Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks to ALB bringing Pannekoek into the discussion, I begint to see where the confusion has crept in. As he notes, Lenin as Philosopher is interesting:
Pancake wrote:For middle class materialism the problem of the meaning of knowledge is a question of the relationship of spiritual phenomena to the physico-chemical-biological phenomena of the brain matter. For Historical Materialism it is a question of the relationship of our thoughts to the phenomena which we experience as the external world. Now man’s position in society is not simply that of an observing being: he is a dynamic force which reacts upon his environment and changes it. Society is nature transformed through labour. To the scientist, nature is the objectively given reality which he observes, which acts on him through the medium of his senses. To him the external world is the active and dynamic element, whilst the mind is the receptive element. Thus it is emphasised that the mind is only a reflection, an image of the external world, as Engels expressed it when he pointed out the contradiction between the materialist and idealist philosophies. But the science of the scientist is only part of the whole of human activity, only a means to a greater end. It is the preceding, passive part of his activity which is followed by the active part; the technical elaboration, the production, the transformation of the world by man.and
Quote:Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science. Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.Herein is Lbirds apparent claims clearly and much better expressed, but note the difference, there is no denial that the external world exists or that we can just make up our science by will alone, natural science is a valid and partial form of materialism for Pancake. There is no denial of natural phenomena in the above, but an acknowledgement that knowledge is the product of societies and ways of being in relation to that nature.Also, niote the distinction between materialisms, Pannekoek talks of 'bouregois materialism' and 'middle class materialism' (what Chuck in his Theses on Feuerbach called Old Materialism, but which we'd mostly know as mechanical materialism).
LBird wrote:I said it includes 'ideas', including physics and maths, and so 'democratic control of the means of production' means ''democratic control of physics and maths'.Socialism means the common and democratic ownership and control of the means and instruments of producing and distributing wealth, phyasical and mental.We could unpack what democracy means: it means run by and for the whole community. So, yes, physics and maths would be a part of common ownership, and physics and maths societies and inteest groups would be democratically organised, and their resources taken from the common stock by democratic agreement (i.e. in today's parlance, their budget).One possibility is the wikipedia model. There knowledge is organised by the community for the community without commodity relations.
Vin wrote:I think the article about Bowie is a waste of space and is an indication of the overinfluence of one member in the party. The SSPC should not have published it. I can think of a lot more important issues than a dead self confessed fascist musician.Any member can submit an article to the SSPC, no special influence is required.
Yes, that's right, you can't account for what happened at aLIGO, so retreat into ad hominems and flee the field, only to return to make arguments by assertion and appeal to authority later on.
Yes, that's the difference, we can't, and shouldn't, police each memebr's social media output, but branches, etc. need a framework, or at least a repeal of the strict terms of rule 11…
LBird wrote:That's your ideological opinion, YMS, but it's not Marx's or mine.Your opinion contains no socio-historical perspective, and so can't explain change.You believe in 'Eternal Truth', once 'discovered', 'known forever'.That belief cannot even explain changes in bourgeois science.Changes in science happen when the evidence changes. Could you explain, though, how the scientists made the light take different times to traverse sections of the tube?Knowledge won't be known forever: one day there will be no humans to know things, but that won't change the fact that if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there, the tree fell.What happened to your realism?
Quote:When a gravitational wave passes by, the stretching and squashing of space causes these arms alternately to lengthen and shrink, one getting longer while the other gets shorter and then vice versa. As the arms change lengths, the laser beams take a different time to travel through them.That really happened, it will always have happened, future generations may forget, but it did happen. No human made the light take different times to pass down the tube, if the light had taken a constant time, then their theories would have been refuted.
ALB wrote:No. The Party would make itself ridiculous if it tried to control what members say on twitter, their blogs, etc just as we would if we tried to control their letters to the press, conversations in pubs, etc. If members express anti-socialist views there are other ways in the rulebook of dealing with thisI think the question is more about if the twitter, blog, facebook purports to be an organ of the party, branch, official post, etc.
They have 'observed' gravtitational waves (or, they have found a way to observe them) for the first time. It involved increasing the sensitvity of the equipment. But, what they observed was what they expected to find, according to theory.
Hmmm…https://twitter.com/DrPartizan_/status/697356303908339712
Quote:Rojava Kurdistan's administration will open an office today in Moscow, Russia.http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/rojava-canton-representation-office-to-open-in-moscow-tomorrow
Quote:Sanders has explicitly placed himself in the tradition of liberal icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The comparison is apt indeed: FDR’s liberalism was not only “socialist” by the standards of realigned American politics, providing the foundation for modern liberalism and the foil for modern conservatism. His conservative opponents in the inter-war years labelled him a “socialist” for his bold initiatives to combat the Great Depression and revive the country from economic collapse.http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-02/09/c_135086319.htm
Quote:SYDNEY, Feb. 9 (Xinhua) — A French-made robot bus is set to be trialled in an Australian state as part of wider preparations into the use of autonomous vehicles on local roads.A French-made driverless electric shuttle bus will carry 15 passengers at speeds up to 45 km per hour in the Western Australia state capital Perth using three-dimensional sensing technology that allows the bus to avoid obstacles and detect and read road signs.It's only a trial, but if we're at the trial stage, how far off can implementation be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDvKKDX_rggPart 2: ThanetIt really would have been cheaper to rent a few houses…
