I was wrong and you were right.

Anax - on the importance of theory.

PPLE - on the direction of the board and your motives and intentions.

Chlamor - on just about everything.

I was wrong and you were right.

Anax - on the importance of theory.

PPLE - on the direction of the board and your motives and intentions.

Chlamor - on just about everything.

Nah...

Just shades of emphasis...

Like tryin' to find the bathroom at 3 a.m. in a really dark house.
.

I was wrong and you were right.

Anax - on the importance of theory.

PPLE - on the direction of the board and your motives and intentions.

Chlamor - on just about everything.

Nah...

Just shades of emphasis...

Like tryin' to find the bathroom at 3 a.m. in a really dark house.
.

Yeah. It is a lot like that.

I was wrong about liberals.

I'm still wrong about theory.

But shit, what would we have to talk about were it not for some disagreement?

I was wrong about liberals.

Fantastic. Perfect timing. I am about to post the mother of all critiques of modern liberalism.

Good stuff happening here Rusty. Reading your thread on your adventures and will comment soon.

Mike, to be "wrong about everything" toward Chlamor would (to me) mean you're now advocating some (voluntary or not) personal leveling/asceticism. Say it ain't so..?

;)

Mike, to be "wrong about everything" toward Chlamor would (to me) mean you're now advocating some (voluntary or not) personal leveling/asceticism. Say it ain't so..?

;)

"Everything" is probably an exaggeration. "Everything important" would be more accurate.

The quotations in this section begin with Engels making an assessment of the theoretical contributions of Marx and Lenin making such an assessment of Marx and Engels. Then in chronological order quotations are presented from the three about the role of theory and its relation to practice.

"Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art and even the ideas in religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.

"Marx discovered the special law of motion governing the present- day capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark."

Engels, Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx, March 17, 1883, MESW, IP, 1977, p.435; MECW, Vol.24, pp.467-68

"The great world-wide historical service of Marx and Engels lies in the fact that they proved by scientific analysis the inevitability of the downfall of capitalism and its transition to communism under which there will be no more exploitation of man by man.

"The great world-wide historical service of Marx and Engels lies in this, that they indicated to the proletarians of all countries their role, their tasks, their calling: to be the first to rise in the revolutionary fight against capital and unite around themselves in this struggle all the toilers and the exploited."

Lenin, Speech at the Unveiling of a Monument to Marx & Engels, Nov.7, 1918, CW, Vol.28, p.65

"We do not regard Marx's theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life.

Lenin, Our Programme, end of 1899, CW, Vol 4, p.211

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, 1845, MESW, IP 1977, p.30; MECW, Vol.5, p.5

"There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits."

Marx, Capital, Vol.I, Preface to the French Edition, March 18, 1872, IP Ed, p.21

"Practice without theory is blind. Theory without practice is sterile. Theory becomes a material force as soon as it is absorbed by the masses."

Marx "The Germans [Marxists who moved to the USA] have not understood how to use their theory as a lever which could set the American masses in motion; they do not understand the theory themselves for the most part and treat it in a doctrinaire and dogmatic way, as something which has got to be learned off by heart but which will then supply all needs without more ado. To them it is a credo and not a guide to action."

Engels, Letter to F.A. Sorge, London, Nov.29, 1886, MESC, p.449-50; MECW, Vol.477, pp.531-32

"Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement."

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, 1902, CW, Vol.5, p.369

"The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true!"

Lenin, Three Sources & Three Component Parts of Marxism, March 1913, CW, Vol.19, p.23

"Nothing human is alien to me." Marx' favorite aphorism, original by Terence, poet of ancient Rome

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/487/1/104/

"Nothing human is alien to me." Marx' favorite aphorism, original by Terence, poet of ancient Rome

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/487/1/104/

Terence is Publius Terentius who was a very interesting cat. He was a slave, from North Africa. All of his satires are written in his early twenties, when he disappears from history. In addition to "Homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto" ("I am human, nothing that is human is alien to me"), he also said, "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" ("What Jupiter may do, cattle may not"). The "cattle" is us...

.

"Nothing human is alien to me." Marx' favorite aphorism, original by Terence, poet of ancient Rome

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/487/1/104/

Terence is Publius Terentius who was a very interesting cat. He was a slave, from North Africa. All of his satires are written in his early twenties, when he disappears from history. In addition to "Homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto" ("I am human, nothing that is human is alien to me"), he also said, "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" ("What Jupiter may do, cattle may not"). The "cattle" is us...

.

Ummm, Jupiter had a rather "interesting" relation(ship) with cattle, didn't he?

