Biology, nature and dialectical materialism
Nakived continues discussion of dialectical materialism with reference
to contemporary biologists and historians of biology, Nov. 1998
____________________________________________________
[
[email protected] comments: In the article below Nakived discusses
dialectical materialism. Nakived writes extensively on biology and
Lysenko. Unlike MIM, Nakived believes the labor aristocracy of the
United $tates is going downhill because of jobs being exported.
Here s/he continues our pointed debate from the materialism page
which really launched itself on the subject of Bogdanov and
materio-criticism. S/he contrasts Lenin and Stalin on dialectical
materialism that s/he refers to as "diamat." It is Nakived's agenda to
trash dualism and argue that many people are biologically impaired to
the point of being incapable of other than dualism.
In siding with passivity and reflection, and by calling for the humyn
animal to flow with Nature, Nakived may be pushing the species toward
conservatism. By obeying Nature's laws, humyns can create new things
in this world that have not been created before by other species. Is
creating something new "flowing" or "reflecting"? Furthermore, what
other parts of Nature have dialectical materialism? It seems only the
humyn species does. Thus the humyn species regularly creates
inventions unknown to other species and which are new. The fact that a
humyn discovers something for the first time about Nature does not
make that discovery any less "natural."
Hokey pseudo-environmentalists regularly tell us that humyns should
give up trying to "conquer" Nature. They also do not seem to realize
that 99.9 percent of species went extinct long before the humyn
species went on its industrial binge. That means Nature itself
changes. So to say that humyns created cars and air pollution and that
is "unnatural" might be wrong. It might be natural for humyns to
destroy other species and itself. Nature has a long record of
destroying species and creating new ones. People seeking to preserve
every species there is are also idealist conservatives, whether they
speak in the name of Nature or not. There is nothing about Nature that
preserved species before there was a humyn species, so wiping out
species cannot be blamed on the humyn species as if that species were
somehow removed from Nature.
So MIM is careful not to make a sacred cow out of "Nature" which can
just be another god of humyn creation, and different for each humyn
who created it. MIM attacks pollution in the name of the humyn
species, not in the name of some religion or alleged permanent state
of the planet.
If it is natural for humyns to be aggressive and warlike, then MIM
will seek to trick the humyn species into aggressive pursuit of peace.
Our goals have to be possible within the laws of nature or we will
simply be adding fruitless strife to the world.]
POST TO MIM
(from Nakived, November, 1998)
This is heavy and it's important and relevant as it has a lot to do
with the MODERN (RIGHT NOW!) Lewontin/Gould/Eldredge etc. group of
evolutionary biologists in the West versus the Dawkins etc groups
today, also in the West, and how they 'view' nature by using various
theories. The Dawkins group ("Ultra Darwinians" eg book "The Selfish
Gene") makes up theories of "how it all has to be" and then they PUT
those paradigms into nature and life (read: into society); but the
Lewontin group (eg: "Human Diversity" by Lewontin from Scientific
American Library Series, or "Reinventing Darwin" by Niles Eldredge or
anything else by Steven J. Gould) seem more to passively VIEW nature
AS IT REALLY IS and THEN, only after viewing, they come up with a
theory or law.
One hears a lot about laws in the Stalinist USSR, but there are laws
and then there are laws! Here is what I mean: It is a LAW of nature
that zygotes develop unless terminated; even so, they develop UNTIL
THEY ARE terminated.
They WILL develop, they WILL change. That IS a _law_. Now, the
political abortion issue is separate from this truth. Zygotes go thru
phases and theychange. That IS a law but by "law" we obviously do not
mean it's legal or illegal according to a legal system! A zygote
produced by your mom and dad was YOU once upon a time! It was YOU.
This is TRUE. One can invent a theory to explain the various stages
zygotes go thru in developing into a living organism and people can
(AND DO) carry that truth out, emphasize that truth and/or distort
that truth, to bolster views against or for legalizing choice in
having an abortion, but it is nonetheless a true-ism about zygotes
developing. It is the major problem with me and what I KNOW TO BE
"Diamat" for real, '3 plus 5 equals 8 reality'; versus the Marxian
THEORY of Diamat where they, various TYPES of Marxists, argue about
which "version" is right!
