Class analysis will not lead to people liking me, approving of me, or agreeing with me. It won't change human nature. Those are the goals of liberalism - liberals want to be liked, approved of, and agreed with, and the have an itch to morally reform the people. I don't share those goals with them. I do not want to change hearts and minds, convert people to new beliefs, nor to reform human nature. Religion deals with those issues. Politics is about power.

Just for the record, I think these comments - a steady refrain of course - have an important element of Fucking Bullshit that should be composted before flowering into your pamphlet, Chlamor.

Human Nature is mutable. It has changed, does change, and will change.

And it is not because of the sky fairy that is changes, nor is human nature owned by the religious-industrial complex.

Again, I'll toss out The One Liner:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

I know Mike is a man of faith, and that's fine. But to the extent he is, he also is not and cannot be wholly materialist. Whether it is comfortable to discuss or not given the dramatic differences here on the underlying issue of faith, the cold hard fact is that the construct of human nature -IS- rooted in the material world and lags the -nature- of our social relations.

Its great to agree that changing human nature by dint of some ideological political force is useless and problematic. Indeed, we can see in the actions of the church that this statement is true. There's a lot for sale, but folks aren't buying. Either that is true or whatever the clerics are selling is some wrong, wrong shit.

Being somewhat illiberal, I am most certainly unconcerned with being liked, etc., etc. Rather I am concerned with learning and, to a lesser extent, sharing what I am learning. But that means sharing the irrefutable material truth.

Politics is about power. Yes, it most certainly is. And when power is restored to people, which will only happen through violent revolution, human nature will then begin to change because the social relations it tracks will have changed.

And there will probably still be plenty of people of faith even then. Presumably though, those folks will be more like Mike and less like Peter Pace.

Class analysis will not lead to people liking me, approving of me, or agreeing with me. It won't change human nature. Those are the goals of liberalism - liberals want to be liked, approved of, and agreed with, and the have an itch to morally reform the people. I don't share those goals with them. I do not want to change hearts and minds, convert people to new beliefs, nor to reform human nature. Religion deals with those issues. Politics is about power.

Just for the record, I think these comments - a steady refrain of course - have an important element of Fucking Bullshit that should be composted before flowering into your pamphlet, Chlamor.

Human Nature is mutable. It has changed, does change, and will change.

And it is not because of the sky fairy that is changes, nor is human nature owned by the religious-industrial complex.

Again, I'll toss out The One Liner:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

I know Mike is a man of faith, and that's fine. But to the extent he is, he also is not and cannot be wholly materialist. Whether it is comfortable to discuss or not given the dramatic differences here on the underlying issue of faith, the cold hard fact is that the construct of human nature -IS- rooted in the material world and lags the -nature- of our social relations.

Its great to agree that changing human nature by dint of some ideological political force is useless and problematic. Indeed, we can see in the actions of the church that this statement is true. There's a lot for sale, but folks aren't buying. Either that is true or whatever the clerics are selling is some wrong, wrong shit.

Being somewhat illiberal, I am most certainly unconcerned with being liked, etc., etc. Rather I am concerned with learning and, to a lesser extent, sharing what I am learning. But that means sharing the irrefutable material truth.

Politics is about power. Yes, it most certainly is. And when power is restored to people, which will only happen through violent revolution, human nature will then begin to change because the social relations it tracks will have changed.

And there will probably still be plenty of people of faith even then. Presumably though, those folks will be more like Mike and less like Peter Pace.

That's interesting because I didn't read it that way. Obviously, changing human relations changes human "nature", and that is historically demonstrable. I read the above, though, as saying that to change social relations, you do not have to change "human nature" first... which is also true. I thought it was a criticism of "In order to change the world you first have to change yourself".

It's interesting because even theologically, the idea of an "immutable human nature" is debatable and is not necissarily the same thing as "original sin". It's kind of a later stage political idea, with a side of brimstone.
.

I thought it was a criticism of "In order to change the world you first have to change yourself".

.

Sure.

