Steve Jones on anarchism and marxism

506 posts / 0 new
Last post
gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Feb 23 2008 01:04
choccy wrote:
Me and him sat arguing for about two hours in circles today - a wasted day - the wee cunt is sucking me into his dead world.

At some stage, you've got to stop assuming that every scientist in the world is a moronic cunt and have a look at what they're saying.

ein auslander
Offline
Joined: 25-12-06
Feb 23 2008 11:25

Just from the things said i'm not sure i understand about the phenotype rebelling against the genotype ie. int he case of a man who masturbates mentioned earlier.

This would imply that a) there is no genotype propounding masturbation. which we can't be sure about since many animals masturbate.

b) that even if there is not a genotype for masturbation then it would imply that to rebel we have consciously committed a behaviour which goes against the natural order of the body. I really don't think that this is a healthy way to look at life. The genes constructed the body, that's like saying we walk because we have legs.

Take the man masturbating. He could be thinking. "I'm a bad person, any form of sexual activity is wrong" because he has been brought up in a strict catholic household. Now his brain will be programmed by his environment to think that he shouldn't masturbate. Because his mother told him time and time again how wrong it was. However, due to the urges of his sexual genotype, he decides he can't handle it anymore and goes for a quick wank. Afterwards he feels guilty. Now this guilt isn't related to his genes - he hasn't rebelled against his genes, he has rebelled against his mother for engaging in sexual activity which she told him was wrong. These thoughts in psychology are understood as schemas

The healthier mind is free of schemas, and this kind of person, it could be argued has a freer mind, it can go to a gig, because it doesn't feel anxiety, it can go to the shops looking like shit because it doesm't care about what it looks like. However for the rest of us, these schemas drive us to do things we don't want to do, or they make us avoid doing things we want to do.

Psychology has helped us learn about how to deprogramme these schemas, and to ensure that we are not driven by anything - to help us to just "be" - a state of mind which is very quiet.

magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Feb 25 2008 18:16

ffs revol of course what we find sexy is largely socially constructed, maybe those examples I gave are as well i don't know, and as i keep saying i don't pretend to know. but you're arguing like a dick concentrating the specifics of what i say rather than the broad point i am trying to make through use of these (perhaps flawed) examples.

all i was saying is that our sexual desires are partly biological, i very much doubt if i had been somehow raised without FHM magazine to tell me what is and isn't sexy that i would be running around trying to have sex with random people, animals and inanimate objects, which is what you appear to be saying by arguing that our responses to different stimuli are never innate, but always learned. there's plenty of animals who are left to fend from themselves from birth, who never see members of their own species having sex yet still know what to do when the time comes, and who to do it with.

magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Feb 25 2008 18:18
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
i don't think many things look similar to spiders except insects and crustaceans so fearing things with some of the characteristics of a spider wouldn't be too much of a disadvantage

They only look similar to some of the most common and numerous animals on the planet, the type of creatures we would come into contact with almost everyday?

most people aren't too keen on having insects crawling all over them in my experience, but this isn't really a problem you just brush them off

ein auslander
Offline
Joined: 25-12-06
Feb 25 2008 21:09
magnifico wrote:
ffs revol of course what we find sexy is largely socially constructed, maybe those examples I gave are as well i don't know, and as i keep saying i don't pretend to know. but you're arguing like a dick concentrating the specifics of what i say rather than the broad point i am trying to make through use of these (perhaps flawed) examples.

all i was saying is that our sexual desires are partly biological, i very much doubt if i had been somehow raised without FHM magazine to tell me what is and isn't sexy that i would be running around trying to have sex with random people, animals and inanimate objects, which is what you appear to be saying by arguing that our responses to different stimuli are never innate, but always learned. there's plenty of animals who are left to fend from themselves from birth, who never see members of their own species having sex yet still know what to do when the time comes, and who to do it with.

Revol is not arguing that we need to learn how to have sex before we have it. That is not even an issue. It is absurd to even think that - that's what we do as animals you could say. We are looking at how as humans we understand and respond in the world.

Imagine the self - by self I mean the consciousness. Now, this self conforms to its own subsets (by subsets I mean the imagined structured world conceived by that person using its perception, cognition and emotion.

Now that subset is a construct of how that child with its own perception, cognition and emotion recognised and understood the world at that particular point in time. It becomes a subset, and the self will then use its perception, cognition and emotion to the construct future sets based on the subsets already constructed in its mind.

Now this information it symmetric in the sense that just as the self constantly soaks up external events in its environment it also weighs that information up by conforming to its subsets.

We can take this one step further to help us understand a bit more about consciousness and being self aware. The self not only evaluates its worlds according to these subsets but it then begins to evaluate the self according to the subsets.

The subsets are its own and to think beyond them is a difficult task. However it can be done. There are various problematic areas involved with how the mind works since we are not entirely sure about how it all ties together and how we can disentangle a chain since we are not sure where this chain begins, as well as the metaphysics behind it, since these particles could be arranged just as we might look at a quantum entanglement.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Feb 26 2008 05:52

I keep failing to get around to comment back to Anna, but I'll just say that I see the intended meaning of the metaphor better now but I have more to say about that...

magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Feb 26 2008 20:04
Quote:
The fact that a libertarian communist isn't alert to the constant process of naturalising the status quo on such matters is pretty strange.

revol i'm well aware of this stuff, that many things in our society are largely socially constructed, and that it is very useful from a radical perspective to be aware of the ways in which this process works. i think you yourself are attacking a straw man by trying to make out that i'm not aware of this, when i have repeatedly said that i am.

i think the crux of the matter is that you are something of an expert on sociology (and i mean that in a good way, i agree it's very useful for looking at society with a radical perspective) but feel that you have to somehow defend the position that everything is socially constructed because if it is then your field is, like, the only one that is important, or something. so you're ideologically opposed to any of the concepts espoused within EP, and are prepared to construct straw men, deliberately miss the point, concentrate on minor points whilst ignoring the main argument etc because you see anyone arguing that there is any merit in it whatsoever as 'the enemy' of philosophy or sociology or whatever it is you study. so i agree there's probably not much point continuing the discussion

ein auslander
Offline
Joined: 25-12-06
Feb 26 2008 20:12

It just can't happen, the emotions and fears connected to the underlying physiology of the body are not able to become involved in the decision making process, there is simply not capabilities in that area in that set.

The unconsciousness however is able to run like a machine, why do you think it easier to play the drums when you are not thinking about it - when you consciously try to change the rhythm you often fuck up. However the unconscious mind is programmed - it should be understood as a schema - the culmination of the strongest subsets or the strongest subset of a particular line of thought.

Our bodies still react to things, fear, emotion etc, however to believe in EP, that these biological traits somehow control the decision making sets is metaphysically impossible.

ein auslander
Offline
Joined: 25-12-06
Feb 26 2008 20:30

That is not say that we cannot call upon these fears and emotions to make a conscious decision.

Back in the day it could be said that tribal groups are more likely to follow these pre-existent physical systems, since the self-conformed / state-conformed consciousness and ultimate unconsciousness contrived of the subsets and schemas I have already discussed would not have been as inandated with information as it in a society with its morals, ideas, etc. When this happens, it is very unlikely that the consciousness will on these physiological feelings at all, it will identify them with the ideas it has soaked up around it but it won't blindly follow anything. Physically it cannot be driven by anything either. It is not bound to the physical body.

The physical body is where these ideas which are referred to in EP are. The knowledge and feelings are there, but they are not bound to the conscious decision maker, and so they can only be called upon by the consciousness not the other way round.

It is this mistake that propounders of EP make.