twc
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Today our border collie met a tiger snake on the track, and instantly leapt over it without skipping a beat.
Then ensued a Mexican standoff: human on one side, dog on the other, and snake in the middle.
Bonnie had done for the snake what Hume did for Kant — she had roused it from its slumber.
The tense situation…
All three of us warily eyed the other, attentive to the slightest breakaway movement. Suddenly Bonnie, taking the initiative, sprang over the snake to my side, giving the semi-torpid reptile scant opportunity to strike. On a warmer day it might have been curtains for Bonnie.
After securing her, I approached the snake, iPhone camera in hand, to photograph it. What a superb reptile it is. The camera’s colour science doesn’t do justice to the tiger snake’s yellow underbelly and olive stripes.
On our return I reflected about how little time I would have had to get her to expert medical aid, while blaming myself all the while for stupidly risking her life late in a season when snakes were still likely to be active.
Never, for a moment, did I doubt the objectivity of the Mexican standoff. (I think I also speak for the animals, within the constraints of their consciousnesses.). Its outcome depended critically upon my respecting the external world as being reliably objective. To have dismissed the external world’s phenomenal objectivity as myth — as lBird recommends — would have been academic folly!
Now I have never [yet] been bitten by a snake, but I know what it’s like to be bitten by a venomous spider. In that instance the spider wasn’t a lethal funnel-web — a creature whose amazing fangs exceed a tiger snake’s!
Yet, such are the evolutionary quirks of animal toxins that our cat was immune to funnel-web bites. It regularly killed them and brought them to adorn our doormat! Through another evolutionary quirk of animal toxins, unlike the bandicoot family that lived in our backyard, our Puss was not immune to the bush ticks that periodically paralysed him.
If, as lBird insists, we created the natural world in a sense unmediated by a knowable external world, the question remains — how and why did we manage to ‘create’ such a wondrously complex natural world that compels us to take its objectivity seriously or else, in circumstances such as these, die in the denial?
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by
lBird — like the absolute moron he is — seriously asks “Who determines ‘Respect’, and how is it determined, according to you, twc?”
And thus we are commanded to vote upon …
- who determines the meaning of Respect, with a capital ‘R’, and
- who determines who gets Respect, with a capital ‘R’, and by implication,
- who doesn’t get any.
What a miserably cramped mind! What a husk of a human being! What a soulless world he looks forward to!
lBird, we know you want to force Truth, with a capital ‘T’, upon us, but for your own helpless benefit, chew on this …
Respect is involuntary. It is earned. It cannot be forced.
Respect flowers in normal human beings, much as the young Marx said of love, …
-
“If you love without evoking love in return—that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent — a misfortune.
- Our presentmisfortune is lBird’s presence.
- lBird’s misfortune is to lose every last skerrick of our Respect, with or without a capital ‘R’.
lBird’s latest charm offensive…
Anyone who refuses to sign up to his “democratic social productionism in science” must be a closet dictator.
Never forget.
On a previous charm offensive, lBird threatened to expose the SPGB as a closet dictatorship — a charming tactic, cognate to the psychological blackmail that “a true radical can’t possibly refuse to support the ‘democratic republic of <you-name-it>’.”
* * *
Given the circumstances, humans enthusiastically engage in collaborative activity.
- Experimental research in physics and astronomy is allocated a time share on expensive experimental equipment. The resulting scientific papers regularly parade a vast tribe of specialist authors. Theoretical research in physics and mathematics also regularly proceeds by collaborative teamwork.
- Volunteer science is an unsung social resource. It includes amateur astronomy, natural history, geology, mineralogy, palaeontological and archeological digs, specimen collection, preparation and cataloguing — often for no other recompense than the pleasure of personal achievement and contribution.
* * *
Here is a practical example of communal science in action. It is a collaboration between high-school students and mathematicians, attempting to replicate Isaac Newton’s 1665 computation of π to 16 digits precision, by the method outlined in post https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/gnostic-marxist/page/19/#post-215922
Take note lBird that the community never resorts to ‘democratically electing the Truth’. Instead it holds, with Marx, that “man must prove the truth … in practice”.
In this fun exercise, the community effort falls short of Isaac Newton’s achievement.
lBird might gain some respect for Newton’s towering intellect. Likewise for the towering intellect of Marx (whose achievement we will one day be able to discuss rationally as we do Newton’s).
Here’s the video… Communal science
ALB: is there a footnote somewhere [in Marx’s mathematical manuscripts] saying he thought he was elaborating a democratic proletarian calculus or that he proposed that it should be put to the vote?
No.
Marx understood that he was working in the tradition of those mathematicians he refers to in his correspondence to Engels of 22/11/1882 (given in your marxists.org link) namely, Newton, Leibnitz, d’Alembert, Euler and Lagrange.
The closest among them came to being a democrat must be Denis Diderot’s encyclopedia companion, Jean le Rond d’Alembert.