As I commented in an earlier thread (http://www.populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=6310#6310), the order of operations is backwards.

Even so, human nature is quite a suitable, necessary even, topic for discussion under the rubric of politics. It seems to me that Mike has intimated more than once that it is not. Maybe I just misread.

I know Mike is a man of faith, and that's fine. But to the extent he is, he also is not and cannot be wholly materialist.

I don't know what a person "being" this or that has to do with anything. Respond to what I said rather than to what you imagine (incorrectly) me to be.

Discrediting what a person said - "fucking bullshit" you called it - based on what you imagine them to be is a form of ad hominem attack.

Attempting to silence a particular viewpoint - by isolating, marginalizing and discrediting the speaker - is the inevitable result of the power struggle that is going on here, which is what I was warning the members about.

This is the second really ugly personal attack on me in 24 hours by the two people who control the board.

I know Mike is a man of faith, and that's fine. But to the extent he is, he also is not and cannot be wholly materialist.


I don't know what a person "being" this or that has to do with anything. Respond to what I said rather than to what you imagine (incorrectly) me to be.

I think you're quibbling. Replace "being" (a term you used, not me) with "believing" or "thinking" and maybe we can have a better exchange.


Discrediting what a person said - "fucking bullshit" you called it - based on what you imagine them to be is a form of ad hominem attack.

Attempting to silence a particular viewpoint - by isolating, marginalizing and discrediting the speaker - is the inevitable result of the power struggle that is going on here, which is what I was warning the members about.

Nope. It is me talking the way I talk. Has nothing to do with you personally. And it certainly has nothing to do with marginalizing you or your opinions. Hell, I posted a link to a book that is all about faith and materialism just the other day. Don't take it personally because I am coarse.


This is the second really ugly personal attack on me in 24 hours by the two people who control the board.

Naw. There was one.

I think you're quibbling. Replace "being" (a term you used, not me) with "believing" or "thinking" and maybe we can have a better exchange.


It is not quibbling. You stated what I was and then leaped to what I must therefore think. That followed a description of what I wrote as "fucking bullshit."

You did use "being" - he IS this or that. If I say someone is a jerk that is the same as accusing him of being a jerk.

That is personal, and it is not the fault of the target for taking it personally.

I think you're quibbling. Replace "being" (a term you used, not me) with "believing" or "thinking" and maybe we can have a better exchange.


It is not quibbling. You stated what I was and then leaped to what I must therefore think. That followed a description of what I wrote as "fucking bullshit."

You did use "being" - he IS this or that. If I say someone is a jerk that is the same as accusing him of being a jerk.

That is personal, and it is not the fault of the target for taking it personally.

Ergo, it is an insult to say you 'are' a "man of faith"

OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooookay.

What I said, which is my opinion and I am entitled to it although you are more than welcome to work on changing it, is that I see an irreconcilable gulf between materialism and idealism. Maybe I shoulda finished the Plato is a Jerk thread completely before popping off.

My interpretation of what you wrote was that you implied an immutable human nature. I think that's bullshit and I said so.

Nothing personal about it, other than recognizing that you might take it personally and therefore have a hard time discussing it (as you apparently are).

You can reject my opinion about belief in sky fairies and materialism if you like. But to claim I am attacking you is, well, Fucking Bullshit.

Cheers,

Just for the record, I think these comments - a steady refrain of course - have an important element of Fucking Bullshit that should be composted before flowering into your pamphlet, Chlamor.

Human Nature is mutable. It has changed, does change, and will change.

And it is not because of the sky fairy that is changes, nor is human nature owned by the religious-industrial complex.

Again, I'll toss out The One Liner:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

I know Mike is a man of faith, and that's fine. But to the extent he is, he also is not and cannot be wholly materialist. Whether it is comfortable to discuss or not given the dramatic differences here on the underlying issue of faith, the cold hard fact is that the construct of human nature -IS- rooted in the material world and lags the -nature- of our social relations.

