"Objective Reality"
Dan Clore
quotations, that "Anyone who wishes to will be able to
extend this list of quotations indefinitely." I've extended
the list accordingly. All source texts can be found easily
with google searches, so I haven't bothered to document
them.
As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
Following the path of this theory, we will approach the
objective truth more and more closely, while if we follow
any other path we cannot arrive at anything except confusion
and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of one
piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic
premise, a single essential part, without deviating from
objective truth, without falling into the arms of
bourgeois-reactionary falsehood."
And Lenin again: "The criterion of practice, i.e., the
course of development of all capitalist countries in the
last few decades, proves only the objective truth of Marx�s
_whole_ social and economic theory in general, and not
merely of one or another of its parts, formulations, etc.;
it is clear that to talk here of the 'dogmatism' of the
Marxists is to make an unpardonable concession to bourgeois
economics. The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion
held by Marxists that Marx�s theory is an objective truth is
that by following the _path_ of Marxian theory, we shall
draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever
exhausting it); but by following _any other path_ we shall
arrive at nothing but confusion and lies."
As Trotsky said: "We call our dialectic materialist, since
its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our
'free will', but in objective reality, in nature."
As Stalin said: "Contrary to idealism, which asserts that
only our consciousness really exists, and that the material
world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in
our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist
philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being,
is an objective reality existing outside and independent of
our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the
source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that
consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a
reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is
a product of matter which in its development has reached a
high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the
brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot
separate thought from matter without committing a grave
error."
And Stalin again: "Contrary to idealism, which denies the
possibility of knowing the world and its laws, which does
not believe in the authenticity of our knowledge, does not
recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is full
of 'things-in-themselves' that can never be known to
science, Marxist philosophical materialism holds that the
world and its laws are fully knowable, that our knowledge of
the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is
authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth,
and that there are no things in the world which are
unknowable, but only things which are as yet not known, but
which will be disclosed and made known by the efforts of
science and practice."
And Stalin again: "Lenin defends the well-known materialist
thesis of which our scientific knowledge of the laws of
nature is authentic knowledge, and the laws of science
represents objective truth. Hence the sciences of the
history of society, despite all the complexity of the
phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as
biology and capable of making use of the law of development
of society for practical purposes."
As Mao said: "Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin have taught us
that it is necessary to study conditions conscientiously and
to proceed from objective reality and not from subjective
wishes; but many of our comrades act in direct violation of
this truth."
And Mao again: "We are Marxists, and Marxism teaches that in
our approach to a problem we should start from objective
facts, not from abstract definitions, and that we should
derive our guiding principles, policies and measures from an
analysis of these facts."
As Enver Hoxha said: "What does the experience, what does
the life show? The experience and life both before and after
1955 show that in the assessment of the Yugoslav question
Stalin and the Information Bureau were right, because their
assessment rested on objective facts, on the teachings of
Marxism-Leninism. The experience and the practical life, on
the other hand, show that in their stand towards Tito's
revisionist clique N. Khrushchev and those who follow him
are not right, because their actions are based on subjective
viewpoints and are contrary to the teachings of
Marxism-Leninism, contrary to the objective reality."
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Zerkon
> objective truth
"When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went
to each of them and said to each: 'Well, blind man, have you seen the
elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?"
tooly
> I said before, when presenting a few of the following
> quotations, that "Anyone who wishes to will be able to
> extend this list of quotations indefinitely." I've extended
> the list accordingly. All source texts can be found easily
> with google searches, so I haven't bothered to document
> them.
>
> As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
> Following the path of this theory, we will approach the
> objective truth more and more closely, while if we follow
> any other path we cannot arrive at anything except confusion
> and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of one
> piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic
> premise, a single essential part, without deviating from
> objective truth, without falling into the arms of
> bourgeois-reactionary falsehood."
>
> And Lenin again: "The criterion of practice, i.e., the
> course of development of all capitalist countries in the
> _whole_ social and economic theory in general, and not
> merely of one or another of its parts, formulations, etc.;
> it is clear that to talk here of the 'dogmatism' of the
> Marxists is to make an unpardonable concession to bourgeois
> economics. The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
One thing to consider is the possibility that 'objective reality' is
really the annihilation of all human idealism. This might mesh well
with the materialism of marxism, but leaves humanity with only the
chaos of jungle law as it's essential 'objective reality', serving
only the nihilist cause. In constrast, Civilization might be homo
sapien's flight from such chaos, and it's creation of this thing we
call 'HUMAN' and the condtions under which it might thrive as
something 'better'.
Whatever the case, Marxism is a profound evil, that does not seek
utopian existence, but rather the rule of intellectualism over what it
sees as the ignorance of the masses. It's promise is a totaltarian
state and little else. Besides, it seeks to destroy the family unit.
Even many communists find that unpalatable.
Michael Coburn
The "one thing to consider" is that reality is actually not going to
change because a human bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevs that reality isn't
real. 'objective reality' is to be dealt with as opposed to being
"wished away". This "dealing with reality" is a far cry from both
"jungle law" and "nihilism". So there is no "contrast" between Marxism
and civilization's desire to rise above the dictates of nature.
> Whatever the case, Marxism is a profound evil,
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> that does not seek
> utopian existence, but rather the rule of intellectualism over what it
> sees as the ignorance of the masses.
Marxism does, in fact, seek the rise of intellectualism over superstition
and abject stupidity. To couch this in the terms of authoritarianism is
a convenient lie using the Boogerman of Stalinism.
> It's promise is a totaltarian
> state and little else.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Besides, it seeks to destroy the family unit.
> Even many communists find that unpalatable.
The rightarded will forever sling the commie paint brush and raise the
"family" as the most sacred of all institutions. The family is a "good"
in the mind of most people who claim to understand Marx. But those who
understand the true meaning behind "tragedy of the commons" will also
understand the limitation of "family values" as well as the limitations
of organized religion.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
John Stafford
> As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
> Following the path of this theory, we will approach the
> objective truth more and more closely, while if we follow
> any other path we cannot arrive at anything except confusion
> and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of one
> piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic
> premise, a single essential part, without deviating from
> objective truth, without falling into the arms of
> bourgeois-reactionary falsehood."
That's Rand stripped down to Communist core.
James A. Donald
> As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
This a redefinition of objective truth.
The "objective truth" of Marx and Lenin is not
discovered by means of the senses. It is not the
reality that bangs your head when you walk around with
your eyes closed.
Rather, a Marxist considers the kind of things that bang
your head when you walk around with your eyes closed are
evil plots by capital, which will go away if the Marxist
punishes enough people with sufficient severity. What a
Marxist calls "Material reality" is not bricks and
stones, rather it is a product of dialectics.
The Marxist asserts that it is possible to see and touch
the product of dialectics, but if what is seen and
touched differs from what it should be, then that is a
problem for which someone needs to be punished, rather
than reason to re-evaluate one's dialectics, for the
problem will go away with punishments of sufficient
severity.
dorayme
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:08:06 -0800, Dan Clore
> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> > As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
>
> This a redefinition of objective truth.
Hardly. It is a simple claim that it is true and that it can be shown to
be so in an objective manner. Marx (but Lenin in particular) were not
very good *philosophers*.
--
dorayme
*Anarcissie*
All that seems like par for the course for
those who are hot about objective reality.
The product of the senses does not give
us objective reality; they have to be
interpreted, and the senses are subject to
illusion. This is one of the reasons science
is never finished. However, a particular
interpretation of the senses can be insisted
upon by those who have power, whereupon
it becomes the absolute truth.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> Whatever the case, Marxism is a profound evil, that does not seek
> utopian existence, but rather the rule of intellectualism over what it
> sees as the ignorance of the masses. It's promise is a totaltarian
> state and little else. Besides, it seeks to destroy the family unit.
> Even many communists find that unpalatable.
I'm curious as to where you find all that in Marx.
Or are you talking about Marxists generally? If
so, which ones in particular?
James A. Donald
> All that seems like par for the course for those who
> are hot about objective reality.
>
> The product of the senses does not give us objective
> reality; they have to be interpreted,
The senses do give us objective reality, or rather a
large part of it, though the objective reality we are
interested in has to be inferred by interpreting the
part of objective reality we have direct information
about.
Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters off
other material things, and enters the head through the
clear windows of the eyes, landing on the retina, which
is an exposed surface of the brain
This gives us real, but shifting and two dimensional
patterns of light. Similarly for the objective reality
of the impact that happens when one bangs into a thing.
Suppose, however, our method for deducing stable three
dimensional things from the shifting and two dimensional
light scattered from those things was wrong. We would
find out swiftly, because we would bang into those
things.
Thus we can readily verify the validity of our
interpretations.
Marxism ignores our ability to verify the validity
of our interpretations, thus licensing the Marxist to
believe whatever he pleases.
Monsieur Turtoni
>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Truck driver thinks we're all created equal. Which is why they pay the
same rate for spinal stenosis and running weed through Canada. Call me
psychic.
Michael Gordge
> Marxism ignores our ability to verify the validity
> of our interpretations, thus licensing the Marxist to
> believe whatever he pleases.
Meaning the athiest Marxist / socialist is an accident / a coincidence
and not a consequence of anything in Marxist / socialist philosophy.
MG
bigfl...@gmail.com
Objective lable "Marx".
Subjective trigger to many being idealism.
For me, the subjective response is "Groucho"....but I didnt have to
live through a pogrom or live in a gulag.
Who dictates your reality?
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:11:17 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > All that seems like par for the course for those who
> > are hot about objective reality.
>
> > The product of the senses does not give us objective
> > reality; they have to be interpreted,
>
> The senses do give us objective reality, or rather a
> large part of it, though the objective reality we are
> interested in has to be inferred by interpreting the
> part of objective reality we have direct information
> about.
>
> Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters off
> other material things, and enters the head through the
> clear windows of the eyes, landing on the retina, which
> is an exposed surface of the brain
>
Fact is, the energy you describe only becomes light 'in' the brain(as
with sound).
This realization canges ones understanding of reality at a most
profound level, and 'illuminates' the recognition of the reality of
the subjective view.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
Co(lliding)incidents, dont happen by coincidence, but are creations of
people at similar levels of perception, so they can spend eons arguing
who has the correct view, and even fight over it 'to the death'.
BOfL
Jerry Okamura
you can possibly have, you would not want to have a socialist system.
People who want to be free, don't want the "system" to take care of them,
they would prefer to take care of themselves.
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:7pefiq...@mid.individual.net...
*Anarcissie*
We would bang into things like the leg of
an elephant, and call it a tree. But as long
as we kept clear of the "trees", we would be
more or less all right.