I believe this is also a major problem in the East/West unbridgeable
gulf (by East I do not mean China per se tho some of Chinese thought
would fit in). By major problem I mean that Diamat is NOT just a man's
way of viewing the world.
I mean it's the way the world, nature, cosmos WORKS. Man knowing it
enables him to make correct and PREDICTABLE theories.
Here is a statement:
"The official Soviet version of dialectical materialism has not been
rectified" so say many Marxists and others. What does this mean?
"Official version?" Is there an official version of 3 plus 5 equals 8?
How can there be an official version of reality? There is only
REALITY. What man thinks of it is irrelevant. Man might perceive
reality, wrongly or rightly, but that doesn't change REALITY at all!
Reality IS. It IS what IT IS. The statement above in quotes has to do,
in part, with the Stalin/Lysenko Soviet Creative Darwinism
(Agrobiology) model versus the Western model of nature, keeping in
mind that the DNA was not discovered then and their old concepts for
genes has been thrown out complete by the modern genetics. Marxian
dialectics is VERY HEAVY; it's not trite, rah rah crap. It's also
often DRY, TURGID and heavy, hence hardly anyone on the streets knows
it; tho they know the Western cartoon version of what they imagine is
Socialism or Marxism. Unfortunate. Someone needs to DUMB DOWN "Das
Kapital" for all readers out there. Why not? The Xians did that with
their bible. Time to take note and speak to the majority of The People
who don't have time to read "all that" or have the ability to read
thru some of Marx's more iffy and obscure passages. But here is the
problem as it arose (following) and you can see, it's not "light"
stuff.
Already, when they even say that there IS a "version" of dialectical
materialism, Soviet or not, something is strange. Do they mean that it
differs from Marx? Some of US minority Reds in the 1990's see that
Newton had a VERSION of mechanics. However, only when velocities are
1/10th or less of the speed of light does Newton's VERSION work. Ergo,
Einstein had another VERSION of mechanics and, since then, Newton's
VERSION has been assimilated; some might see that Newton's version was
CHANGED; it depends on which portion of mechanics you focus on and
which portions you choose to read as footnotes.
Imagine that Newton wrote a chapter thinking it was a story. Einstein
saw it was merely a chapter and proceeded to write the rest of the
book. Yet these two men lived far apart and obviously didn't know each
other. OK? The Soviet VERSION of dialectical materialism has all to do
with Stalin and Lysenko and probably Prezent. I had some vitriolic
arguments with Reds on this issue only to learn that they knew nothing
of MODERN physics. So then, end of argument.
Yeah, YOU called me an imperialist, a possible agent and/or accused me
of being mystical and I called you morons, idiots, 19th century
backward, null and voided pseudo-science imbeciles and oddly neither
of us called each other hyenas. Names. Sticks and stones can break me
bones, but names? PHOOEY.
Here it is, quoted right out of both of them:
Lenin's version in "On the Question of Dialectics" (1915) states that:
"The *condition for the knowledge* of all processes of the world in
their 'self movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real
life, is the *knowledge of them* as a unity of opposites. Development
is the 'struggle of opposites'. *Note he is speaking of a condition
for knowledge, that IF you grasp the unity of opposites, this is a
condition FOR knowing nature. It would IMPLY (not state) that nature
works Dialectically, ergo to know it you must learn to think
dialectically; tho Lenin does not state this in fact. Development,
real life, to KNOW THEM AS a unity of opposites - this implies that
they ARE a unity of opposites. "Development IS the struggle of
opposites." Does he mean development for real, or just a way to
understand development? Not clear, but it can be read that way by
anyone reading it TODAY.
On the other hand, Stalin, in "Problems of Leninism" wrote this:
"The dialectical **method of apprehending** nature regards the
phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing
constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the
interaction of opposed forces in nature." !! **He didn't say
understanding nature, he said APPREHENDING; there is a difference. One
does not eg understand a criminal, one apprehends him. 'Apprehending'
is almost a metaphor - how can you apprehend nature unless Stalin
meant to literally GRASP it. Both Lenin and Stalin were quite careful
about the specific words they each used! Yet he also says that the
dialectical method of apprehending nature REGARDS the phenomena of
nature AS BEING IN constant etc. That is to imply that dialectical
thinkers regard their thinking about nature as so. They analyze it
dialectically. It can be read that way. It seems as if they are both
saying the same thing.