Its great to agree that changing human nature by dint of some ideological political force is useless and problematic. Indeed, we can see in the actions of the church that this statement is true. There's a lot for sale, but folks aren't buying. Either that is true or whatever the clerics are selling is some wrong, wrong shit.

Being somewhat illiberal, I am most certainly unconcerned with being liked, etc., etc. Rather I am concerned with learning and, to a lesser extent, sharing what I am learning. But that means sharing the irrefutable material truth.

Politics is about power. Yes, it most certainly is. And when power is restored to people, which will only happen through violent revolution, human nature will then begin to change because the social relations it tracks will have changed.

And there will probably still be plenty of people of faith even then. Presumably though, those folks will be more like Mike and less like Peter Pace.

To be honest, and I don't want to clutter Chlamor's thread here so I'll try to keep it short, this is pretty amateurish. I don't know of anyone who denies that man isn't shaped by the material world around him and also his material circumstances.

But, the thing is, if you are calling yourself a materialist -- and faulting others for failing to do the same -- then you have a glaring problem. It is then incumbent on you to make the case that, at bottom, there is nothing BUT matter. I'm pretty sure our amateurish hacks at that aren't going to do it.

Here are a few of the problems that you face: it seems that matter is NOT infinitely divisible (quanta), therefore you have the simple question: if you have two such smallest units -- what is between them? If it is infinitely divisible that opens up a barrel of worms itself since infinite is a rather abstractly definied concept that is next to impossible to make concrete.

Secondly, if the world is sensual, that means that it is experienced ONLY through the five physical senses. But the information received by the five senses (maybe 5.5 or 6 since there is also something in the inner ear that informs the body of its orientation -- I forget the name now) is considered to be "raw sense-data" and needs to be interpreted. BUT, and its a big but, you have only the five senses to perceive the world. So..what does the interpeting? You can say the brain of course, but thats a pretty pat answer. Notice that this is not just a question of how the brain mechanically does this, but rather how this process can be explained from a materialist perspective at all.

Really, you have two things jumbled together here. Your Marx quotes speaks about historical materialism, the crux of Marxist theory. But you then lapse into dialectical materialism, which is the application of the same process to nature. The latter is the much more common definition of materialist, but it would be hard to use that definition to then conclude that someone -- say, Mike -- rejects historical materialism. In fact, if you've read Mike's posts at all you'd see thats a laughable conclusion.

So we come back to the fact that your post really is little more than a smear against Mike based on your conflating of theology with organized religion. Of course, as a political and social force, the Church has had an enormous (and often times negative) impact on the world. But, then, Mike isn't arguing for the Church either. You might want to pick up a book on Thomism sometime, its one of the major philosophical contributions to Western thought.

The 20th century -- and logicians like Kurt Goedel -- took us way, way past the old canard "if you don't believe matter is the only thing there is then you're a (Hegelian) Idealist". But, like Anax said, some of this stuff is pretty arcane compared to whats important, especially for us.

Finally, if we are really going to talk about "human nature" like we have it diagnosed (ha) then we should at least talk about it dialectically right? Maybe read the piece I put up from Ilyenkoff -- and maybe this time we can forgo the stupid shit about "Oh use of the term Man is so sexist!!!"

Mike is right on with that quote, and I can't even really tell if you disagree with it or not and just took an opportunity for sniping here.

Finally, if we are really going to talk about "human nature" like we have it diagnosed (ha) then we should at least talk about it dialectically right? Maybe read the piece I put up from Ilyenkoff -- and maybe this time we can forgo the stupid shit about "Oh use of the term Man is so sexist!!!"

Mike is right on with that quote, and I can't even really tell if you disagree with it or not and just took an opportunity for sniping here.

Actually, I did read that piece and it appears to be missing from its thread after the migration -
http://www.populistindependent.org/phpb ... ov&start=0 (http://www.populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=527&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=ilyenkov&start=0)

Your point in recalling that good piece is well taken though, especially given how thoroughly I had forgotten it in making my comments. I made the error of speaking too generally. Mike made the error of thinking I was speaking too specifically.

