• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Social The Delphic Oracle - Know Thyself: P&S Social Ampitheatre of Doom

We'll set something up for sure. I've got that reading list I put together just with some literature I had in my bag for some idiot I was arguing with. I'll tidy it up but I also gave a summary on Marxist-Leninist "statecraft" but I will summarise further what the basic principles of Marxism are, along with the reading list which will be enough for anyone who seriously wants to start studying Marxism. There has to be rules though, like sourcing any claims, statistics etc. No: sourc - "Ben Shapiro '3trillion dead due to Marxism". It has to be serious.
 
pharaoh said:
We'll set something up for sure. I've got that reading list I put together just with some literature I had in my bag for some idiot I was arguing with. I'll tidy it up but I also gave a summary on Marxist-Leninist "statecraft" but I will summarise further what the basic principles of Marxism are, along with the reading list which will be enough for anyone who seriously wants to start studying Marxism. There has to be rules though, like sourcing any claims, statistics etc. No: sourc - "Ben Shapiro '3trillion dead due to Marxism". It has to be serious.
Click to expand...

What's the serious part?

Everything has some validity. Some things are easier or harder to see depending on where one is.

Sometimes I wonder how much of our beliefs are constructs, vs how much are natural but just originated from people we don't see eye to eye with
 
Madness said:
What's the serious part?

Everything has some validity. Some things are easier or harder to see depending on where one is.

Sometimes I wonder how much of our beliefs are constructs, vs how much are natural but just originated from people we don't see eye to eye with
Click to expand...
I terms of seriousness I don't think I was talking about this thread and I certainly wasn't referring to you. I was arguing with someone who was getting very prissy and it was him that was not being serious. You have been serious and the post I'm replying to is serious in itself. Also what you've said there resembles Michel Foucault's line of thinking (at his university, he was given the title of something like: "professor of the history of systems of thought" - a paraphrase but captures the essence - and a department. Funnily enough he was educated under Althusser who was a Marxist and who wrote what I think is one of the most important modern Marxist texts: the 'Ideological State Apparatus' which is in the reading list I made.

Here is a highly interesting interview with Foucault which I think you might like. The whole thing is worth reading but there is one answer he gives which reminds me of what you just said there:

P.R. (interviewer): You have been read as an idealist, as a nihilist, as a “new philosopher”, an anti-Marxist, a new conservative, and so on… Where do you stand?

Foucault: I think I have in fact been situated in most of the squares on the political checkerboard, one after another and sometimes simultaneously: as anarchist, leftist, ostentatious or disguised Marxist, nihilist, explicit or secret anti-Marxist, technocrat in the service of Gaullism, new liberal and so on. An American professor complained that a crypto-Marxist like me was invited in the USA, and I was denounced by the press in Eastern European countries for being an accomplice of the dissidents. None of these descriptions is important by itself; taken together, on the other hand, they mean something. And I must admit that I rather like what they mean.

https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.interview/ - I did add the hyperlink but just in case anyone missed it. And to reiterate, I wasn't saying that you weren't being serious. It was the person I was "arguing with" (winding them up really) who wasn't being serious. But based on your post that I quoted, I really do think you'll enjoy that interview with Foucault and I think that answer he gives which I quoted reflects your own sentiment.
 
Last edited:
pharaoh said:
I terms of seriousness I don't think I was talking about this thread and I certainly wasn't referring to you. I was arguing with someone who was getting very prissy and it was him that was not being serious. You have been serious and the post I'm replying to is serious in itself. Also what you've said there resembles Michel Foucault's line of thinking (at his university, he was given the title of something like: "professor of the history of systems of thought" - a paraphrase but captures the essence - and a department. Funnily enough he was educated under Althusser who was a Marxist and who wrote what I think is one of the most important modern Marxist texts: the 'Ideological State Apparatus' which is in the reading list I made.

Here is a highly interesting interview with Foucault which I think you might like. The whole thing is worth reading but there is one answer he gives which reminds me of what you just said there:

P.R. (interviewer): You have been read as an idealist, as a nihilist, as a “new philosopher”, an anti-Marxist, a new conservative, and so on… Where do you stand?

