"About" page does not equal the communist dialectic, but other content does

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 27 2013 16:54
"About" page does not equal the communist dialectic, but other content does

Hello all, I came upon this page looking for good material about Kropotkin and his extension of Darwin's material, which is dear to me. (Spiritual Darwinism, CLICK)

However, there is a downside, which is that I created a relationship w/ the Occupy Wall Street movement (leveraging "creds" from my previous incarnation in Black and homeless activiss on the Lower East Side of Manhattan) and came up w/ the highly-critical "Current Dialectic, former Occupy critical inquiry" website (CLICK).

Long story short, after predicting that there would be one step forward and many back (as happens every time in my activist experience) I found that a conflict between John Penley (local LES activist and former NY Times photog) vs. Chris Hedges (pro-terrorist whom you cannot possibly NOT know) resulted in a single byte of text:, dialectic, as the problem. Sorry to those invested in the dialectic, but the evidence is just too strong. Punishment relates to behavioral (capital weapon), can cognition relates to dialectic, and the two cognitive-behavioral add up to the control strategy for current capital which is, in a term, metacognitive programmingg.

Previously, the description of the Western mind was given by Sigmund Freud as "the ego." (All minds add up to society, culture, but not civilization--which is imposed as "civility" or being nice to top-down controllers so that they can successfully rob you.)

Now, the direction is nearly-purely neurological based in genetics (root problems), meth/cocaine/crack (ego boosters), and industrial solvents, insecticides, etc. The solution is to de-program the metacogntion (ie capital marketing tracks), which means bringing people back to the natural, ie, reversing the familiar hegelian "thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis" (destroying synthesis through its "actor" anti-thesis, to bring humans back to their evolutionary track which is empathic evolution, which is actually greater in whales than other organisms especially including humans.

Another problem w/ the communism aspect is that the "cattle -> chattel -> capital" continuum appears to also be genetic, with independent de-evolution paths in Europe, Africa (Nigeria area), and the Indus Valley. (So much for the hindu vegan, just another capital oligarchy.)

Problems with libertarian are just too many, making wonder about the choice of this word. It appears linked to piracy through communist revolution in the Ukraine; it appears to be the violent aspect of anarchy, which is the part we seek to get rid of. Today, libertarianism is associate nearly purely with free capital, as in Ayn Rand, and especially the (very sick) Anarchist Capitalists (ancaps).

The about text cites the very short successful anarchist-democratic implementation during the Spanish Civil War, which was really only a Stalin-Hitler test case for WWII (the phony war between the real wars).

So, why not be pacifistic-anarchist with a scheduled return to aboriginal life which as a "scientific continuum" from the soul to the cosmos, with the wildlife as intermediaries, as the soy bean means we no longer have to kill them for food. The option is that communism is based on "Das Kapital" (capital minus capital families) and that the historical dialectic plays out in the ego-based conflict between two men who were exactly the same: Hitler==Stalin.

Also, keep in mind that censorship is fascism in its original form: Plato's Republic

http://johnbessa.info/picts//simplified_model.jpg

radicalgraffiti
Online
Joined: 4-11-07
Dec 27 2013 17:03

WTF is this about?

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Dec 27 2013 17:09

Imagine a long coach ride...

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Dec 27 2013 17:55

Oh lawd

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 28 2013 00:14

Seems like a new Rosa Lichtenstein.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 28 2013 00:16
Quote:
The option is that communism is based on "Das Kapital" (capital minus capital families) and that the historical dialectic plays out in the ego-based conflict between two men who were exactly the same: Hitler==Stalin.

Communism based on Das Kapital would be pretty shit; see the Soviet Union. Das Kapital is an analysis of capital, not a blueprint for communism. And the rest of the quote is just... WTF?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Dec 28 2013 13:00

You know what it reminds me of? There was the Facebook app going around a while ago where it devised a status update for you based on your previous updates. It's as if someone has done that for, like, the entirety of libcom in some bizarre SPAM/Turing test.

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 28 2013 17:08

but, I am not a "troll" --odd

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Dec 28 2013 18:00
johnbessa wrote:
but, I am not a "troll" --odd

Ok John, maybe we've been harsh. Perhaps if you re-word some of your post, it's not very clear what you're saying.