Also note, Lenin says "the KNOWLEDGE OF them AS A unity of opposites."
Stalin says "the DEVELOPMENT OF nature as the RESULT OF THE
interaction of opposed forces in nature."
They, at first, sound APPARENTLY concordant! They both sound the same,
say, to Comrade PM tho he sees that Lenin's statement is just more
Kantian or philosophical. Maybe Stalin's is more Machian or
Bogdanovian, or REAL, i.e. not philosophy. I.e., not just the way
human consciousness organizes input about nature with the senses and
then forms a conclusion, but REAL, how it REALLY IS whether your
consciousness knows it or is even able to perceive it or not. But they
seem the same basically. They are NOT! Or, the analysts insist they
are not; as they say: Stalin makes a change in Lenin's view from
Lenin's CONCEPTION OF dialectical materialism, the critical conception
of the practice of its THESIS, - TO the Stalinist ONTOLOGICAL
CONCEPTION OF ITS LAWS: AS LAWS. This is a HUGE change! Of course,
Lenin and his contemporaries had no way of knowing HOW to check if
this or that was real or not back then. I don't think Stalin did
either, but he surely did state that it was real and a law.
Ontological means "having to do with what EXISTS! as in Being or
Non-Being!" But are the analysts right or are they quibbling with
words? Since Lenin and Stalin did not talk about this between
themselves, no one can KNOW for sure if this assessment is right or
not.
Lenin talks of a "condition for (human) knowledge of the processes of
the world." Stalin talks of a "LAW OF THE WORLD ITSELF" inscribing in
Being the presupposition of its knowledge.
According to Lenin, Diamat (the fundamental dialectical thesis of the
unity of opposites) is to enable the process of the scientific
KNOWLEDGE OF nature and society to overcome the idealist
mystifications that tend to fix its results in so many absolutes.
According to Stalin Diamat is a law of nature itself, of nature and
society, which human knowledge only has to MIRROR to be valid! This is
a rather BIG difference.
In Lenin, the Diamat philosophical THESIS opens up to objective
knowledge the field of its own investigation according to its own
modalieies (i.e., to investigate the world, nature, etc, USING Diamat
as opposed to using some other philosophical method). This is changed
by Stalin into an ontological interpretation of Diamat, with Diamat
being a general LAW OF WHAT EXISTS which states the UNIVERSAL FORM of
the laws established by the sciences of nature.
I.e., Nature WORKS Diamatically, one need only understand Diamat to
understand nature since nature IS Diamatic. EG, if you understand how
to count and what numbers as symbols mean to society, you can
understand 2 plus 2 equals 4. But if you have a philosophy that
doesn't grasp the concept of "4 things" then you can't grasp 2 plus 2.
Another EG: if you can grasp the concept of the infinite number "e"
then you can figure out HOW plants and shells and etc grow. Nature
doesn't count like we do, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Nature counts like this:
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, etc. Man's ideas don't shape numbers this
way but NATURE ALWAYS DOES use this other number system. Man can
discover it, how nature counts. This is obviously NOT a law of human
consciousness at all since NO HUMAN SOCIETY has a number system like
nature's.
So this reality is OUTSIDE OF man's consciousness. If you dispense
with this external reality, eg, how nature itself counts, then that's
IDEALISM! So then, IS THERE such a thing as 2 plus 2 equal 4? Or is
there only possibly a 1 plus 2 to equal a 3; and then a 2 plus 3 to
equal a 5; and then a 3 plus 5 to equal an 8? This might sound too
"weird" to anyone who balances a check book but you are used to a
decimal system (computers use a binary system).
But how less 'weird' is the idea that, IN REALITY, a circle is
something with an INFINITE number of "sides" all of which are
INFINITELY small? Surely you can't SEE any "sides" on a circle! So
then, does half a circle have the same number of "sides" as a whole
circle? YES! And sure, it's weird. But it's REAL. And again, what is a
circle? Well, it's not a sphere nor can you find a natural circle
anywhere around since it would be something with 2 dimensions to it.
