The Lost Blog


The last blog update, on the New Year party, was lost when I managed to drop the laptop on the floor. Then spent an hour taking it apart, trying to figure out where the hard drive was, before finding it had fallen out when I dropped it.

This is like having your brain fall out and roll under the bed when you sneeze - an indicator of suboptimal design.

Anyway, short version of the party:
* Drank too much vodka, ate too much fingerfood, talked a lot of politics.

* Why are most of the good people over fifty or under fifteen?

* I kissed a man and we liked it.
Taste of sixth glass of vodka.
I was so drunk, he didn't mind
Don't mean he's not straight tonight.


Here's a few more things I didn't get around to posting recently....

From shortly before Christmas:

Every few months I try to read Hegel, usually the Shorter Logic, and every time he turns my mind to porridge.

"Rosa Lichtenstein" (Hi there Rosa) argues at vast length that:

(1) Hegel's philosophy is rooted in ancient pseudo-paradoxes (eg. Zeno's Arrow, the Road of Heraclitus), linguistic confusion (the identity theory of predication), and cabalist mystical gibbering.

(2) Marx incorporated his version of Hegelianism into his Socialism - even though it's unnecessary for the movement, and irrelevant to the socioeconomic ideas.

(3) The subsequent marxist greats uncritically continued the error, and so have their followers.

(4) This is a major reason marxism specifically and the left in general have been so ineffective for the last 150 years.

Lichtenstein's ideas are not well received by other socialists, especially as she feels the need to insult those who disagree with her. But it has to be said, she calls on a deep reservoir of learning and close-reading of key texts, while her opponents in general do not.

For what it's worth, I think:

(1) The Dialectic of Nature is grossly under-theorised. Endlessly quoting the Theses on Feuerbach, ABC of Dialectics and a few passages from Lenin's Notebooks doesn't cut it.

(2) A sociological dialectic model with social "forces" and "contradictions" is immensely useful, but doesn't depend on a dialectic of physics.

(3) It's an exaggeration to say the left have achieved nothing for 150 years.

(4) Whatever the reasons for their lack of success, an incorrect ontology isn't high on the list.

In other words, I don't think the dialectic is important. But none of my comrades agree with me, so tonight I try again to read Hegel, in case they're right.

From shortly after Christmas:

A rather lovely day out with C, with eating, drinking, walking, browsing, bitching ... but mostly some very good companionship.

There's a piece of gay slang, not used much now - "Sister". When two gay men are best friends, understand each other's way of thinking, and do most the the things boyfriends do together, except sex, they're called sisters.

Kind of the opposite of a fuckbuddy - where sex is the only connection, and one (or indeed both) is often straight.

Probably Boxing Day:
An insomniac flick through Conservapedia's breaking news sections reveals some startling truths, hitherto covered up by the worldwide conspiracy of liberals.

Top Scholars Confirm Truth of Christianity. Translation: One christian academic has a list of other christian academics.

Ann Coulter: My Triumph Over Kwanzaa!. Translation: A columnist no one reads anymore says some rude things about a holiday no one's heard of. No one cares.

"President George W. Bush is being crucified in the public square in spite of his plain decency and goodness". Translation: Voting for Obama is literally identical with insanity. And planting bombs - but not dropping them.

Probably the 28th:

I'd make a great guttural voice-over artist, but only when I've got a cold. Then my voice starts channelling Orson Welles - just right for movie trailers and beer adverts.

So don't delay, book Kapitano's voice today, before I recover. If you don't mind the odd sniffle in the sales patter.

10 comments:

  1. Your comrades don't agree with you because they're plotting against you. Time to turn them over to the secret police!

    Well, I hope you got over your cold; otherwise, you just shared more than a kiss with that fella! Happy New Year!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like to read and listen to Ann Coulter! I wish I had half the bark that she has along with half the wit of Dennis Miller. That way I'm a little more (but tolerably) pushy without being so confusing.

    Where the hell do you find these straight men?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eroswings:

    Commies plotting against each other? Surely not! :-)

    Though sometimes I think the Secret Police are secret in the same way White Rhinos are white.

    And a happy new one to you too.




    David:

    If I recall correctly, Ann Coulter called people like you and me "Biological Mistakes"...and then when Haggard was caught in bed with his dealer, defended him by calling those who called him a hypocrite "Homophobic". She pulled the same stunt with Larry Craig and his wide stance.

    So, confusing may indeed be the right word.

    Dennis Miller. Pro-choice, but not really. Pro-gay marriage, but not really. Pro-war, really.

    Whether you mean wit as in witty, or as in insightful, his recent attack of Harry Reid IMO counts as neither.

    When a political commentator is reduced to merely insulting his opponent without even mentioning their views, and when a commedian is reduced to making fun of someone's voice, then both have got desperate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ^They're not commentators. They don't even count as pundits. Why anyone would even pretend to take what they say seriously is something that I don't understand. What I do like about them is that they are able to dive into a subject and spew out colorful language that most people think, "I wish I had said that," only too late.