No.
Marx did not broadcast his manuscript to the world’s proletariat for universal ‘election of its Truth’.
Rather he sent a copy of his mathematical manuscript ‘On the Concept of the Derived Function’ to
- Frederick Engels, whose reply of 21/11/1882 shows that Engels understood and appreciated Marx’s method — and that appreciation informed his eulogy at Marx’s graveside: that Marx made original discoveries even in mathematics.
- Sam Moore who, from the substance of Marx’s letter of 22/11/1882, dismissed Marx’s work or, as Marx says, rather Moore ‘pushed it aside’ [= ignored it]
.
* * *
In passing, Marx’s first letter (in the marxists.org link) of 20/4/1865 flatly contradicts lBird’s ignorant hostility to Robert Owen.
The occasion of this letter was Marx’s writing of Value, Price and Profit for the First International in reply to a “good old fellow, an old Owenist” Citizen Weston.
The development of Marx’s political views was heavily influenced by Robert Owen, with his practical ‘materialist’ emphasis on providing kindergartens, crèches, education and upbringing for his workers — paternal, yes, but in capitalist terms a century ahead of his time — which is why Marx’s Thesis IV with its reference to “upbringing” (== “education” in German) is oblique critique and homage to Owen, a reference that Engels felt needed to be made explicit in the changed circumstances 40 years later.
No.
Sorry, Adam.
I just can’t find any reference to ‘electing the Truth’.
A practical refutation of everything that lBird pontificates, to his captive forum audience, about the natural and mathematical sciences in the name of Karl Marx!
- That natural science adopts an ‘elite’ scientific method that none of its cultist practitioners can explain to the majority of us.
- That mathematics is a pseudo language for a cabal of ‘elite’ scientists, adopted by physicists to obfuscate their esoteric mysteries and keep the majority of us in blind ignorance, as did the priests with medieval Latin.
- That open questions in physical and mathematical sciences can be decided by the majority of us using general scientific knowledge alone through a world-wide mechanism of ‘electing the Truth’.
(It is physically sickening for me to draw up this lBirdian catalogue of natural and mathematical scientific claims!)
Here is the video … Newton changed the game — the discovery that changed π. π by the founder of physics
On threads that you monopolise — that’s a sizeable fraction of threads — I only engage with what you write.
If you recall, you wrote some posts back that “I’ve been wanting to engage with twc” in lieu of actually engaging with twc, otherwise known as dodging what twc wrote.
Do you recall the occasion? If not, I can remind you.
Is it not unreasonable to request that you engage with what twc writes?
Engage on …
Never forget …
lBird propagates the view that “workers as a class will exist under socialism”. In his philosophical “socialism”, workers persist as the ruling “class” and capitalists persist as the ruled “class”.
Never forget.
For lBird, the “proletarian” class must preserve its social status as the “ruling” class by rooting out — lock, stock and barrel — the production of human thought by experts in all fields of specialist endeavour, research or practice, whether they be scientific or artistic.
Never forget.
For lBird, the “proletarian” class must deprive the “capitalist class” of its democratic rights in order to prevent “elite experts” — in particular, “bourgeois” scientists — from monopolising the production of human thought.
Otherwise, on lBird’s authority, “bourgeois” scientists will carry out terrifying experiments (à la the angel of death, Dr Josef Mengele) upon our “proletarian” bodies.
Never forget.
For lBird, “proletarians” must be generalists. Expert “proletarians” are forbidden lest they become “elitists”.
Never forget.
lBird denies the objectivity of the phenomenal world. Instead, he apprehends the phenomenal world — with Schopenhauer — as a mental representation.
Never forget.
lBird vehemently denies materialism.
Nevertheless, lBird discovers within his rich mental representation of the phenomenal world, the existence of other minds cohabiting a society of social classes, and then discovers/hopes that those other minds belonging to his own social class happen to agree with him in their representation of the world.
LBird then bases the triumph of socialism on his own class’s collective mental representation of the phenomenal world as being infallible in a general, not in an expert, sense.
Therein lies the wanted objectivity of lBird’s idealist representation of the phenomenal world — an idealism he attributes to Marx!
Never forget.
lBird denies materialism,
Nevertheless, lBird discovers, within his rich mental representation of the phenomenal world, the historical process of social construction.
But lBird is ignorant of idealist social construction’s only possible objective foundation in Hegel’s objektiver Geist.
Bereft of Hegel’s idealist motive force, lBird’s social constructionism remains stuck in a vicious circle of thought begetting thought, scarcely distinguishable from the vicious circle of idealist pop post-modernism.
Never forget.
In such a philosophical muddle, lBird absolutely needs to rescue social control over the social production of idealist “thought”. He absolutely must advocate a regime of each surveilling the mental representation of each.
Never forget.
lBird’s adventures in social philosophy have given birth to a monster — the reign of compulsory thought policing.
Never forget.