Foucault: I think I have in fact been situated in most of the squares on the political checkerboard, one after another and sometimes simultaneously: as anarchist, leftist, ostentatious or disguised Marxist, nihilist, explicit or secret anti-Marxist, technocrat in the service of Gaullism, new liberal and so on. An American professor complained that a crypto-Marxist like me was invited in the USA, and I was denounced by the press in Eastern European countries for being an accomplice of the dissidents. None of these descriptions is important by itself; taken together, on the other hand, they mean something. And I must admit that I rather like what they mean.

https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.interview/ - I did add the hyperlink but just in case anyone missed it. And to reiterate, I wasn't saying that you weren't being serious. It was the person I was "arguing with" (winding them up really) who wasn't being serious. But based on your post that I quoted, I really do think you'll enjoy that interview with Foucault and I think that answer he gives which I quoted reflects your own sentiment.
Click to expand...

I will look at that.

Just saw on YouTube how he explains that progressing society without critique of political violence just sets us up for reproduction of the current state
 
Madness said:
I will look at that.

Just saw on YouTube how he explains that progressing society without critique of political violence just sets us up for reproduction of the current state
Click to expand...

His work is like a Pandora's Box of intellectual curiosity, about the nature of thought and systems of thought in themselves, as well as analyses of institutions throughout history and whatnot. He was big into drugs and sadomasochism which is reflected in his work too, challenging societal norms and questioning them, as a scholar and as an individual. He was interested in the marginalised: the "mad", non-heterosexual people, prisonere/criminals and also how society is policed and how people police themselves (the conduct of conduct). Highly recommend a look. People try and lump him in with the left but he is almost outside of the political divide really. The answer I quoted reflects this as it is based on the labels that were attributed to him.

Check that answer I posted though, would you agree that his answer reflected the sentiment of your post to a degree?
 
Was pondering how to differentiate what is organically created vs created for us (though I'm sure there are elements of both).

His words regarding individual labels not being important but the big picture is telling, is interesting, because I guess those places on the checkerboard have some sort of value but together a much larger value and a much clearer picture.

Does that follow? @pharaoh
 
Madness said:
Was pondering how to differentiate what is organically created vs created for us (though I'm sure there are elements of both).

His words regarding individual labels not being important but the big picture is telling, is interesting, because I guess those places on the checkerboard have some sort of value but together a much larger value and a much clearer picture.

Does that follow? @pharaoh
Click to expand...
Created for us as in how? Does this assume a "creator", as in a God-like being which has created the material world?

Materialism (in philosophical terms) would suggest that almost everything has been "organically" created to some degree and that what exists in reality - the real, material world - evolves as biological beings evolve and as all living things, including the earth itself and the universe, evolve along the same principles. That which we create from what is already there (i.e. if we extract heroin from the opium poppy, it still comes from what existed already, what "exists organically") follows on from this principle.

Humankind has evolved to be able to make things from other things (for Marxism, broadly depending on the needs of the mode of production in any given society) - even things that are synthetically produced are rooted in material reality and the complicated methods of this kind of scientific synthesis is a highly evolved version of Stone Age construction of tools from what is available organically, from the material world. The material matter exists - the stone and the human mind conceptually designs a tool which is then crafted by the human. That is technology that is fashioned from material reality and the human mind's creative use of it.

Now, synthetic plastics have been created after conception using chemical formulas and the necessary components, as well as a mineral such as cobalt (mined by children deep in the heart of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo for next to nothing - slave labour essentially, speaking to other parts of Marxist theory: imperialism and labour exploitation) and other materials are able to build an iPhone which can then be mass produced on assembly lines which have their origins in the industrial revolution.

Was any of this created for us? If it was created by anyone or thing other than human beings, that supposes the existence of a higher being. Marx was highly influenced by Hegel's materialism and dialectics but naturally differed on many things, crucially the existence of a higher being. Hegel accepted and built much of his philosophy around materialism but also the existence of a higher being. People such as myself would see Marxism as - in part - an evolution of philosophy, particularly of the materialist philosophy of Hegel in this regard but also many others.

There is a good Soviet textbook which in an early section traces the history of materialist philosophy and also how it was suppressed by many socioeconomic orders - the various religious orders which served the state (in feudalism for example) were dead against materialism. But Hobbes' materialism, which is quite reactionary, had a huge influence on bourgeois statecraft (that isn't mentioned in the textbook I just mentioned AFAIK but I remember reading Hobbes in university to help understand materialism, which helps one understand Marx). Of course much of this is known but for different reasons: it was known that Galeleo (sp, sorry on my phone) was suppressed, as were many scientists, including Charles Darwin who had a huge influence on all modern thought and science, including Marxism, naturally.

