I wrote:
> > [Marx's] point was that he wasn't putting forth a gospel that should be
> > followed. He was also trying to separate himself from those who
> > invoked his name to defend their mechanistic analyses of the world.
Doyle:
> I understand that. The problem is two-fold; one most people haven't
> got a clue what mechanistic means anymore.
I was using the term "mechanistic" to stand in for a variety of
over-simplifications, such as people using Marx's (or Freud's or
Nietzsche's or whomever's) theories as if they were facts.
Doyle:
> Two, there is in your statement implied you know what gospel or
> worship means in terms of knowledge production. The word, gospel,
> seems to me repeating verbatim the words of god.
I was using a metaphor. Literally, however, the word "gospel" means
"good news" (about the coming of the Messiah).
me:
> The problem occurs when the insults
> are based on lies and/or misunderstandings. The problem is the lies
> and misunderstandings, not the insults themselves.
Doyle:
> I think you are wrong here. You use reason as a tool to sort out
> understanding how breaking working solidarity works to prevail from
> the lies and insults of the right. Reason cannot form solidarity.
of course, reason can't form solidarity. But it can help make sure
that solidarity about the right things. Of course, "reason" cannot
have any effect at all unless it is put into some sort of speech or
action.
--
Jim Devine / "The radios blare musak and newsak, diseases are cured every day /
the worst disease is to be unwanted, to be used up, and cast away." --
Peter Case ("Poor Old Tom").
