An Emergent Order

[thirdform]

the whole point of his was exactly that conjunction is NOT a causation. causation as a necessary connection is a mental habit we project on regular observations not an intrinsic feature of reality.

what is reality and what is intrinsic to it? define it without using human observation.

 

[thirdform]

You know, you could, if you wanted to, actually explain your little gnomic non-sequiturs like this, and "Brexit is ultra-Bremain" etc., rather than just stating them as if they were self-evident, which always makes me suspect you're just hoping no-one will call your bluff.

I could explain them, but where would the fun be in that? bluffing (and even more so folding) is a useful strategy in poker, you know.

but we obviously know the classic theistic rebuttal to atheism: if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted. Obviously rubbish. please explain paranoia, anxiety, neuroses, etc etc.

On the contrary! today it is normal to publically profess a lack of belief in god, and rather than how one ruthlessly mocked the clergy and even their own outward adherence to belief in the past, people must justify their non-belief and rationalise it to themselves with extreme trepidation. They become even more haunted by god, unconsciously. 'I know that God doesn't exist, but does God know it'?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I could explain them, but where would the fun be in that? bluffing (and even more so folding) is a useful strategy in poker, you know.

I find it quite boring, actually. You often have worthwhile things to say but just coming out with things that seem self-evidently untrue and then not explaining yourself doesn't make me think "Gosh, how clever!", it just makes me not want to engage with you.

 

[thirdform]

I find it quite boring, actually. You often have worthwhile things to say but just coming out with things that seem self-evidently untrue and then not explaining yourself doesn't make me think "Gosh, how clever!", it just makes me not want to engage with you.

hasn't this been your modus operandi since 2004? The man down the pub, the man of common sense.

 

[germaphobian]

what is reality and what is intrinsic to it? define it without using human observation.

this question is cognitively meaningless., any kind of verification requires observation and you ruled it out a priori. i mean, can you ask me the question without using human observation, language and concepts?

 

[thirdform]

this question is cognitively meaningless., any kind of verification requires observation and you ruled it out a priori. i mean, can you ask me the question without using human observation, language and concepts?

of course I can't, but that's why your criticisms of dialectical materialism don't hold. Or, they only hold as a weapon, one which doesn't work against me. They aren't supra-historical rational criticisms so much as criticisms of the opposing class which thinks all struggles in philosophy proceed rationally. But rationality comes into place when they die. This is why we are talking about the dead, Hume, Hegel, etc, because their ideologies pertained to a rising class which is now in decline, hence the going round in circles of this thread, and why I found its initial observations trite and maudlin. you were actually closer to the mark when you said version's way out of this is religion.

 

[germaphobian]

of course I can't, but that's why your criticisms of dialectical materialism don't hold. Or, they only hold as a weapon, one which doesn't work against me. They aren't supra-historical rational criticisms so much as criticisms of the opposing class which thinks all struggles in philosophy proceed rationally. But rationality comes into place when they die. This is why we are talking about the dead, Hume, Hegel, etc, because their ideologies pertained to a rising class which is now in decline, hence the going round in circles of this thread, and why I found its initial observations trite and maudlin. you were actually closer to the mark when you said version's way out of this is religion.

so all criticism of marxism or dialectical materialism or that line of thinking in general is just hidden class interests?

 

[thirdform]

of course I can't, but that's why your criticisms of dialectical materialism don't hold. Or, they only hold as a weapon, one which doesn't work against me. They aren't supra-historical rational criticisms so much as criticisms of the opposing class which thinks all struggles in philosophy proceed rationally. But rationality comes into place when they die. This is why we are talking about the dead, Hume, Hegel, etc, because their ideologies pertained to a rising class which is now in decline, hence the going round in circles of this thread, and why I found its initial observations trite and maudlin. you were actually closer to the mark when you said version's way out of this is religion.

Which is fine, I have no desire to convert you, that always ends up with the deviation of 'better more but worse.' What I am challenging is your idea that you can comprehensively refute all structural and linguistic frameworks with the word contingency, you can't.

Like I said, the death of the meta-narritive is still a meta-narritive, a teleological progressivism, the idea that the era of metanarritives is closed.

