Marx and dialectic

[moderator1]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

YMS:"It is, I believe, common ground, that it is not a complete or definitive statement, but the only one we have.  We agree it is silent on Hegel: where we disagree is on what to make of that silence: Young Mistress Lichtenstein maintains that it is exclusory, I maintain that it is simply silence.  This is the point at dispute." [Bold addedWell, you once again miss the point; here it is again:"My argument isn't, and has never been, that Marx doesn't "mention Hegel" (added on edit: or is silent about Hegel), but that there is no trace of Hegel or any of his concepts in that summary."Here is how I put this in two of my first posts in this thread (one of which was in reply to you!):"In the above passage, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found (upside down or 'the right way up') — no "contradictions", no change of 'quantity into quality', no 'negation of the negation', no 'unity and identity of opposites' no 'interconnected Totality', no 'universal change' –, and yet Marx still calls this the 'dialectic method"' and says of it that it is 'my method'." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy#comment-37562"In that summary, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found, upside down or 'the right way up', and yet Marx still calls this 'the dialectic method' (note, not part of, or one aspect of, 'the dialectic method', but 'the dialectic method'), and 'my method'. So, Marx's 'method' is a Hegel-free zone ('upside down or the right way up')." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=2#comment-37586This appears to have flown over your head.Nor is it any part of my argument that the summary Marx added is a "definitive" account of 'the dialectic method' — just that it is indeed a summary (which is what I have called it from the get-go) — and it contains no trace of Hegel or any of his ideas.So, what is your reply to my challenge that you produce, what you had said you could provide — a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value"? [Bold added.]Err…, this sub-GCSE summary of something that isn't even the Labour Theory of Value [LTV]:"The value of market goods is based on the amount of human effort it takes to replace them.  The source of profits is the difference between the amount of effort involved in replacing goods, and the cost of buying the type of skills involved in replacing them.  Not all of that effort can be realised in money terms.""Effort"? The LTV has nothing to do with "effort". "Labour power" (which is independent of any "effort" put into producing a commodity) is central to the LTV. "Value"? — use value or exchange value? "Replace"? Where is that in the LTV? No mention of fixed capital, or the falling rate of profit. No hint of the relative form or the equivalent form of value. Your "definitive description" is a joke.Now, either the terms you used (i.e., "effort" and "value", etc.) were meant to be synonyms of the terms/concepts Marx used, or their equivalent. But my challenge was this:"Now, I challenge you to write a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value" and fail to mention, for example, surplus value, abstract labour, the equivalent and the relative form of value, use value, exchange value, the falling rate of profit, variable/constant capital (or their equivalents and/or synonyms), etc., etc. Until you do, the above claim of yours can only be viewed as grandstanding." [Bold added.]Hence, we are still waiting for a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value" — not a sub-GCSE summary of something that isn't the LTV."So, back to Marx, he was addressing the appearance of Hegelianism within his works (or alleged Hegelianism): hence why he follows the St. Petersberg paragraph with an analysis of why he may have used Hegelian terminology, a disclaimer that his method is the opposite of Hegel's, and an acknowledgement that Hegel was 'first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner'."1) Again you present us with a bowdlerised version of Marx's comment, which distorts its meaning. We have been here several times.2) I asked this (quoting you):"I'm sorry, where does Marx add 'Hegel to someone else's summary'?"You failed to answer.3) The rest of the above quote we have been over many times (but see below). Hence, I refer you to my earlier response to it."I do not need to find another statement by Marx, nor am I looking for one, the words in the current one are enough to back up my argument.  I think the silence is non-exhaustive, I think the St. Petersburg paragraph (for example) does not discuss what the underlying laws of development are, or how they work, but it does claim 'Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact.' which is as near Hegelian as I need."It's almost as if I hadn't said this in my last reply:"2) Finally, I have added this challenge to some of my posts of late:"Of course, if you can find another summary of the 'dialectic method', written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to 1873, which does what you say — i.e., shows "there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic" — let's see it."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=7#comment-37680"And there was good reason for this challenge; here it is again:"As I have also pointed out, I begin with this statement by Marx about what his method and 'the dialectic method' amounted to, and I interpret everything else in that light — until, that is, you, or someone else, can come up with another summary of 'the dialectic method', written, published or endorsed by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to the passage published in the Postface (i.e .,1873 or after), that informs us that he accepted or agreed with Engels's view of 'the dialectic'." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=3#comment-37604"So, unless you can come up with such a passage, there is no justification for you re-inserting Hegel or his concepts into Marx's 'dialectic method'."Which is why I added these comments (partly quoted above):"Of course, if you can find another summary of the 'dialectic method', written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to 1873, which does what you say — i.e., shows "there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic" — let's see it."Oh wait!"There isn't one!"Now, you can't quote a single text written by Marx, published in or after 1873, that tells us that Hegel had any input in his 'method' or in 'the dialectic method'."Whereas, there is one that supports my interpretation."Get over it."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=7#comment-37680But, as was the case with most of your other posts, I am sure you will ignore this again, and I will have to repeat it many times before it sinks in.So be it…Finally:"but it does claim 'Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact.' which is as near Hegelian as I need."1) Is this idea unique to Hegel (which is what my challenge laid out)?2) I'd be grateful if you'd provide us with a referenced quote from Hegel to which this is "near". 