I haven't encountered any Marxists whose
views of the relation between the testimony of
the senses and the physical universe were all
that much different from anybody else's. The
statements by Lenin and company posted at
the beginning of this thread, however, seem
rather religious; the poetry about Marxist
thought being cast from a single piece of
steel was particularly entertaining (since I
am well out of Lenin's reach).
Authoritarians are especially fond of
absolute, objective reality because it is
their basis for ordering everyone about.
Michael Coburn
> Way too complicated. It is really simple. If you want as much freedom
> as you can possibly have, you would not want to have a socialist system.
> People who want to be free, don't want the "system" to take care of
> them, they would prefer to take care of themselves.
Such people, who refuse to acknowledge the concepts of division and
specialization of land and labor, and the constructs of social laws are
called morons.
> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> news:7pefiq...@mid.individual.net...
>>I said before, when presenting a few of the following
>> quotations, that "Anyone who wishes to will be able to extend this list
>> of quotations indefinitely." I've extended the list accordingly. All
>> source texts can be found easily with google searches, so I haven't
>> bothered to document them.
>>
>> As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth. Following the
>> path of this theory, we will approach the objective truth more and more
>> closely, while if we follow any other path we cannot arrive at anything
>> except confusion and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of
>> one piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic premise,
>> a single essential part, without deviating from objective truth,
>> without falling into the arms of bourgeois-reactionary falsehood."
>>
>> And Lenin again: "The criterion of practice, i.e., the course of
>> development of all capitalist countries in the last few decades, proves
>> only the objective truth of Marx’s _whole_ social and economic theory
>> in general, and not merely of one or another of its parts,
>> formulations, etc.; it is clear that to talk here of the 'dogmatism' of
>> the Marxists is to make an unpardonable concession to bourgeois
>> economics. The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion held by
>> Marxists that Marx’s theory is an objective truth is that by following
>> edition: http://hplmythos.com/ ) Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
>> http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
>> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>>
>> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the immarcescible purple
>> of poetry before the color-blind. -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and
>> Apothegms"
--
Monsieur Turtoni
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:35:09 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > Way too complicated. It is really simple. If you want as much freedom
> > as you can possibly have, you would not want to have a socialist system.
> > People who want to be free, don't want the "system" to take care of
> > them, they would prefer to take care of themselves.
>
> Such people, who refuse to acknowledge the concepts of division and
> specialization of land and labor, and the constructs of social laws are
> called morons.
"Through our freedom, particular self-governing capabilities can be
installed in order to bring our own ways of conducting and evaluating
ourselves into alignment with political objectives [Rose, 1996:155].
These capabilities are enterprise and autonomy. Enterprise here
designates an array of rules for the conduct of one’s everyday
existence: energy, initiative, ambition, calculation, and personal
responsibility. The enterprising self will make an enterprise of its
life, seek to maximize its own human capital, project itself a future,
and seek to shape life in order to become what it wishes to be. The
enterprising self is thus both an active self and a calculating self,
a self that calculates about itself and that acts upon itself in order
to better itself [Rose, 1996:154]. Autonomy is about taking control of
our undertakings, defining our goals, and planning to achieve our
needs through our own powers [Rose, 1996:159]. The autonomy of the
self is thus not the eternal antithesis of political power, but one of
the objectives and instruments of modern mentalities for the conduct
of conduct [Rose, 1996:155]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmentality#Self-governing_capabilities
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters
> > off other material things, and enters the head
> > through the clear windows of the eyes, landing on
> > the retina, which is an exposed surface of the brain
> Fact is, the energy you describe only becomes light
> 'in' the brain(as with sound).
You have it the wrong way around. It is light,
illumination, the real thing, the thing in itself, until
it hits the brain, and only then does the mind make from
it an idea.
Touch the loudspeaker with your finger, and feel the
bass beat as you hear it. That is the thing in itself,
the real thing entering the body through two paths, and
itself impacting the brain.
And from our direct access to some real things, we can
deduce truths about other real things that those have
interacted with, as the light scattered off objects.
In the cave of our skulls, we are not limited to shadows
on the walls, but can look out through the windows, and
reach out and touch. Our models of reality are ultimately
tested by not bumping our head into things.
Rod Speed
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:35:09 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> Way too complicated. It is really simple. If you want as much
>> freedom as you can possibly have, you would not want to have a
>> socialist system. People who want to be free, don't want the
>> "system" to take care of them, they would prefer to take care of
>> themselves.
>
> Such people, who refuse to acknowledge the concepts of division and
> specialization of land and labor, and the constructs of social laws
> are called morons.
And even that fool isnt actually stupid enough to try doing his own heart bypass, unfortunately.
>>> new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ ) Lord We�rdgliffe &
James A. Donald
> We would bang into things like the leg of an elephant,
> and call it a tree.
If we were blind, and if we jumped to conclusions
without further ado, we would call the leg of the
elephant a tree. If, however, our blind man keeps poking
around, as Marxists conspicuously fail to do, he will
very shortly discover the rest of the elephant.
> I haven't encountered any Marxists whose views of the
> relation between the testimony of the senses and the
> physical universe were all that much different from
> anybody else's.
Trotsky:
"One cannot be right against the party.
One can only be right with the party."
Ho Chi Minh:
"Truth is what is beneficial to the fatherland and
the people. What is detrimental to the interests of
the fatherland and the people is not truth "
Lenin said much the same, though in a considerably more
long winded manner.
Stalin did not say anything as pithily quotable as the
above, though he probably co authored Trotsky's words
above.
> The statements by Lenin and company posted at the
> beginning of this thread, however, seem rather
> religious; the poetry about Marxist thought being cast
> from a single piece of steel was particularly
> entertaining
If it is cast from a single piece of steel, it is not
tested against observation, and indeed, is impervious to
observation - hence the propensity of Marxists to
discredit the senses.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Co(lliding)incidents, dont happen by coincidence, but are creations of
> people at similar levels of perception,
Wrong, athiesm and the mystical god crap are hardly "similar levels"
of perception, whereas Marxism / socialism and the mystical god crap
are. The athiest Marxist / socialist is not athiest as a consequence
of anything found in Marxism and religionism, therefore the athiest
Marxist / socialist is a coincidence.
MG
Rockinghorse Winner
Funny how Hegelian dialectic was usurped by both Communism and national
Socialism, and the end result was a miniature Armageddon. Has any philosopy
of man ever produced so much evil as Objective Idealism?
--
Powered by Linux 2.6.31.6-166 Fedora 12
In rotation: Pacific Ocean Blue (D. Wilson) 2.6.31.5-0.1 OpenSUSE
"Hug your cat today" 2.6.24-16 Mint Elyssa
*Anarcissie*
I doubt if it can be shown that any philosophy
produces anything beyond talk and some warm
chairs in academia.
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I doubt if it can be shown that any philosophy
> produces anything beyond talk and some warm
> chairs in academia.
Philosophy killed a hundred million or so during the twentieth
century.
Today, in the twenty first century, a discussion that ultimately boils
down to "what is science, what is truth" will resolve whether we
destroy our economy and create a world quasi government to control
everyone's carbon usage.
Rod Speed
You wouldnt know what a real world govt was if one bit you on your lard arse.
And we wont see anything like that anyway, you watch.
Rod Speed
> Way too complicated. It is really simple.
Nope.
> If you want as much freedom as you can possibly have, you would not want to have a socialist system.
EVERY system is socialist to some extent, even HongKong before
it was handed back to china was, and so is Somalia right now, if
only because EVERY system has at least some public education
and often a govt post office, judicial system, police etc.
And only a fool like you would actually be stupid enough to claim that
you have more freedom when there is no judicial system and no cops.
> People who want to be free, don't want the "system" to take care of them, they would prefer to take care of
> themselves.
Didnt realise you did your own heart bypass doing the surgery yourself.
> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> news:7pefiq...@mid.individual.net...
>> I said before, when presenting a few of the following
>> quotations, that "Anyone who wishes to will be able to
>> extend this list of quotations indefinitely." I've extended
>> the list accordingly. All source texts can be found easily
>> with google searches, so I haven't bothered to document
>> them.
>>
>> As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
>> Following the path of this theory, we will approach the
>> objective truth more and more closely, while if we follow
>> any other path we cannot arrive at anything except confusion
>> and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of one
>> piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic
>> premise, a single essential part, without deviating from
>> objective truth, without falling into the arms of
>> bourgeois-reactionary falsehood."
>>
>> And Lenin again: "The criterion of practice, i.e., the
>> course of development of all capitalist countries in the
>> last few decades, proves only the objective truth of Marx�s
>> _whole_ social and economic theory in general, and not
>> merely of one or another of its parts, formulations, etc.;
>> it is clear that to talk here of the 'dogmatism' of the
>> Marxists is to make an unpardonable concession to bourgeois
>> economics. The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion
>> held by Marxists that Marx�s theory is an objective truth is
>> Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
bigfl...@gmail.com
> --
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters
> > > off other material things, and enters the head
> > > through the clear windows of the eyes, landing on
> > > the retina, which is an exposed surface of the brain
>
>
> > Fact is, the energy you describe only becomes light
> > 'in' the brain(as with sound).
>
> You have it the wrong way around. It is light,
> illumination, the real thing, the thing in itself, until
> it hits the brain, and only then does the mind make from
> it an idea.
>
> Touch the loudspeaker with your finger, and feel the
> bass beat as you hear it.
You are confirming my point. Without ears, you detect vibration in a
sympathetic medium.
Regarding light, where else are their rods and cones that convert the
energy into light, other than in biologicaly independent creatures?
This 'thing in itself'...only when it has been processed by our
sympathetic processors.
After a few decades of contemplating such questions,for me, this was
the great irony, otherwise known as a light bulb moment. It just didnt
occur to me until recently.
In the beginning was the light, could be associated with 'the
beginning ' as also a brain creation.We do like to 'create' even about
creation.
BOfL
tooly
Experience, observation, reading, history...mainly history.
But I read history from a western perspective that defined communism
as an evil and enemy of the west. Marxism was successful in
conquering over a billion people almost overnight, so one must realize
there is something very potent to it...and socialism is a profound
inticement to anyone who is NOT independently wealthy. So, even to
read of it as an objectiver observer, I think it is necessary to
become armed with history and the truth of it's design as not a means
to social justice, but more as a centralization of power and a means
of intellectual rule [and ultimate enslavement] of those masses. It's
really the same madness that infected Josef Mengele; where objective
rationality is taken to levels of alienation from humanity [ha, even
as it argues such humane promise...see, quite insidous].
BTW, objective reality has been discussed many times on this NG and
consensus is that it can never be KNOWN, but only approached. What we
do know is our 'perception', which may or may not be aligned with that
objective reality. The more we know, the more we can become better
aligned with such objective reality. I think it goes something like
that anyway.
bigfl...@gmail.com
our brains,but what we create with it, is what quantum reality is all
about,inferring of course,creative capacity.
