Thanks for your insights and info at the end, Tom. They provide the goods.
Tom Warren wrote:
> >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
--
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
