Diary of a Dirty Commie

[beenherebeforeagain]

I have relatively few spaces in which to be unconditionally myself. I have depression and anxiety problems and they've swallowed up the past six years of my life. My parents almost never talk about anything personal at all, and the subject gets changed quickly to politics. They seem utterly uncomprehending at the burden which they place on me by expecting me to find the "magic bullet" which will solve my personal problems and enable me to get on with the "normal" life they expect me to have.

They behave as if nothing has happened, nothing is happening, almost fossilized in a state of suspended animation, congratulating themselves that because they are both retired they do not face the problems of coming to terms with a society which they are deeply and profoundly hostile to. And in the absolute height of hypocrisy, then expect me to become a functioning member of the society they so utterly detest. My dad in particular sets the topic of conversation at the appropriate object of his outrage after reading the news or a book, and then sees to lecture me about how "wrong" things are. We go for long drives to get out of the house and he complains endlessly about how unreasonable everyone is.

Psychologists agree that it is extremely hard for people to spot abusive relationships because the person who is being abused has repressed their ability to feel anger and to defend themselves by defending reasonable boundaries and therefore to recognize that they are indeed being hurt. My relationship with my parents is not abusive in the obvious sense; but the way in which I am expected to self-censor almost any topic of consequences so that they can "keep the peace" means that I have habitually repressed thoughts and emotions for the duration of my childhood and thereby I am limited as a person and in terms of what I can do. As my parents are so utterly convinced of their apparent 'reasonableness' any attempt I make to change the nature of my relationship with them is treated as provocation. Whereas they feel free to be angry, I am expected to suck it up. So it is not entirely surprising therefore that I find this anger is directed against myself and that behind the depression and anxiety lurks the internalized self-destructive ethic of my parents.

My parents both consider themselves "socialists", but really they are fiercely conservative and their concern for others is instrumental in appeasing people so as to not to provoke their anger and a threat to the "system" itself with which they identify. "Good governance" is what my dad calls it. The same basic idea is at work in my house in so far I am "appeased" not fulfilled as a person.

The essence of my problems with my parents unstated concerns over my sexuality. I am bisexual and my greatest mistake in their eyes was to fall in love with a complete rogue. I'm not sure whether it was the drugs or the dreadlocks that gave it away. My parents preferred otherwise. Coming to terms with my sexuality has meant also coming to terms with the authoritarian, conservative or "sex-negative" nature of my relationship with my parents and more generally of society. Six years is a long time to be alone with your thoughts and I know myself better than the quiet, shy apologetic kid who craved the bad and corrupting influence of his friend to show him the meaning of love, life and freedom. He was straight before you ask, but that's another story.

There are good times with my parents, but these are 'good' only in so far as I do not challenge their authority to assert my freedom and whilst other people may have insisted I go out and get a job irrespective of the severity of my problems, they have allowed me to stay at home to recover. Slowly but surely, we are running out of topics to agree on. The irony of neglect is that it can both be the cause and provide the space to recover from mental problems. The issue is not one single event or trauma in my relationship with my parents but the de-humanising insanity of it's apparent "normality"; how when people reach a consensus that abuse is the natural state of affairs it is therefore their "moral" obligation to perpetuate it out of fear that those who suffer abuse may realize a capacity for revenge in the ensuring revolt as "reality" is exposed as an illusion.

Of course, the greatest revenge against those who do us harm is to show how utterly wrong they are; how pathetically they cling to their illusions lest they recognize their sense of inferiority before life, love and freedom that lurks beneath the surface. You will be free, happy, loved and loving and they will hate you for it because it only reminds them how little they are willing to do for themselves. There is nothing more satisfying or pitiful than proving the fundamental basis of a worldview upheld by someone who demeans you wrong and watch them live a lie.

In spite of depression, in spite of anxiety, I feel in the depths of my heart a great sense of love, warmth and optimism. Not the kind of naive wishful thinking, but one that is determined and convinced that I can improve upon my situation, even if I must daily go through the ritual of psychologically banging my head against the wall to discover the emptiness of the tyrannical "normality", my own anger and to then make a promise to myself to change my situation.