We first have an 'objective view' of a particular object. Use a gold
nugget as an example. What does it represent? Wealth, security, status
and if you have acquired enough of them, power. All 'subjective'
creations and are effective because of the shared perceptions of
perceived value, and if someone is not responsive, either impressed of
repulsed, the 'object' loses its power (subjectively created of
course).
If you go to the most fundamental,all of the above, brain, sound light
mineral AND perceptions, consist of vibrating energy (Hadron
confirmed).
Of course, it is not then such a great leap to see how the
metaphysical laws work, such as esp plus a dozen or so others.Just the
same energies at different vibratory rates
People have read auras, for example, for centuries, but it is only
fairly recently can we photograph those energies with various
instruments, confirming a wider spectrum of observation those
visionaries have/had.
The next stage of traditional science is destined to enter what we
consider today, meta science, with expected resistance from the vested
interest lobby.
Perhaps one great irony, at least from a health/sickness pov,is the
cost is becoming so prohibitive, that more reliance on such meta
resolutions may come about, and they will be subject to
epistemological scrutiny required by the traditionalists.
BOfL
*Anarcissie*
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:51:00 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > I doubt if it can be shown that any philosophy
> > produces anything beyond talk and some warm
> > chairs in academia.
>
> Philosophy killed a hundred million or so during the twentieth
> century.
I don't think so. People were killing one another
in large numbers before philosophy was ever
thought of and have continued to do so after
the invention of philosophy. So philosophy is
not a relevant variable.
Hume was right.
3877
> On Dec 23, 8:16 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 12:21 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Whatever the case, Marxism is a profound evil, that does not seek
>>> utopian existence, but rather the rule of intellectualism over what
>>> it sees as the ignorance of the masses. It's promise is a
>>> totaltarian state and little else. Besides, it seeks to destroy the
>>> family unit. Even many communists find that unpalatable.
>>
>> I'm curious as to where you find all that in Marx.
>> Or are you talking about Marxists generally? If
>> so, which ones in particular?
>
> Experience, observation, reading, history...mainly history.
> But I read history from a western perspective that defined communism
> as an evil and enemy of the west. Marxism was successful in
> conquering over a billion people almost overnight,
No it did not. The absolute vast bulk of those just went along with what
was outside their control, they did not even consider it rationally at all.
A few did, most obviously some like Burgess, McClain etc but not very many at all.
so one must realize
> there is something very potent to it...
Nope, just that once mass movements get going, they can achieve a hell of a momentum.
and socialism is a profound
> inticement to anyone who is NOT independently wealthy.
That is just plain wrong too with the most basic socialism like public
education, the police and the judicial system and the military.
So, even to
> read of it as an objectiver observer, I think it is necessary to
> become armed with history and the truth of it's design as not a means
> to social justice, but more as a centralization of power and a means
> of intellectual rule [and ultimate enslavement] of those masses.
It is very arguable whether Marx and Engles etc were driven by that.
Lenin and Mao certainly. Stalin was more just a complete
arsehole that was only really interested in raw power.
It's
> really the same madness that infected Josef Mengele; where objective
> rationality is taken to levels of alienation from humanity [ha, even
> as it argues such humane promise...see, quite insidous].
Not with Marx and Engles it was not.
> BTW, objective reality has been discussed many times on this NG and
> consensus is that it can never be KNOWN, but only approached.
It is never about consensus.
What we
> do know is our 'perception', which may or may not be aligned with that
> objective reality.
The objective reality that our planet orbits around a damned great fusion
reactor has nothing to do with perception.
The more we know, the more we can become better
> aligned with such objective reality. I think it goes something like
> that anyway.
No it does not.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Not only does light and sound not exist in such form other than within
> our brains,
Just like god huh? fucking Kantian idiot.
MG
James A. Donald
> > Philosophy killed a hundred million or so during the twentieth
> > century.
"*Anarcissie*"
> I don't think so. People were killing one another
> in large numbers before philosophy was ever
> thought of and have continued to do
The wars and democides of the twentieth century were extraordinary and
exceptional. Among peoples who have written history, so that we may
know their motives, the only comparable slaughters have been holy
wars, which have much in common with the twentieth century democides.
James A. Donald
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding light, where else are their rods and cones that convert the
> energy into light, other than in biologicaly independent creatures?
Light is light. It is real, it is outside us. It is what comes from
the sun and from light bulbs. It is still there when no one sees it.
What the rods and cones do is convert light into qualia, sensation,
the impact of light on our brains, which are then converted into
instances of concepts.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie wrote
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>>> Philosophy killed a hundred million or so during the twentieth century.
>> I don't think so. People were killing one another
>> in large numbers before philosophy was ever
>> thought of and have continued to do
> The wars and democides of the twentieth century were extraordinary and exceptional.
Yes, but that was mostly because the industrialisation of war made that possible.
> Among peoples who have written history, so that we may know
> their motives, the only comparable slaughters have been holy wars,
That is just plain wrong, most obviously with the mongols.
> which have much in common with the twentieth century democides.
Very little in fact.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:04:45 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> Yes, but that was mostly because the industrialisation of war made that possible.
Pol Pot generally had people killed by hitting them with sticks,
impaling them with blunt objects, or crucifying them by tying them to
trees, which is impressively pre-industrial.
Pol Pot's killings were stone age technology motivated by the ideas of
late twentieth century academia. Therefore, it was the ideas of
academia that made the difference.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Philosophy killed a hundred million or so during the twentieth century.
>>>> I don't think so. People were killing one another
>>>> in large numbers before philosophy was ever
>>>> thought of and have continued to do
>>> The wars and democides of the twentieth century were extraordinary and exceptional.
>>> The wars and democides of the twentieth century were extraordinary and exceptional.
>> Yes, but that was mostly because the industrialisation of war made that possible.
> Pol Pot generally had people killed by hitting them with sticks,
> impaling them with blunt objects, or crucifying them by tying
> them to trees, which is impressively pre-industrial.
I had the word MOSTLY there for a reason.
> Pol Pot's killings were stone age technology motivated
> by the ideas of late twentieth century academia.
Yes, but those Pol Pot had killed was only a small part of those killed during the 20th century.
> Therefore, it was the ideas of academia that made the difference.
Yes, but those Pol Pot had killed was only a small part of those killed during the 20th century.
Anarcissie
<96iaj55fphdvsv7hh...@4ax.com>,
Religions and philosophies are similar in that in both
cases, people make up a lot of fables and then use
them as excuses to kill, torture, imprison and rob one
another. But they don't really need the fables and in
any case the supply of fables is virtually infinite.
They have been doing so throughout recorded history
and as far as we can guess, before.
More people were killed in the 20th century because
there were more people around to kill, and some new
technologies as well. For example, the business in
Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio. Pol
Pot made large piles of skulls, but then so did
Attila the Hun (according to Gibbon).
If you want to prove that philosophy actually does
anything, you've got your work cut out for you, I'd
say. I mean besides the aforesaid keeping warm of
chairs in philosophy departments.
James A. Donald
> > The wars and democides of the twentieth century were
> > extraordinary and exceptional. Among peoples who
> > have written history, so that we may know their
> > motives, the only comparable slaughters have been
> > holy wars, which have much in common with the
> > twentieth century democides.
Anarcissie
> Religions and philosophies are similar in that in both
> cases, people make up a lot of fables and then use
> them as excuses to kill, torture, imprison and rob one
> another. But they don't really need the fables and in
> any case the supply of fables is virtually infinite.
The murders the communists committed were undeniably
motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
No one was more saintly than Pol Pot. The Soviet
commissar that held the kulak's child in the fire till
the mother revealed where the seed corn was buried was
apt to find himself in due course summoned to Moscow to
himself face torture and death, and obediently and
faithfully went.
> More people were killed in the 20th century because
> there were more people around to kill, and some new
> technologies as well. For example, the business in
> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
Oh come on. You think they went to kill their neighbors
because of some guy on the radio?
They killed their neighbors because of modern western
ideology.
There are large differences between the races in Rwanda.
The Tutsi are genetically superior to the two other
races, which in the pre-colonial period led to them
aristocratically ruling. Modern ideology taught the
more primitive races that they were equal. They got the
vote, they got affirmative action, they got preference
in government jobs and education, they got educational
degrees and job titles that testified to their equality,
the police and courts were on their side, yet strangely,
despite all that, they remained inferior. They
concluded more drastic measures were required, that the
Tutsi, merely by existing, oppressed the other races,
and that this outrage must be ended.
> Pol Pot made large piles of skulls, but then so did
> Attila the Hun (according to Gibbon).
Attila made piles of skulls in wartime, Pol Pot in
peacetime. All is fair in war.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie
>>> The wars and democides of the twentieth century were
>>> extraordinary and exceptional. Among peoples who
>>> have written history, so that we may know their
>>> motives, the only comparable slaughters have been
>>> holy wars, which have much in common with the
>>> twentieth century democides.
>> Religions and philosophies are similar in that in both
>> cases, people make up a lot of fables and then use
>> them as excuses to kill, torture, imprison and rob one
>> another. But they don't really need the fables and in
>> any case the supply of fables is virtually infinite.
> The murders the communists committed were undeniably
> motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
> merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
> make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
Yes.
> No one was more saintly than Pol Pot.
You wouldnt know what a real saint was if one bit you on your lard arse.
> The Soviet commissar that held the kulak's child in the fire till
> the mother revealed where the seed corn was buried was apt
> to find himself in due course summoned to Moscow to himself
> face torture and death, and obediently and faithfully went.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
>> More people were killed in the 20th century because
>> there were more people around to kill, and some new
>> technologies as well. For example, the business in
>> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
> Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
> neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
They were certainly revved up by the radio, fuckwit.
> They killed their neighbors because of modern western ideology.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> There are large differences between the races in Rwanda.
> The Tutsi are genetically superior to the two other races,
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
> which in the pre-colonial period led to them aristocratically ruling.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
> Modern ideology taught the more primitive races that they were equal.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
> They got the vote, they got affirmative action, they got preference
> in government jobs and education, they got educational degrees
> and job titles that testified to their equality, the police and courts
> were on their side, yet strangely, despite all that, they remained inferior.
Just like the non whites in the US eh, you flagrantly racist fucking arsehole ?
> They concluded more drastic measures were required,
> that the Tutsi, merely by existing, oppressed the other
> races, and that this outrage must be ended.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
>> Pol Pot made large piles of skulls, but then so did Attila the Hun (according to Gibbon).
