Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Almost everything to do with ‘science’ can’t be sensed in such a direct way.”
Actually, practically everything in science can be sensed in a direct way, Hook’s Law, Boyle’s Law, etc, all the way through are based on sensory perceptions of measurement. When you use a spectrometer to measure the width of a sodium atom you are using your senses, aided by machines, but dependent upon your senses.
L Bird, I will go with you as for as the difference between “The World” and “Our World”. Our world is a growing development of interaction with each other and with the world we live in.
Not that very far from Piaget’s concept of schema, mental representations of the world as we understand it which transform as we encounter new experiences and challenges to our pre exisiting schema. The process being an ongoing process which is never complete.
I could also see to some extent that due to the fact that many of the key experiences that form schema are social experiences and as we share a degree of social experiences they are likely to be commonalities at any point in time, in any society.
However, and it is a big however, “our World” derives from somewhere, we discover as children that things that are hot burn us. We develop a schema around hot things that protects us. Our schema is not “The World” it is “our world”, but it is based on our encounters with external forces, forces of nature and social forces. Whilst we can change our internal representation of these forces to gain a more accurate schema (never getting to a point of complete accuracy), we cannot simply ignore these external forces. We cannot change “hot things burn my skin” to “hot things do not burn my skin” by our own creation, any more than the schizoid man can become Napolean, just because he wants to.
ALB – “Otherwise you end up with the absurdity, expressed many times here, that in the past the reality was that the Earth went round the Sun.”
Hi Adam, have you heard of a guy called Galileo, youmight find his work interesting
The thing is with our feathered friend is that he tells us that we shouldn’t rely on the opinions of experts and that doing so is anti socialist and then cites Marx to back up his argument, not seeing the irony that he has just used Marx as an expert source (or rather his interpretation of Marx)
Over the years there has been some speculation as to the origin of his title, L Bird. Some have speculated that it is short for Liver Bird and that he has some connection with the city of Liverpool. My own take is that like a bird he comes in, flaps about, squarks a bit, shits all over everything and then fucks off. (Sorry L Bird, just pulling your leg mate)
As far as I can tell he is the only living person who interprets Marx in the way he does. That’s not to say he is not an affable at times interesting contributor, and he does have a sense of humour and irony, however he is not representative of our views.
Just to reiterate ALB’s point, L Bird is a non member who frequents these boards, due to the democratic and open nature of the party we do not close down those who we don’t agree with but attempt (sometimes very frustratingly) to engage them in debate.
I also take on board your viewpoint on Attenborough, to some extent. The anti science movement appears to be backed by those elements of the capitalist class who are most endangered by recent scientific findings. Perhaps the growing anti science debate might actually be a positive thing, in as much as if this kind of propaganda is being put out there it must be because those who are threatened by the scientific evidence are feeling the heat. If the antibodies of reaction are active, perhaps the virus of revolution is in the air?
Given your heritage Alan, I would have put you down as a Border Collie man, also widely regarded as the most intelligent breed of dog in the world (although I don’t know how they measure dog intelligence)
I remember hearing Vic Vanni in 1982 saying “there are two classes in society” in a booming rich Glaswegian brogue. Nothing I have heard since that time has convinced me that Vic wasn’t telling the truth.
Iran, China, Russia, et al. appear to be starting to circle the ageing and weakening beast that is the US empire, the US still have the technology, do they still have the heart for the fight. A bit like the later stages of the Roman Empire.
“We cannot allow ‘specialist’ educators. Socialism is the self-education of the whole of society.”
So if we cannot learn from others, who or where can we learn from. You yourself repeatedly report that Marx says this or Marx says that, so you are using Marx in the expert role. You have set up Marx as the expert specialist educator, yet you reject specialist educators.
Whilst Dawkins is technically correct, the difference between the “artificial” selection that humans have undertaken with plants and animals and doing the same thing with humans is the reproductive rate.
In plants reproduction is usually yearly, however the large number of seeds, tubers, etc produced each year means that one plant can reproduce potentially thousands of offspring in one year from which to select the most suitable, and it is quite quickly apparent which are the most suitable to select.
In animals cows usually start reproducing after 2 years and can have up to about 20 calves in their lifetime, but it’s usually about 7-10 produced over a 7-10 year period. In cats, dogs, etc. reproduction and maturity is much quicker. So in effect selection for particular characteristics can take place relatively quickly. However dogs and cattle have taken centuries of selective breeding to get to the point achieved today.