Even pluralist liberalism has this teleological contradiction at its heart: on one hand liberal parties want to primarily focus on ideology, provide for the diversity and freedom of opinion by foresaking the pretence of being dedicated to organisation, the era of historical violence is supposedly closed, we have progressed past overthrowing ancien regimes, democracy curbs such excesses by representing all citizens, etc. and on the other hand, these parties cannot violate their sacred principles when a nations ruling class is in crisis, and act as midwives paving the way for the fascist solution.

 

[version]

you and @Mr. Tea

people keep saying religious argument as if this is some kind of criticism when it is anything but.

For the contemporary liberal atheist, if God doesn't exist, nothing is permitted, and hence there is a return back to religion as reflected through philosophical atheism. Obviously the return is not complete, and hence we use the term reflection. It is like a shadow which haunts. Religious people will say atheism is a kind of religion, which in its etymological meaning is obviously rubbish, but contemporary liberalism possesses religious aspects. For you and tea religion is just bonkers ideas people have. Neither of you choose to ask how said bonkers ideas come about.

I'd have thought it'd be obvious from this thread that I'm agnostic, not an atheist. And I've always felt 'said bonkers ideas' came about out of practicality as you could give people an explanation for the world and a structure to keep things running a certain way and they'd be more likely to stick to it if they believe it stems from a deity who'll punish them for deviating from it.

 

[version]

There's a long Camatte interview on libcom I read last night which covered quite a lot of similar ground to this thread, although the interviewer was irritating and the translation was rough.

Interview with Jacques Camatte (2019)

A 2019 Cercle Marx interview with Jacques Camatte discussing Amadeo Bordiga, May '68, capital, and other subjects. Translated by Lucas Aubain for Radical Reprints, 2021. Original source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKCoo7KoIew&ab_channel=CercleMarx

libcom.org

 

[thirdform]

so all criticism of marxism or dialectical materialism or that line of thinking in general is just hidden class interests?

In a sense it is like this, and we would have no hesitation in admitting this, nor taking it as any kind of accusation. But it is more accurate to say that critique is the effect and not the cause.

Thus we can learn from the critics of Marxism, in the same way that an opposing army learns from its enemies. We relish our enemies doubting us, it only serves to sharpen the sculpting of our doctrine. Incidentally, no religious person with a brain would say this.

The only reason why advocates of liberalism cannot admit that liberalism is their weapon of combat is because that would bring the subconscious to know, and hence inviolate their cherished ideals. In which case, they would no longer be liberals.

 

[thirdform]

There's a long Camatte interview on libcom I read last night which covered quite a lot of similar ground to this thread, although the interviewer was irritating and the translation was rough.

Interview with Jacques Camatte (2019)

A 2019 Cercle Marx interview with Jacques Camatte discussing Amadeo Bordiga, May '68, capital, and other subjects. Translated by Lucas Aubain for Radical Reprints, 2021. Original source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKCoo7KoIew&ab_channel=CercleMarx

libcom.org

I did a thread on Camatte and my rather serious disagreements with him.



I do find this approach you have, of posting anything you find interesting infuriating. I won't prosecute you for it, neither will I tell you to stop, but it does really get on my nerves.

 

[thirdform]

anyway if you are going to bring camatte into the thread read This

 

[germaphobian]

Which is fine, I have no desire to convert you, that always ends up with the deviation of 'better more but worse.' What I am challenging is your idea that you can comprehensively refute all structural and linguistic frameworks with the word contingency, you can't.

Like I said, the death of the meta-narritive is still a meta-narritive, a teleological progressivism, the idea that the era of metanarritives is closed.

Even pluralist liberalism has this teleological contradiction at its heart: on one hand liberal parties want to primarily focus on ideology, provide for the diversity and freedom of opinion by foresaking the pretence of being dedicated to organisation, the era of historical violence is supposedly closed, we have progressed past overthrowing ancien regimes, democracy curbs such excesses by representing all citizens, etc. and on the other hand, these parties cannot violate their sacred principles when a nations ruling class is in crisis, and act as midwives paving the way for the fascist solution.