---

2nd warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[Anonymous]

Left wingers, Marxist-Humanists,  and others so called Marxists can look for all kind of excuses to justify their claim that Marx was a dialectician, or a Hegelian, and they are completely wrong, he did reject dialectic, and he was not thru his whole life a dialectician or a Hegelian.By comparing the mumble jumble of the works of  Hegel with Marx,  we can see  a great difference between both, that idea of the repetition of Hegel thru Marx came from the School of Frankfurt which was a mix of ex-Stalinists, and ex-Trotskyists which never abandoned Leninism, or Trotskyism. They rejected the vanguard party concept but they did not reject Leninism, it was the same case of CLR James, but he did not accept Hegelianism, he also rejected it . Most so called Marxist-Leninists ( creation of Stalin ) are dialecticians, and they support Geitzen concept of dialectical materialismThey are the same allegations made by some Marxist-Humanists that Lenin became  a different person when he was reading Hegel, Lenin was Lenin in 1905, and in 1914, and Marx did not write Capital based on Hegel dialectic either. He developed his ideas based on the economical works of David RicardoMarx can not be studied in one or two paragraph, on in one citation, like the Bible of a pastor, he must be studied within the proper context, and as a whole set of ideas, the same thing took place with Lenin, he only read or based his ideas on the old works of Marx and Engels, like the MH are basing his ideas on the Paris Notebooks. M&E  frequently changed their ideas thru their whole life.Most Marxist do not understand that Marx and Engels changed their Blanquist conceptions after the Paris Commune, and they advocated for the participation of the working class in the universal suffrage, and they continue talking about the workers armed insurrection.I do not think that mankind is going to build a new society based on dialectic, what we need in our brains is a coherent socialist theory, and we have that coherent socialist theory within the socialist party, we have developed socialism,  also contributing with  our own ideas to a very simple level, we have transformed difficutlt ideas into simple ideas.  and we do not need so much intellectualism in order to understand socialism. We have much better issues to deal with.We have already discussed this topic about two times on this forum, we did   not reach any consensus, or any agreement, we had a lot of personal attacks, but nothing else. Personally, i do not give a shit about dialectic, and philosophy,  and I am not a priest of the church of Marx, and I do not think that he was an idealist-materialist either, that is another invention of the Marxist-Humanists

[Dave B]

