then one is tempted to logically designate that, and that alone, as an effect and look for a cause. Hegel in the ideas/reality duality designated ideas, or human thought if you like, as the restive element dragging reality along in its wake. And there was an external force or 'urge' and thus cause pushing or pulling it along depending on how you prefer to look at it, in a particular direction. There is a modern ‘scientific’ version of this Hegelianism eg; "the basis of invention is science, and science is almost wholly the outgrowth of pleasurable intellectual curiosity."and in contrast to the old proverb "Necessity is the mother of futile dodges" is much nearer to the truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_is_the_mother_of_invention %5BThus “intellectual curiosity” isn’t that far removed from the Hegelian model apart from Hegel would have broadened the scope to the universe following a Buddhist like path of self awareness and revelation through the agency of humanity, or something. However “intellectual curiosity” and capacity is more likely to be a ‘Darwinian’ evolutionary acquired trait or instinct of humanity and in and of itself materialistic. In as much the 'urge' for finding better or more economical ways of hunting deer than leaping out of bushes and clubbing them over the head. You could still argue alternatively I suppose that “intellectual curiosity”and capacity is a kind of ‘mustard seed’ improving thing planted by a Hegelian Demiurge] Karl would have argued I think, without having to drag in “intellectual curiosity” and capacity, that the evolutionary driving force and direction was pushed or pulled by more efficient or ‘fitter’ ways to dominate and control nature. The ‘rewards’ or consequences maybe somewhat questionable and other societies could choose alternative paths of survival; until the gunboats turn up. And that non material ‘social institutions’ or ‘superstructure’, or ‘ideology’, are forced to adapt to ‘fitter’, or necessary, underlying ways of economic behaviour. That doesn’t mean that the new ‘social institutions’ or ‘superstructure’, or ‘ideology’ aren’t dogs dinners and have to look particularly clever and well constructed. The weakness of evolutionary systems is the inability or difficulty to reverse engineer stuff. Thus Christianity clearly evolved out of a communistic movement of the oppressed and it was still prattling along with that kind of stuff 300 years later; and thus not exactly the ideal kind of material for the Divine Right of Kings and capitalist to work with. Marxism to Stalinism probably holds the world record (at 20 years, 1906-1926?) on that kind of thing.
Lenin Decision Of The C.C., R.C.P.(B.), January 12, 1922 …on the other hand, the socialised state enterprises are being put on what is called a profit basis, i. e., they are being reorganised on commercial lines, which, in view of the general cultural backwardness and exhaustion of the country, will, to a greater or lesser degree, inevitably give rise to the impression among the masses that there is an antagonism of interest between the management of the different enterprises and the workers employed in them. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30.htm
The Israeli’s have been treating wounded ISIS fighters in Israeli hospitals for over a year. A lot of the information on it first came from the Shiite Lebanese Hezbollah people however like Sheik Hassan Nasrallah . I think also some Egyptian “former” member of Bin Laden’s inner circle who had fought with him in Afghanistan, and presumably a ‘Sunni’ may have broke the story in a interview on Egyptian TV. It has been confirmed in reports from UN peacekeepers/observers who are still on the Golan border area from some UN resolution set up going back several years. Re exchange of personnel and materials in crates (probably weapons). Ideologically and politically the whole situation has become so absurd that it probably eclipses anything we have we have seen before. The Saudi’s and Israelis have joined forces and are now allies both supporting ISIS. The ‘anti Zionist’ ‘Sunni Palestinian Hamas’ and Shia Hezbollah have formed a de-facto alliance. The Shia Iranians (‘Persians’) are backing the historic ‘Sunni Arab’ opposition to the oppression of the ‘Palestinians’ in general and gaining credibility in the general ‘Arab’ diaspora for it. (There is a historic mutual hostity between the 'Persiians' and 'Arabs'.)Some 'Palestinians' and 'Arabs' are 'Christians'. And you can throw into the mix the ‘communist’ Kurd’s, Kurds in general. And then you have the Muslim Brotherhood, formerly backed to some extent by other Gulf monarchies eg Qatar; “We believe that the political reform is the true and natural gateway for all other kinds of reform. We have announced our acceptance of democracy that acknowledges political pluralism, the peaceful rotation of power and the fact that the nation is the source of all powers. As we see it, political reform includes the termination of the state of emergency, restoring public freedoms, including the right to establish political parties, whatever their tendencies may be, and the freedom of the press, freedom of criticism and thought, freedom of peaceful demonstrations, freedom of assembly, etc. It also includes the dismantling of all exceptional courts and the annulment of all exceptional laws, establishing the independence of the judiciary, enabling the judiciary to fully and truly supervise general elections so as to ensure that they authentically express people's will, removing all obstacles that restrict the functioning of civil society organizations, etc” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood Which may be a load of bollocks, or not, but the ‘idea’ is about as popular as popular as a rattle snake in a lucky dip in Saudi.And then there is the so called ‘restoration of the Ottoman Empire’; Erdogan. I think people flatter the ‘present political Turkish ruling class’ in accusing them of being grandiose nationalists and patriots; and thinking about long term strategic economic goals etc. They are Saudi (and thus US hirelings) filling up while the going is good and will clear out later.
I think the situation is moving beyond 'a little problem' of bombing some ‘horrid foreign people and mad mullahs’ etc. It developing into superpower conflict with proxy armies and superpowers flying around and bombing each others friends etc. with cruise missile submarines , aircraft carriers, patriot and S300 anti aircraft missile systems and a kaleidoscope of warring boots on the ground. It makes the Balkans in 1914 look uncomplicated and stable. Whose missing now? The Chinese? Dabiq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq is right in the middle of it just to give it an interesting religious dimension. Especially if the ‘west’ starts playing a game of chicken with Russia.
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eightiesby Oded YinonSyria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815
The praying five times a day isn’t in the Quran I think and it probably comes from the Zoroastrians. http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/worship/ like a lot of religious practice it appears in the supplemental hadiths; I think
There is quite a lot of this Shiites being horrid to the Sunni’s in Iraqwhich I am not going to dispute. But people seem to have short memories. From 2003 onwards bombs were regularly going off in Shia neighbourhoods, mosques and on Shia religious pilgrimages etc and they were being murdered in the thousands. Someone wanted a sectarian civil war and they got one. Around that time and in places like the Guardian, and from some party members I discussed it with, they were saying there would be no sectarian war because it wasn’t part of the Iraqi social fabric with stuff and data on inter faith marriage etc. Most UK muslims don’t even know what the difference is; and once I found myself in the ‘amusing’ position of explaining to a group of ‘Sunni’ UK muslims what the theological difference was. Most southeast Asian muslims would be considered as apostates and heretics of the worst possible kind by the ISIS whahabi lot. Many of them are really theologically ‘appalling’ in the way they fuse and integrate aspects of polythetic Hinduism into their stuff. A bit like the way the Christians integrated pagan Christmas trees and easter etc. It still goes on and the catholics tend to take a more liberal approach to it than the protestants. There was some stuff on it in a Graham Greene book I read recently A Burnt Out Case re Africa. Graham Greene spent some time there There was this ‘Sikh’ ex peasant communist with me at the time, whilst I was instructing my Sunni audience on the theological evils of polytheism and how Mohammed wouldn’t approve. So I said you see the monotheistic Sikhs would have no truck with this kind of thing. I was floored when she said they did. My next door neighbours are south eastern Muslims and I have seen them daubing the Hindu other way around swastika on the doorstep at appropriate times. My heart missed a beat when I first saw it.