since I already name-dropped Niklas Luhmann i can only riff on that a bit to make myself clear -
when I say contingency I’m not trying to blow up frameworks or prove them wrong. society is as a bunch of separate ecosystems—politics, law, religion, economy (the field you and marxists in general over-focus on), science, school system etc. each with its own rules and language. and when i say language, i mean binary either/or statements to reduce the outside complexity (power/no power for politics payment/non - payment, for economy, pass/fail for education and so on)
these systems arent “true” or “false”; they’re just how society organizes itself. contingency means these systems could’ve evolved differently ( feudalism instead of capitalism and so on) but once they exist they’re real and functional.
game of chess is a popular example; it strict has rules and you can’t refute chess by saying “the rules are arbitrary!” the game works because everyone agrees to play by them. contingency is just noticing that chess isn’t the only possible gamebut that doesnt make chess meaningless.
but foundation dosen't even come into play in this context, its a totally meaningless term. that's what i mean that there is no foundation. because only point of observation of within on of these systems looking at their "enviorment" (enviorment being not some raw reality, but all the other systems)

 

[germaphobian]

since I already name-dropped Niklas Luhmann i can only riff on that a bit to make myself clear -
when I say contingency I’m not trying to blow up frameworks or prove them wrong. society is as a bunch of separate ecosystems—politics, law, religion, economy (the field you and marxists in general over-focus on), science, school system etc. each with its own rules and language. and when i say language, i mean binary either/or statements to reduce the outside complexity (power/no power for politics payment/non - payment, for economy, pass/fail for education and so on)
these systems arent “true” or “false”; they’re just how society organizes itself. contingency means these systems could’ve evolved differently ( feudalism instead of capitalism and so on) but once they exist they’re real and functional.
game of chess is a popular example; it strict has rules and you can’t refute chess by saying “the rules are arbitrary!” the game works because everyone agrees to play by them. contingency is just noticing that chess isn’t the only possible gamebut that doesnt make chess meaningless.
but foundation dosen't even come into play in this context, its a totally meaningless term. that's what i mean that there is no foundation. because only point of observation of within on of these systems looking at their "enviorment" (enviorment being not some raw reality, but all the other systems)

mega simplified version, because it would take a lot of effort to elucidate

 

[Mr. Tea]

hasn't this been your modus operandi since 2004? The man down the pub, the man of common sense.

No, I think you're confusing me with luka.

 

[version]

I do find this approach you have, of posting anything you find interesting infuriating. I won't prosecute you for it, neither will I tell you to stop, but it does really get on my nerves.

Why?

 

[thirdform]

We can cite a classic example of the application of this method, not so far from Mr. Camatte’s ideas; it is Kautsky’s “ultra-imperialism” theory. The latter also “started” from incontestable Marxist affirmations, expressing the tendency of capital to concentration and political as well as economic centralisation; and, in his head, he pushed this tendency to its “logical” conclusion, imagining a super-state concentrating and centralising the imperialist oppression and exploitation of the whole world. Lenin deflated this “theoretical discovery” by simply putting this tendency in its place; for if the tendency to the super-state does exist, the opposite tendency, the centrifugal tendency, also exists; through the analysis of the “newest” facts (and we are trying to do so, too) Lenin confirmed the good old theory that knew both tendencies, and foresaw that the contradiction between the two and the social upheavals that this contradiction produces, increase as capital concentrates.
If Kautsky is still cautious and measured in the use of this metaphysical method, Mr. Camatte pushes it straight to the end and to the absurd. Bordiga who “refuted those who thought that the development of automation is a practical refutation of Marx’s theory of value“, as he rightly says, he reproaches that he “did not, however, extract all the logical consequences of the affirmation that living labor time tends increasingly to decline in the capitalist mode of production, that the activity of the worker is becoming almost superfluous” (ibid., p. 21). A remnant of modesty made him put in this an “almost”, but this is only a formal concession on his part! In reality, his criticism is not so much addressed to Bordiga as to history, which persists in not realising the “logical” consequence of… this statement, and which has not yet made the work of the workers “completely” superfluous. However, “the party is anticipation”, so Mr. Camatte suggests that the “logical” development of this trend is already a given.

 

[thirdform]

Why?

Because this stuff isn't an all you can eat buffet, and you engage in distortion by presenting it as such. If you want that, read sci-fi, which will always be in advance of dry political texts.

 

[thirdform]

No, I think you're confusing me with luka.

you're luka's dad, are you not? or are you luka's son. now that craner has vacated the premises, you understand.