Really, this subject has nothing to do with Mike and everything to do with me grappling, badly, with this issue of materialism and faith (not organized religion, but belief in sky fairies of any sort). As I attempted to clarify in a follow-up, I was trying to make the point that I see faith and materialism as mutually exclusive. Pedestrian of me? Almost certainly. Here again is the crux of my statement -


Whether it is comfortable to discuss or not given the dramatic differences here on the underlying issue of faith, the cold hard fact is that the construct of human nature -IS- rooted in the material world and lags the -nature- of our social relations.

That is a statement that Mike could have replied to by saying something along the lines of "Rusty, you're all fucked up here. I don't disagree with the statement that human nature is malleable, nor do I disagree with it being rooted in the material. So stop with the bullshit. You're off base."

All good. Or he could disagree with the statement and make his case, something he is far better equipped to do than I am.

Instead, kinda like AE getting down on Chlamor's retitled post of the Volker thread at PI, Mike is concerned with what he sees as a personal attack rather than taking up the substance of the post. Funny that at the end of that 'attack' I was musing about how in a better future people of faith would be more like him...

My Fucking Bad. But not meant personally at all.

If you want to further expound on the nature of matter and whether that is all there is, I think it would be helpful for me. Obviously this is the root of the gulf I perceive between faith and materialism. Far, far less well-read than any of you, some of your (and others') comments on the philosophical wranglings on the matter of matter would make a good new thread IMO. So what about Kurt Goedel?

Ergo, it is an insult to say you 'are' a "man of faith"

OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooookay.

That is not what I said.

I think I have been clear all along that I objected to seeing the changing of human nature as a prerequisite to political change, and as the over-riding concern in all political thinking.

Ergo, it is an insult to say you 'are' a "man of faith"

OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooookay.

That is not what I said.

I think I have been clear all along that I objected to seeing the changing of human nature as a prerequisite to political change, and as the over-riding concern in all political thinking.

No disagreement with that.

Your point in recalling that good piece is well taken though, especially given how thoroughly I had forgotten it in making my comments. I made the error of speaking too generally. Mike made the error of thinking I was speaking too specifically.

I think you specifically meant a particalur thing I wrote when you said "fucking bullshit." I think you specifically meant me when you characterized me a certain way and used that as an explanation for why what I wrote was bullshit.


That is a statement that Mike could have replied to by saying something along the lines of "Rusty, you're all fucked up here. I don't disagree with the statement that human nature is malleable, nor do I disagree with it being rooted in the material. So stop with the bullshit. You're off base."

All good. Or he could disagree with the statement and make his case, something he is far better equipped to do than I am.

Certainly. You put me in the position of defending myself, though, rather than the ideas I was expressing. So I called "foul."


Instead, kinda like AE getting down on Chlamor's retitled post of the Volker thread at PI, Mike is concerned with what he sees as a personal attack rather than taking up the substance of the post. Funny that at the end of that 'attack' I was musing about how in a better future people of faith would be more like him...


Whoaaa, I object to the ad hominem attack, and now you accuse me of not taking up the "substance of the post?"

The comparison with AE is another smear. What is the connection there?


Nothing personal about it, other than recognizing that you might take it personally and therefore have a hard time discussing it (as you apparently are).

Stop trying to turn things around on me. "I might take it personally" - a discussion about materialism, because of what "I am" - and I am "having a hard time discussing it" are both insulting and devious.

This is in effect saying "oh those religious people can't talk about these things because they take them personally." It is absolutely an ad hominem attack and is prejudicial and slanderous. I obejct to it, and you cite my objcetion to what you are doing as proof that your slander of me is in fact accurate.

What Kurt Goedel showed was that any sound system -- such as Set Theory in mathematics -- will contain statements that are undecidable within the system. This gets sensationalized in various ways according to the various agendas of the people doing the "interpreting".