> Attila made piles of skulls in wartime,
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
> Pol Pot in peacetime.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
> All is fair in war.
Thats what Adolf claimed as he killed all those jews and slavs, arsehole.
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > > The wars and democides of the twentieth century were
> > > extraordinary and exceptional. Among peoples who
> > > have written history, so that we may know their
> > > motives, the only comparable slaughters have been
> > > holy wars, which have much in common with the
> > > twentieth century democides.
>
> Anarcissie
>
> > Religions and philosophies are similar in that in both
> > cases, people make up a lot of fables and then use
> > them as excuses to kill, torture, imprison and rob one
> > another. But they don't really need the fables and in
> > any case the supply of fables is virtually infinite.
>
> The murders the communists committed were undeniably
> motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
> merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
> make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
Yes, or "good Christians" or "good Muslims" or
whatever.
At least the Mafia, when they give you a gun and
tell you to pop someone off, doesn't tell you to
pretend you're doing them good.
You ought to read up on Attila sometime.
The Wikipedia article isn't bad, although I don't
think they get into the piles of skulls except by
implication.
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > Anarcissie
> >> More people were killed in the 20th century because
> >> there were more people around to kill, and some new
> >> technologies as well. For example, the business in
> >> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
> > Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
> > neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
> They were certainly revved up by the radio, fuckwit.
What I read is that the radio facilitated the massacres
because it was important that they be carried out
quickly. It does sound a bit weird, but as you may
recall radio was also used in the 20th century by
fascist leaders to wind up the masses. I guess when
the medium is new, people believe in what they hear,
not realizing that it's mostly hot air, like philosophy.
Rod Speed
>>>> More people were killed in the 20th century because
>>>> there were more people around to kill, and some new
>>>> technologies as well. For example, the business in
>>>> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
>>> Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
>>> neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
>> They were certainly revved up by the radio, fuckwit.
> What I read is that the radio facilitated the massacres
More revved them up.
And it wasnt just the radio anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Media_propaganda
> because it was important that they be carried out quickly.
Nope, what was important was to rev up the Hutus to kill every Tutsi
they could find and make it clear that there would be no attempt by govt
to stop that happening, because it was the govt doing that revving up.
> It does sound a bit weird,
Its just plain silly.
> but as you may recall radio was also used in the
> 20th century by fascist leaders to wind up the masses.
Not in anything like the same way with say the jews.
> I guess when the medium is new,
It was nothing like new in Rwanda at that time.
> people believe in what they hear, not realizing that it's mostly hot air, like philosophy.
It wasnt hot air that the govt was advocating the Tutsis be killed. Thats all it took to get that done.
James A. Donald
> > >> there were more people around to kill, and some new
> > >> technologies as well. For example, the business in
> > >> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
James A. Donald wrote:
> > > Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
> > > neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
> What I read is that the radio facilitated the massacres
> because it was important that they be carried out
> quickly.
Why important? Because otherwise the targets would have run away and
joined the resistance. But if modern technology enabled the murderers
to make a more coordinated attack, it also enabled those attacked to
make a more coordinated retreat. Modern technology did not enable the
attack, nor cause the attack.
Rod Speed
>>>>> More people were killed in the 20th century because
>>>>> there were more people around to kill, and some new
>>>>> technologies as well. For example, the business in
>>>>> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>> Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
>>>> neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
>> What I read is that the radio facilitated the massacres
>> because it was important that they be carried out quickly.
> Why important? Because otherwise the targets would have run away and joined the resistance.
Mindlessly silly. They could still have attempted to do
that because even someone as stupid as you should
be able to grasp that they can listen to the radio as well.
> But if modern technology enabled the murderers to make a more coordinated
> attack, it also enabled those attacked to make a more coordinated retreat.
> Modern technology did not enable theattack, nor cause the attack.
It did make it clear that the govt would make no attempt to stop the killing of
the tutsis, because it was clearly the govt encouraging the killing of the tutsis.
James A. Donald
> > The murders the communists committed were undeniably
> > motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
> > merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
> > make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
"*Anarcissie*"
> Yes, or "good Christians" or "good Muslims" or
> whatever.
Except that we see the good Christians turning the other cheek, and
the good Muslims committing murder, and the good communists committing
mass murder, exactly at their ideologies command them to do.
Observe the response to "piss christ" They all turned the other
cheek, every single one.
Compare the response to "piss christ" with the reaction to the
Mohammed cartoons.
> At least the Mafia, when they give you a gun and
> tell you to pop someone off, doesn't tell you to
> pretend you're doing them good.
Actually the Mafia does tell you that you are doing good, and I think
they are usually right. By and large, the people a mafia kills, need
killing.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie
>>> The murders the communists committed were undeniably
>>> motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
>>> merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
>>> make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
>> Yes, or "good Christians" or "good Muslims" or whatever.
> Except that we see the good Christians turning the other cheek,
Like hell we ever did when they were furiously ripping each others
throats out and quite literally burning each other at the stake over
the silliest doctrinal issues and stuff like whether the sun revolves
around the earth and the reverse etc.
And there is the tiny matter of the crusades etc.
> and the good Muslims committing murder,
You cant list even a single example of that in that century you rabid racist arsehole.
> and the good communists committing mass murder,
> exactly at their ideologies command them to do.
Another bare faced lie.
> Observe the response to "piss christ"
> They all turned the other cheek, every single one.
Like hell they all did.
> Compare the response to "piss christ" with the reaction to the Mohammed cartoons.
Hordes of moslems did just what the xtians did with piss christ.
>> At least the Mafia, when they give you a gun and
>> tell you to pop someone off, doesn't tell you to
>> pretend you're doing them good.
> Actually the Mafia does tell you that you are doing good,
Like hell they do.
> and I think they are usually right.
More fool you.
> By and large, the people a mafia kills, need killing.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Try telling that to Falcone's family, you fucking arsehole.
James A. Donald
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:11:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> Hordes of moslems did just what the xtians did with piss christ.
Not one Christian engaged in physical violence against the artist or
the gallery, despite the complete absence of security precautions.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims engaged in murder and arson in
response to the Mohammed cartoons.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Compare the response to "piss christ" with the reaction to the Mohammed cartoons.
>> Hordes of moslems did just what the xtians did with piss christ.
> Not one Christian engaged in physical violence against the artist or the gallery,
Yeah, their arseholes concentrated on killing abortionists instead.
> despite the complete absence of security precautions.
> Hundreds of thousands of Muslims engaged in murder
> and arson in response to the Mohammed cartoons.
Bare faced rabidly racist lie.
And in earlier times hundreds of thousands of xtians engaged
in murder and arson and burning each other at the stake over
such trivial stuff as how you crossed yourself etc.
Rockinghorse Winner
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:28:55 -0800 (PST), "bigfl...@gmail.com"
><bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Regarding light, where else are their rods and cones that convert the
>> energy into light, other than in biologicaly independent creatures?
>Light is light. It is real, it is outside us.
That is a declarative statement based on the senses. It simply begs the
original question.
It is what comes from
>the sun and from light bulbs. It is still there when no one sees it.
That is true, but you have not told us how you know this to be true, beyond
appealing to the senses.
>What the rods and cones do is convert light into qualia, sensation,
>the impact of light on our brains, which are then converted into
>instances of concepts.
--
Powered by Linux 2.6.31.6-166 Fedora 12
In rotation: Pacific Ocean Blue (D. Wilson) 2.6.31.5-0.1 OpenSUSE 11.2
"Hug your cat today" 2.6.24-16 Mint Elyssa
James A. Donald
> > the sun and from light bulbs. It is still there when no one sees it.
Rockinghorse Winner
> That is true, but you have not told us how you know this to be true, beyond
> appealing to the senses.
The senses are reliable. We know how they work. The organs of sense
are part of the world, and themselves available to inspection.
John Stafford
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
And I agree with DAJ's pragmatic point-of-view. For those who wish to
pretend or believe that there is a reality unavailable to us, I would
agree but I add that there is nothing we can do with it or about it
except to remind ourselves that we are beings with limited senses. Being
so limited also means our means of conveying understanding is limited to
another impoverished ability - our very language.
Good show, Mr. Donald.
Jerry Okamura
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pi4c4...@mid.individual.net...
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:35:09 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>>> Way too complicated. It is really simple. If you want as much
>>> freedom as you can possibly have, you would not want to have a
>>> socialist system. People who want to be free, don't want the
>>> "system" to take care of them, they would prefer to take care of
>>> themselves.
>>
>> Such people, who refuse to acknowledge the concepts of division and
>> specialization of land and labor, and the constructs of social laws
>> are called morons.
>
> And even that fool isnt actually stupid enough to try doing his own heart
> bypass, unfortunately.
>
Which is relevant to what I said...how? Everyone needs the help of someone
else. The food we buy and consume is provided by someone else. The very
computer we are using as we speak, someone else built and sold it. But
there is a fundamental difference, when I "choose" to spend my money on the
things that I think I need and want, and when you depend on someone else to
pay for what you want or need. When I spend my money on the things I want
to spend my money on, I have a heck of a lot more freedom, then when I
depend on someone else to pay for what I want or need. But I suspect that
concept is foreign to some people.
Jerry Okamura
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hh0jt...@news6.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:35:09 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> Way too complicated. It is really simple. If you want as much freedom
>> as you can possibly have, you would not want to have a socialist system.
>> People who want to be free, don't want the "system" to take care of
>> them, they would prefer to take care of themselves.
>
> Such people, who refuse to acknowledge the concepts of division and
> specialization of land and labor, and the constructs of social laws are
> called morons.
>
Jerry Okamura
"people" want. If our "freedoms are what is imortant, then you don't want
someone else taking care of your needs, if at all possible. Why there are
people like you who obviously don't value our freedoms very much, is
something I simply do not understand. But it is pretty obvious that you do
not place a very high value on our freedoms. And that seems to be the
common thread among democrats. Many, if not most, do not place a very high
value on our freedoms, or they would not be strongly supporting the things
they do support. By the way, that also applies to republicans. The only
difference I see between republicans and democrats, is that republicans seem
less inclined to take away our freedoms.
So, the relevant question is, why don't you consider our freedoms very
imortant?
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pj18u...@mid.individual.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> Way too complicated. It is really simple.
>
> Nope.
>
>> If you want as much freedom as you can possibly have, you would not want
>> to have a socialist system.
>
> EVERY system is socialist to some extent, even HongKong before
> it was handed back to china was, and so is Somalia right now, if
> only because EVERY system has at least some public education
> and often a govt post office, judicial system, police etc.
>
> And only a fool like you would actually be stupid enough to claim that
> you have more freedom when there is no judicial system and no cops.
>
>> People who want to be free, don't want the "system" to take care of them,
>> they would prefer to take care of themselves.
