LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Tim Kilgallon wrote:with all due respect, L Bird, I asked what your opinion is, not Jordan's. So again, what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?
With all due respect, Tim, you'll have to read what I've already said to YMS, here on this thread, which was already a repetition of what I've said many times.The mod has already given a warning about saying the same thing, over and over, so I'm taking heed.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Marx regarded humans as divine creators.JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?
You'll have to take that up with Marx, YMS.Or, perhaps, actually read Jordan's text.
To rephrase YMS's question, where (in your opinion) did Marx think humans come from if he thought that the world was their divine creation?
Jordan, section 4 Sacred and Profane History (in book, pp. 34-7).
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Marx regarded humans as divine creators.JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?
You'll have to take that up with Marx, YMS.Or, perhaps, actually read Jordan's text.
I thought that you were a 'Hebridean exophagist'?How can we trust the claims of someone who seems to merely say what they think others want to hear?Perhaps you should stick to reading bourgeois dictionaries – they'll provide the 'objective definitions' that you so desperately seek. Plus, dictionaries don't expect you to think critically.
YMS, I'm trying to tell you what Marx said, as him being a revolutionary thinker.If you're trying to understand him as him being a bourgeois thinker, then you won't succeed.Or, rather, you'll succeed, and 'understand' him as a bourgeois thinker who's clearly wrong.If you don't share his political and ideological beliefs, then your 'understanding' will be built upon other political and ideological beliefs.That's why I openly declare my ideology of Democratic Communism – I'm not hiding my starting point.But you are hiding yours.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Produce and create are not pure synonyms, especially given the divine connotations of create, since you don't want to add meaning by differentiating them, I need to ask questions for further clarification.Read carefully, YMS, Very carefully, Very, very carefully.Produce and create are pure synonyms for Marx.Marx regarded humans as divine creators.So, I don't need to 'add meaning' – that's what you want to do. Your 'clarification' is an attempt to 'redefine' – why not admit it? You simply want to redefine Marx's revolutionary, democratic epistemology, into a conservative, elite epistemology, and then claim that 'Marx was wrong' and 'LBird is wrong'.
YMS wrote:Asking questions, and re-phrasing your comments is an attempt to tease out the unclarity, especially when you seem to resort to ad hominem whenever you're challenged on any weak points in your argument.You are not asking questions, or for re-phrasing, or teasing out unclarity, but trying to define Marx into line with your bourgeois ideology.It's not 'ad hominem' to say you 'seem to' have cloth ears, because I keep giving explanations, and you redefine or rephrase them into your terms. I think that I'm being more than reasonable, with someone who doesn't read what I write (or Marx or Jordan), but keeps bleating about 'personal attacks'.The only 'weak points' in Marx's argument are the ones you keep inserting. Why not go to church, and pray to your creator for divine guidance, and experience a personal relevation? It'll be quicker for you than social clarification.
Why do you bother, YMS?I've told you what I mean, and you quote a dictionary which disagrees with what I've said.What's the point of claiming you want to understand what I say, but keep resorting to assumptions that are not what I say?If you want to understand what dictionary definitions (those non-socially products, The Real Truth, eternal objects) say, why not read more dictionaries?Why pretend? Why waste my time, and yours?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lbird, I'm trying to understand you.Frankly, I find this difficult to believe. You seem to want to make me say what you understand, rather than you understand what I write.Unless you start from the view that we have different ideological starting points (that is, you have to understand both my and your ideologies), which isn't agreeing with each others, but understanding each others.
YMS wrote:Marx was very precise in his termininology…I disagree. I think Marx was a terribly unclear writer, who didn't use the same term for the same concept consistently. That's not least of the reasons I think workers today have to make Marx much clearer for our revolutionary purposes.
YMS wrote:… (this is what makes his works difficult to read sometimes)No, what makes his works difficult to read is his poor writing style, combined with the complete unfamiliarity of his arguments to those brainwashed by the bourgeoisie (ie. all of us in this society). His works 'sound mad' to those who start from their bourgeois ideology. Critical thought is necessary, including about 'science', 'objective knowledge' and 'Truth'.
YMS wrote:Precision is important in debate.I agree, and Marx often doesn't provide it. But you are the one changing/substituting what I write, for what you wish that I'd written.