Note that by "sound" system we are assuming that there are no internal contradictions within the system itself. (For instance if you could prove in mathematics that x = 2 AND x= 3 for some equation then you would have a contradiction within the system somewhere and it would not be sound)

This means, for example, that in some sense "computerism" -- the idea that everything can be modeled by a suitable computer program -- breaks down in some sense. And computerism is almost certainly the dominant if unspoken ideology within the natural sciences.

There is a second possibility -- perhaps mathematics is not sound. As late as 1900 Bertrand Russell did indeed produce a contradiction in naive Set Theory (since naive set theory does not preclude self-reference which breaks down into nonsense fairly quickly). If this were true then Goedel's theorem would not apply, but at the heaviest of prices: mathematics itself would ultimately be invalidated. This would be the most shocking result possible since mathematics has been used successfully for millenium.

Just as a quick rundown, the idea of "undecidability" is pretty simple, although complicated to express formally and show that such statements MUST occur. It goes like this:

The following statement is false. The preceding statement is true.

Very loosely it means that no sound system can prove itself to be sound. That sounds like a quick invitation to relativism -- how could we ever prove anything is sound then? -- but you have to keep in mind the centuries upon centuries of useful work done in mathematics for context.

But the next step is to put the question to human thinking. If it is not "computable", then there is some element of it that eludes numerical quantification. Indeed, the same case could be made for the entire universe. This is a far cry removed from current academic circles that have subdivided the universe neatly into four relatively well understood forces and seek only the means to unite them into one unified force with the smug assurance that this will close that chapter in our understanding of things.

I won't even start on the fact that astrophysics is based entirely on observational findings since no experimental data can be collected. The entire field is on incredibly shaky footing. As an example, if you think about the Big Bang theory it is hard to tell it apart from a Creationist theory. Which isn't exactly coincidental since it was first favored and advanced by a Catholic physicist and Einstein, both of whom were very honest about the influence of religion on their work.

One of the deepest questions is what infinity even is. It can't be on the number line, that is wellknown. The reason is simple:

each number on the real line has a successor by definition ie for every n there is an n+1. However, by definition also, there is nothing greater than infinity. But if it was on the number line there would be an n+1>infinity.

So it is a rather large stretch to say that finite amounts of matter in our universe can suddenly become infinite or vice versa (infinitely compressed density suddenly "exploding" into a finite volume in space). We don't even know what infinity is..its one of those words like entropy that gets thrown around with the certainty that no one understands it anyway, so you can use it pretty loosely and get away with it.

It is even less clear what empty "space" is..some philosophers say it is psychological, not "real" so much as humans way of differentiating between matter-objects. We won't even get into Time.

That is a statement that Mike could have replied to by saying something along the lines of "Rusty, you're all fucked up here. I don't disagree with the statement that human nature is malleable, nor do I disagree with it being rooted in the material. So stop with the bullshit. You're off base."

All good. Or he could disagree with the statement and make his case, something he is far better equipped to do than I am.

Certainly. You put me in the position of defending myself, though, rather than the ideas I was expressing. So I called "foul."

You put you in the position of defending yourself. I wasn't even asking you to defend your *ideas*.



Instead, kinda like AE getting down on Chlamor's retitled post of the Volker thread at PI, Mike is concerned with what he sees as a personal attack rather than taking up the substance of the post. Funny that at the end of that 'attack' I was musing about how in a better future people of faith would be more like him...


Whoaaa, I object to the ad hominem attack, and now you accuse me of not taking up the "substance of the post?"

The comparison with AE is another smear. What is the connection there?

Give me a fucking break. Can you not read? The writing may not be of your caliber, but it is not so unclear that one cannot make out that I am saying you have not - and Still Are Not - addressing the substance of the post.


Nothing personal about it, other than recognizing that you might take it personally and therefore have a hard time discussing it (as you apparently are).


Stop trying to turn things around on me. "I might take it personally" - a discussion about materialism, because of what "I am" - and I am "having a hard time discussing it" are both insulting and devious.

This is in effect saying "oh those religious people can't talk about these things because they take them personally." It is absolutely an ad hominem attack and is prejudicial and slanderous. I obejct to it, and you cite my objcetion to what you are doing as proof that your slander of me is in fact accurate.