Dialectic or also known as the dialectical method, is a discoursebetween two or more people holding different points of viewabout a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasonedarguments. The purpose of the dialectic method of reasoning is resolution of disagreementthrough rationaldiscussion, and, ultimately, the search for truth. One way to proceed—the Socratic method—is to show that a given hypothesis(with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth(see reductio ad absurdum). Another dialectical resolution of disagreement is by denying a presuppositionof the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby, proceeding to sublation(transcendence) to synthesis, a third thesis.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic  So actually to give it a quite valid broad definition it just about ‘logically’ questioning the validity of any set of presupposed ideas etc with any kind of why, how or what if. That makes us in fact, and proper scientists in general, arch Dialecticians whether or not we like it or not. Unless we are emotional or utopian communists accept communism because it feels instinctively correct. [1]  However to get the crap out of the way first; you can have non materialist dialectics, in fact you would have to, otherwise material dialectics would be a tautology.  Examples of modern non materialist dialectics would be Bishop Berkeley,thus;   This theory denies the existence of material substanceand instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are only ideasin the mindsof perceiversand, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived. Berkeley is also known for his critique of abstraction, an important premise in his argument for immaterialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley And L Bird obviously. As well as; René Descarteshypothesized the existence of an evil demon, a personification who is "as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me." The evil demon presents a complete illusion of an external world, including other minds, to Descartes' senses, where there is no such external world in existence. The evil demon also presents to Descartes' senses a complete illusion of his own body, including all bodily sensations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon  I suppose we will have to deal with Hegel somewhere along the line; and before that look at the antecedent to that; Heraclitus. It was no accident I suspect that in the Monty Python philosophers football match, it was Hegel and Heraclitus who were respectively the captains of the German and Greek teams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philosophers'_Football_Match https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2gJamguN04 %5Bthe numbers on the original line up appear to be mixed as for instance Nietzsche number 10 is booked as number 5 etc]  “Heraclitus was famous for his insistence on ever-present changeas being the fundamental essence of the universe.” [And from Diogenes on Heraclitus;] “All things come into being by conflict of opposites, and the sum of things "the whole") flows like a stream.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus  I think clearly there is an antecedent relationship to the Hegelian dialectics eg;Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time.Everything is composed of contradictions (opposing forces).Gradual changes lead to crises, turning points when one force overcomes its opponent force (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).in modern terms emergent property or emergence [2]Change is helical(periodic without returning to the same position), not circular…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DialecticSo what Hegel did or thought or whatever was that societies, cultures ideology or whatever had inherent ‘contradictions’ which caused them to resolve themselves by forming new societies cultures ideology or whatever and so on.Now Hegel was an anti materialist philosopher to start off with; so when he observed this process he naturally assumed human development and our world etc was just an ongoing philosophical ‘debate’.It is a classic case of anthropomorphic projection [3] Or in other more familiar words;"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrumentActually I think I prefer Barack Obama’sIf that's the only tool, if we think we only have a hammer, then everything becomes a nail, then we are missing opportunities…. Going back to Hegel the ‘material’ world would be a bit like a computer simulation or ‘game’ with an ‘escape’ or secret ‘ending’.Although I am not a computer gamer myself.He arrived at that idea in part because he accepted;Law of cause and effect.Nothing changes unless something other that itself or external to it changes itSocieties, cultures ideology change.Therefore something external to them must be driving the change towards an ‘escape’ or secret ‘ending’.[ We are now just much more familiar stuff changing as a result of ‘internal’ natural processes eg evolution, the big bang, condensation of matter into stars, super nova producing more familiar chemical elements etc.]If we just stick for the moment with changing cultures and ideology and just IDEAS  of a philosophical of a ‘hammer’ like nature; and come to materialism, techmology and science a bit later.Then you could argue that humans had an inherent intellectual interest and propensity to solve philosophical paradoxes etc. Hegel I think would just say where did that come from if it isn’t a manifestation of an external spirit?We should know now that;….one basis of invention is science, and science can be an outgrowth of pleasurable intellectual curiosity…. And;Instinctive [pleasurable] intellectual curiosity or intellectual curiosity for its own sake with clearly no defined or understood objective or material benefit [which is why it has to pleasurable] is am evolved successful behavioral strategy.When the objective is more palpable or appears as a material necessary; it then becomes the mother of invention.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_is_the_mother_of_inventionSo we return to materialism.And humans;……….must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature………https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch48.htmblah blahSo nature is out there and exists independently of thought processes and its up to us to make the best of it etc.Which we have done after an albeit crappy fashion and it is our ‘rationally regulating our interchange with Nature’, bringing it under our common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature.Which is a bit of a sick joke at the moment but I suppose that is the whole point.[1] this would perhaps include Feuerbach and 1844 Karl where the human essence or nature as a social instinct was part of are material nature which only acquired a material based thesis from Darwin in 1871.[2] emergence is becoming an increasingly important idea in theoretical physics Thus it was a central theme in this recent Institute of Physics lecture The origin of the Universe. From macrophysics to microphysics Wednesday, 11 January 2017, 18:30 – 19:30 Professor Lucio Piccirillo, University of Manchesterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmergenceWhilst reference is made to Aristotle no ‘credit’ seems to be given to Democritus, or Hegel for whom it was one his maxims.[3] Anthropomorphic projection was first used by Fuerbach to explain christianity.I can’t resist adding the next link; it is worth while I think just for the best cartoon ‘explanation’ of quantum mechanics double slit experiment I have seen yetStarts at 15;10 Although the stuff towards the end on Gnostic (Marcionite and basically Cathar) christianity is interesting only for historical reasons and it the best I have seen it done in less than 10 minutes.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGxVGtkTa4sDon’t shoot the messenger this stuff is all the rage at moment and it isn’t tin foil hat people; I wish it was!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apologies for my delay in replying, but I have had to devote my time to more pressing matters of late. I will return and pick up from where I left off in a week or so.