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 28 2013 19:05
Khawaga wrote:
Seems like a new Rosa Lichtenstein.

Funny, methinks RL is a male attempting to generate hits for a low-key advertising scheme that you can find at the bottom of any RL pages. Not withstanding, one finds a funny (but inaccurate) quote:

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
dialecticians use opaque non-materialist language invented by ruling-class hacks 2400 years ago to make their theory work .

Today''s Dialectics descend from Socrates' method (crystallized by Hegel) which leverages deception to bring the student to a predetermined conclusion; the "hacks" were Sparta-linked tutors to the Democratic Athenian rich whom they detested and attempted to destroy (including Aristotle, tutor to Alexander the Great).

The current dialectic is found in two places, left and right:
1) obviously Marxism
2) Adam Smith's (Ayn Rand's) objectivism, but only obliquely and through inference

My expectation was to find "the problem" in the rich Right, but, at first, could only find it in the poor Left --but since all the West descends from the "hacks" (oligarchic philosophers), it had/has to be there, and it is. FYI, Plato invented communism when he predicted a world where all kings are philosophers --oligarchic, to be sure with a long time coming with an exceptionally short life.

The "rub" is Paul Krugman, who made himself the "economist" of Occupy, and thus created a split-mentality for the 99% rather than splintered "forks" as Penley and Hedges did. At the end of they day, however, the "cause of causes" will remain the environment with humans as organismic objects within it. The upshot is forced environmental bonding with conservatives --who still hold the cards.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Dec 28 2013 19:07

That's more like it. Much clearer.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Dec 28 2013 19:28

Wow! After a year on the site I understand dialectics even less than when I first read about the subject!
Genuine question - is Johnbessa's last post an top grade intellectual wank or am I a clueless twat?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 28 2013 19:55

Depends on what you think the dialectic is. For Marx, if you believe the value-form theorists (and I do; to me it is the interpretation that makes the most sense out of Capital) it is a method of presentation, i.e. a way to describe the "reality" of capital(ism). And folks like Dietzgen does argue that the way "brainwork" works is dialectical (long time ago since I read his book, so I am a bit iffy on the details). But the easy go-to answer: "it's dialectics" can be a way for Marxist clergy to dominate others, as if it's a secret knowledge only the initiated can understand.

From what I can gather, the OP is hashing out a rather tired and reductive dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) and links this to cognition, but what this has to do with Marx's method of presenting capital as a rule of abstractions and moving contradictions I don't know.

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 28 2013 23:51
Quote:
Depends on what you think the dialectic is.

You mean, like, opinion? Difference between science (social and psychological) and philosophy is that science depends on evidence, whereas philosophy gets it from something like Plato's cave (forms). In other words, I know I am wasting my time attempting to present evidence to the ego maniacs typical of the internet, but I do it anyway, perhaps out of habit.

This will go over your head again: getting it from inside your head implicates schizophrenia, i.e. hallucinations, so much so psychologists actually confuse schizophrenia with creativity because of the academic traditions of philosophy.

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 29 2013 01:16

awww... back to my point (sorry), the dialectic is at best a waste of time, but, in reality, singly the most dangerous thing there is even for the self-mutilating dialecticians who are dragging us into their personal hells (CLICK)

libcomm is a nice-sounding word, and can mean constructive things, for instance liberation communication... give this sick shit a break, get w/ the program

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Dec 29 2013 01:29

johnbessa, what in the hell are you on about?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 29 2013 02:13

John's definitively a new Rosa Lichtenstein.

Quote:
In other words, I know I am wasting my time attempting to present evidence to the ego maniacs typical of the internet, but I do it anyway, perhaps out of habit.

look in the mirror

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 29 2013 16:41
Quote:
Hello all, I came upon this page looking for good material about Kropotkin and his extension of Darwin's material, which is dear to me.