This is in effect you Making Shit Up as you are too often wont to do. It's like a bad flashback.

I ain't playing.

If someone wants to discuss faith and materialism, start another thread. I'm interested. In the rest of this, I am not.

This is in effect saying "oh those religious people can't talk about these things because they take them personally." It is absolutely an ad hominem attack and is prejudicial and slanderous. I obejct to it, and you cite my objcetion to what you are doing as proof that your slander of me is in fact accurate.

Thats exactly what I understoof rusty to be saying too. Dripping with condescension towards "those people" ie relgious people

Thats exactly what I understoof rusty to be saying too. Dripping with condescension towards "those people" ie relgious people

The closest you could come to substantiating that perception is my use of the term "sky fairy"

I say faggot a lot too. Being a faggot, I rather think it is unlikely I am being condescending to all of faggotdom.

My fucking bad.

Is this over?

The closest you could come to substantiating that perception is my use of the term "sky fairy"

I say faggot a lot too. Being a faggot, I rather think it is unlikely I am being condescending to all of faggotdom.

My fucking bad.

Is this over?

You again mischaracterize the objection I made. It was not about your use of certain words. Mischaracterizing what I said is an attempt at controlling the conversation and controlling the reader's perception of the discussion and of your opponent.

See, here is the problem Rusty, and I don't know how to be firm and crystal clear about this and at the same time re-assure you that I am not your enemy -

The person who is trying to control this discussion and people's perceptions of it also just happens to be the person who has control over the project, and just happens to be going after the person who is objecting to the way the project is being controlled, and the ebb and flow of the hostility you show towards me just happens to coincide with the times that I raise the issue of the control of the project and the direction it is going, and all of that just happens to precisely match the pattern that has happened at PI and at DU.

Now, that could all be a coincidence. I am not being sarcastic when I say that. I am serious. It could all be innocent and coincidental. But we can't know that, and so long as we don't know, this has a corrosive effect on the community whether or not my observations are accurate or they are paranoid delusions.

Mischaracterizing what I said is an attempt at controlling the conversation and controlling the reader's perception of the discussion and of your opponent.

I don't agree that I have mischaracterized you at all. Or, beyond recognizing that you have 'faith', that I attempted to characterize you at all.

We aren't in disagreement on how the board should be owned. Not unless your recently stated goals and opinions have suddenly changed.

You're making a wild leap to claim I am trying to control the discussion. In fact, it is really not worth even dignifying with a response.

Now I guess I'll be trying to control the discussion by harkening back to my earlier question. Are we fucking done with this non-subject of me abusing you with the heavy hand of management on this thread yet?

And if so, would you or kid or someone care to participate in a discussion of faith and materialism as relates to human nature?

Or could it be there is no disagreement and I merely misinterpreted your posts to posit a fixed human nature and that it ought not be discussed in the political realm? You have not clarified any of that so far, and that clarification is what, with trepidation this would devolve as it has, I tried to tackle in making the post.

Though I am the unwitting instigator, I am really not interested in the continued hijack of this thread, most especially as the conversation is all being turned back to the management v. Mike issue that 1) is not at all what I was bringing up when I posted here and 2) just ain't the fucking case where -I- am concerned.

But I am interested in your take on human nature. Is it malleable subject to material conditions in your estimation? Is it worthy as a political topic, absent the order of operations problem I agree with you about in your comments on Liberals' 'heal thyself' platitudes?

If you want to discuss that, can we start another thread?

And if you don't, can we then let this die (at least here)? I'm fine with discussing the issues of ownership. We still need to continue that because Nothing is Happening on that matter yet. But it ain't going in Chlamor's pamphlet...

If you want to discuss that, can we start another thread?

And if you don't, can we then let this die (at least here)? I'm fine with discussing the issues of ownership.