---

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

 [2] emergence is becoming an increasingly important idea in theoretical physics Thus it was a central theme in this recent Institute of Physics lecture The origin of the Universe. From macrophysics to microphysics Wednesday, 11 January 2017, 18:30 – 19:30 Professor Lucio Piccirillo, University of Manchesterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence 

 Its not just in physics that the emergence paradigm is gaining ground. In sociology a notable example of this approach to Durkheim is Keith’s Sawyers thought-provoking article “Durkheim’s Dilemma: Towards a Sociology of Emergence” https://www.unc.edu/home/rksawyer/PDFs/durkheim.pdf  According to Sawyer, the emergence paradigm has become well established in a number of disciplines but has yet to really take hold in sociology (he wrote this article in 2002, mind you).  One such discipline where it has made considerable  inroads is the cognitive sciences.  In the process, it has provoked much philosophical debate on the vexed relationship between mind and brain .  Looking at this relationshop from an "emergent perspective" affords us analogous insights into the relationship between individuals and society in sociological thinking.     The early post war era ushered in the “cognitive revolution" – though many of the ideas associated with this development can be traced back at least to the early 20th  century when "emergentism" began to be discussed  in a significant way and was often linked with the philosophical tradition of pragmatism    However, this did not come to much and was soon eclipsed by the rise of the behaviourist paradigm which  became absolutely dominant in the field of psychology by the mid 20th century.  Behaviourism, developed and popularised by the likes of Pavlov, Watson, B F Skinner and others, more or less rejected "mentalism" with its focus on thought processes in favour of  what it called a "science of behaviour",  Behaviour was something that could be "objectively" observed  and scientifically measured whereas mental states were, by their very nature, unobservable.  Needless to say, Freudian psychodynamics relying on introspection and the recollection of childhood experiences was also repudiated for this reason.  With the cognitive revolution, this whole behaviourist paradigm came under assault.  That revolution was the outcome of several factors. Among these were the increasing application of interdisciplinary approaches to this whole subject and the introduction of new technologies such as sophisticated brain scanning equipment and computers. Computerisation in particular provided fertile soil in which new speculative insights into the way in which the mind might work, took root.   Analogies were drawn between a computer's hardware and its software in which the brain was said to correspond to the former and the mind, the later.  The development of Artificial Intelligence was predicated on the assumption that machines could simulate human intelligence and thus necessitated investigation into such mental processes as reasoning, perception and communication.  Actually, it was Chomsky's celebrated critique of Skinner's book  Verbal Behaviour in 1959 on the subject of language acquisition in which he propounded the view that human beings had an innate capacity for language that, in a way, sparked the cognitive revolution and marked the turning point in the fortunes of  behaviorism.   In the wake of that revolution a new theoretical perspective gained ground, loosely called “non-reductive physicalism”.  Representing the “emergence paradigm” in this particular field, non-reductive physicalism increasingly came to be seen as a kind of intermediate position between the reductionist physicalism of “identity theory” (which regards consciousness as an essentially neurophysical process) and metaphysical dualism (which disavows any substantive connection between thought and neurophysical activity).   I think the same basic kind of approach could be usefuly applied to sociology.  Society depends on individuals but is not reducible to individiuals as per the mythical "contract" theory of society, propounded by Locke and other individualust thinkers, where society is essentially just the individual Writ Large.   Or Mrs Thatcher's balmy claim that there is no such thing as society only individuals and their families…..