So then, man slices a sphere and calls the result a "circle?" Yes.
Still, it's weird.
Lewontin and those guys AGREE with this more ontological Diamat view
of nature itself, an ever-ongoing dialectical movement and change, and
they have a lot more modern knowledge and science and physics to base
that on now. Lenin did not, he had less than Stalin had tho Stalin
didn't have much fact on this either at the time as far as I know.
Theory, for Lenin, was active and critical.
Theory, for Stalin, became passive and reflective! Focus on
REFLECTIVE. PRACTICE, PRACTICAL RESULTS, observation of REAL LIVE
NATURE were real; theory could then be made based on that, not the
other way around! Herein is the POINT of departure, the "Two
Sciences."
For Lenin (and I assume Marx), it was man's viewing of nature USING
Diamat that would change his views, ideas, concepts, from the views of
the old school bourgeoisie. (Also, HOW man works, the relations in
labor, relations with man and the production; tho it would be man who
makes the rules for the production and relations along new lines, that
would also change how man VIEWS/FEELS ABOUT work.) For Stalin, the
bourgeoisie had it wrong because nature itself WAS Diamatic; and as
such, only those who grasped Diamat would "get it."
GRASP IT. I might add that what man has done, imperialism, strife,
conflict, all of it, has NOTHING TO DO with nature: it is thanatos! It
will doom our species as if the human species has, for the most part,
become a dead end as far as evolution goes. Lysenko said the same
thing, tho he left out the warnings of doom since it wasn't so
immediate during his time.
Stalin is RIGHT. Nature DOES work and move that way. IT DOES. It
doesn't matter if mankind grasps it or not! HA! As Margulis would say,
"nature" and "life" will keep on going, don't matter a shit if MAN is
around or not.
Margulis is not a Marxist or a Commune- anything: she's a
misanthropist and a Nobel Prize winner who made the most IMPORTANT
discovery about multicellular life in this century; something that has
the Darwinian school standing on its head! It's the closest thing to a
paradigm shift from Darwinian-gradualism or even Gould's punctuated
equilibrium (same paradigm as the former) in the 20th C. Hers is the
blending, non-mating, symbiotic evolutionary model, symbiosis between
organisms that are not even remotely related and yet combined in a
very strange way (a proven thing, not a theory!). This is subtly SORT
OF like some of the more weird stuff that Lysenko said tho he had no
real knowledge of such things, couldn't have at the time, only she
PROVED it. I don't know if she knows anything about Lysenko, few do
because they have not read what he, himself, wrote. They read the SHIT
written about him by the Left AND by the Right -- both of whom tend to
get the fucking thing WRONG (except for Krementsov who had archival
stuff, including Lysenko's archives, to go by).
We have ALL of his writings. Suggest anyone interested read Lynn
Margulis's writings.
This all got tied into science, notably Lysenko et al versus the
Western guys. There are strange words Lysenko used for "how heredity
works" such as "assimilation" and "dissimilation." Lysenko insisted on
seeing heredity as a function of the WHOLE ORGANISM, not just it's
genes tho keep in mind, the concept of genes in Lysenko's day has been
radically made over and redone!
Today, this assimilation (mainly thru metabolism and other
environmental factors) would be called "genetic assimilation." But
what does this mean? Well, ostrich birds (one example out of many)
have these callouses where they sit -- presumably they develop this
due to sitting the way they do -presumably.