    You already know that I am a gun owning, God believing, capitalist lovin', right-wing, flag waving Republican American, and yet you seem to be a regular visitor to my blog as I am of yours. What is it that we like about the other?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why anyone would even pretend to take what they say seriously is something that I don't understand.

    Certainly they are more entertainers than serious analysts, but I think a lot of the public do take them seriously. I've heard too many ordinary people quote them - with or without attribution - in discussion to doubt that.

    You already know that I am a gun owning, God believing, capitalist lovin', right-wing, flag waving Republican American

    Yes, but you're also a decent person.

    Having a faith doesn't make you Fred Phelps, being patriotic doesn't make you Rush Limbaugh, and being Republican doesn't make you Andrew Schlafly.

    ...and yet you seem to be a regular visitor to my blog as I am of yours. What is it that we like about the other?

    Well, I like to think I'm an honest, kind and smart individual - with little tolerance for bullshit no matter where it comes from. And I reckon the same description applies to you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I must congratulate you on getting fewer things wrong about my ideas this time than the last time you attempted to do summarise my ideas (and that was before you had read beyond the opening page of my site!). I will correct only your more glaring errors:

    "(4) This is a major reason marxism specifically and the left in general have been so ineffective for the last 150 years."

    You nowhere quote me to this effect, and that is not surprising since I nowhere make this claim. What I do claim is that it is a *contributing* cause -- but I do not commit myself to assessing its relative impact, for it is not possible to do so. However, if pressed, I would not call it a "major reason" since there are well known objective factors that are perhaps better so described.

    "Lichtenstein's ideas are not well received by other socialists, especially as she feels the need to insult those who disagree with her."

    I am abrasive only with those who insult me first, or who lie about me and my ideas. My initial tactic 25 years ago of arguing with dialecticians in a comradely manner was met with scatological and abusive language from the beginning. This has remained the same over the intervening years, and it is still the case today.

    Now, I give as good as I get (but only after the event), often worse -- as you have been told already, so I do not know why you are repeating this slur.

    I have listed many recent examples of this phenomenon at my site. In the vast majority of cases, even where I try to debate with dialecticians in a reasonable manner, this has not had any impact at all on the abuse I receive or the lies told about me and my ideas. Indeed, your original blog about me contained several lies; the present one, slightly fewer. Even now you cannot resist the temptation to make things up.

    In fact, and to the contrary, there are many examples on the internet where I am as pleasant with those who disagree with my ideas as they are with me. You will find those listed at this link:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

    "(2) A sociological dialectic model with social "forces" and "contradictions" is immensely useful, but doesn't depend on a dialectic of physics."

    This ignores my lengthy refutation of this very idea:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm

    "(3) It's an exaggeration to say the left have achieved nothing for 150 years."

    Where do I say this? In fact, in Essay Ten, I list our many successes; alas these are dwarfed by our more numerous failures, many of which were catastrophic in themselves. For example, the failure of the German, Chinese and Spanish revolutions alone dwarf all our successes put together.

    "(4) Whatever the reasons for their lack of success, an incorrect ontology isn't high on the list."

    And it's not even *on* my list, so why you mention this is a mystery.

    As I said before, if you can't get my ideas right, stay away from my site.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I will correct only your more glaring errors

    Gracious as ever.


    "(4) This is a major reason marxism specifically and the left in general have been so ineffective for the last 150 years."

    You nowhere quote me to this effect, and that is not surprising since I nowhere make this claim.


    From your front page:

    "Dialectical Materialism (DM) has been the official philosophy of active revolutionary socialists for over a hundred and thirty years.

    During that time, Dialectical Marxism has 'enjoyed' spectacular lack of success.

    Given the fact that dialecticians assure us that truth is tested in practice, and that "materialist dialectics" is the main-spring of all they do, this can only mean that this 'theory' has been tested and shown to fail."


    It's quite clear you regard the falsity of Dialectical Materialism as extremely important. If you thought it's falsity were a trivial matter, you wouldn't spend so much effort documenting and proving that, to such an unappreciative audience.

    I think you're probably right. I just don't think it matters much because I don't think marxists really use Dialectical Materialism - except to justify their tactics post hoc.

    It's difficult to see how they could use it, because

    (a) when it can be interpreted to mean something, it's so vague and general as to be useless as a guide to action or an insight. It could be used to describe any situation or justify any action.

    [Snip long philosophical musings on how space conceived as either granular or continious could both be described as dialectical, in the description of particles in motion being in two places at once. Short version: If dialectics can equally well describe two incompatible possibilities, then it describes neither.]

    (b) when it can't be interpreted it can't be a guide or an insight.


    "(2) A sociological dialectic model with social "forces" and "contradictions" is immensely useful, but doesn't depend on a dialectic of physics."

    This ignores my lengthy refutation of this very idea:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm


    In that article you attack the idea of a Dialectic of Nature. I'm with you on that, at least until I can read all 86,000 words in detail. But I wasn't defending the Dialectic of Nature - I was saying that the usefulness (as opposed to truth) of a dialectic theory of society does not come from the usefulness or truth of a dialecic theory of nature.