There is a kind of ‘cosmic optimism’ abroad in a lot of left-libertarian and anarchist thinking centred on beliefs about self-organisational and libertarian forms of activity as not only the natural forms for social life but also as part of the ontological fabric of things. In Bookchin’s dialectical naturalism, to mention one example, it is argued that if you surgically remove the Hegelian quasi-mystical idealism together with Engels' mechanistic scientism, then dialectical reason, which looks beyond how phenomena are organised at any given moment to what they are structured to become, furnishes an extraordinary degree of coherence and a complementary means for understanding any ecology rooted in evolutionary development. But because Bookchin was more interested in demonstrating the superiority of his ethical ontology and dialectical methods over rival currents he didn’t bother working out any detailed applications or consistently interpreting the consequences of his flavour of dialectics. And most neo-Kropotkinians would only go as far as suggesting that Kropotkin’s mutualism does not so much supplant as supplement the Malthusian-Darwinian view. To what extent do you believe that it makes sense to draw on metaphors from the natural sciences to substantiate ethical issues concerning human society? Do you think it’s useful to ascribe such terms as competition or hierarchy or domination to nature or are they are only meaningful in the social world? Would it make any better sense to describe nature as e.g. non-hierarchical?

Quote:
So, why not be pacifistic-anarchist with a scheduled return to aboriginal life which as a "scientific continuum" from the soul to the cosmos, with the wildlife as intermediaries, as the soy bean means we no longer have to kill them for food.

Which of the multiple current forms of ‘aboriginal life’ do you mean? Or if you’re talking about the Plestocene or Paleolithic, how do we get back there and what was it like and for which groups was it like this and exactly how do you know?

Quote:
The solution is to de-program the metacogntion (ie capital marketing tracks), which means bringing people back to the natural, ie, reversing the familiar hegelian "thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis" (destroying synthesis through its "actor" anti-thesis, to bring humans back to their evolutionary track which is empathic evolution, which is actually greater in whales than other organisms especially including humans.

Again, if it’s a category error to call ‘nature’ ‘hierarchical’ isn’t ‘empathic evolution’ an oxymoron rather than a credible, ethically charged description? It’s one thing to discredit Hayek’s or whoever’s crude, analogical naturalistic reductionism by pointing out mutualisms in nature, it’s another to claim that because ‘nature in the large’ exhibit’s mutual aid then this discredits any intellectual justification for hierarchy and competition in the social world, which could just as easily be justified on the basis of efficiency, custom, preference, good old genetics or any number of other gambits left untouched by this argument.

Unless you’re making the uncontroversial point that cognitive abilities and psychological facilities that allow for ethical reasoning together with other emergent properties that humans have developed are premised upon previous evolutionary history, I don’t need to invoke a rigid positivistic separation of ‘facts’ and ‘values’ to recognise that because you have omitted to tell me why we should follow the dictates of nature if we are to act ethically, your assertion is nearly-purely eco-theology/natural law theory. An ethical act is one freely chosen after reflection, rational deliberation and intersubjective communication and not after anthropocentrically consulting whales, lovely and magnificent as they are in their own right.

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 30 2013 01:48

Dayam, factvalue --you make my head spin!

I have to admit that I don't know a lot of your sources, and, in fact(value), I like to keep it simple, that is to say, use limited VERY good sources --from both sides!

In my opinion (not a valuefact), darwin's 2nd paper says it all: human morality evolved from natural affection. Natural affection as he saw it, was based on mother/parent care for the young which is a built-in value for mammals, but, as it turns out extends to birds, who, amazing, evolved from dinosaurs. This "love" comes from specialized neurons that are very similar along diverse evolutional tracks, which suggests that evolution has a goal, or even mind of its own, to create love. In "rational" terms, love is the answer, the key. Knowing this, it is incredibly easy to see why true-feeling religions peeps say "God is love."

So, that evolutional track, with its marker neurons, is not just what I am talking about as the beneficial natural state, but the way "things" want to be --something beyond truth, way beyond, hard to comprehend. While aborginals could not comprehend it no better than we can, they had a "namespace" for it: a continuum from the human soul to the cosmos through, among things, the animals. This is universal to aborginals, and we ALL have aboriginal ancestors.

I do not do behavior, cognition, or rationale (I literally bash those that do, as this is, of course, violent revolution! heehee).

I do:
receptor -> perceptor -> aggregation -> understanding -> expression
with n-numbers of receptors with perception on different levels leading to unified aggregation facilities roughly equating to empathy. Understanding is sometimes called symbolism. (Underlying mechanisms are well-defined, but so complex as to be off-topic.)