[Young Master Smeet]

Marx wrote:

Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?

Penguin edition has second picturing as "depicting" it's worth noting that here Marx is not saying defining, delineating, adumbrating, decining or determining: describing is an incomplete verb, this means the paragraph above is not necessarily exhaustive.Now, there is a further question: why was it Marx: "therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him." because people were treating a philosopher he criticised 30 years ago as a "dead dog", was he trolling them?  Or was he giving due credit: this is the section of text that leads to Hegel being "the first to present [dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell."So, to read the whole text, Marx is saying he has been misunderstood, and some readers feel he has presented his case in a German Idealistic (i.e. Hegelian way), but, his method is the opposite of Hegel's but Marx is, as it were, standing on the shoulders of giants.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm not really qualified to comment on this article but i think it may arouse some interest from others and perhaps LBird might be provoked by it.Mostly it is based on Thomas Kuhn, if the citations is to go by, who i have never read.http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/03/historical-materialism-versus-historical-conceptualism/One thing that i noticed was: 

Quote:

but revolution, contrary to Marx, can be both corporeal and incorporeal, mental and physical, material and immaterial, meant to establish a new set of governing concepts and ideas over another set, which ultimately organize productive forces and relations of production, both mental and physical, into new social formations and new ways of thinking.

I thought that ideas (incorporeal/mental/immaterial) did take on a life of their own and became a material condition. Surely, Marx didn't overlook when religious beliefs which were perhaps based on materialism at first, transcended their origins and became a cause in themselves. I think the article presents Marx as very determinist and perhaps because of the intellectual needs of his time he did over-emphasise the economic and material ( i am sure there is a quote from Engels conceding this)

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm not really qualified to comment on this article but i think it may arouse some interest from others and perhaps LBird might be provoked by it.Mostly it is based on Thomas Kuhn, if the citations is to go by, who i have never read.

Well, I have read Kuhn, and Lakatos, Feyerabend… and dozens of others, so my 'interest' doesn't need to be 'provoked'.

ajj wrote:

One thing that i noticed was: 

Quote:

but revolution, contrary to Marx, can be both corporeal and incorporeal, mental and physical, material and immaterial, meant to establish a new set of governing concepts and ideas over another set, which ultimately organize productive forces and relations of production, both mental and physical, into new social formations and new ways of thinking.

I thought that ideas (incorporeal/mental/immaterial) did take on a life of their own and became a material condition. Surely, Marx didn't overlook when religious beliefs which were perhaps based on materialism at first, transcended their origins and became a cause in themselves. I think the article presents Marx as very determinist and perhaps because of the intellectual needs of his time he did over-emphasise the economic and material ( i am sure there is a quote from Engels conceding this)

We've been over this dozens of times, and I've specifically answered your own questions on this subject, so I don't think me engaging further on this thread will be much use.Short version: your own ideology, alan, of 'Religious Materialism', which you refuse to openly acknowledge, is shaping your views about these issues.Only once you acknowledge your own ideology, will you be able to understand your own ideological statements, above, like about the relationship between 'ideas' and 'material'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm not really qualified to comment on this article but i think it may arouse some interest from others and perhaps LBird might be provoked by it.Mostly it is based on Thomas Kuhn, if the citations is to go by, who i have never read.http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/03/historical-materialism-versus-historical-conceptualism/

