[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

And your posts, twc, are the cream on the cake of obfuscation:  no-one knows what you mean.  I certainly don’t and I’ve asked you numerous times to enter a discussion and explain.But you just continue to post incomprehensible, lengthy posts which achieve no purpose whatsoever.

 Let me hold your hand. “For the fifth time.” “Do you know how big the number five is?  How many fingers do you have on your hand?  Five, yes that’s very good.” “Now, listen carefully.  Are you ready?  …  Good.” “Can you tell me how you know when your shoe laces are tied?” “Do you understand the question?  …  You do.” “Do you think you can you answer it?  …   You think so.” “Now, please begin…”

So, you were born with the concept 'five' in your individual mind, were you, twc?No social input eh? Not the name (which I'd argue is different in other languages) or the concept (which I'd argue that some societies don't even have a concept for), but twc's objective knowledge of 'five', which spoke to him like a burning bush.And no social input to 'tying shoe laces'? No, once again, twc from birth knew already what 'shoes' and 'laces' were, and didn't need to be taught because his own senses told him how to do it!I live in a society which socially produces mathematics and shoes. In fact, society 'cobbles' them together.You are truly the manifestation of the One True God, twc, omniscient from birth, not requiring society or its production.For you, the world 'is', and we should all bow down on bended knee to you and your 'objective world'.Because, you'll tell us what it is, won't you, twc?A follower of Lenin, if I've ever heard one.Or is it his brother, Cretin?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

This is something that no-one ont his thread has said, and I'm sure no one believes.

Oh yes, they do! And so do you.Or will you finally disclose the political ideology you employ to understand the world?No? I thought not.You're either a liar (who  does know their ideology) or ignorant (and don't recognise your ideology).

YMS wrote:

The technical language of science, and the detail of practice is no more than the technical notation used by musicians will the audience vote on the music?).

The audience does vote on music – never heard of the charts? Never been to a record stall/shop and bought a record?To liken the power of music (and it does have power, of course) to the power of nuclear scientists, and claim that we have an identical input to music and physics, is so laughable that even the 'mathematic meatbot' should have thought that one through.You're a fool, YMS. And a dupe of the bourgeoisie.Let's spell it out for you: P O W E R.If that is not in the hands of the democratic proletariat, it'll be in the hands of an elite.But you don't have a problem with that, do you?Be honest with the workers reading this thread, for once.You're not going to allow them to vote on scientific research, are you?Go on, answer a direct question, just once.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…is the vital cornerstone—the foundation principle—of your core “science”. It is the pivot, or fulcrum, on which everything else, including your mentally-repressive socialism, rests. It is not disposable.

The "the vital cornerstone", "the foundation principle", "the pivot, or fulcrum", on which my "core science" and "socialism rests" is the democratic proletariat.Neither you nor anyone else on this thread (SPGB members, SPGB ex-members or non-SPGB posters) can claim this.You're all bamboozled by 19th century positivist science, compounded with Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, and topped by most comrades' ignorance of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts.You all think rocks talk to us. So, you're all compelled to lie to the proletariat, and pretend that you're all arguing for the democratic  control of the economy by the proletariat, that is, Socialism/Communism, when you really already know that you're going to rely on elite experts: Party, Parliament and Physicists.On the contrary, I wish to smash Party, Parliament and Physicists, and build the power of the working class in all those arenas until the working class is in the saddle and with complete class consciousness proceeds to build Socialism/Communism.I can answer questions, with my answers being in the form any worker can understand, whether it's rocks, water, chips, cakes, value or Australian Aborigines tying shoelaces, whereas you all have to bluster, and refuse to answer questions.The truth is, none of you have the slightest clue about the philosophy of science, its interconnections with politics, or how to explain 'value' to workers.And your posts, twc, are the cream on the cake of obfuscation: no-one knows what you mean. I certainly don't and I've asked you numerous times to enter a discussion and explain.But you just continue to post incomprehensible, lengthy posts which achieve no purpose whatsoever.You should all ask yourselves: "Why am I opposed to democracy in every area of science?"It's simply because you think that physicists have a neutral method which gives them a truth not available to the common mass.They don't have this method, and the contempt you have for ordinary workers' abilities now and potential in the future, means that any notion of Socialism/Communism emerging under your guidance is erroneous.I can't be more forthcoming about the philosophical problems which underpin the SPGB. Your conservative philosophy negates your politics."Vote SPGB: Vote Party, Parliament and Physicists!"……and bollocks to workers.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

twc wrote:

Your whole integrity, and credibility as a socialist, depends on a direct answer—not one that hides behind 5000 year-old Aboriginal culture, which somehow your mother managed to avoid when she transmitted the objectivity of “sensuous” practice you now deny.Your entire intellectual and honourable humanity is at stake. No devious shifts this time.