Shock: in the embryo, the ostriches HAVE THESE CALLOUSES. HOW? HOW CAN
THIS BE? Well: they DO. Is this Lamarckian? It sure sounds like it tho
no one CALLS IT that, they call it "genetic assimilation." So did
Lysenko call it that tho he was NOT a Lamarckian at all! There are
human pygmies. Presumably they got like that due to environmental
factors but HOLD ON. The colonial explorers of the USA were (males)
about 4'10" tall! Yet thru diet, these white men can get, and got, BIG
and TALL. But nothing makes the pygmies bigger or taller. Experiments
WERE DONE with growth hormone on willing pygmies (Sforza and other
endocrinologists did it). Pygmy tissues and muscles were resistant to
this hormone, it did NOT make them grow. So they explain that the
pygmies are resistant to it because the genitals and brain have
reached the adult size (stage of development) which is why their
muscles and tissues are resistant to it. Yet they did not try this out
on YOUNGER or baby Pygmies, nor did they see, after trying it on
younger pygmies, if the children OF those altered pygmies would be
different, tall, non-pygmies! So they invented a "reason why" it
didn't work; but they have no PROOF that that's the reason. Nor can
they know, if they could change a younger pygmy, if the offspring
would be changed AS WELL, which would mean that it would be fixed in
that pygmy's heredity from then on. They DO NOT KNOW. They would be
able to know if they could experiment on pygmy babies and then watch
them grow up, breed with each other, and watch the newborns grow up
but this is not allowed (or has not been done...) But that's aside
from the point. How did the pygmies become pygmies? It is "fixed" into
the genes, that is, "assimilated into their heredity" as Lysenko would
say it. So HOW did it happen? No one knows and Margulis is the first
to point out what MORONS even the Darwinians are, they "don't even
know about the first 2.5 billion years of earth, 80% of the time the
planet has been here."
Lysenkoist theory was merely the suggestion, ala Michurin, to try to
FIND OUT HOW things get "fixed" and then DO IT to change things along
lines beneficial to man. That's all! Sure, if we KNEW HOW the
callouses on ostritches got "fixed" in their heredity, we would know
HOW TO do such things to other organisms, or undo these things. Of
course, this does tie in INTIMATELY with Pavlov (which modern
neurology confirms!). What's the big hoolah and resultant distortion
and slander about? FEAR! Bone chilling fear that SOMEONE might figure
out how to make YOUR KID get born as something OTHER than what you
expected!!!
How is it that ostriches in embryo have the callouses when they have
never sat down anywhere to develop them? Well, the ostriches have no
problem with it: MAN has a problem EXPLAINING it using his THEORIES.
This all enters into the Lysenkoist modern debates over genes and
environment, the SAME OLD debate.
The geneticists see it in a non-Diamatical way. The naturalists
(Lewontin, etc) see it in an INTERACTIVE way, diamatically. It's not
just environment acting on the organisms, the organisms do things too
in turn acting on the environment which again, in turn, acts on them.
In case you don't recognize this, this is the tired old Americanist
debate over genes versus environment, nature versus nurture which ties
(as the Stalinists used to claim) directly into RACE RELATIONS U.S.A.
It was Lysenkoites who shouted Shockley down so loud that no one could
even hear what the man had to say, which didn't amount to anything new
as Steven and Hilary Rose pointed out in "The IQ Racket."
Understand that Lysenko-ism has taken on a new direction and new life
of its own having NOTHING TO DO directly with agriculture or
Lysenko-the-man except that he DID write essays on WHY the West wants
to hang onto their theories; he mysteriously used the example of
different COLORS of wheat that oddly correspond to the color-names
used for human races. They are all still WHEAT!
He wrote on this issue when he insisted that in NATURE there is no
competition WITHIN species (intraspecific) and that there seems to be
such competition in capitalist countries has nothing to do with
nature; it's due to decadence and such. (Thanatos as I called it). And
earlier, his statement that one has to not keep propagating pure lines
as they get weak and deteriorated. These two statements drove the
genetics crazy and it was GENETICISTS that dragged Stalin and the
Central Committee INTO the debate with the idea of forming a monopoly
of their own genetic school!
That's in the archives!
His statements have recently been shown to be true, not only WITHIN
species, but often between separate species. The West had a fit over
this because they did not WANT IT TO BE true; they did not want either
the "pure lines" (read race!) part or the non intraspecific
competition part to be true. I'm sure that if the white man lost it
all and became the slaves of some newly formed Islamic Empire, they'd
change their mind and agree with Lysenko in a minute!
And that was the Soviet POINT! The West shapes their distortions about
nature to JUSTIFY their behavior toward those they are on top of NOW!
Lewontin and the Roses bring this up also, it is SO OBVIOUS to see
this, yet the arguments continue. The arguments have nothing to do
with nature or science at all.