I've had a brief skim of the article, alan, and this stood out:

Quote:

Therefore, materiality; i.e., material reality, is the product of consciousness;

This is an idealist ideological statement.Its opposite, which Religious Materialists like you would argue for, would be:

Quote:

Therefore, consciousness; i.e., conscious reality, is the product of material;

Of course, Marx subscribes to neither of these.Marx would argue that 'social reality' is a product of 'social theory and practice'. Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', who saw humanity as the creator of its world. Not 'god' (consciousness, ideal) nor 'matter' (rocks, material), but social labour, human activity, theory and practice.We create our 'rocks-for-us'. We are our own creator. That's why we can change our creation, rather than just simply contemplate 'matter' and worship the divine. We create time and space, and the laws of physics, as Pannekoek argued.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm not really qualified to comment on this article but i think it may arouse some interest from others and perhaps LBird might be provoked by it.Mostly it is based on Thomas Kuhn, if the citations is to go by, who i have never read.http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/03/historical-materialism-versus-historical-conceptualism/

I've had a brief skim of the article, alan, and this stood out:

Quote:

Therefore, materiality; i.e., material reality, is the product of consciousness;

This is an idealist ideological statement.Its opposite, which Religious Materialists like you would argue for, would be:

Quote:

Therefore, consciousness; i.e., conscious reality, is the product of material;

Of course, Marx subscribes to neither of these.Marx would argue that 'social reality' is a product of 'social theory and practice'. Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', who saw humanity as the creator of its world. Not 'god' (consciousness, ideal) nor 'matter' (rocks, material), but social labour, human activity, theory and practice.We create our 'rocks-for-us'. We are our own creator. That's why we can change our creation, rather than just simply contemplate 'matter' and worship the divine. We create time and space, and the laws of physics, as Pannekoek argued.

It will come as no surprise L Bird, that you have a tendency to get on my t*ts, but never the less, a genuine warm welcome back.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

It will come as no surprise L Bird, that you have a tendency to get on my t*ts, but never the less, a genuine warm welcome back.

But, are your 't*ts' a material tendency, or simply an ideal in your individual brain, or a social product of our interaction?Thanks for your kind… nay, even comradely, words.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

It will come as no surprise L Bird, that you have a tendency to get on my t*ts, but never the less, a genuine warm welcome back.

But, are your 't*ts ………………..r a social product of our interaction? 

I must admit I find the thought that they might be a product of you and I's social interaction a fairly uncomfortable concept

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I must admit I find the thought that they might be a product of you and I's social interaction a fairly uncomfortable concept

Yeah, Tim, revolutionary ideas are an 'uncomfortable concept', especially for the ideological conservatives who wish to preserve 'what exists', and deny humanity's ability to alter the status quo, or to build a world to the liking of the majority, or to allow democratic methods into 'pure, unadulterated, disinterested science' (TM, Bourgeois Social Productions, Est. 1660).Perhaps the SPGB is a lover of 'comfortable concepts', eh? Perhaps you are in your spiritual home?Ooohhh… wash my mouth out! Your material home.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I must admit I find the thought that they might be a product of you and I's social interaction a fairly uncomfortable concept

Yeah, Tim, revolutionary ideas are an 'uncomfortable concept', especially for the ideological conservatives who wish to preserve 'what exists', and deny humanity's ability to alter the status quo, or to build a world to the liking of the majority, or to allow democratic methods into 'pure, unadulterated, disinterested science' (TM, Bourgeois Social Productions, Est. 1660).Perhaps the SPGB is a lover of 'comfortable concepts', eh? Perhaps you are in your spiritual home?Ooohhh… wash my mouth out! Your material home.

Did I mention that you get on my t*ts

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Did I mention that you get on my t*ts

'Repetition', surely, mods?!

[Author]

Posts