    In people's minds there are contradictory impulses and beliefs, and in groups there are contradictory aims and tactics. Indeed I think it's fair to say that when a group like the SWP changes (as it's doing right now), this is the result of a conflict - or power struggle - between factions.

    To imagine that there are faction fights between physical forces within atoms is comical. And to imagine that the conflicting tendencies within trade unions is simply a scaled-up version of the "battle" between the electrostrong and electroweak forces is...well, silly. And grossly anthropomorphic.


    if you can't get my ideas right, stay away from my site.

    It doesn't work like that. You've put your work and ideas into the public domain. You can't do that and then insist that only those you consider worthy should read it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "It's quite clear you regard the falsity of Dialectical Materialism as extremely important. If you thought it's falsity were a trivial matter, you wouldn't spend so much effort documenting and proving that, to such an unappreciative audience."

    You've tried this one before, and even now you cannot find a single quotation from my work which says: "This is a major reason marxism specifically and the left in general have been so ineffective for the last 150 years."

    All the while you ignore this repetition of my warning (on the front page too):

    "1) It is important to emphasise from the outset that I am not blaming the long-term failure of Marxism solely on the acceptance of the Hermetic ideas dialecticians inherited from Hegel.

    "It is worth repeating this since I still encounter comments on Internet discussion boards, and still receive e-mails from those who claim to have read the above words, who still think I am blaming all our woes on dialectics. I am not.

    "However, no matter how many times I repeat this caveat, the message will not sink in (and this is after several years of continually making this very point!).

    "It seems that this is one part of the universe over which the Heraclitean Flux has no power!

    "What is being claimed, however, is that adherence to this 'theory' is one of the subjective reasons why Dialectical Marxism has become a bye-word for failure.

    "There are other, objective reasons why the class enemy still runs this planet, but since revolutions require revolutionaries with ideas in their heads, this 'theory' must take some of the blame.

    "So, it is alleged here that dialectics has been an important contributory factor."

    Nowhere in there, or anywhere else in my work, will you find the words "main reason" for our failure connected with dialectics.

    The reason I have expended so much effort is that while I cannot affect the far more important objective reasons why Marxism has been so unsuccessful, I can influence the less significant subjective reasons.

    "In that article you attack the idea of a Dialectic of Nature. I'm with you on that, at least until I can read all 86,000 words in detail. But I wasn't defending the Dialectic of Nature - I was saying that the usefulness (as opposed to truth) of a dialectic theory of society does not come from the usefulness or truth of a dialectic theory of nature."

    And yet you pass comment on my ideas before you have read them. Better to stay silent until you have at least read and understood my thesis, for in that essay I extend my criticism into the dialectic as it allegedly features in social change. I have even provided quick links to guide readers to the relevant sections. So you have little excuse.

    "In people's minds there are contradictory impulses and beliefs, and in groups there are contradictory aims and tactics. Indeed I think it's fair to say that when a group like the SWP changes (as it's doing right now), this is the result of a conflict - or power struggle - between factions."

    I nowhere deny there are conflicts; what I deny is that these can be depicted even metaphorically as contradictions -- and that essay explains why, just as it tackles your quaint, anecdotal examples.

    "It doesn't work like that. You've put your work and ideas into the public domain. You can't do that and then insist that only those you consider worthy should read it."

    I said, "*if you can't get my ideas right*, stay away from my site"; I did not say "stay away from my site".

    So, since you can't get me right...

    ReplyDelete
  9. The reason I have expended so much effort is that while I cannot affect the far more important objective reasons why Marxism has been so unsuccessful, I can influence the less significant subjective reasons.

    Yes I see now. And it is on the front page - paragraphs 6-8 under "Preliminary Points". Perhaps they could do with being more prominent, or less buried.

    I notice you don't respond to the notion that marxists don't in reality use DM - except as rhetorical justification. Unless there's an essay somewhere on your site called "Are marxists really dialecticians at all, or are they just mouthing the words when it suits them, and does it matter?"

    "*if you can't get my ideas right*, stay away from my site"

    I am attempting to get your ideas right. That's why I'm visiting your site. Perhaps you don't want me to bother, but it's not your decision to make.

    Go on, have the last word. You know you want to.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I notice you don't respond to the notion that marxists don't in reality use DM - except as rhetorical justification. Unless there's an essay somewhere on your site called "Are marxists really dialecticians at all, or are they just mouthing the words when it suits them, and does it matter?""

    In fact, this is a major theme of my essays, particularly Essay Nine Parts One and Two.

    Do you ever get tired of making stuff up about me?

    "I am attempting to get your ideas right. That's why I'm visiting your site. Perhaps you don't want me to bother, but it's not your decision to make."

    2/10 so far. Must try harder.

    Over to you, and the last word:

    "Go on, have the last word. You know you want to."

    ReplyDelete