Hi twcThis is an interesting one. A few times LBird was criticised for challenging party members socialist credentials.I wonder if the same party members will show the same concern now.

[my latter bold] It'd be nice to actually have a discussion with twc, but he'd rather have me condemned as an unbeliever, and burnt at the stake as a heretic.It's always the same with the religious fanatics. There's a few of them here, SP!'Socialist credentials'? My arse!

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…merely transforming the marble into a statue, nothing is created…

Michelangelo would be weeping at that.It's the words of a bourgeois, who knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing."David: the meatbot view", just about sums it up.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

That's where we differ. I keep saying this, but no-one seems to want to read.Marx argues that humans 'create' something that doesn't already exist.

 Like a bag of chips or a Cake.  I don't think I need Marx to tell me that. 

But you have to have the idea of 'a bag of chips or a cake' prior to creating them.Chips and cakes don't appear from spuds and flour talking to us, and saying, "Go on, dumb human, do as you're told!"That's the method of inductive science, employing individualist senses, and ignoring social factors.I know it's completely ludicrous, but some people listen to that sort of nonsense!Apparently, they do need Marx to tell them that. I've told you, the bourgeoisie are laughing at us.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I'll re-iterate that information can only be a transformation of real events…

So, it's not 'created' by humans, then.That's where we differ. I keep saying this, but no-one seems to want to read.Marx argues that humans 'create' something that doesn't already exist.You (and the others) are arguing that humans merely 'transform' something which already exists.This all revolves around the 'active side' of idealism, which Marx praised, in the Theses on Feuerbach.Philosophers, sympathetic to Marx, have pointed out throughout the 20th century that to argue for 'revolution' requires critical and creative thought, because 'what exists' must be criticised (not simply 'taken in for tranformation') and something new must be created.Engels seemed to be completely unaware of the reversion he did, to the 'materialism' of pre-1845, a materialism which provided the philosophical basis for 19th century positivist science, which influenced Engels to the detriment of what he'd learnt from Marx. Elite science leads to elite politics.While socialists/communists look to Engels, 'science' (meaning induction) and individualism (of the biological senses), there won't be any revolution, because a conscious revolution is not possible without critical and creative thought by the entire working class.There'll be social upheavals, of course, but they won't be of the sort that we'd like to see.Most likely the "death camps, gulags and barbarism" sort of upheaval.

[LBird]

pfbcarlisle wrote:

In other words criticism which I think boils down to the usual dividing issues of socialist/communist consciousness, (how it comes about), the role of the Party/revolutionaries in general, and the nature of the revolution to come.

It seems to me it 'boils down to' fundamentally different politics.In effect, they're as different as 'reform' is from 'revolution'.I'm not saying either is reformist, but pointing out that the conceptions you mention are so different as to be unbridgeable.What's the point of attending each others' meetings? Neither side is listening to the other, because their core philosophies mean that they can't.Whatever 'similarities' they share are based upon appearances only – the same words, but totally different meanings.'Class consciousness', 'revolutionary organisation' and 'revolution'. All totally different.

[LBird]

So, twc, would Australian Aborigines from 5000 years ago be able to 'tie their shoelaces', even though they'll never have been taught how to? Would they even recognise 'shoes' for what we use them for?I think Marx would argue that 'tying shoelaces' is a social activity, learned from a specific society, in specific historical circumstances, in a society that has access to relatively advanced technology, that has a need for shoes.Your very long post will be meaningless to most people.Surely what we should be trying to do is explain what Marx means?He argues for socio-historic specificity, and socially-produced theories which allow social practice to take place. That's how we learn and produce knowledge.Kids learn to tie their shoelaces from their parents.

[LBird]

YMS, post #856, wrote:

…got in…

YMS, post #858, wrote:

…got out…

Sounds like your making it up, as you go along, YMS, merely as a response to what I say, rather than as a principled position which you take on these questions.In the first, you argue 'information' comes from the outside, from external reality to passive human senses.In the second, you argue 'information' comes from the inside, from critical human thinking to external reality.I don't think that you've really given it much thought, have you?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Lbird,there are only six ways information gets into the meatbot. Five are the senses, the 6th is DNA…

Ah, yes, I forgot you're 'meatbot man'.No chance of you realising that humans create information, in their minds, using social theories, by critical assessment, and not from your six 'individualist, biological senses' routes.Reading your previous post, I was nearly in seventh heaven, there…

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

In many ways, it is a plaussible claim to make that knowledge is distortion…

Y'know, I could cry.Instead of developing this vital insight, that knowledge is distortion, you immediately fall back into individualist answers.