YMS wrote:You can call it word play if you like, but it is quite galling after an hours debate about the state of traffic to find you were discussing Edinburgh when I was talking about Carlisle.Little tip, YMS. When I write 'Edinburgh', don't read 'Carlisle'.
YMS wrote:I note your quiet acceptance of 'produce' rather than create. Can you now add transform to the mix?Here we go, again. In this context, 'produce' and 'create' are synonyms for human activity. If you wish to reserve one for 'god and nothing' (ie. 'creation'), that's your choice, not mine. If you wish to use 'transform' to alter the meaning of 'produce/create', then you're 'adding' to confuse. If you simply mean 'produce/create', why add another term?Finally, purpose.You should take note of this.My purpose to clarify an epistemology suitable for the revolutionary proletariat, as a part of its class consciousness, to help build a democratic politics, including in the social production of scientific knowledge and truth.If you have a different purpose (individual knowledge, personal clarification, defence of bourgeois science, piss-taking, whatever), you should declare it, because it will impact upon your understanding of Marx.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I didn't ask what Marx says (nor imply anything about what Marx says) I asked a simple question, for you and your understanding alone: is it possible to enter into a relationship with nothing?[my bold]LOL!Back to solipsism. The bedrock which you build upon.Now, openly, not just no democracy, no social production, no proletariat, no workers' power, no politics……just YMS's simple ideology: the individual, alone.Why don't you come out of the bourgeois closet, YMS? You'll feel much more relaxed with yourself!
For those who've had enough of YMS's word-games, which have nothing to whatsoever with Jordan's book or Marx's ideas, here's a further attempt at explanation.For Marx, to 'know' is to 'use'.So, to 'know nature' we have to 'use nature'.The question of 'what is nature when its not being used by us?' is meaningless to Marx.Marx calls the 'ingredient into our usage' 'inorganic nature', and the product of our usage 'organic nature'.This is the key part of Marx's epistemology: the active subject, which produces its own object.Activity and production are essential concepts within Marx's epistemology.When we want to 'know' anything, we have to ask 'who produced it?' and 'for whose purposes and interests was it produced?'.Because we produce anything that we can know, we can also change that product.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lets try getting away from blank sheets, clearly that's confused you, Can we enter into a relationship with nothing?Still changing what Marx says, eh? Don't you get tired of making things up?Marx argues that we are in a relationship with 'inorganic nature'.Your question about 'a relationship with nothing' is an attempt to confuse what Marx argues. You've done this so many times that I can't put it down to simple ignorance – you are purposely sowing confusion.You wish to 'know' 'inorganic nature' 'as it is', as 'nature-in-itself'. Why not expose your ideology?
For other trying to follow this thread, I'll re-use an analogy that I used earlier.Marx argues that we live in a world of 'pies' (objects).We are the baker that bakes our pies.Pies are the product of our social theory and practice upon 'dough' (inorganic nature).Dough only has meaning as an ingredient into our baking.Those who wish to 'know dough' outside of any active relationship with the baker are faced with an impossible task. They wish to know 'dough-in-itself'.The bourgeois claim that dough creates pies (without them baking those pies), and that they simply 'discover' the 'pies' on the shelf, and just hand the pies to us, for our consumption. Thus, we can't change the pies that we consume.Finally, 'dough-in-itself' is another term for 'god'.Those who claim to seek 'dough', prior to our creating of our pies, are religious, have faith in dough, and seek god.
So, now you're playing with words.Unsuprisingly, it always ends like this.You list the words I mention, but outside of any context of your political ideology. So, 'isolated terms' which reflect your 'isolated individual' ideology.Logic is not a strongpoint of yours, either."We cannot enter into a relationship with a blank sheet."'Unknown sheet' does not mean 'blank sheet'. You always do this – you exchange what I write for what you wish that I had written.Marx argues that the 'sheet' is unknown. It can only become known with a knower.You argue that this amounts to a 'blank sheet'.You claim that the 'sheet' can be known without a knower – that's why you claim that the 'sheet' has 'properties' outside of the 'knower' – for you, the passive knower simply finds properties of the 'sheet-in-itself'.For Marx, the active knower creates the 'sheet-for-the-knower'. There isn't a 'sheet' (marked or blank) simply waiting to be passively 'discovered'. Any 'sheet-we-know' is a social product. And since we create the 'sheet-we-know', we can change it.Anyway, I'll leave you to ignore what Marx, Jordan and I write.