In humans, if we say that reproduction starts at about 16 and reproduction numbers are likely far fewer that cows, for example. Also it takes much longer for the characteristics (if you believe in this type of thing) to become apparent, so it would potentially take much longer, for instance at what age do you decide who the fastest runner is, some sprinters peak in their mid 20s, whilst middle distance and long distance runners peak much later, the same could be said for intelligence (again is you believe in such things)
So again to start to get any really differences emerging, you would probably have to wait at least 25 years and to confirm even a sight modification would take 50 years, with no guarantee. (For example Kenny Dalglish’s son Paul played for Newcastle for a few years. He looked like Kenny, he spoke like Kenny, he ran like Kenny, he even had his tongue hanging out of his mouth when playing, just like Kenny, however unlike Kenny, he was rubbish at football)
Alan – “We have numerous social problems which cross over from the racial to class divisions. Our task is not to deny that race (or religion elsewhere in the world) is not part of the reason for inequality but to show that the fight for socialism is the solution, not a re-arrangement and re-alignment of various oppressions (or disadvantages, if you prefer)”
A view point I wholeheartedly concur with. We need to be pointing out that the actions of the Police in harassing minorities in London, is the same as the actions of the agents of the state at Orgreave and in creating a police state in parts of the UK during the Miner’s Strike and in smashing up communities throughout the North of England. That losing your home because your landlord throws you out is little different from having your home repossessed by the bank and the building society, that being belittled and bullied in the workplace is a factor of your social class and position of power in society. That arriving in the UK as a poor immigrant starved out of your homeland is the same experience your grandparents had as 19th/20th Century Irish immigrants, as a 21st Century Libyan or Afghani immigrants are experiencing now, being denied your cultural and linguistic heritage is the same if you’re a native Welsh speaker or a native Punjabi speaker.
Most importantly we need to be pointing out that it is possible that the divisions created by artifices such as “race”, gender, nationality, sexuality, ability/disability, etc. can be overcome and dealt with through reconciliation and mutual development, however the antagonism that exists between those who own and control and those who have no ownership and control, cannot be reconciled, but require the abolition of class ownership and the abolition of classes themselves. .
We need to be working to create working class unity, not working class divisions.
Alan wrote
“Rather than “the rapidly-heating planet”, would it be more accurate instead to say “the rapidly-melting planet””
The melting point of igneous rocks varies, but silicates solidify at 600 degrees C (although this will depend on pressure, Boyle’s Law and all that). So actually Alan it would be very inaccurate and dare I say a smidgen alarmist to say rapidly melting planet. Although you could argue that as the lower and upper mantle are fluid, although not all liquid so they go through a constant process of melting and solidifying, but the inner core of the earth is thought to be solid, due to the pressure of gravity at the earth’s core
Hi Jon
First of all welcome to the forum, always nice to hear new voices. Funnily enough there is a debate going on in one of our internal forums about how we can begin to look at putting forward our case for socialsim in different ways. I also agree with you that it is very easy for online forums and the likes to descend into “Punch and Judy shows” which end up being counter productive.
With regard to creating a room for those in the Labour Party who are disgruntled and have left or are about to leave, in way, you already have, by starting this thread, hopefully it will develop and fulfill your intention.
Getting back to the Labour Party, I think you are right about the top down model of the Labour Party. It is something that I think has always been there and was one of the reasons I left the Labour Party in 1981 or so. I had been in the LP from being about 16 till I was about 20-21, but realised that despite the outward appearance of being a democratic party (and to be fair back in the 1980s it was probably more democratic that it is now) it was clear that it was nothing of the sort, but more a top down model where those at the bottom complained about those at the top, until they got to the top and behaved like the people they had replaced. (Meet the new Boss, the same as the Old Boss!). I was also aware of the internal jiggery pokery and anti democratic methods of the various semi secret Trotskyist groups, that seemed more interested in destroying each other, than destroying capitalism and who certainly had at best only a shakey commitment to the concept of democracy.
Initially one of the things that attracted me to the SPGB in the first place (and is something we should be more enthusiastic in publicising) is the complete transparency and democratic nature of the Party. I am not sure how aware of our internal processes you are aware of, but we have no secret meeting, no cabals, no leaders and all of our meetings, including our Executive Committee, our conferences, etc. are ALWAYS open to the public, and a member who has joined the party five minutes ago has the same standing in the Party democracy, as one who has been in the party for decades.
There are other obvious reasons why I came to join the Party, not least its definition of Socialism and its opposition to reformism, but I’ll leave it there for the moment, hopefully we can do more of the compare and contrast stuff as the thread develops.