They have to do with people being able to FESS UP to what they are
doing, FACE it. ADMIT it. Everyone else victimized by it or colonized
by it already knows it. It's a moot point. It's like Charlie Manson
claims he didn't kill anyone. OK, OK. Sure.
I stray from all Reds on this issue now, in fact even Mencken would
disagree with what I'm about to say: I believe that the western
dualist type being is INCAPABLE of grasping the way nature really
works because BECAUSE-- he does not "KNOW IT" with his OWN FLESH AND
BEING. This is a thing that neither Lenin nor Stalin addressed-- HOW
one knows a thing and why some are not able to know it. I believe and
see that they LIE, they either don't know that they lie or are unable
to realize it, or they just CAN NOT FACE it. I'd have more respect for
a bonafide Nazi racist that not only faced it, but would be proud to
ADMIT it. At least the Nazi KNOWS WHO HE IS! He knows openly what he
WANTS. He speaks out his truth and he is VISIBLE because of that. I
know where he stands and what he would do, if he could. It's in the
OPEN. His economic ideas are often socialist (hence the name of his
organization) and on that we don't disagree; his method is to have
socialism for one race. I don't believe races in the true-biological
sense, exist: the human genome project now CONFIRMS this! Many
variations exist, even within one population group.
But races have existence in terms of social realities and they exist
based on how this or that person LOOKS on sight. Point being, I'd know
that the Nazi is defining "race" as a category based on outward
physical appearance and hence I can clearly UNDERSTAND what he is
saying and feeling. What I DO NOT understand is why Jews who looked
Nordic in all ways were NOT accepted! How could they regard Jews as a
race when they come in all types, even the "Aryan" type? I don't quite
get that part. But then, they mean Nordic Christians? No, not quite
that either since many non-accepted Jews were Christians for 3
generations by converting their religion. Beats me. It's not the point
and would not BE the point in a dialogue with an open Nazi.
There really ARE two sciences, no matter what you call them. One
science, the one that Lysenkoites called "bourgeois," WANTS to see it
as a one way thing and WANTS to "make it so" by imposing imperialism
and other things. The other science, the one that Lysenkoites called
"proletarian," observes the things in nature and THEN figures out how
it works and then tries to make society MIRROR it. It is the part
about "making society mirror it" that has caused all the conflicts,
all political and ECONOMIC in nature. I have two other words for the
two sciences: 1. non-science, the distorted half-thoughts of
klippoths, which means greedy, empty people, people unable to be
satisfied by ANYTHING and 2. science, the KNOWING (Gnosis, Dharma) of
NATURE from within first AND THEN, from without and who consist of
people who are CONTENT with the simple things in life, simple
pleasures and leisure. I tend to go deeper into the "how one knows"
than any Marxists tho modern neurology now agrees with ME on this
issue. It can be tested. And about those two sciences, if you think
that "objective results are always there" but that only the AGENDAS of
the ruling classes versus the proles are different then you are WRONG.
WHAT GETS studied versus what gets put on the burner is affected. We
have fossil fuels petroleum still because of the economic power
structure of the rulers, meanwhile the BALLARD FUEL CELL is ignored
yet it's FDA approved and IN USE in small places. There are TWO
sciences. How much money and how much cost was lost due to the stupid
genetics ideas on farms in Texas that wrecked farms for hundreds?
That's because the geneticists have the upper hand. They are all SO
mystical about it, like they discovered the soul only they don't know
that's what they did, in essence.
Lecourt pointed out the Bogdanovian influences on the Stalin/Lysenko
Diamat and, of course, he is against it and prefers Lenin's view (and
Krushchev's! ugh). That's the lip service of a "follower" with NO
knowledge of how it really works in the REALITY called nature-Earth.
(And yeah, Lecourt IS a man. I thought Dominique was a woman and also
I heard Lecourt referred to as a SHE elsewhere, I think my own
library! I also knew a WOMAN named Dominique. I don't tend to have
good memory for personal shit, persons, WHO. I focus more on "what is
being stated." The who or what is irrelevant to me).