I wish i could say my life was more interesting. If I had my way, I would be the bad boy who guys wants to be friends with and girls wants to sleep with. it is important to cut through the ritualized displays of niceness and get to the essence of the matter; sex is the art of intimate conversation between our animal natures. our social nature is most honestly expressed in our sexual desire, so why hide it? The "bad guys" get further in this world not because they are bad but because they are truer to themselves. They are happier, more free, more fun and interesting to be around because they have grasped the complexity of the human animal, whilst rejecting the dehumanizing simplicity of the noble lie of "morality". It makes them more attractive too.

Life is short and morality is a lie told by hypocrites. Compromise and sacrifice are the ways in which we negotiate away our happiness in the belief that they are imposed upon us by a higher power. Man is the highest power and can therefore be challenged. life is best lived when we stop fearing our own power to create and enjoy being ourselves. My parents brought me up to be a "nice guy" in the name of being a functioning member of society. But I'd much rather be interesting.

Good morning! I just came across this thread, so I apologize for coming in late. There is much to understand and digest from your writings here, but I find your experiences and insight to be valuable--please continue, and know that there are others out here who have had similar experiences and thoughts.

When I was young and still a follower of Communism (I was more an anarchist, an admirer of Kropotkin and similar non-state forms of the philosophy), I became involved for a time in a group that practiced Radical Therapy, which combined Berne's Transactional Analysis psychology (learned and performed by the members themselves, rather than having a single professional facilitator--several members of the group I was involved with were trained counselors, but believed the model of professional psychology was bad for people, as it encouraged dependence of the professionals when people can learn the methods of analysis and treatment for themselves as equals) with a Marxist critique of society. Important to place this in its appropriate timeframe, the late 1970s and early 1980s. As I understand it, RT continues through a number of groups, mainly on the US west coast, but it has been years since I heard from anyone involved in it.

One of the key concepts is that "the personal IS the political." The TA psychological approach shows us how we learn primarily from our parents how to engage with other humans (the transactional part), and that the contents of what we learn from our parents and society is how to fit into a society that treats humans as powerless cogs in the social economic system of wealth and power. The combination of models allowed us to recognize and to take positive steps to short-circuit the negative programming we learn from our parents and our interactions with society.

What you describe above is typical of what me and my fellow RT members experienced in our lives, and were learning to confront and change. Our attitude was/is that if you want to change society, start with changing yourself and your relationships. In doing so, for example, I learned to stop hating my parents for being the seemingly unemotional, distant providers I had experienced as a child and youth, to understanding the programming they had received from their parents, and how it had affected their choices in life, which in turn affected how I was experiencing and conducting my life. I was able to change the way I engage with other people, to make what I hope are better choices, but realizing that everyone confronts their own set of issues with the personal and societal programming.

Anyway, what you're doing here, laying out your experiences and beliefs, can be very valuable. If you want, I will try to provide some feedback from my perspective, which who knows, there might be a few nuggets that might be useful to you. If you are interested, that probably shouldn't be out here on an open forum, however.

That said, please keep going; you have much insight to share!

 

[Laika]

When I was young and still a follower of Communism (I was more an anarchist, an admirer of Kropotkin and similar non-state forms of the philosophy), I became involved for a time in a group that practiced Radical Therapy, which combined Berne's Transactional Analysis psychology (learned and performed by the members themselves, rather than having a single professional facilitator--several members of the group I was involved with were trained counselors, but believed the model of professional psychology was bad for people, as it encouraged dependence of the professionals when people can learn the methods of analysis and treatment for themselves as equals) with a Marxist critique of society. Important to place this in its appropriate timeframe, the late 1970s and early 1980s. As I understand it, RT continues through a number of groups, mainly on the US west coast, but it has been years since I heard from anyone involved in it.

that is something completely new to me. so thanks. I didn't realise they actually had Radical Therapy. I knew there was an anti-psycharitry movement in the 60s and 70s but thought it focused on patient rights. I only knew about it after reading Erich Fromm's The Sane Society and reading about the book on wikipeda. Fromm is a favorite; it was his book The Fear of Freedom (known as Escape from Freedom in the US) that actually got me looking into self-anaylsis and social psychology.

Intrestingly, When it started out psychoanalysis often was closely assocaited with anarchist and communist radicals in the 1930s. Freudian psycholoanalyisis was widely celebrated in the USSR during the 20's during the period of utopian experimentation and sexual revolution but fell out of favour in the much more conservative 30s.

Anyway, what you're doing here, laying out your experiences and beliefs, can be very valuable. If you want, I will try to provide some feedback from my perspective, which who knows, there might be a few nuggets that might be useful to you. If you are interested, that probably shouldn't be out here on an open forum, however.

