[LBird]

Some more food for thought, on the incorrectness of materialism’s claim to have objective knowledge (being without consciousness) when faced with a famous physicist’s claim (similar to Marx’s idealism-materialism) that knowledge is always social (being with consciousness). Knowledge is a social relationship of object and subject, not a reflection of object, without a subject. Thus, ‘truth’ is a social and historical creation of humans, not a timeless and asocial ‘Truth’.

Rhodes, p. 77, wrote:

“It is wrong,” he [Niels Bohr] told his colleagues repeatedly, “to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is” – which is the territory classical physics had claimed for itself. “Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Atomic-Bomb-Richard-Rhodes/dp/1471111237Materialism echoes classical physics; Einstein and Bohr echo Marx.Anyone want a discussion?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Why won't you address these points?

Because they are irrelevant.I've tried to talk to you about hunter gatherer society on a thread dedicated to that, but got nowhere.I've tried to talk to you about 'individualism' on a number of threads, but got nowhere.You won't discuss your ideology.You apparently think 'scientific knowledge' is 'true', rather than a social construct, created by 'theory and practice'.I've asked you to say what ideology you use to understand hunter gatherers, individualism, and science. But you won't answer.I've tried patience, comradely appeals, abuse, contempt, fawning, trickery, blackmail, violence, gang warfare…Only thing left is to ignore questions, if only to irritate you as much as I've been irritated.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

Quote:

That's what those who can't read posts and follow up the implications, and instead avoid those implications and constantly change the goalposts, always call those trying to help. It's almost as if the illiterate and ignorant can't identify their terrible condition…

by the way fuck you.

That must be your 'scientific method', eh, CP?I'm just following your method – you call me 'a dick', I call you 'illiterate and ignorant'.But only one of us is correct.It never fails to amaze me, that people think they can hurl insults, then cry like babies when insults are returned.Are you so out of touch with life?Here we go, anyway… fuck you, too.Third warning:  7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

wow nice completely ignore all of my questions and call me ignorant.

wow nice completely ignore all of my answers and call me a dick.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

If none of this is relevant to your idea of science and how it should be carried out and implemented in society then you should be clearer about your own ideological position because i'm stumped 

You still haven't got it yet, have you, CP?You have to be clearer about your own, existing, 'ideological position' about 'your idea of science'.Then, you might have some hope of contrasting that with mine.Come back when you've read the links that I've already provided.If you think Mengele and Tuskegee are fine, we have no more to discuss.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

ok i'll read it but you don't have to be a dick

 He does. That's all there is to him.I think 'dick' is putting it mildly. 

I rest my case, CP.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

ok i'll read it but you don't have to be a dick

That's what those who can't read posts and follow up the implications, and instead avoid those implications and constantly change the goalposts, always call those trying to help. It's almost as if the illiterate and ignorant can't identify their terrible condition…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i think part of my understanding is that during the revolution i begin to relate to my fellow workers, not as "class comrades"  but to use that cliche..people…individuals…friends …and neighbours …who have come together in solidarity….we recognise one another as human beings first and foremost…that is our commonality that we come to realise …we dump all the previous identities…class ….nationality…race…gender..all the other etceteras…

All sounds a bit '60s, hippy-ish, 'love and peace, maaaan', to me, alan.I'm inclined to think you're underestimating how much 'people…individuals…friends …and neighbours', as well as 'coming together in solidarity', will also have to develop their detestation and hatred of anything that smacks of socio-economic exploitation, and develop their conscious determination to smash their class enemies…So, peaceful change if the bourgeoisie submit and allow it, but…Let's hope they come to realise just how much of a mess their system is making of our world society and environment… I won't be holding my breath, though…I think Communism will come through class war, not 'love thy neighbour'. Some wars are short and sharp, relying on shock and awe… Let's hope the bourgeois fifth column is strong when the time comes, and betrays its origins…

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I didn't say that LBird.   Stop misrepresenting my position!

Don't take things too seriously, robbo.Although I'm pretending that you've said things that you haven't, the purpose is to illustrate where what you are saying leads.So, it's not really 'misrepresentation', as much as 'clarification'.It's like when I 'misrepresent' the 'materialists' as them claiming that "The rocks speak to me!".It's a way of clarifying where their ideas lead, and why we should disregard their 'leadership'.Have a nice afternoon, comrade!