"Nothing human is alien to me." Marx' favorite aphorism, original by Terence, poet of ancient Rome

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/487/1/104/

Terence is Publius Terentius who was a very interesting cat. He was a slave, from North Africa. All of his satires are written in his early twenties, when he disappears from history. In addition to "Homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto" ("I am human, nothing that is human is alien to me"), he also said, "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" ("What Jupiter may do, cattle may not"). The "cattle" is us...

.

Ummm, Jupiter had a rather "interesting" relation(ship) with cattle, didn't he?

By Jove, you're right... but I'll let you tell that part. This is more my style of mythology (while we are talking about Jove, this is about the Roman version of the Hercules myth):

http://www.mmdtkw.org/VHerculesInRome.html


One of the most common titles of Hercules was "Son of God", by virtue of his having Jupiter as father and an earthly mother. He was viewed as a savior of the oppressed, but his people, the Heracleidae, were persecuted after his death. Legend held that he had raised two people from the dead. He suffered an excruciating death, descended into Hades for three days, and returned after his death to show his closest friends that he was still alive and using his wounds to prove his identity, before ascending bodily into heaven. Hercules was deeply admired among the people, a fact not ignored by early Christian leaders and writers. Some historians argue that the image of Hercules still exists (although much softened) in the familiar face of Jesus portrayed as a white European with straight hair. Helenistic Christians replaced the original image of Jesus with the darker complexion and tightly curled hair common among 1st century Palestinian Jews. But the similarities were not restricted to Hercules and Jesus: virgin births, re-animations of the dead, sacrificial deaths, mystical journeys, resurrections, etc., were also among the grab-bag characteristics of Romulus, Mithras, Zoroaster, Isis, and other Mediterranean "founders".

I notice that the Temple to Hercules was in the Cattle Market (Forum Boarium)...

Abyssus abyssum invocat
.

And the award for worst segue goes to..

I'd rather you do an expose of the Jews of the Old Testament. From what I've read they're more like one extended family than a "people"..

Note to Mary and 12paws -


See what I mean? You can't even admit your wrong and have anyone pay any attention to you.
8)

Note to Mary and 12paws -


See what I mean? You can't even admit your wrong and have anyone pay any attention to you.
8)

But if I ever said I was wrong I'd be lying ;-)

Prove it.

How wrong were you?

Being wrong doesn't prove anything and admitting it proves less.

However wrong you say you were isn't nearly as how wrong you think you were.

Admitting wrongness is a sign of maturity whereas believing you were wrong and keeping it inside is just a way of hiding the wounds. And those- the wounds I mean- will fester if you don't admit to the wrongdoing, or wrongness whichever it is. What I mean to say is that in vulnerability there is strength and in strength there is vulnerability, except for when you're wrong then that's just plain wrong.

Prove it.

How wrong were you?

Being wrong doesn't prove anything and admitting it proves less.

However wrong you say you were isn't nearly as how wrong you think you were.

Admitting wrongness is a sign of maturity whereas believing you were wrong and keeping it inside is just a way of hiding the wounds. And those- the wounds I mean- will fester if you don't admit to the wrongdoing, or wrongness whichever it is. What I mean to say is that in vulnerability there is strength and in strength there is vulnerability, except for when you're wrong then that's just plain wrong.

Umm... That seems kinda wrong-headed. But, I could be wrong.

But, I could be wrong.

Prove it.

How could you be wrong?

Thinking you might be wrong doesn't prove anything and admitting that you could be proves less.

However wrong you think you could be isn't nearly as how wrong you might be.

Admitting possible wrongness is a sign of maturity whereas believing you were feasibly wrong and keeping it inside is just a way of hiding the hypothetical wounds. And those- the wounds I mean- will fester if you don't admit to the potential wrongdoing, or putative wrongness whichever it is. What I mean to say is that in vulnerability there is strength and in strength there is vulnerability, except for when you're actually (maybe) wrong then that's just plain wrong..this is, if you're wrong.

Don't you think?

See what my life is like now? See what I go through?

See what my life is like now? See what I go through?

Mike, I'm afraid to admit I was wrong now, because I don't want to be grilled by Chlamor. Can't a guy just be wrong in peace?

Mike, I'm afraid to admit I was wrong now, because I don't want to be grilled by Chlamor. Can't a guy just be wrong in peace?

What gives you the right to be wrong?

This is America, and you can be anything you want to be - except wrong. Others must decide that for you.

Mike, I'm afraid to admit I was wrong now, because I don't want to be grilled by Chlamor. Can't a guy just be wrong in peace?

What gives you the right to be wrong?

This is America, and you can be anything you want to be - except wrong. Others must decide that for you.

Let's take a vote on it.

Wait... what happens if the election machinery is wrong?

Mike, I'm afraid to admit I was wrong now, because I don't want to be grilled by Chlamor. Can't a guy just be wrong in peace?

What gives you the right to be wrong?

This is America, and you can be anything you want to be - except wrong. Others must decide that for you.