First off, I did not provoke or start the problems in either case - the materialism debate nor the ownership debate. You jumped onto chlamor's thread and started the materialism argument, and did is in a very prejudicial way and singled me out personally. Muga started the ownership and control controversy when he arbitrarily locked me out of admin on the new program, and then made personal attacks when I objected to that.

Of course we can discuss both or either on another thread. I do that almost every day.

I resent this being turned around on me as though I am the source of the trouble in either area, and as though I were responsible for hijacking this thread.

If you want to discuss that, can we start another thread?

And if you don't, can we then let this die (at least here)? I'm fine with discussing the issues of ownership.

First off, I did not provoke or start the problems in either case - the materialism debate nor the ownership debate. You jumped onto chlamor's thread and started the materialism argument, and did is in a very prejudicial way and singled me out personally. Muga started the ownership and control controversy when he arbitrarily locked me out of admin on the new program, and then made personal attacks when I objected to that.

Of course we can discuss both or either on another thread. I do that almost every day.

I resent this being turned around on me as though I am the source of the trouble in either area, and as though I were responsible for hijacking this thread.

I never said you were the source for trouble. So stop being resentful please.

I singled you out because I knew you were the most likely person to take it personally. I was right about that, but I was not looking to have that discussion.

I am doing a pm to kid rt now in hopes he'll start a thread for the materialism issue.

Class analysis will not lead to people liking me, approving of me, or agreeing with me. It won't change human nature. Those are the goals of liberalism - liberals want to be liked, approved of, and agreed with, and the have an itch to morally reform the people. I don't share those goals with them. I do not want to change hearts and minds, convert people to new beliefs, nor to reform human nature. Religion deals with those issues. Politics is about power.

Just for the record, I think these comments - a steady refrain of course - have an important element of Fucking Bullshit that should be composted before flowering into your pamphlet, Chlamor.

Human Nature is mutable. It has changed, does change, and will change.

And it is not because of the sky fairy that is changes, nor is human nature owned by the religious-industrial complex.

Again, I'll toss out The One Liner:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

I know Mike is a man of faith, and that's fine. But to the extent he is, he also is not and cannot be wholly materialist. Whether it is comfortable to discuss or not given the dramatic differences here on the underlying issue of faith, the cold hard fact is that the construct of human nature -IS- rooted in the material world and lags the -nature- of our social relations.

Its great to agree that changing human nature by dint of some ideological political force is useless and problematic. Indeed, we can see in the actions of the church that this statement is true. There's a lot for sale, but folks aren't buying. Either that is true or whatever the clerics are selling is some wrong, wrong shit.

Being somewhat illiberal, I am most certainly unconcerned with being liked, etc., etc. Rather I am concerned with learning and, to a lesser extent, sharing what I am learning. But that means sharing the irrefutable material truth.

Politics is about power. Yes, it most certainly is. And when power is restored to people, which will only happen through violent revolution, human nature will then begin to change because the social relations it tracks will have changed.

And there will probably still be plenty of people of faith even then. Presumably though, those folks will be more like Mike and less like Peter Pace.

Hey Rusty I'm going to only briefly address this comment and from there please do as you wish but from a practical point could you do it in another thread and could you possibly delete the subthread here? Including this post of mine after you read it. If none of this happens then fine that means just a few pieces of paper to wade through.

Quite simply Rusty you got the point. However you completely missed the context. Ans so you're frothing upon yourself, which is fine but just lettin' ya' know. This entire thread is filled with all manner of comments and voices. There is absolutely no way you can understand what I'm doing here and I'm not going to explain it to you in detail. When this all comes together I'll mail you and everyone else a real live copy. And in fact before it's done I'd hope to get some critiques. However what is being done in this thread is just a scattershot collection of all sorts of things. Many of them are quite astute, some are serious, some are just quotes, some are satirical and so on. There are numerous examples, as I've begun to go through some of this in print, where I would have pulled three paragraphs from somewhere and then used one sentence and maybe rearranged or rephrased that. There are many, many instances where I will have quickly looked over a comment and not even read the whole thing but liked a bi and threw it onto the thread to give it another "look see" later. So in short I don't know what you're on about but if it has to do with other stuff, and it must cause as I've briefly explained I'm not making any concrete statements as of yet through this exercise, please don't keep it going here as I will be printing out all the pages from this thread to bring this pamphlet into being and a lengthy subthread mean more paper.