>
> Didnt realise you did your own heart bypass doing the surgery yourself.
>
>
>> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
>> news:7pefiq...@mid.individual.net...
>>> I said before, when presenting a few of the following
>>> quotations, that "Anyone who wishes to will be able to
>>> extend this list of quotations indefinitely." I've extended
>>> the list accordingly. All source texts can be found easily
>>> with google searches, so I haven't bothered to document
>>> them.
>>>
>>> As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
>>> Following the path of this theory, we will approach the
>>> objective truth more and more closely, while if we follow
>>> any other path we cannot arrive at anything except confusion
>>> and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of one
>>> piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic
>>> premise, a single essential part, without deviating from
>>> objective truth, without falling into the arms of
>>> bourgeois-reactionary falsehood."
>>>
>>> And Lenin again: "The criterion of practice, i.e., the
>>> course of development of all capitalist countries in the
>>> last few decades, proves only the objective truth of Marx's
>>> _whole_ social and economic theory in general, and not
>>> merely of one or another of its parts, formulations, etc.;
>>> it is clear that to talk here of the 'dogmatism' of the
>>> Marxists is to make an unpardonable concession to bourgeois
>>> economics. The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion
>>> held by Marxists that Marx's theory is an objective truth is
>>> that by following the _path_ of Marxian theory, we shall
>>> draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever
>>> exhausting it); but by following _any other path_ we shall
>>> arrive at nothing but confusion and lies."
>>>
>>> As Trotsky said: "We call our dialectic materialist, since
>>> its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our
>>> 'free will', but in objective reality, in nature."
>>>
>>> As Stalin said: "Contrary to idealism, which asserts that
>>> only our consciousness really exists, and that the material
>>> world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in
>>> our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist
>>> philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being,
>>> is an objective reality existing outside and independent of
>>> our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the
>>> source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that
>>> consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a
>>> reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is
>>> a product of matter which in its development has reached a
>>> high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the
>>> brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot
>>> separate thought from matter without committing a grave
>>> error."
>>>
>>> And Stalin again: "Contrary to idealism, which denies the
>>> possibility of knowing the world and its laws, which does
>>> not believe in the authenticity of our knowledge, does not
>>> recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is full
>>> of 'things-in-themselves' that can never be known to
>>> science, Marxist philosophical materialism holds that the
>>> world and its laws are fully knowable, that our knowledge of
>>> the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is
>>> authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth,
>>> and that there are no things in the world which are
>>> unknowable, but only things which are as yet not known, but
>>> which will be disclosed and made known by the efforts of
>>> science and practice."
>>>
>>> And Stalin again: "Lenin defends the well-known materialist
>>> thesis of which our scientific knowledge of the laws of
>>> nature is authentic knowledge, and the laws of science
>>> represents objective truth. Hence the sciences of the
>>> history of society, despite all the complexity of the
>>> phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as
>>> biology and capable of making use of the law of development
>>> of society for practical purposes."
>>>
>>> As Mao said: "Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin have taught us
>>> that it is necessary to study conditions conscientiously and
>>> to proceed from objective reality and not from subjective
>>> wishes; but many of our comrades act in direct violation of
>>> this truth."
>>>
>>> And Mao again: "We are Marxists, and Marxism teaches that in
>>> our approach to a problem we should start from objective
>>> facts, not from abstract definitions, and that we should
>>> derive our guiding principles, policies and measures from an
>>> analysis of these facts."
>>>
>>> As Enver Hoxha said: "What does the experience, what does
>>> the life show? The experience and life both before and after
>>> 1955 show that in the assessment of the Yugoslav question
>>> Stalin and the Information Bureau were right, because their
>>> assessment rested on objective facts, on the teachings of
>>> Marxism-Leninism. The experience and the practical life, on
>>> the other hand, show that in their stand towards Tito's
>>> revisionist clique N. Khrushchev and those who follow him
>>> are not right, because their actions are based on subjective
>>> viewpoints and are contrary to the teachings of
>>> Marxism-Leninism, contrary to the objective reality."
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dan Clore
>>>
>>> New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
>>> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
>>> (Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
>>> Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
>>> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>>>
>>> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
>>> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
>>> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
>
>
*Anarcissie*
> In article <q2ldj59ofhp1amkagjqdau2nu0qfirt...@4ax.com>,
He has not shown that the senses are reliable, and you
have pointed out two of the major reasons why they are
not.
*Anarcissie*
At a certain stage, many technologies are available only
to elites. This is the case with the earlier stages of radio.
The targets evidently did not have access to powerful
radio transmitters as the attackers did. Broadcast radio
has an authoritarian form -- at any given time, one or a
very few are speaking to many, who cannot reply over
the same media. If radio was instrumental in the case
of the massacres in Rwanda, then I suspect it was at
this stage of its development, that is, before the arrival
of walkie-talkies, CB, cell phones, and so on.
I am not suggesting that technology makes people
murderous, any more than philosophy does. But
technology can facilitate murder just as it can
facilitate more desirable things.
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald
>
> > > The murders the communists committed were undeniably
> > > motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
> > > merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
> > > make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
>
> "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > Yes, or "good Christians" or "good Muslims" or
> > whatever.
>
> Except that we see the good Christians turning the other cheek
Not really. The slaughters perpetrated by those
describing themselves as Christians continue today.
If you look around you may find some interesting
material on religious influences among American
military forces in the Middle East. This sort of
thing is not reassuring since it can easily be
transferred to the home country, which is also
full of heretics and infidels.
I'll point out as well that in 2004, when it was
well known that George W. Bush and company
were lying, murderous imperial warmongers,
responsible for the deaths of thousands of
innocent people, 70% of Evangelical Christians
voted for him. Since the founder of Christianity
preached peace if not radical pacifism, this
phenomenon shows not only that plenty of
Christians are still devoted to hatred, war and
violence, but as well how little philosophy and
religion affect people's behavior. There is
always some way of twisting words around
so you can do what you want to do, which
in the cases of many people is kill someone
or get someone else to do it for you.
Rod Speed
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>>>>>> More people were killed in the 20th century because
>>>>>> there were more people around to kill, and some new
>>>>>> technologies as well. For example, the business in
>>>>>> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
>>>>> Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
>>>>> neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
>>> What I read is that the radio facilitated the massacres
>>> because it was important that they be carried out quickly.
>> Why important? Because otherwise the targets would have run away and
>> joined the resistance. But if modern technology enabled the murderers
>> to make a more coordinated attack, it also enabled those attacked to
>> make a more coordinated retreat. Modern technology did not enable the
>> attack, nor cause the attack.
> At a certain stage, many technologies are available only to elites.
Not that many, actually, just a few.
> This is the case with the earlier stages of radio.
And then the world moved on when it became
clear how useful that would be for almost everyone.
> The targets evidently did not have access to
> powerful radio transmitters as the attackers did.
They didnt have access to any broadcast radio.
> Broadcast radio has an authoritarian form -- at any
> given time, one or a very few are speaking to many,
> who cannot reply over the same media.
The world has moved on on that too with talkback radio.
> If radio was instrumental in the case of the massacres
> in Rwanda, then I suspect it was at this stage of its
> development, that is, before the arrival of
> walkie-talkies, CB, cell phones, and so on.
None of those are broadcast radio.
> I am not suggesting that technology makes people
> murderous, any more than philosophy does. But
> technology can facilitate murder just as it can
> facilitate more desirable things.
Duh.
James A. Donald
I briefly outlined the explanation.
1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk around with your
eyes closed. Should you doubt the reliability of your senses, reality
is going to cause you pain.
2. Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters off
other material things, and enters the head through the
clear windows of the eyes, landing on the retina, which
is an exposed surface of the brain
James A. Donald
> > Why important? Because otherwise the targets would have run away and
> > joined the resistance. But if modern technology enabled the murderers
> > to make a more coordinated attack, it also enabled those attacked to
> > make a more coordinated retreat. Modern technology did not enable the
> > attack, nor cause the attack.
"*Anarcissie*"
> At a certain stage, many technologies are available only
> to elites. This is the case with the earlier stages of radio.
> The targets evidently did not have access to powerful
> radio transmitters as the attackers did.
They had, however, cell phones. The Rwandan genocide was widely
anticipated, they had inside information widely leaked, so in this
case technology favored those attacked, and disfavored the attackers.
The relevant thing is not wireless, but men with machetes motivated to
chop women and children apart. And what motivated them?
What motivated the Rwandan genocide is the ideology of affirmative
action that kids get taught at Berkeley, which ideology is based on
the epistemology of Kant and Heidegger.
James A. Donald
> describing themselves as Christians continue today.
Every month more people die as a result of environmentalism, than were
killed by the Spanish inquisition during its entire seven hundred year
history.
Any communist ruler or communist allied ruler who killed no more than
three times as many as the Spanish inquisition is hailed as a living
saint.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie wrote
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>>> Why important? Because otherwise the targets would have run
>>> away and joined the resistance. But if modern technology enabled
>>> the murderers to make a more coordinated attack, it also enabled
>>> those attacked to make a more coordinated retreat. Modern
>>> technology did not enable the attack, nor cause the attack.
>> At a certain stage, many technologies are available only
>> to elites. This is the case with the earlier stages of radio.
>> The targets evidently did not have access to powerful
>> radio transmitters as the attackers did.
> They had, however, cell phones. The Rwandan genocide was widely
> anticipated, they had inside information widely leaked, so in this
> case technology favored those attacked, and disfavored the attackers.
> The relevant thing is not wireless, but men with machetes motivated
> to chop women and children apart. And what motivated them?
> What motivated the Rwandan genocide is the ideology of affirmative
> action that kids get taught at Berkeley, which ideology is based on
> the epistemology of Kant and Heidegger.
Wrong, as always. It was just another tribal conflict that has always been endemic to africa.
Adolf was just a bit more sophisticated about it.
The Mongols didnt bother with shit like that, or radios either.
Rod Speed
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:17:07 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>> The slaughters perpetrated by those
>> describing themselves as Christians continue today.
>
> Every month more people die as a result of environmentalism, than were
> killed by the Spanish inquisition during its entire seven hundred year history.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim when we have
worked out how to completely eliminate the effects of famine and drought
except where the area has deteriorated into the most obscene levels of civil
war or civil chaos or where there is some arsehole like Kim Jong Il ruling the roost.
> Any communist ruler or communist allied ruler who killed no more than
> three times as many as the Spanish inquisition is hailed as a living saint.
Only by fools like you that wouldnt know what a real saint was if one bit you on your lard arse.
