DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Interesting, a relevant programme on "The Boxers of Bukom" just heard on the BBC world service:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00xtky9
I think it would be to mis-interpret the experiment to say that it proves that ALL mouse behaviour is genetically determined, I'm sure you could achieve the same results through the use of conditioning / behaviour reinforcement.As far as I know though this is the first clear demonstration of a manipulation in genes leading to a change in behaviour(?)Of course human behaviour is much more varied and complex than mouse behaviour. But it is the underlying genetic makeup which determines the scope of behaviour and how behaviour is reinforced. In humans it is culture that determines what is and what is not reinforced.The nature / nurture debate is over since genes are turned on and off depending on cues from the environment. It's a co-dependant relation.
ALB wrote:There is a middle way. On some forums I'm on you can only edit something until somebody replies to it, i.e you can't change something retroactively after the discussion has begun but you can change something quickly if you notice a spelling mistake, etc. when you re-read it after posting. Is this feasible here?PS What does "the reversion of edits" mean?The method you mention sounds good but probably not easily achieveable with what we have here. What I meant was that the aim is to get previous edits to be stored on the system then a post can be reverted to a previous version if necessary.
twc wrote:How's this.Looks good to me. If there's another post in agreement posted I'll set up the relevant sections.
Hud955 wrote:What are the group's aims? (Not necessarily obvious, and not everyone may have the same idea.)To better understand a text that at least two forum users have expressed an interest in reading
Hud955 wrote:How big do you want it to be? (Beyond a certain size it will become impossible to manage.)Who is going to be invited to join? And therefore how do you want to promote it? Do you want a membership arrangement? (Even if the membership is open to everyone, a semi-formal arrangement can sometimes help to create commitment.)Judging by my past attempts at this kind of thing we won't be swamped with people. I think the only criteria for 'membership' will be an account on the forum and to have actually read the text
Hud955 wrote:Do you want to treat this first title as a test run, and maybe keep it just to a few people? – or do you want to open it out from the word go?Maybe a bit of both for the first time. The full page ad in the Guardian can wait until later
Hud955 wrote:Do you want an open or closed group? Making it open to all is possible but could raise some problems for regular contributers who want to focus on the text and not get caught up in peripheral (or personal or political) issues from casual or outside contributers. What could you do to limit or manage this?If it is an open group, will you allow people join in ad hoc once the reading is under way?Again I don't think the group will be that different that a standard forum thread
Hud955 wrote:Do you want the reading to be structured and ask for structured responses, so everyone moves ahead at the same rate, and talks about the same things (broadly) at the same time? Or do you just want an informal space for people to contribute thoughts and carry out independent conversations? Do you want some rules for responding? How will people use the discussion space, for example? Will it be a free for all? Or do you want to give it a pre-determined structure – even if a minimal one? Do you want a 'moderator' or 'chairperson' with elected decision-making powers? Do you want to ask for positive contributions? Not ones that criticise other people's views? (The content can be the same; only the way preople present it is different.)I think the way forward is two come up with a suggested reading timetable then see what grows from that. Once a body of comments is up I see know reason for further people to add more for years to come.
Hud955 wrote:Do you want to limit the size of contributions? (to prevent some individuals dominating others who are less forthcoming or articulate?)Do you want to work though the first text section by section, discussing each as you go? Or do you read it all through and then pick themes to discuss? Or do you want some other arrangement?I would have thought initially comment chapter by chapter and add comments on themes as the reading progresses.
Hud955 wrote:What's the decision-making process on this: group vote or concensus or through an elected decision-maker (chairperson)If you are going to work through a text section by section, do you want to set a time allowance for people to read and digest the material, perhaps making allowance for slow or more thoughtful readers and those without a lot of time to spare? How will this be set?And no doubt there are other issues the group can think of.I think this is something people will vote for with their feet (or maybe fingers). Either people will participate or they won't.I think for the Rubin text, a couple of chapters a week is a reasonable speed. People can always comment on things a little later if they get behind. The joys of not having to be in the same place at the same time.
Hi SP,The answer to all 3 is "it depends on the circumstances" though if a member thinks they are being treated unfairly they have the right to lodge an appeal as detailed here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum-rules-and-guidelines
twc wrote:There is no reason why this proposed new forum can't have several discussion groups running simultaneously, discussing their own texts in their own independent threads.[Apologies to WSM Forum Admin for loading you already hard working fellows with additional hard work. Presumably, if things take off in this forum, there should be only one topic per selected text, and you'll have to prevent users from starting their own topics in this rather specially structured forum. With all this bother, it's no wonder we all want socialism to come as soon as possible.]What I was thinking was having a subforum for reading groups, then within that have subforums for each book. That way there should be scope for discussion on multiple books and topics without it getting too much of a confusing mess.
Mike Foster wrote:Count me in, with another vote for the Rubin text. I think the length of this text is about right, to start off with anyway. I think we should be wary of discussing whole books, especially something as weighty as Capital, where chapters or sections should be discussed in more digestible chunks.Sorry for the confusion. I was suggesting we read the whole Rubin book, where the other thinking this? Or just the chapter? I think with this kind of thing you really have to read the full book to get the proper meaning.
Mike Foster wrote:I tend to prefer as few limits or moderation as possible. So, I think some of the suggestions made above might restrict the discussion a little. In particular, I don't think we need to restrict membership or have too much active moderation of responses. We should probably post a few ground rules as a permanent thread on that section of the forum, though, such as reminders about relevance of comments, avoiding personal abuse etc. Hopefully common sense will guide most people.I would have thought that just the normal forum rules would be all that is needed.I'll post more thoughts later on…
I'll run the idea past the education department, though this is not strictly necessary.I think it would be best to call the section of the forum simply "reading groups" that way we could read whatever we like.I'm suggesting Rubin because 1. The text is freely available online. 2. The chapters are not too long 3. It covers a very important aspect of Marxian theory and 4. because I didn't take adequate notes the first time I read it it.If I get 3 yes's I'll go ahead and set up the subforum. Or if anyone has other suggestions it's probably best to start a new topic.
If you find the Rubin article useful and want to read the whole book, I would be up for doing a joint reading / note sharing. Think this is one of those books worth reading a few times. Just an idea.In fact, this is something that could be done via this forum if people are game.
I guess it's all tied in with commodity fetishism and how material relations amongst people appear as social relations between things. How Capital appears to grow due to the mere fact of being capital, when it is surplus labour that is actually responcible for the expansion. It's to do with the opacity of social relations in a capitalist economy.I.I Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory on Value I like. Here's the chapter most relevant.. Don't know if any people here have read it?http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/ch03.htmAnd here's the Perlman introduction I spoke abouthttp://libcom.org/library/commodity-fetishism-fredy-perlman
stevead1966 wrote:I will be talking about Hegel, Marx and Alienation at my head office talk on 20th January.Sounds good, hope it will be recorded.
Fredy Perlman – The Reproduction of Everyday Lifehttp://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/reproduction-everyday-life-fredy-perlman-1969Fredy Perlman – Introduction to I I Rubin's Essays on ValueIt's on libcom but libcom is down at the minute so can't provide linkAll that the word means is that abstract concepts are given living characteristics e.g. "Money works"When translating from German the word "Objectification" is often used as well.I actually read "History and Class Consciousness" when I was into the Situationists, to be honest it may be overrated.