The idea that "the senses evolved in man are deceivers" is upsetting
to many people. Tho this is TRUE. This is sort of basically what all
the Mach, Kant and etc. dialogue was about, back then during the
stupid days. Walls seem solid to us, they better seem solid lest we
bump into them and get hurt. Yet walls are NOT solid in reality and
physics can prove it. Does a tree that falls in the forest make a
sound if no one is there to hear it? Well: define "sound." Human ears
do not hear the movements of molecules. But we DO hear a sound if a
tree falls. Does a tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it? If
sound is defined as PHONONS then yes, it does not matter if you can
hear it or not. Reduced to absurdity: when you are ON THE TRAIN and
it's going where you want to go, do you know it has wheels on it even
if you saw wheels on the train prior to boarding it? DUH. You INFER
there are wheels. Probable inference is made: train has wheels, very
probable. The one with the trees is only less probable. In order to
"see" anything, man has to bombard an object with photons (turn on a
light). So man CHANGES that object by doing this, the object IS
CHANGED on the atomic level, on the level of the object's electrons.
So can man ever "see" the object as 'what it is' 'itself?' No, not
really. That does not stop man from MAKING objects, say, to pour
liquid into and drink from. The senses were not evolved to "Know The
Truth." They were evolved in order to enhance SURVIVAL. Since
agriculture, man has not ENHANCED anything for the majority of those
who get to BE lorded over by the current imperialist on the globe.
This poses a problem. Are there, then, TWO TRUTHS? Mundane truth of
practical survival versus REAL truth? Yeah, SORT OF. One might call
that subjective versus objective. It is only by knowing THE TRUTH that
I think man will not annihilate himself or doom himself to extinction.
One doesn't always have to "study" or "tinker with dangerous things"
to figure this out. Many animals have done it by flowing PASSIVELY and
automatically REFLECTING nature around them by flowing with it. Yeah,
I realize you don't have a CLUE what I'm saying on that issue. Insects
and bacteria come to mind, the ultimate superior living things that
have outlasted (and WILL outlast) everything else.
Man has discovered some of the fundamental building blocks of matter
itself, his own flesh, atomic matter. Yet the WAY IN WHICH man has
discovered this and what man KNOWS ABOUT this is totally destructive
and NOT constructive at all. What doesn't man know about it; what
would he have known had he come about its discovery in a very
different manner or come upon some OTHER discovery of an energy
source? We'll never know. What little we DO know of is not profitable
or not being talked about.
Tinkering with a person's genes, trying to insert this or that gene or
delete this or that gene is akin, in my mind, to trying to reshape a
wall by messing around with specific atoms in it. That's not how to
reshape a wall! Let's go further and instead of looking at the
fundamental building blocks of matter, the atoms, look at the arena IN
WHICH all matter/energy exists: space itself. Would one go about
reshaping a wall by changing the curviture of space? Oh, that would
reshape the wall, alright. HA! But you know, if you could DO this,
you'd still NOT change some of the "constants" out there in physics.
I.e., the LAWS. In the eastern doctrine, these types of constants are
called "Fohat." It means like a metric signature, a law of what is.
Earlier parts of the universe may have had different constants
(different Fohat). If you think trying to do this is fantasy or
sci-fi, think again and read up on what some physicists want to do -
without anyone having any idea what this is or what it might really
DO. We don't have the technology? You mean, NOT YET?
The body (of a patient) was making a protein that was causing illness
- and so the geneticists knocked out the genes that make this protein.
So it should no longer be made? Wrong -- the body found a way to make
it anyway, knocking out specific genes didn't help. Another goodie is
one I saw in Free Inquiry zine: that "a thing that has a shape has a
size" and they all would agree. Wrong.
Space has a shape; it does not have a size. Got'em. They got into this
subject whilst railing against post modernism, cultural relativism,
and other such things where people carry the sciences into the realms
of absurdity, which I DO NOT except to JOKE.
But WHY does it upset some people to KNOW that the senses often
deceive and show, as Lenin? or Kant would say, you can only "know"
what the consciousness can make from input of those deceiving senses?
