>From: John Woodford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Although I like your fence-mending drift, the whole assumptive framework
>of
>your suggestion, Tom, makes me think you'd better try separation from your
>"choir" first, IMHO.
No, thanks. And you'd say "no", as well, if I asked you to separate from
yours. We gotta get both choirs singing on the same page.
>Your formulation of "choirs," "Marxian [sic] truth," and
>your division of labor over who is entitled to criticize what, indicates to
>me
>that you just don't get the difference between philosophical idealism and
>materialism.
Yeah, that much is obvious.
Forget all my shit about who gets to criticise what. Im my world you're
kind of responsible for policing your own, not letting the other guys do it,
that's hwere that division of labor came from. Sorry oif that was a bit much
for you.
Perhaps you could explain to me why "the difference between philosophical
idealism and materialism" is important? I am always getting accused of "not
getting it" about something, and here is a good example. I really do not
understand how YOU are using the terms philosophical idealism and
materialism, and why I must yet again couch my language in another layer of
jargon. Set aside my supposed failings as a communicator for just a second.
If I go to the Sierra Club and say "Hey, look, we gotta work with these
guys, and you gotta lose all that arrogance." they might listen. But if I go
off into some arcane discussion of what a "philosophical materialist" is,
let alone what a "Marxist" is, hope of fence mending is lost.
No philosophical materialist who cares about the environment is going to
>concede to you that what you say to the Sierra Club or any other
>environmentalist group is the "truth" about that group on the basis of your
>having prioritized their issues or your sharing their professed religious
>devotion to the biosphere, ecosphere, or any other enveloping or contiguous
>sphere you wish to designate.
Yeah, so you are saying "Tom, give up all your own ideas and philosophies
and biases, accept what WE "philosophical materialists" say is truth, and
present THAT to the Sierra Club."? This is what I hear you saying. If you
are hung up on the word "truth" and that's what has you upset, I am
certainly willin' to give up that rather inflammatory word. I can say to the
Sierra Club "Hey, ... in my opinion these guys have a point about politics
and economics that we need to be cognizant of. Ignore them at your peril."
Would you say the reciprocal thing to your guys? It is not coming through to
me that you would.
EYE have to speak in THEIR language to the SC, not YOUR language to them.
Comprende? YOU need to hold your temper and make sure I got it right
(enough) in a way I can communicate to them, not hold me accountable for
what you identify as my shortcomings in reciting your message purely enough.
> "Reciprocity" is not the counterpart of "necessity."
Okay. Granted. I think "necessity" has another of those loaded word
connotations to you. Do you find any value in "reciprocity" at all?
>Malthus is not the
>counterpart of Marx.
Yep. I heartily agree. Malthus was a fuckin' Christian reformer who thought
god should rearrange the planet so that his (Malthus') discoveries about
population wouldn't hold true. I'm saying that Malthus' *discoveries* are
important "as well" or "anyway". What's your beef with that?
>And I can't figure out what could have given you the
>notion that Stan doesn't know what a neo-Malthusian is.
Stan said he wasn't sure what a malthusian was (or a neo malthusian, I don't
have the specific quote, but it wasn't a slam. No need to have a chip on the
shoulder about it.)
>I'd like to know what you know about the environment, or of the chemical
>processes or effects or relative scarcity of any elements, resources, etc.,
>therein, that a "marxie" doesn't know or would find it difficulty to
>comprehend.
Sorry, I will NOT use "marxie" again. Mea Maxima culpa. Here -- in the most
general of terms -- are examples of what I know about the environment versus
what is coming through to me about what marxists don't:
1) there has been a basic problem in how marxists use "relative scarcity"
and "resources" as you do the above. It has implications of an
anthropocentric negativity marxists seem not to understand. Resources for
whom? Scarcity because .... what?
2)looking for the root causes of the environmental AND the economic disaster
that DOES concern you must begin 10,000 years before the beginnings of
capitalism. Starting *only* with the industrial revolution or even feudalism
is misguided and counterproductive if you wish to survive on the planet
beyond 2100.
2)Adopting a totally anthropocentric position, with political energy
expended at the expense of *immediate* action to preserve what can be
preserved of the biosphere, is the road to disaster. A biocentric
understanding must be included at the heart of any effort, even one to bring
about "the revolution", otherwise we are doomed.
I could add something about misperceptions of the time left to take action,
but that's enough.
Now, John, please take these as HONEST perceptions on my part of what you
guys seem not to "know". AND I don't think that you would find any
difficulty at all in comprehending them. I just suspect they've never been
presented to you in a neutral enough way that you (the collective you)have
been willing to consider them seriously.
I am prolly a poor representative to build the bridges Mark used to talk
about. But I'm the only one you got right now.
So, now I dunno how to end this except by saying that I am NOT "slamming you
back". I'm just trying to find common ground.
thanks,
Tom
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