The question of what is organically produced vs what is produced "for us" demands the answer to who or what would be creating things "for us". What isn't created by us and why does anything that we create have to be seen as distinct from the material world? This is where one might step into metaphysical ways of thinking.
 
Last edited:
That's definitely a huge point there. The literal creation of things. As far back as the big bang theory. The whole religion thing, honestly, is something I haven't put much thought in to. I just don't feel a pull toward it. I will never convince those who believe, and even if I could, I wouldn't want to. What a mess that would be.. ripping off the bandaid. And that goes both ways.. show me Jesus and I might also be shocked. No I definitely would be shocked.

In terms of social positions and frameworks, processes and guidelines, things like that - but I guess of course every idea comes from something. As do material things.

I often wonder which of these guidelines people actually , like, deep down whole heatedly feel is a good thing. Vs. how many are blindly following.

The idea that MF can have attributes of so many social labels is funny. I'm sure people were trying to fit him into their narrative. Sounds like he can't be fucked with that and has lots of big picture ideas that I'll need to look more into at some point.
 
See I thought you'd get Foucault cos you're smart but I don't think you like to be boxed in either.

As for social guidelines, frameworks and all that, Marxism would say that these things stem ultimately from material reality. I tried to explain it in my last post by talking about tools being made and the evolution of this process throughout history. Social systems develop in accordance with relations between humans and production.

Gotta go but enjoying this convo.
 
lecroute said:
That's also what society does.
Click to expand...
Church is not separate from society - it is a pillar within society. All societal institutions help to construct and form our understanding of the world, whether we are talking about the church, schools, the media (legacy and new) or even the family. The list goes on. The socioeconomic superstructure relative to society's economic base, the Ideological State Apparatus (see: Althusser) - these categorisations contain any and all societal institutions which mould the consciousness of human beings at the individual level and relative to their class position, hence why propaganda (including within respected academia) is as important as any given religious building full of worshippers should they say that communism is evil, the work of the devil and so on. This is where the concept of "false consciousness" comes from, relative to "class consciousness". Churches/religions/belief systems - as with many other social institutions - have helped to craft false consciousness throughout every mode of production in history.

The ruling class - the bourgeoisie, the ones who own everything, including the house that you pay a mortgage on - know which side their bread is buttered on. They are united, their political parties are in agreement on the fundamentals and they work together, with the institution of "liberal democracy" being a facade leading people to think that they have a choice in the matter even though their MPs/congressmen etc are in the pocket of "lobbyists" (another term for bribery). The working class, however - the proletariat, the ones who sell their labour power in order to buy things, pay rent/mortgages, buy with credit, are in debt and so on - are completely disunited, confused, are fighting amongst themselves, are moulded by society into thinking that things are right, that they can win, that they can have a piece of the pie and that as long as X beats Y, things will get better. They never do. This is false consciousness and X and Y are two cheeks on the same ass.
 
Madness said:
I feel like we're losing touch with what we're even in accordance with.

This year my taxes pay for an AI that made my job obsolete I think.
Click to expand...
Agree on that. Of course there is the wacky thought that AI is essentially evolving beyond us and will eventually render us all obsolete. We could already merely be cogs in a machine that "AI", machine learning etc has been building.

It opens up all kinds of questions of course. Relationships to production is just one question, but AI, machine learning and so on could be the greatest thing to happen to humanity if it was in the right hands, as in a conscious masses, instead of being private. It could possibly help feed, clothe and house everyone, clean up the water and the air and end war. But as technology/technologies, it is owned by people who have no interest in doing that.

Here's a little joke I might've stolen: as soon as there is a technological development of significance, humans think of one thing first: "can I fuck it?". Secondly is whether they can profit. These two questions are not mutually exclusive.
 
People keep pushing their luck. Doing things that reinforce their own bullshit.

I hope machines are breeding us in a field of toxic waste because at least then when stupid humans start putting the world at risk they can be swiftly removed
 
lecroute said:
Reminds me of the therapist who told me to not wear my contacts when going to the beach so I won't see all the trash people leave behind after a family day out.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it does serve purposes. My signature and the quote suggest I am curious. Possibly too curious.

It's the beginning of the chorus of "smells like teen spirit" btw the quote.

Hope you're doing well @lecroute always nice to see you around
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top