To us, the fellow’s views are insane.
- Whereas you claim to be “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” of Marx’s method of “arguing in favour of electing the Truth”
- Whereas you have been staking a claim on a Marxian original for nearly a decade…
… it is incumbent upon you to copy out, for our enlightenment, your oft-claimed Marxian original.
If you refuse to do so, you expose yourself as a coward.
If you can’t follow through on your claim, you convict yourself as a charlatan.Hic Rhodus!
lBird says he not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by plebiscite.
Are we to infer that he is “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by referendum?
By way of explanation…
The Australian government, since Federation, has held 19 referenda (on 44 proposals) and three plebiscites, and the Australian states hold their own referenda.
What’s the technical difference?
- referendum — a binding ballot. A proposal passes into law upon majority affirmation.
- plebiscite — a non-binding, or ‘advisory’, referendum.
Naturally, Australian governments frame their proposals politically, subject to the statutory requirement for a majority vote in a majority of states. The technicalities of determining a majority expose proposals to defeat by concerted opposition, particularly if they are opposed by the proposing majority government, as in the case of the 1999 Australian Republic Referendum.
Perhaps, lBird is not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by either referendum or plebiscite, i.e., not by universal franchise.
Maybe, instead, lBird is “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by limited franchise, e.g., by interested or qualified electors only.
Alternatively, lBird may be “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by statistical sampling along the lines employed by Gallup.
Whatever the case, after countless years of “arguing for electing the Truth”, lBird should finally show us — his long-suffering readers — the courtesy of enlightening us, who hang upon his pronouncements with bated breath, just what unbelievably ultra-democratic method for “electing the Truth” he is actually “arguing in favour of”.
lBird says he not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by plebiscite.
Are we to infer that he is “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by referendum?
By way of explanation…
The Australian government, since Federation, has held 19 referenda (on 44 proposals) and three plebiscites, and the Australian states hold their own referenda. What’s the technical difference?
- referendum — a binding ballot. A proposal passes into law upon a majority of YES votes.
- plebiscite — a non-binding, or ‘advisory’, referendum.
Governments frame their proposals politically, subject to the statutory requirement for a majority vote in a majority of states.
This requirement leaves proposals vulnerable to defeat by concerted opposition, particularly if they are opposed by the proposing majority government, as in the case of the 1999 Australian Republic Referendum.Perhaps, lBird is not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by either referendum or by plebiscite, i.e., not by universal franchise.
Maybe, instead, lBird is “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by limited franchise, e.g., by interested or qualified electors only.
Alternatively, lBird may be “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by statistical sampling along the lines employed by Gallup.
Whatever the case, after countless years of “arguing for electing the Truth”, lBird should show us — his long-suffering readers — the courtesy of enlightening us, who hang upon his pronouncements with bated breath, just what incredibly ultra-democratic method for “electing the Truth” he is actually “arguing in favour of”.
lBird says he not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by plebiscite.
Are we supposed to infer that he is instead “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by referendum?
By way of explanation…
The Australian government, since Federation, has held 19 referenda (on 44 proposals) and three plebiscites, and the Australian states hold their own referenda. What’s the technical difference?
- referendum — a binding ballot. A proposal passes into law upon majority affirmation.
- plebiscite — a non-binding, or purely ‘advisory’, referendum.
Naturally, Australian governments always frame their proposals politically subject to the statutory requirement for a majority vote in a majority of states. This requirement naturally leaves proposals vulnerable to defeat by concerted opposition, particularly if they are opposed by the proposing majority government, as in the case of the 1999 Australian Republic Referendum.
Perhaps, lBird is not “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by either referendum or plebiscite, i.e., not by universal franchise.
Perhaps he is instead “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by limited franchise, e.g., by interested or qualified electors only.
Alternatively, maybe lBird is “arguing in favour of electing the Truth” by statistical sampling along the lines employed by the trusted Gallup.
In whatever case, after countless years of “arguing for electing the Truth”, lBird should finally show us — his long-suffering readers — the courtesy of enlightening us, who hang upon his pronouncements with bated breath, exactly what incredibly super democratic method of “electing the Truth” he is actually “arguing in favour of”.
Philosophical idealists rarely prove capable of consistent idealism.
Here is lBird unconsciously lapsing into the “materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing”:
- “socio-historical circumstances (Liverpool being port city with intensely close contact for thousands with American 50s music development, together with the general prosperity post-war, better education beyond 14, more free time to think for many workers, and widespread music scene).”
Against his will, his idealist interpretation of Marx’s Thesis IV “divides society into two parts, one of which is superior to society” and — consistently — forces him to choose:
- “great men with genius inspiration (a few, very unusual, musical lads, ‘elite art school’ attenders)”.
An incautious lapse into materialist synthetic thought exposes the shameless insincerity of lBird’s elitism slanders against the SPGB, its members, its Object and its Declaration of Principles.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by