Once it's done I would fully expect for you to hammer away. Nothing less.

Again, I'll toss out The One Liner:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

So as we are in total agreement here I'm not sure where's the beef?

It's easy to see how one could interpret what I am posting in this thread as "this is what is being said" but in this instance I'm just collecting a whole bunch of stuff. Ultimately of what you see in this thread 75-80 percent will be deleted and what is ultimately birthed won't resemble anything like what you are seeing here.

Sorry to be so hasty.

Solidarity.

but I think it is, thankfully, a significant overstatement :)

LOL!

quote="Kid Of The Black Hole"]
J
(maybe 5.5 or 6 since there is also something in the inner ear that informs the body of its orientation -- I forget the name now)

its proprioception and related to the haptic sense, I believe, its related to movement awareness, its to dancers what vision is to artists.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/Images/ali_fraz_71.jpg

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/Images/ali_fraz_71.jpg

No doubt if either one of us were that hot, the thread title would be more fitting, heh.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/Images/ali_fraz_71.jpg

No doubt if either one of us were that hot, the thread title would be more fitting, heh.

looks like great proprioception here. :)

OK where were we...

Human Nature is mutable. It has changed, does change, and will change.

No question about that. There are some things that are consistent, though. Liberalism goes after some of those. The elimination of war, for example. War persists because there are some things that are more important - or at least humans consistently see them as more important - self-defense and self determination and freedom from slavery. People would rather fight than submit. Religion is another example of something that some liberals want to eliminate, but that has been persistent throughout human history and that may be impossible to eliminate.


And it is not because of the sky fairy that it changes, nor is human nature owned by the religious-industrial complex.

The whole point of religion is to change behavior, not build castles in the sky of beliefs and dogmas. Does changing human behavior change human nature? I think tjhat politics is an unwieldy tool for changing human nature, and religion is an unweildy tool for changing human circumstances. Mixing the two usually gives us the worst of both.


I know Mike is a man of faith, and that's fine. But to the extent he is, he also is not and cannot be wholly materialist. Whether it is comfortable to discuss or not given the dramatic differences here on the underlying issue of faith, the cold hard fact is that the construct of human nature -IS- rooted in the material world and lags the -nature- of our social relations.

I am not so sure that there are "dramatic differences here on the underlying issue of faith." That is a leap of faith on your part.

I don't see that the "construct of human nature -IS- rooted in the material world and lags the -nature- of our social relations." It seems to me that human social relations are the most important thing in the survivial of humans in the material world. But the nature versus nurture argument, seen as critical and essential by so many modern liberals, may just get in the way of effective politics.


Its great to agree that changing human nature by dint of some ideological political force is useless and problematic. Indeed, we can see in the actions of the church that this statement is true. There's a lot for sale, but folks aren't buying. Either that is true or whatever the clerics are selling is some wrong, wrong shit.

It is almost impossible to determnine cause and effect when it comes to the influence of religion. What is it the clerics are selling, do you think, and how is it wrong shit?


Politics is about power. Yes, it most certainly is. And when power is restored to people, which will only happen through violent revolution, human nature will then begin to change because the social relations it tracks will have changed.

And there will probably still be plenty of people of faith even then. Presumably though, those folks will be more like Mike and less like Peter Pace.

Well, we can hope that people wouldn't be vicitimized by con artists selling Jesus for massive profits, just as they could be free from being vicitimized by thousands of other hustles. I wonder how many of the evangelists would still be doing what they are doing were it not the path to wealth and power.

But then again, we are back to talking about wealth and power, not religion. And I don't see how selling a person religion is all that different from selling them a new car. I for one would rather give the money to the sisters and have more poor people fed and housed than give it to the automobile company executives. Am I being fleeced in the first case, but not in the second?