Because it puts a sober man on the level of a madman? Why does it
BOTHER some people? During their time that was all anyone COULD know,
yet there were many thinkers (or feelers?) out there that insisted it
was not the case; that there WAS a MORE REAL reality out there that
was NOT KNOWN thru the senses of man. So then, how did these thinkers
KNOW this? We say, from "knowing it" another way, thru their own
atomic flesh, inner knowledge not exactly FROM the 5 senses, thru
their own atomic flesh in which these "other laws" are embodied but
not so much "in the forefront" of what people tend to actively THINK
about. (Oh, by "we" I surely do not mean "we Reds." No, I refer to the
shamanist or Tantrik Turanians that inhabit the Soviet lands.) In
reading one of Lysenko's early texts, I found nothing odd about his
physical description of the heredity coil, like a spring, that splits
in half when reproduction occurs with half of the coil merging with,
assimilating with, half of the mate's coil. Ooops, he wrote that
before the DNA helix was discovered, OOOPS. How did he know this? Now,
that's a problem: answering how he knew some of the stuff he knew. He
knew that microbes were a major part of plant growth, not so much sun
or water. He was mocked for that -- however, he was right. HOW DID HE
KNOW THAT? Another problem: HOW did he know? He went on and on about
how a small patch of soil was not identical to another small patch,
even if the plants on them were clones of each other - ergo the
development would be different, there would be differences, they'd not
be identical. He was RIGHT. I might venture to say that he knew this
because he put his HANDS into the soil. He had contact with it; he may
have even EATEN some of it. If you doubt anyone can know things this
way, read Jeremy Narby "Cosmic Serpent" and find out what primitive
Amazonian Indians know in terms of microbiology that the west is
LEARNING NEW RECIPES from. This is a science book. No one doubts these
primitives KNOW this stuff: but it's HOW they claim to know it which
is a major problem for the West to accept. Well, are they lying? Do
they have secret advanced labs underground and are they only POSING as
primitives? Takes your choice. They KNOW it -- that's not even in
dispute. Lysenko is, in the opinion of Comrade PM, the closest thing
in the modern world to a person who is half shaman who knew things the
way a shaman knows them (but never tells anyone) and who also is a
bonafide scientist with real knowledge and who was able to synthesize
the two and GET RESULTS. A lot of the theory he made was helped along
by Isaac Prezent who was very literate in Marxian dialectics, a
Marxist scholar.
Nature DOES work Diamatically - but there is one "other" thing aside
from the unity of opposites and that is that dark, hidden "other"
force, ENTROPY, which PUSHES or PULLS (both?) motivates and permeates
ALL of the "objects that make up those opposites, all energy/matter."
THIS is the "thing" that some past thinkers (pre-physics) used to call
vital force or vitality, who used to see this as a kind of SEEKING or
URGE, i.e., the URGE TO.... or as Lysenko called it, SEEKING (an act
of VOLITION) CONDITIONS FOR life (habitat tracking as Eldredge calls
that). Energy and matter are NOT opposites.
Here is more of the same boloney: were there any colors before life
existed on earth? Well, before animal or plant life, there were the
CAUSES that would make life-forms see colors! Was there any TIME
before life existed? Well, no one was around to punch the clock,
right? Sure time existed because you need TIME to cause things TO
arise and evolve, it needs to have SPACE in which to exist, too.....
That's like saying that there are no sums of super large numbers
because no man has ever done the addition! HA! Idealistic shit.
"Everything is mental" shit. Idealists, dualists, and absolutists go
together, it's either mind or matter or whatever SHIT they say. They
never figure that there are LAYERS of reality, some
subjective/survival and others are in between to various degrees and
others are not. I.e., it doesn't matter at all to moving, travel to
job, sleeping, eating, etc. it doesn't matter that SPACE IS CURVED. We
don't think about it as we walk thru a room.
Dualism: alexithymia, severing of the PERSON'S ability to merge
thinking and feeling/sensing centers of the brain. Akathartic
condition.
Idealism: escape into mental non-reality, fantasy world. Wannabe.
Ophionic condition.
Absolutism: spills over to Dualism/akatharsis or Idealism/ophionic. It
all depends on how FUCKED UP the person is. They, due to neurological
development, have a cut-off one-way circuit whereby they try to use
the conscious brain to CONTROL the body/feelings/etc. Normal beings
have a two- way circuit, as neurology explains, somatic
markers-instinct, INSTRUCT the reason. The west is so unlike that,
that they extol the fucked up type as being more "virtuous." They are
unable to understand normal people!