James A. Donald
> > of affirmative action that kids get taught at
> > Berkeley, which ideology is based on the
> > epistemology of Kant and Heidegger.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:03:29 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> Wrong, as always. It was just another tribal conflict
> that has always been endemic to africa.
Before and during the colonial period, Tutsi peacefully
ruled the other races, not by violent conquest, but
through prestige, and political and economic supremacy.
The visible and manifest superiority of the Tutsi race
over other Rwandan races was previously interpreted as
evidence of right to rule. In recent times, that same
superiority was interpreted as proof of criminality.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> What motivated the Rwandan genocide is the
>>> ideology of affirmative action that kids get
>>> taught at Berkeley, which ideology is based
>>> on the epistemology of Kant and Heidegger.
>> Wrong, as always. It was just another tribal
>> conflict that has always been endemic to africa.
> Before and during the colonial period, Tutsi peacefully
> ruled the other races, not by violent conquest, but
> through prestige, and political and economic supremacy.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> The visible and manifest superiority of the Tutsi race over other Rwandan races
They arent even separate races, just different tribal groups.
> was previously interpreted as evidence of right to rule.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> In recent times, that same superiority was interpreted as proof of criminality.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
James A. Donald
> > The visible and manifest superiority of the Tutsi race over other Rwandan races
"Rod Speed"
> They arent even separate races, just different tribal groups.
Tutsi are taller, their hair is different, and tutsi women are hotter
to european eyes. They are obviously different races.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> The visible and manifest superiority of the Tutsi race over other Rwandan races
>> They arent even separate races, just different tribal groups.
> Tutsi are taller, their hair is different,
Another bare faced pig ignorant rabidly racist lie.
> and tutsi women are hotter to european eyes.
Another bare faced pig ignorant rabidly racist lie.
> They are obviously different races.
Even if those lies were accurate, and they are just lies, that would not make the separate races, fool.
Rockinghorse Winner
Obviously.
--
Rockinghorse Winner
"Hug your sweetie today."
Rod Speed
> You are missing the point.
You are, as always.
> Whatever system you have depends on what the "people" want.
Nope, most obviously when the completely fucked american
political system cant actually deliver what what people want.
> If our "freedoms are what is imortant, then you don't want someone else taking care of your needs, if at all possible.
It will never be feasible with modern medicine. No one has been
able to work out how to do your own heart bypasses, stupid.
Hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to want to do their own cancer surgery either.
No one is actually stupid enough to attempt to develop their
own vaccines against any of the fatal infectious diseases either.
> Why there are people like you who obviously don't value our freedoms very much,
I value the freedom to not be bankrupted by a serious medical problem very highly indeed.
> is something I simply do not understand.
Because you are so stupid you cant even manage to work out what freedoms I value very highly indeed.
> But it is pretty obvious that you do not place a very high value on our freedoms.
Guess which pathetic little prat has just ended up face down in the mud, as always ?
> And that seems to be the common thread among democrats.
I dont know of any that do not value the freedom to not be
bankrupted by a serious medical problem very highly indeed.
I dont know of anyone except complete fucking loons that are actually
stupid enough to value the freedom to do their own heart bypasses.
And they are ALL welcome to do their own heart bypasses any time they want to try it anyway.
> Many, if not most, do not place a very high value on our freedoms,
Or they have enough of a clue to put a higher value on the freedom
to not be bankrupted by a serious medical problem than they value
the freedom, which they have anyway, to do their own heart
bypasses, as long as they only try that on themselves.
> or they would not be strongly supporting the things they do support.
Wrong, as always. They just value the freedom to not be bankrupted
by a serious medical problem much more highly than fools like you do.
> By the way, that also applies to republicans. The only difference I see between republicans and democrats, is that
> republicans seem less inclined to take away our freedoms.
Then you need your eyes tested. The real difference is that most
of those who do oppose changes to the medical payment system
are actually so stupid that they havent even noticed that a viable
replacement for the current completely fucked insurance system
COMPLETELY ELIMINATES ANY POSSIBILITY OF BEING
BANKRUPTED BY A SERIOUS MEDICAL PROBLEM.
> So, the relevant question is, why don't you consider our freedoms very imortant?
I actually value the freedom to not be bankrupted by a
serious medical problem much more highly than you do, fool.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>> Way too complicated. It is really simple. If you want as much
>>>> freedom as you can possibly have, you would not want to have a
>>>> socialist system. People who want to be free, don't want the "system" to take care of them, they would prefer to
>>>> take care of themselves.
>>> Such people, who refuse to acknowledge the concepts of division and
>>> specialization of land and labor, and the constructs of social laws
>>> are called morons.
>> And even that fool isnt actually stupid enough to try doing his own heart bypass, unfortunately.
> Which is relevant to what I said...how?
Its a freedom that all of us retain if the system was changed
so that there is no possibility what so ever of being bankrupted
by a serious medical problem, as every other modern first and
second world country has actually had enough of a clue to do.
> Everyone needs the help of someone else.
So why do you mindlessly chant that silly little mantra about 'freedom'
You wouldnt know what real freedom was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> The food we buy and consume is provided by someone else.
Quite a bit of the food I comsume is provided by me.
> The very computer we are using as we speak, someone else built and sold it.
I actually built all of mine myself.
> But there is a fundamental difference, when I "choose" to spend my money on the things that I think I need and want,
> and when you depend on someone else to pay for what you want or need.
You're lying, again. I pay for the medical services I use.
The ONLY difference is that I'm not stupid enough to pay some damned
insurance company which can decide that they dont like the serious medical
problem I end up with and cancel my policy etc. Instead I pay my govt and
it is legally required to deliver medical services to me when I need them.
And that isnt just an academic proposition either, I have in fact needed
to use that legal requirement more than once and it didnt cost me a
cent extra over what I had already paid, even for a TV to watch etc.
Or more strictly the only thing I did have to pay for extra was a few newspapers to read.
If I had chosen to pay for a different level of cover, even the newspapers would have been free too.
> When I spend my money on the things I want to spend my money on,
Like hell you do. You get taxed a very substantial part of your income to pay
for a vast array of services the voters have decided they want govt to do.
You do not have the freedom to avoid paying those taxes
unless you are prepared to not get paid at all, and to never
own any property at all, and to not ever own a car etc etc etc.
> I have a heck of a lot more freedom,
Like hell you do. You have very little freedom on those taxes, essentially
because hardly anyone chooses to live in a way that avoids those taxes.
> then when I depend on someone else to pay for what I want or need.
You get to do that just like everyone else does.
> But I suspect that concept is foreign to some people.
And you're so stupid that you havent even noticed that the current american
system gives you the freedom to be bankrupted by a serious medical problem.
You'll have to pardon those of us with a clue that have decided we dont want that freedom.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> Way too complicated. It is really simple. If you want as much
>>> freedom as you can possibly have, you would not want to have a
>>> socialist system. People who want to be free, don't want the
>>> "system" to take care of them, they would prefer to take care of
>>> themselves.
>> Such people, who refuse to acknowledge the concepts of division and
>> specialization of land and labor, and the constructs of social laws
>> are called morons.
> Which is relevant to what I said.... how?
Thats stuff even someone as stupid as you do not in fact have any freedom at all on.
You do not in fact take care of anything much at all yourself.
You're just piss and wind.
zzbunker
But, eccentric idiots like Stalin also never like to admit
that just about all scientific knowledge comes from methods called
ballistics and reverse engineering. Which is why the educable
people even started working on AI, Digital, Microcomputers, Lasers,
Masers,
Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, Autonomous
Vehicles,
Satellites, Cruise Missiles, Drones, DU, Holographics, Atomic
Clock Wristwatches,
GPS, and Post Nobel-nomics anyway.
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
*Anarcissie*
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:59:52 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > He has not shown that the senses are reliable
>
> I briefly outlined the explanation.
>
> 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk around with your
> eyes closed. Should you doubt the reliability of your senses, reality
> is going to cause you pain.
Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely. In
any case, the amount of reality one needs to know
to survive may be a miniscule proportion of the
totality.
> 2. Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters off
> other material things, and enters the head through the
> clear windows of the eyes, landing on the retina, which
> is an exposed surface of the brain
Unless you're dreaming, hallucinating, or otherwise
deluded.
This is Philosophy 101 stuff. I don't see the point of
going over it. Read Hume.
Jerry Okamura
> Jerry Okamura wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>
>>>>> Way too complicated. It is really simple. If you want as much
>>>>> freedom as you can possibly have, you would not want to have a
>>>>> socialist system. People who want to be free, don't want the "system"
>>>>> to take care of them, they would prefer to take care of themselves.
>
>>>> Such people, who refuse to acknowledge the concepts of division and
>>>> specialization of land and labor, and the constructs of social laws
>>>> are called morons.
>
>>> And even that fool isnt actually stupid enough to try doing his own
>>> heart bypass, unfortunately.
>
>> Which is relevant to what I said...how?
>
> Its a freedom that all of us retain if the system was changed
> so that there is no possibility what so ever of being bankrupted
> by a serious medical problem, as every other modern first and
> second world country has actually had enough of a clue to do.
No risk, no freedom.
Rod Speed
> No risk, no freedom.
Even more utterly mindlessly silly.
If they US had enough of a clue to go for a universal medicare, there
would be much less risk of bankruptcy due to a serious medical problem
because that risk would be completely eliminated, and so there would
be an INCREASE in freedoms, because clowns like you would then
have the freedom to not be bankrupted by a serious medical problem
and you have all the freedoms you currently have as well, including
the freedom to kill yourself if you end up with a serious medical
problem or do attempt your own heart bypass, to use some quack
crap when you get cancer etc etc etc.
Rockinghorse Winner
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
>> > Light is light. It is real, it is outside us. It is what comes from
>> > the sun and from light bulbs. It is still there when no one sees it.
>Rockinghorse Winner
>> That is true, but you have not told us how you know this to be true, beyond
>> appealing to the senses.
>The senses are reliable. We know how they work. The organs of sense
>are part of the world, and themselves available to inspection.
Your senses are in question. You can't underpin them by an appeal to the
senses. That is reason that is traveling in a circle.
Obviously, this surety of an outside world comes from somewhere other than
our physical senses. We appeal to the senses when we try to establish a fact
of science, but where do the senses attain *their* facticity? Indeed, this
is the same as asking where does the world attain it's facticity?
It is a fascinating question. Is reality that which bumps us on the head in
a moment of inattention? That doesn't appear to be very scientific. It
appears to partake of a daily, day to day, unrelective mode of living. Is
this an accurate account of how the True manifests itself? Is this what
science is built upon?
If it is, then how is it that the collision with a hard object leads us to
the True? How is it that Truth, the ultimate goal of all science, is most
manifest to us in a thoughtless bump on the head? What is the nature of
that minor event that reveals the world to us in all it's truth? It is not
science that reveals the world to us, but natural day to day living.