De-evolution is not denied by the de-evolved! They claim that evolutionary forks that are not forward-leaning towards love are beneficial: greed, for instance. Us normal peeps are starting to realized that these "out of control types" will kill us all through uncontrolled reproduction (in the 3rd World) if nothing else (Greed, like addiction, is along the obsessive-compulsive-impulsive continuum, which I lump w/ psychosis as psychotics are, by definition our of control.)

Interestingly, I was just looking for a link about Darwin's natural morality, and the #5 google listing was my paper on Spiritual Dariwnism --so, some people like it at least --you might give it a try, because I don't do relativism either (heehee)

I have a 6 mo old (who I have to take care of soon) who we are raising along the lines of Carl Roger's mental evolution in the context of beneficial communication in the context of family and friends socially -> society. I try to extend it with what I call the Empathy Model, which is in the Wikiversity and I have not edited for a while because that site consists only of sockpuppets of one person who uses the DSM to create their characters... see what I mean?

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Empathy_Model

The empathy model is "positive" in that it intends to be purely benefical. Antithesis as Hegel crystalized it (actually it may have been done by someone else, hegel got the blame/credit) and the poison that is killing us both through capital and communism (Adam Smith/Ayn Rand VS Marx/Engles/Trotsky): the antibioltic for anti-thesis

gotta go feed/play w/ my kid, btw, can't believe that I haven't been banned for ridiculing the defectively dominant aspys of DBT!

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 30 2013 02:11
Quote:
btw, can't believe that I haven't been banned for ridiculing the defectively dominant aspys of DBT!

seems like it's written by a representative of

Quote:
ego maniacs typical of the internet

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 30 2013 13:56

Obviously, to me, the return to the natural (non-synthetic) track is aboriginal (and synthesists seem to agree as I find them well-established on the reserves when I get there).

The down side of Turtle back (North American) aboriginal culture is that it has been smashed more than most by colonialist immigrants resulting in record substance abuse: memories are lost, and, sadly, the we must rely White anthropologists and other researchers with me, apparently, being one of them. My qualification is that I learned from the museums of NYC and moved out into the woods first opportunity, age 11, where I bonded w/ Nature. It was not until I ran w/ the Rastas (also aboriginal) that I stopped killing to eat, and then, when I got shot at myself, I bonded w/ the animals themselves and joined-up w/ forest rights groups. Through them, I met AR terrorists and instantly became a pacifist. Standing next to the twin towers of the World Trade Center as they collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001 cemented my pacifism, and made life miserable for a few years. So, I finished my undergrad and wrote Spiritual Darwinism, as a sort of spirituality for atheists (such as my professor who admitted I turned his head around 180 degrees.)

You will see in Occupy Critical Inquiry that I followed the shenanigans on Wall St carefully, and now I am focused (remotely through FaceBook) on Canadian aboriginal environmental struggle (wondering how I can convince them to stop shooting their sacred animal forest friends!). Interesting, and important, is White support for Aboriginal Canada even in the justice system: restorative justice. From this I created the Aborginal 5 "R's" that describe a White approach to the Turtleback natives, that I think is valid because we are talking rescue here, like Capt Paul Watson and the Whales because, as I mentioned, the Whites already there seem to be Trotskyite (anti-abstract) and violent.

Recovery
(from WHITE powders and distillates)

Restoration
(getting aboriginals back to their "native place")

Relations
(all my relations, the aboriginal relationship with surrounding natural life as personal family)

Re-creation
(like the Indian-like Rainbow Gathering does because research can only go so far because so much has been lost)

Reconciliation
(ending the conflict through "original" democracy)

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 30 2013 13:59
Quote:
human morality evolved from natural affection.

insect mathematics started from three o’clock eastern standard time

Quote:
This "love" comes from specialized neurons that are very similar along diverse evolutional tracks,

You are very generous, many to choose from here but could you just explain ‘comes from’ since your next tangy yet devil-may-care syntactical string depends on it:

Quote:
which suggests that evolution has a goal, or even mind of its own, to create love. In "rational" terms, love is the answer, the key. Knowing this, it is incredibly easy to see why true-feeling religions peeps say "God is love."

So Neurons -> Love -> Evolution -> Plan -> God -> Rational ice-cream corridors visiting eggs laid by tigers (underlying this apparent gibberish add water makes its own sauce), have I got it?

