[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Hope this helps, comrades.

It helps because it shows where we are getting in a muddle.

LBird wrote:

If we call material A, ideal B and knowledge C, thenA+B=C; orB+A=C, which is the same thing.

Like has been said C=B or if we presume materialism C=B=A, in other words at the end of the day it's all "material"

LBird wrote:

Materialists insist A=C, or C=A.Idealists insist B=C, or C=BRealists insist that C=A+B, or C=B+A.For those interested, A=object, B=subject, C=knowledge,and the plus sign is 'practice'.

Few problems here. A=C seems more like a description of naive realism than materialism.It is not a case of Materialism or Realism. Realism (in the sense that we are using it here) means something like "the parts that make up a theory refer to real things that exist in the universe" as opposed to anti-realism which means something like "the parts that make up a theory are just convenient fictions that help us predict happenings".So you see far from being incompatible there is quite a strong link between Materialism and Realism.You can be a Materialist and still say "C=A+B"

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Either you agree ‘that material and ideas have the same status’, or you don’t.

In materialism they have the same status, this is because materialism (like idealism) is a type of monism. So at base there is no material and ideas, there is just one kind of stuff which we call matter.An idealist would say the opposite "at base there is no material and ideas, there is just one kind of stuff which we call ideas."To put a strict and impenetrable cleavage between the two is dualism which is niether materialism or idealism.What you seem to be proposing is either some kind of dualism with a strict delineation between mental and physical or a kind of pluralism where reality is composed of an infinite number of "entities endowed with causal powers that come from their inherent nature"

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Why not call it 'idealism', which by your logic is equally acceptable?

It's not equally acceptable according to "my logic"Idealism means that "reality is predominantly mental or otherwise non-physical".How does that equate with"everything is material or depends on or arises out of the material."?But anyhow how is "Reality is just such a collection of entities endowed with causal powers that come from their inherent nature" any kind of improvement?

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

Actually, I agree with the substance of this, i.e (1) that Marx won't have held that everything is material or physical and (2) that material and ideas have the same status. In which case the argument would seem to be about what to call this view, which I'm sure could be eventually settled. 

I agree with both points one and two.The answer as to "what to call this view" is still materialism though, after all Marx said quite plainly "I am a materialist".Materialism doesn't mean that everything is material but that everything is material or depends on or arises out of the material.We don't need a new term since no one still subscribes to the "crude materialism" that Marx (and Engels) criticized.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

If one holds to 'materialism' or physicalism, and the suggestion that anything about 'ideas' is 'idealism', then most of what CR holds will be rejected, out of hand, as 'idealism'.

We're still on the wrong foot.Materialism / Physicalism in general does not deny the existence of ideas or mental phenomena.You can talk about ideas all day and still be a materialist…

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

As for a web address and globe logo?

Scroll back through the pages and look at design E on post number 20.There's a globe graphic and web address in the window above the door. Not sure if that part is going to be carried out in though?

[DJP]

Unless I'm mistaken the top design in post #20 is the one going to be used. There is no web address on the main sign on the fascia. Not sure if the globe and web address that are in the window below it will be used in the actual finished project?

[DJP]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Why is it not at the head of this site and the party's other sites? Like: Spintcom, facebook etc and

Because the brief was for a sign for head office, not a logo for the party. Such a thing would and should be voted on by the party not just a small committee.Though as it is the header on the site is not too disimular.

[DJP]

gnome wrote:

Those few still carping either missed the boat, lost the argument or chose not to participate in the process.

As far as I know the membership where not consulted on the final decision.But anyway it is an improvment on the previous sign.

[DJP]

The unsubscribe option in the emails appears to work. Just make sure you are logged into the website before you press the link.

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I know the design for the HO fascia has been decided upon, (design E pos t#20) but I was talking with my partner about this the other day and I showed her the designs and the one to be used. She pointed out something I hadn't caught on to. The colour red. She pointed out that colours have associations, such as the 4 big supermarkets green, orange, blue and yellow. For my partner the association with red in politics is the Labour party, then China and the former Soviet Union.When I thought about this, it struck me as spot on, red is the colour associated with the "left".We both agreed the first design on this thread was the strongest. It's not red for starters, it has the WSM globe logo and a web address contact.But hey, we aint party members. 

I think the word "socialist" is pretty much synonymous with the "left" in the public mind anyhow..But it's worse than that. Red and Black are the colours of the anarcho-syndicalists, we should not be trying to adopt there regalia by any means..I agree with the first design being the best, but it to late.. For now at least..

[DJP]

Quote:

[..]The real causal powers of an entity endow it with a dispositional set of tendencies or propensities to generate actual events in the world; these actual events may or may not be empirically observable. The causal powers of an entity are real in the sense that these powers and propensities exist even if they are never actualized or observed by anyone. To use the standard trite example, the causal power to break a window is a dispositional property of a rock; this property is real in these that it is there whether it is ever actualized (an actual window breaking with a rock event happens in the world), and whether anybody ever observes this event.Reality then, is just such a collection of entities endowed with causal powers that come from their inherent nature.http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/more-words-on-critical-realism-getting-clear-on-the-basics/

It's some kind of neo-Aristotelianism

[DJP]

The idea of "supervenience" is actually not that disimular from those "emergent properties" and levels of explanation that you where talking about in your description of CR.I don't see what i t has to do with individualism at all.But there is little point in engaging with you further, your only wish seems to be to hurl insults at all and sundry.

[DJP]

Note "illusion" does not mean "not real" but "not as it appears".But I don't want to give the game away too early, you'll have to keep reading the blog 

[DJP]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Indeed, because we're not abstract propagandists, we should be talking where more effective, and the route to socialism lies through the millions of voters who support labour.

Do we know that's true?I would have thought "conscious" but not affiliated to any party or ideology would be our best bet..I don't think we are faced with an either / or choice here anyway…

[Author]

Posts