Indeed, it seems as if we have an inate sense of the reality of the world,
prior to all scientific experiment, prior to all philosophy or theorizing.
The question is, where does this sense come from? How are we so sure of the
reality of the outside world? For it is this that all science, far from
confirming, assumes as it's starting point.
--
Powered by Linux 2.6.31.6-166 Fedora 12
In rotation: Pacific Ocean Blue (D. Wilson) 2.6.31.5-0.1 OpenSUSE 11.2
"Hug your cat today" 2.6.24-16 Mint Elyssa
James A. Donald
wrote:
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk around with your
> > eyes closed. Should you doubt the reliability of your senses, reality
> > is going to cause you pain.
"*Anarcissie*"
> Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
> divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely.
By and large, people with strange ideas about reality tend to want
*other* people to act as if those ideas were true, but are less keen
on themselves acting as if those ideas are true.
However, the most saintly believers, who tend to be the most
influential, do act as if those ideas were true, and do get hurt
because of it - thus for example the white guy who believes there is
no such thing as races and walks around at night in a "diverse" part
of the city.
> In
> any case, the amount of reality one needs to know
> to survive may be a miniscule proportion of the
> totality.
All those women who forgot to have children, seems to be
that false ideas are hurting a lot of people.
James A. Donald
> > The senses are reliable. We know how they work. The organs of sense
> > are part of the world, and themselves available to inspection.
Rockinghorse Winner
> Your senses are in question. You can't underpin them by an appeal to the
> senses. That is reason that is traveling in a circle.
Recursion, not circularity.
Recursion ends. You are just making excuses to refuse to walk down a
short path because you know where the destination will be.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>> 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk around
>>> with your eyes closed. Should you doubt the reliability of
>>> your senses, reality is going to cause you pain.
>> Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
>> divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely.
> By and large, people with strange ideas about reality tend
> to want *other* people to act as if those ideas were true, but
> are less keen on themselves acting as if those ideas are true.
That is just plain wrong, most obviously with
religious ideas, but also with social ideas too.
> However, the most saintly believers, who tend to be the most influential,
That is just plain wrong.
> do act as if those ideas were true, and do get hurt because of it
> - thus for example the white guy who believes there is no such thing
> as races and walks around at night in a "diverse" part of the city.
And those who believe that most people are fundamentally
decent and honest, hardly ever get hurt because of that.
And arguably end up with a much better life than
those who are very suspicious of other's motives etc.
>> In any case, the amount of reality one needs to know
>> to survive may be a miniscule proportion of the totality.
> All those women who forgot to have children,
They didnt forget, they just got it wrong about how viable it was to put them off till later.
> seems to be that false ideas are hurting a lot of people.
Thats not even a false idea.
The false idea that there is some damned god or other doesnt really
hurt very many at all, particularly now that we stop them from killing
those who have other ideas about the detail most of the time.
Rod Speed
>>> He has not shown that the senses are reliable
>> I briefly outlined the explanation.
>> 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk
>> around with your eyes closed. Should you doubt the
>> reliability of your senses, reality is going to cause you pain.
> Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
> divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely.
They do indeed. Most obviously with scientist who believe that the
bible is the quite literal word of some damned god or other, but
who are quite capabable of doing decent rigorous science as well.
One of the odder aspects of the human 'mind'
> In any case, the amount of reality one needs to know
> to survive may be a miniscule proportion of the totality.
Indeed, and not only to survive but to do very well as well.
Joan of Arc was quite literally barking mad, hearing 'the
voices' and all and managed to get quite a bit done as well.
>> 2. Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters
>> off other material things, and enters the head through
>> the clear windows of the eyes, landing on the retina,
>> which is an exposed surface of the brain
> Unless you're dreaming, hallucinating, or otherwise deluded.
> This is Philosophy 101 stuff. I don't see the point of going over it. Read Hume.
Indeed.
Rockinghorse Winner
>Recursion, not circularity.
I wish the argument were recursive. At least then, we would know how you
ground sense. But you are saying in essense, we know the senses are reliable
because we have studied them and the world, and the conclusion is that
the world is real and the senses, being part of that world, are real as
well. But how did you study the world, if not by sense? And *if* by sense,
then the question as to how sense reaches a positive affirmation of Truth
remains open.
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissie wrote
>
> > James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> >> Anarcissie wrote
> >>> He has not shown that the senses are reliable
> >> I briefly outlined the explanation.
> >> 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk
> >> around with your eyes closed. Should you doubt the
> >> reliability of your senses, reality is going to cause you pain.
> > Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
> > divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely.
> They do indeed. Most obviously with scientist who believe that the
> bible is the quite literal word of some damned god or other, but
> who are quite capabable of doing decent rigorous science as well.
>
> One of the odder aspects of the human 'mind'
I believe that "doublethink", as it's called by George
Orwell, is a survival characteristic. It probably takes
a long time to construct a worldview, a framework in
which individual perceptions have meaning. If one
has sufficient processing power one can construct
several worldviews and switch them in and out
rapidly. Then, if one can't handle a given phenomenon
in one's current worldview, one just switches another
one in which can handle the problem.
For example, most people don't think about death
and the afterlife much of the time -- they are more
concerned with other things, like getting stuff or
getting laid or achieving power. However, if they
are confronted by death, say by the death of a
near relative, there is no way to handle this in the
everyday common-sense framework, so they
switch in some set of religious fables to put the
death in a framework that can handle it. "He's
gone to a better world," etc. As soon as their
grief and anxiety subside, they'll switch back to
the everyday, common-sense framework.
In some areas like politics many people hold,
and are aware of, strongly contradictory ideas at
one and the same time, which may be another
aspect of the talent for doublethink. If you take
a poll of certain populations, "The government
should do more for the poor" and "Welfare is
bad" will both win.
Except on the Net, it's considered rude not to
play along.
gob...@ntlworld.com
> In some areas like politics many people hold,
> and are aware of, strongly contradictory ideas at
> one and the same time, which may be another
> aspect of the talent for doublethink. If you take
> a poll of certain populations, "The government
> should do more for the poor" and "Welfare is
> bad" will both win.
[Sideshow]
What makes you think these views are contradictory?
Jerry Okamura
Freedom is not important?
Jerry Okamura
All you have to do to achieve that is to give up your freedom. But of
course there are some who don't place a very high value on their freedoms,
like you for instance.
*Anarcissie*
"Welfare" among the same populations is defined
as "the government doing things for the poor."
You can probably get a similar result by informally
polling people at the next large social gathering
you attend.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>>>> Anarcissie wrote
>>>>> He has not shown that the senses are reliable
>>>> I briefly outlined the explanation.
>>>> 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk
>>>> around with your eyes closed. Should you doubt the
>>>> reliability of your senses, reality is going to cause you pain.
>>> Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
>>> divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely.
>> They do indeed. Most obviously with scientist who believe that the
>> bible is the quite literal word of some damned god or other, but
>> who are quite capabable of doing decent rigorous science as well.
>> One of the odder aspects of the human 'mind'
> I believe that "doublethink", as it's called by George Orwell, is a survival characteristic.
Hard to see that its got any survival advantage.
> It probably takes a long time to construct a worldview,
> a framework in which individual perceptions have meaning.
Nope, it clearly doesnt when even little kids and animals can do that.
> If one has sufficient processing power one can construct
> several worldviews and switch them in and out rapidly.
They arent actually switching between them rapidly at all.
What appears to be happening is that they have a need
for certainty, thats why they are stupid enough to believe
that that pathetic collection of fairy storys is the quite literal
word of some god or other, even tho there is so much like
the Noah story and even the childish silly shit about walls
being brought down by very load music is part of that.
They just find it very uncomfortable that there are no
absolute certaintys at all, everything is up for negotiation,
essentiallly because they they have no absolutes to live by.
Its not hard to see how that can be kept
separate from their job doing rigorous science.
Just like those whose children or spouses end up being
psychopaths, quite a few can never bring themselves
to accept that, even when the evidence is completely
overwhelming complete with the corpses they have produced etc.
Its just a fact that is so unspeakable that they cant accept it.
> Then, if one can't handle a given phenomenon in
> one's current worldview, one just switches another
> one in which can handle the problem.
Its not so much a world view as just believing in something
like that book being the absolute word of some god or other.
> For example, most people don't think about death
> and the afterlife much of the time -- they are more
> concerned with other things, like getting stuff or
> getting laid or achieving power. However, if they
> are confronted by death, say by the death of a
> near relative, there is no way to handle this in the
> everyday common-sense framework, so they
> switch in some set of religious fables to put the
> death in a framework that can handle it. "He's
> gone to a better world," etc. As soon as their
> grief and anxiety subside, they'll switch back
> to the everyday, common-sense framework.
It isnt really a switch, they just believe that they
will see that individual again etc, even tho its
more than a tad unlikely that there is actually
some place where everyone who has ever lived
is hanging out now carrying on regardless.
Its easy to see why some need that sort of a
crutch for their pathetically inadequate minds.
> In some areas like politics many people hold,
> and are aware of, strongly contradictory ideas
> at one and the same time, which may be another
> aspect of the talent for doublethink. If you take
> a poll of certain populations, "The government
> should do more for the poor" and "Welfare is
> bad" will both win.
Not in the same individual tho. Thats just divirgent
ideas on the basics, and both positions are sustainable,
particularly the downsides of welfare like it having one
hell of a capacity for producing inter generational
welfare dependance which hardly ever produces
anyone who isnt welfare dependant.
> Except on the Net, it's considered rude not to play along.
Plenty are very rude when asked that sort of question in person.
And that isnt actually double think if they are just telling the pollster
what they think is the socially acceptable answer anyway.
Its certainly true that you dont see too many prepared to admit
to a pollster some of their racist opinions or even be prepared to
admit that they dont like Obama just because he is half black etc.
Thats not double think tho, thats just being careful about
stating your real beliefs publicly to those you dont know well.
And plenty are polite, like not actually saying to someone
that they believe that their brat is an obnoxious little shit that
needs a good kick up the arse when its misbehaving.
Its only the most gung ho individuals who will actually say that
to the parent when the child is behaving like that in a public
place and causing a lot of disruption for everyone there.
Rod Speed
> Freedom is not important?
I clearly said the exact opposite, that the freedom to not be bankrupted
by a serious medical problem is very important indeed, and that if the US
moved to a universal medicare instead of restricting it to older people,
americans would gain EXTRA freedom, and not lose any of their existing
freedoms at all.
They would still be free to do their own heart bypasses if they are actually
that stupid, or to grovel to some god or other instead of using a doctor etc
or even just kill themselves because they dont like the way the medical
system works when they end up with a serious medical problem.