Quote:
De-evolution is not denied by the de-evolved! They claim that evolutionary forks that are not forward-leaning towards love are beneficial: greed, for instance. Us normal peeps are starting to realized that these "out of control types" will kill us all through uncontrolled reproduction (in the 3rd World)

Them selfish third world people with their greedy forks will be the end of us (esthspethially they lumpershine the three Lapoleans lapping up all our resources as if our destiny is of a French Saucer? Ole!!

Long live Malthus!

etc

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Dec 30 2013 14:38

Wow. Someone must have spiked my tea. Reality is all up the fuck!

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 30 2013 15:31
factvalue wrote:
insect mathematics started from three o’clock eastern standard time

priceless.

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 30 2013 16:18

yeah, but I am still not a "troll" --you like me!

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Dec 30 2013 16:22

There's really no way to say this without sounding like a total patronising dick, but I guess that's never stopped me before roll eyes

Sorry Khawaga, this is not another Rosa Lichtenstein. RL was a crank. JB is a, um, er, let me pick a quote.

Quote:
This will go over your head again: getting it from inside your head implicates schizophrenia, i.e. hallucinations, so much so psychologists actually confuse schizophrenia with creativity because of the academic traditions of philosophy.

let me add in a few definitions from a psychology glossary:

Quote:
Flight of Ideas

Rapidly verbalized train of unrelated thoughts or of thoughts related only via relatively-coherent associations. Still, in its extreme forms, flight of ideas involves cognitive incoherence and disorganization. Appears as a sign of mania, certain organic mental health disorders, schizophrenia, and psychotic states. Also see: Pressure of Speech and Loosening of Associations.

Pressure of Speech

Rapid, condensed, unstoppable and "driven" speech. The patient dominates the conversation, speaks loudly and emphatically, ignores attempted interruptions, and doesn't care if anyone is listening or responding to him or her. Seen in manic states, psychotic or organic mental disorders, and conditions associated with stress. See: Flight of Ideas.

Loosening of Associations

Thought and speech disorder which involves the translocation of the focus of attention from one subject to another for no apparent reason. The patient is usually unaware of the fact that his train of thoughts and his speech are incongruous and incoherent. A sign of schizophrenia and some psychotic states. See: Incoherence; Flight of Ideas; Tangentiality.

Incoherence

Incomprehensible speech, rife with severely loose associations, distorted grammar, tortured syntax, and idiosyncratic definitions of the words used by the patient ("private language"). A loosening of associations. A pattern of speech in which unrelated or loosely-related ideas are expressed hurriedly and forcefully, using broken, ungrammatical, non-syntactical sentences, an idiosyncratic vocabulary ("private language"), topical shifts, and inane juxtapositions ("word salad"). See: Loosening of Associations; Flight of Ideas; Tangentiality.

While we haven't quite arrived at the advanced decomposition of the last definition, JBs textual flows clearly exhibit characteristic signs that s/he has temporarily or chronically found themselves on the wrong side of that undefineable line that separates creativity and idiosyncracy from illness. As such, perhaps a little less scorn and a little more sympathy may be in order.

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 30 2013 16:28
Quote:
So Neurons -> Love -> Evolution -> Plan -> God -> Rational ice-cream corridors visiting eggs laid by tigers (underlying this apparent gibberish add water makes its own sauce), have I got it

(my emphasis, you date yourself)

Not by a long shot, sorry, rational is an anti-sensical (receptor -> perceptor -> aggregation) disease that prevents one (sixth of so-called humanity) from feeling one's effects on others, and is increasingly-clearly becoming identified as the problem (ie Ingrid Newkirk, hey that's a lot of bullets!)

--but I like rational ice cream, should smear it on an android if I ever get one

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Dec 30 2013 16:29

Hurrah! Johnbessa is a Xmas present.

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 30 2013 16:37
Quote:
undefineable line that separates creativity and idiosyncracy from illness. As such, perhaps a little less scorn and a little more sympathy may be in order

nice but sorry, I am no van Gogh

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 30 2013 19:31
Quote:
Sorry Khawaga, this is not another Rosa Lichtenstein. RL was a crank. JB is a, um, er, let me pick a quote.

True, at least I understood what RL saying.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 30 2013 19:36

johnbessa wrote:

Quote:
yeah, but I am still not a "troll" --you like me!

I do actually and I meant you no harm but just stop it now will ye? you're cracking me up over ear