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

and my view of science is just a collection of knowledge and the pursuit of a greater knowledge in a multitude of subjects in the physical world.

That's so naively cute, CP!You clearly haven't read my link to Dr. Mengele's scientific activities.Have you heard of the Tuskegee Experiment, perchance?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experimentYou probably won't read that, either.Isn't the innocence of youth frightening, comrades?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

….then we relate to one another not as fellow workers and comrades but as neighbours and friends…just thought i throw that in without expanding on it.

I'll 'expand on it': you must have some unusual 'neighbours and friends', alan.All mine (and my relatives and enemies, too, funnily enough) all sell their labour for a living, since they don't own any of the means of production.In fact, some bloke called Charlie something-or-other pointed out that taking control of the means of production that they labour at is the key to workers taking control of their lives.No doubt you and your 'friends and neighbours' will just throw a little soiree during the revolution?You'll have to change your tag to abigailjjohnstone.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail's_Party

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 the point is how did they FEEL about  it.

Yeah, individual feelings.Not an analysis based on socio-economic exploitation, ie. 'the point is' class.

Is that the best you can come up with, LBird? 

For those who can't understand what a 'relationship' is, yeah.You'll be telling us next that, as long as a slave or a worker FEELS 'free', they ARE FREE!Individual feelings, eh? 'They can't imprison our minds!'I suppose if bricks in a pile 'feel' like they are a wall, then they are!I recommend some structural analysis, long before the rabid wolf comes into sight.'Pilist' robbo versus 'Wallist' LBird? Hmmmm…. Who's advice will other workers follow?Any individualists will clearly follow Pilist robbo, and the wolf will be served dinner on a plate. Their arses might be in the wolf's stomach, but as long as the individualists 'feel' that their bum cheeks are still attached to their backsides, then they are.Yeah, right!

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 the point is how did they FEEL about  it.

Yeah, individual feelings.Not an analysis based on socio-economic exploitation, ie. 'the point is' class.

[LBird]

Richard wrote:

However, in order to analyze our society it's necessary to focus on economic classes and the exploitative relationship between the capitalist class and the working class, not on individuals.

This is why, if we are going to use 'class' to understand our society, we need to ideologically identify the members of the two main opposed classes as 'workers and bosses', not as 'individuals' (which just emphasises our biological similarity with bosses).This is politics, stressing exploitative socio-economic relationships and the ideological concepts used in the relational struggle, not a discussion about biology.If we're serious about it being a political, not a biological, discussion, we should call ourselves 'workers', and denigrate the ideological confusion caused by calling ourselves 'individuals'.To call oneself 'an individual' is to line up with the bosses' view of our world. One made up of isolated, autonomous, uncaring, 'free', individuals.We're workers. And we'll never be 'free' of society. That is a bourgeois myth and aspiration.

[LBird]

Richard wrote:

Individuals obviously exist and have existed since before capitalism.

You're wrong, Richard.You're making a common mistake, based upon your socialisation/education/brainwashing, which we all suffer from, and have to fight, of equating 'biological existence' with 'ideological concept'.The universal statement that 'I'm an Individual', which everybody is taught to repeat like a mantra, would not be made in other societies in the past. In a slaveowning society, for example, all the slaves did not go around declaring that 'I'm an individual'. It was as clear to them, as to the slaveowners, that they were the property of someone, not 'an individual' (an concept which contains the belief in autonomy, which they knew that they didn't have).To the Romans, a slave was an instrumentum vocale (a speaking tool). An agricultural implement was an instrumentum mutum (a non-speaking tool), and a farm animal was an instrumentum semi-vocale (a noisy tool).In this society, many people were 'tools' not 'individuals'. We can analytically separate out them as 'biological individuals', and still understand that this is nothing to do with the bourgeois belief that everybody holds of being 'an individual'.Within this socio-historical framework of understanding ourselves as humans, we can see that only with the dawn of Communism will a society exist which aims from the start to produce all-round 'individuals'.

[Author]

Posts