Plenty have enough of a clue to do that last when the prospects of survival
with say cancer secondarys is so close to zero its not worth bothering with.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>>> Way too complicated. It is really simple. If you want as much
>>>>>>>> freedom as you can possibly have, you would not want to have a
>>>>>>>> socialist system. People who want to be free, don't want the
>>>>>>>> "system" to take care of them, they would prefer to take care
>>>>>>>> of themselves.
>>>>>>> Such people, who refuse to acknowledge the concepts of division
>>>>>>> and specialization of land and labor, and the constructs of
>>>>>>> social laws are called morons.
>>>>>> And even that fool isnt actually stupid enough to try doing his own heart bypass, unfortunately.
>>>>> Which is relevant to what I said...how?
>>>> Its a freedom that all of us retain if the system was changed
>>>> so that there is no possibility what so ever of being bankrupted
>>>> by a serious medical problem, as every other modern first and
>>>> second world country has actually had enough of a clue to do.
>>> No risk, no freedom.
>> Even more utterly mindlessly silly.
>> If the US had enough of a clue to go for a universal medicare, there would be much less risk of bankruptcy due to a
>> serious medical problem because that risk would be completely eliminated, and so there would be an INCREASE in
>> freedoms, because clowns like you would then have the freedom to not be bankrupted by a serious medical problem and
>> you have all the freedoms you currently have as well, including the freedom to kill yourself if you end up with a
>> serious medical
>> problem or do attempt your own heart bypass, to use some quack crap when you get cancer etc etc etc.
> All you have to do to achieve that is to give up your freedom.
You dont have to give up any freedom what so ever.
In fact you gain an EXTRA freedom, the freedom to
not be bankrupted by a serious medical problem.
> But of course there are some who don't place a very high value on their freedoms, like you for instance.
What we actually have is fools like you that are so stupid that
you cant manage to grasp that universal medicare would deliver
MORE freedom, not less.
Rod Speed
> gob...@ntlworld.com wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> In some areas like politics many people hold,
>>> and are aware of, strongly contradictory ideas at
>>> one and the same time, which may be another
>>> aspect of the talent for doublethink. If you take
>>> a poll of certain populations, "The government
>>> should do more for the poor" and "Welfare is
>>> bad" will both win.
>> [Sideshow]
>> What makes you think these views are contradictory?
> "Welfare" among the same populations is defined
> as "the government doing things for the poor."
Nope, thats just one way of doing something for the poor.
The other obvious ways of doing things for the poor is
to increase the minimum wage which will do something
for the working poor, and reducing the unemployment
rate which will do something for those who are poor
because they dont have a job, and say mandating
the employment of cripples to reduce the number of poor
who are poor because no one wants to employ them etc.
> You can probably get a similar result by informally polling
> people at the next large social gathering you attend.
Yes, but thats not double think, thats just recognising that
there are real downsides with welfare, if only that it does
tend to produce inter generational welfare dependancy,
particularly when its generous enough so that you end
up with living standards that are as good as you get
when working. Hordes dont really like the sort of work
they are qualified to do and would prefer to 'live' on welfare.
My govt is actually stupid enough to pay everyone very substantial
child benefits and that means that if you have enough kids, you can
actually end up with a higher income than in the worst paid jobs.
Its hardly surprising that some do choose to just have quite a few
kids, often each with a different father. Its not surprising that some
do that, the lifestyle is much better than say running a checkout at
a supermarket etc. Someone else looks after the kids for a decent
chunk of the day while they are in school, and you get to decide for
yourself what you do at any particular time. Quite a few even
like kids and some enjoy the fucking that produces them too.
dorayme
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
>
> >James A. Donald
> >> > The senses are reliable. We know how they work. The organs of sense
> >> > are part of the world, and themselves available to inspection.
>
> >Rockinghorse Winner
> >> Your senses are in question. You can't underpin them by an appeal to the
> >> senses. That is reason that is traveling in a circle.
>
> >Recursion, not circularity.
>
> >Recursion ends. You are just making excuses to refuse to walk down a
> >short path because you know where the destination will be.
>
>
> I wish the argument were recursive. At least then, we would know how you
> ground sense. But you are saying in essense, we know the senses are reliable
> because we have studied them and the world, and the conclusion is that
> the world is real and the senses, being part of that world, are real as
> well. But how did you study the world, if not by sense? And *if* by sense,
> then the question as to how sense reaches a positive affirmation of Truth
> remains open.
Donald did not say this so exactly. Besides, the answer to the question
about whether the senses are reliable depends on the context and exact
meaning of the question. Under some interpretations it might only appear
to have a clear meaning (like the question "What is the meaning of
life?).
Do you really suppose that your expression "positive affirmation of
Truth" has some clear general meaning?
It is perfectly true that we use senses to verify the reliability of
senses. Eye doctors do it all the time. They even quantify the results.
--
dorayme
Rockinghorse Winner
>I clearly said the exact opposite, that the freedom to not be bankrupted
>by a serious medical problem is very important indeed, and that if the US
>moved to a universal medicare instead of restricting it to older people,
>americans would gain EXTRA freedom, and not lose any of their existing
>freedoms at all.
The freedom not be bankrupted is the freedom to go out into the world and
work and earn, and keep the fruit of one's labor.
A universal medicare, if it diluted the value of the dollar, caused
inflation and raised interest rates, would result in a net loss for the
country. This doesn't even address the diminution of healthcare quality.
>They would still be free to do their own heart bypasses if they are actually
>that stupid, or to grovel to some god or other instead of using a doctor etc
>or even just kill themselves because they dont like the way the medical
>system works when they end up with a serious medical problem.
>Plenty have enough of a clue to do that last when the prospects of survival
>with say cancer secondarys is so close to zero its not worth bothering with.
--
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> I clearly said the exact opposite, that the freedom to not be
>> bankrupted by a serious medical problem is very important
>> indeed, and that if the US moved to a universal medicare instead
>> of restricting it to older people, americans would gain EXTRA
>> freedom, and not lose any of their existing freedoms at all.
> The freedom not be bankrupted is the freedom to go out into
> the world and work and earn, and keep the fruit of one's labor.
Waffle.
> A universal medicare, if it diluted the value of the dollar,
Cant do that when every other country that has a universal medicare
gets its health care for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does.
> caused inflation and raised interest rates,
Cant do that when every other country that has a universal medicare
gets its health care for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does.
> would result in a net loss for the country.
It would clearly be a nett gain for the country, when every other country that has a universal
medicare gets its health care for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does.
> This doesn't even address the diminution of healthcare quality.
Every other country that has a universal medicare gets its
health care for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US
does gets better results on every measure of health care quality
that matters, particularly longevity and years in good health.
James A. Donald
> because we have studied them and the world, and the conclusion is that
> the world is real and the senses, being part of that world, are real as
> well. But how did you study the world, if not by sense?
The question presupposes a separation between mind and the world which
is refuted every time you walk into something and are dazed by the
resulting thump. Our mind is part of the world, and part of the world
is in our minds.
Rockinghorse Winner
>--
>dorayme
I agree that sense gives us a more or less true picture of the world. I also
agree that science can use knowledge to help people, by applying its
knowledge of the world to human concerns.
My question was not whether or not the senses give us a true picture of the
world, but if science can justify itself in terms of predicted outcomes of
applied science. These outcomes are just additional sensory experiences that
in turn beg justification, just as the precipient phenomena did. So, a
predicted outcome is *not* the final verdict as to the truth of the senses,
but just additional evidence in favor of it. And, by the nature of this
process, a final verdict on the absolute truthfulnesses of the senses
will never occur, if we confine ourselves to phenomena.
So, if science cannot give us an absolutely certainty as to the truth of
perception, perhaps a knock on the head can. Are we so uncertain as to the
reality of the door frame we just walked into as we are about our scientific
theses? No, we have a direct and irrefutable conviction of the truth of the
existence of that door frame. We did not practice science upon it, we did
no theorizing or testing. And yet, has a conviction ever been stronger than
this one?
My question is, what accounts for this direct perception of truth? Is this
the basis for our judgement of the reality of the world that comes in
through the senses, rather than applied science? If it is, then what
explanation can we offer for it? How is it that *truthfulness* seems to
follow us in all our doings with the world? Why do we *know* the senses are
accurate, before we have even tested them by scientific experiment? What
accounts for truth?
dorayme
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
...
> >... the answer to the question
> >about whether the senses are reliable depends on the context and exact
> >meaning of the question. Under some interpretations it might only appear
> >to have a clear meaning (like the question "What is the meaning of
> >life?).
>
> >Do you really suppose that your expression "positive affirmation of
> >Truth" has some clear general meaning?
>
> >It is perfectly true that we use senses to verify the reliability of
> >senses. Eye doctors do it all the time. They even quantify the results.
>
...
I don't want to start picking apart *all* this. You are, in a way,
asking some important and interesting questions about epistemology. You
are musing about what might be the foundations of knowledge and how we
might have come across such knowledge and how we might expand it.
Interesting and deep questions indeed with a rich history and literature.
For now, I will say that the assumption that there are foundations to
our knowledge is almost certainly unlikely. Scientists do not make
predictions about sensory events in the main. They predict things like
that the moon has water and other more complicated things. They are not
sensory outcomes in any way that you are supposing through the lens of
some imagined philosophical theory about initial theory free data.
As I see it, and this is nothing too original, it is quite impossible to
separate out some clean cut level of sensory data, not even a set of
statements that are open to simple sensory verification. When we see a
car, we are already working with complex understandings and theory about
these objects. I could put it this way: the least theoretical of
statements are nevertheless theory laden. Science is a sophistication of
what even aboriginal humans operated with. They did not have kangaroo
shaped sensory impingements, at least not that they knew or said or
thought, they saw kangaroos or at least often thought they did.
If you accept that a human mind, in order to operate at any sort of
normal level in the world must be a carrier of many and complicated
theories about the sort of world that is lived in, the question then is
how to improve those theories. That is a large question and I won't deal
with it here and now.
But the question, how does the holder of the theories know they are
true, the short answer is that he tries his best and would not be
holding those theories if he could think of anything better! The
emphasis here is on doing the best we can, not on how do we know what we
have is the slightest bit of good! <g>
The reason the last question is not very useful to answer is that no
thought is possible without the thinker having a conceptual system in
which some general theories about the world are incorporated. One cannot
seriously think from outside all conceptual system. There is no such
place.
--
dorayme
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Dec 25, 8:35 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not only does light and sound not exist in such form other than within
> > our brains,
>
> Just like god huh? fucking Kantian idiot.
>
> MG
Thats your assumption, but obsessives see the subject of their
obsessiveness wherever they look. Part of the quantum link.
BOfL