No, it's okay to be wrong. Just as long as you admit it and accept The Wrongness as just another side of how right you were (The Rightness)- or at least intended to be. Being wrong isn't really wrong unless you hold it in your heart. Once released The Wrongness in you only serves to bring forth the true Rightness that lies deep within so this then displays your Inner Rightness as manifest through a temporal Wrong-itude. We all have to go through this and once done, (The Throughness not The Wrongness)- though it's never really done if you know what I eternally mean- I mean like really done, we can truly embrace how right we've been all along. This can only be done through The Principles of Wrongness which you've done.

All of this is subject to change based on commitment to principles and capacity to enhance certain financial portfolios.

Al material copyrighted.

http://www.iloveulove.com/unconditlove/wrong.htm

The best thing we can do is admit when we're wrong, which is most of the time. As we do that, we experience the delightful freedom that comes when we're no longer chained to the same old feelings and behaviors associated with our mistakes: fear, blaming, hurt, anger, lying, and withdrawal. When we admit we're wrong, we create opportunities for people to accept and love us as we really are, and that's when we can finally have loving relationships.

To be sure, some people will criticize us even more vigorously when we admit our mistakes, but as we continue to be honest, we'll find more and more people who will accept us as we are. As we experience the delight of really being accepted—with our mistakes—we'll discover that the sting of being wrong disappears. We learn that being wrong wasn't the problem all along. The real problem was our fear of people not accepting and loving us with our mistakes. That is always our greatest fear, and the only way to overcome it is to tell the truth about ourselves and create opportunities to feel Real Love—where people accept us and care about our happiness without our having to do anything to earn it.

We really are wrong on so many occasions—irresponsible, not loving, less than considerate—so why not admit it and enjoy the freedom and growth and acceptance that follow. The real tragedy in making mistakes is denying them. Then we can't do anything about them, nor can we feel the Real Love available to us.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=12125926 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12125926)

Half a century ago, a young social psychologist named Leon Festinger and two associates infiltrated a group of people who believed the world would end on December 21. They wanted to know what would happen to the group when (they hoped!) the prophecy failed. The group's leader, whom the researchers called Marian Keech, promised that the faithful would be picked up by a flying saucer and elevated to safety at midnight on December 20. Many of her followers quit their jobs, gave away their homes, and dispersed their savings, waiting for the end. Who needs money in outer space? Others waited in fear or resignation in their homes. (Mrs. Keech's own husband, a nonbeliever, went to bed early and slept soundly through the night as his wife and her followers prayed in the living room.) Festinger made his own prediction: The believers who had not made a strong commitment to the prophecy—who awaited the end of the world by themselves at home, hoping they weren't going to die at midnight—would quietly lose their faith in Mrs. Keech. But those who had given away their possessions and were waiting with the others for the spaceship would increase their belief in her mystical abilities. In fact, they would now do everything they could to get others to join them.

At midnight, with no sign of a spaceship in the yard, the group felt a little nervous. By 2 a.m., they were getting seriously worried. At 4:45 a.m., Mrs. Keech had a new vision: The world had been spared, she said, because of the impressive faith of her little band. "And mighty is the word of God," she told her followers, "and by his word have ye been saved—for from the mouth of death have ye been delivered and at no time has there been such a force loosed upon the Earth. Not since the beginning of time upon this Earth has there been such a force of Good and light as now floods this room."

The group's mood shifted from despair to exhilaration. Many of the group's members, who had not felt the need to proselytize before December 21, began calling the press to report the miracle, and soon they were out on the streets, buttonholing passersby, trying to convert them. Mrs. Keech's prediction had failed, but not Leon Festinger's.

http://cafe.elharo.com/debugging/the-im ... right-way/ (http://cafe.elharo.com/debugging/the-importance-of-being-wrong-and-in-the-right-way/)

When I was an undergraduate, one of my math professors, Theodore Faticoni, explained to us the difference between a useful wrong proof and a useless wrong proof. When attacking an unsolved problem such as the Riemann conjecture, a useful wrong proof was wrong; but for reasons nobody expected. Finding the flaw in the proof taught you things about the problem you didn’t previously know. By contrast, a useless wrong proof was wrong for obvious reasons. It didn’t teach you anything new about the problem.

In fact a useful wrong proof could be far more valuable than a prosaic right proof. For instance, Yves Hellegouarch’s discovery in the 1980s that Fermat’s last theorem was closely related to elliptic curves was far more interesting and practical than the eventual use of that knowledge by Wiles and Taylor to finish the theorem. Similarly and much earlier, Euler’s “proof” of the theorem for the special case with exponent 3 was wrong, but nonetheless suggested many avenues of attack on the problem for the next couple of centuries. Writing software can be the same.

Sometimes I think I'm dreaming... but, I could be wrong.
.