YMS wrote:

… if we are each of us. As we grow into our senses and our networks of information, we each become a focus for shaping our own world. If we are presumed to be wrapped up in ideology, we'd need priets to see us clear, but if we can each make up our own minds…

[my bold]'Knowledge' is a social product, YMS, and the inevitable 'distortion' of it has social roots.If only you could ditch the bourgeois brainwashing of 'your individuality', and start to examine the 'social production' of yourself, you might take your insight further.You're a 'worker', not an 'individual'. A social product, not a mere isolated biological entity. Accepting that premise is the beginning of wisdom.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i suggested it once before. Why can't you join the party and instead of pissing into the tent, you can piss out of it.

This was at least a possibility (I won't put it any higher than that) when I started to post last year (especially because of your and ALB's contributions on LibCom about 'free access communism'), but I'm afraid now I'd put it no higher than very, very, improbable. The fact that you can characterise my acts as 'pissing in' (I know it's a joke, but still revealing) tells me something: I think I'm trying to help comrades become aware of the choices we have within the philosophy of science, based upon my years of extensive reading, but I'm clearly regarded as a troublemaker, who is being subject to warnings (and an inadvertent ban) for only answering other posters who post in an unneccessarily hostile tone to me. I'm just better and funnier at 'hostility', and an outsider.

ajj wrote:

Your disagreements are not incompatble with membership as far as i can judge and the party has demonstrated its flexibility for the extensive debates on philosophy topics.

As far as I can judge, my disagreements are entirely incompatible with every other member who posts on here. To me, the party is constantly demonstrating its religious adherence to 'bourgeois science' (individualism, biological senses, induction) rather than demonstrating an 'open mind'. I should temper that statement with the fact that some members (ex-?) have been more open to persuasion, but haven't posted in my support due to their own confusion about these issues. It's difficult to overthrow a lifetime's brainwashing about the nature of science, both by the bourgeosie and other comrades taken in by Engels.

ajj wrote:

I doubt you have any real alternatives or other options, do you, except to continue as that lone voice in the wilderness, isolated from possible comrades and denied opportunities for activity.

I could give up being 'that lone voice in the wilderness', and just continue to educate myself in the arcane issues of ontology and epistemology for my own enjoyment and enlightenment; or even ditch Socialism/Communism/Marxism in its entirety, and laugh from the sidelines at the pretensions of those still stuck within 19th century frameworks of thought.I mean, 'practical observation'. FFS.Any individual can go outside, stand with their arms on their hips, and be sure that they are not moving: yep, the earth is stationary. Then, passively observe the facts of the sun going round the earth (and you can 'see' it doing just this). Then, and only then, 'let the theory emerge'. Yeah, "the sun goes round the earth", the result of Brian's 'practical observation by an individual using their own senses'.Has no-one else ever read Marx? Never mind some 20th century philosophy of science.No, Alan, I just don't do religious sects, with their unthinking certainty and abuse of heretics.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Which when considered together unreservably places matter in its rightful place – ahead of the queue – in terms of ideas springing from the practical observation of matter in motion.

I should just comment on this allegation, too.'Ideas' don't spring from either 'practical observation' (ie. induction) or from 'matter in motion' (ie. rocks talking to us). This is Engelsian rubbish.'Ideas' spring from creative, critical humans. This is Marx's 'active side' that he admired in idealism.

Brian wrote:

…you've become myopic to all the arguments put to you regarding materialism versus idealism.

'Myopia' is a feature of every ideology: that's what I've been explaining for hundreds of post now. 'Selection' is necessary, and that means ignoring some 'matter/facts' and choosing other 'matter/facts'.So, I haven't 'become myopic' – we are all inescapably myopic, because that is the nature of science and the human production of knowledge.Further, I don't regard the debate as 'materialism versus idealism', because I can read the Theses on Feuerbach, and can clearly see that Marx selected aspects from both idealism and materialism (and anyone reading that text can see this), and thus Marx became an 'idealist-materialist' (or, 'historical materialist', 'critical realist', etc.).I've said all this before, but you still haven't cottoned on, have you, Brian?We disagree in our philosophies, but mine is democratic and can provide a basis for the SPGB's political strategy, whereas yours isn't and can't.It's pointless you just reiterating your ideology, as if the last 800+ posts hadn't happened.And no-one, not you or any other member of the SPGB, has attempted to give a unified scientific method that can apply to both rocks and value, as I have at least tried to do.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

But being dismissive of all scientific and academic thought, just because according to you they are all ideologically unsound in terms of class bias, is a misjudgement and unproven.

I'm not sure where this notion of anyone 'being dismissive of all scientific and academic thought' has come from, but it hasn't come from me.Well, I think that if no-one wants to discuss the outlines I've given about Critical Realism, and its use for understanding both physical and social phenomena (including Marx's 'value'), and its potential to provide a basis for a unified scientific method (as sought by Marx), then I suppose that the thread has run its course.If anyone in the SPGB can provide an alternative basis for the democratic control of the means of production by the proletariat, to the one that I've tried to provide, I'll be keen to read it. Perhaps anyone who wishes to do so could start a new thread.

[Author]

Posts