Most of my recovery from depression I'm using some of Wilhelm Reichs ideas about "sex-positive ideology" which is enjoyable. it took a long time to accept that it did actualy work as I was very inhibited to start off with, but it is now kind of the rule of thumb. Your very welcome to talk via private message if you want. having someone to talk to and just having a new perspective is a good thing and lifts my mood considerably. I'd be more than glad to.

That said, please keep going; you have much insight to share!

Thanks.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

that is something completely new to me. so thanks. I didn't realise they actually had Radical Therapy. I knew there was an anti-psycharitry movement in the 60s and 70s but thought it focused on patient rights. I only knew about it after reading Erich Fromm's The Sane Society and reading about the book on wikipeda. Fromm is a favorite; it was his book The Fear of Freedom (known as Escape from Freedom in the US) that actually got me looking into self-anaylsis and social psychology.

I haven't looked to see if there's anything on it in wikipedia or elsewhere, there may be. Yes, the anti-psychiatry movement was primarily about patients and getting rid the abuse and stigma caused by the system, not treated or cured by it, and it fed into RT. I'm not aware of it being acknowledged by mainstream communism of the time--I rather doubt it because it was focused on breaking down power/authority structures of any kind, so I suspect that what we were doing was a threat to state communism of the USSR and China--and everywhere else, I guess. Fromm was a good one. There were many others. I learned a lot during that time of my life; unfortunately, I've forgotten much of it...

I'm preparing for class--let's talk later (maybe not today...)....

 

[Laika]

I'm having one of those moments when I feel self-conscious of the isolation of my beliefs. I have long had an issue with loneliness and it is not uncommon, so I hope you'll forgive my self-indulgence. I feel a little more at ease that I am less looking for someone who shares my beliefs but more of a temprament. It is not to be expected that I will find a fellow traveller anytime soon and I am resigned to that. it is a personal journey and I can rightly say that in between the nihilism of depression and sucicidal thoughts I would not wish it on anyone else. I became a communist because it was the lesser evil- better to rebel against the world that is crushing you than to accept it as fate.

I've had a uplift in my mood in the past few days as I realised that some of my fears of the future are unfounded. I have been a "doomer" in that I question the longevity of civilisation as it is ecologically unsustainable, along with peak oil and the depletion of many other resources. Thankfully, this is a tad simplistic so there is more hope than I first appreciated. I put it down to yet another propagandaistic portrayal of an important issue on the mass media that meant I responded emotionally rather than critically to the problem. Sensationalism sells and our politics is hysterical as a result. With so many issues competiting for our attention, people have to present the worst case scenario to get noticed and our self-confidence as a species suffers. So knowing that has eased my depression a great deal as if a burden has been lifted. We have a chance as dark as our prospects are.

The collective guilt of being a commie has eased somewhat. It still bothers me, but I have made a conscious effort to 'humanise' my understanding of our greatest monsters. Stalin is a hard one to do, but as a child he was beaten and abused by his father and bullied by his peers. it's not hard to see how the paranoia that can instill translates into the abuse of power. Felix Dzerzhinsky caught my eye, founder of the Cheka. he is a lesser known figure in terms of name recognition. It is somewhat important to look at such people, since we so easily judge names like Stalin based on what 'other' people think and what we are supposed to think. Even as a communist doesn't mean I'm immune to the prejudices of Red-baiting. These people were human beings not devils- that implies an aweful lot about our common 'humanity'. To give you an idea of the nature of the beast;

“We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession?”

I can pick out any number of quotes along those lines amongst leading communists, each with a bloodlust pecuilar to the mixture of messianic and monsterous qualities that communism changes people into. Yet, here also is a quote from the same man, taken from his diaries when he was in prison in 1908:

... I have matured in prison in torments of solitude, in torments of longing for the world and for life. And, in spite of this, doubt in the justness of our cause has never risen in my heart. And now, when perhaps for many years all hope is buried in torrents of blood, when they have been crucified on the gallows, when many thousands of fighters for freedom are languishing in dungeons or thrown out into snowbound Siberia – I feel proud. Already I see tremendous masses set in motion shattering the old system, masses among whom new forces are being trained for fresh struggles. I feel proud that I am with them, that I see, feel and understand them, and that I, too, have suffered much together with them. It is sometimes hard, at times even terrible, here in prison.... Yet, if I had to begin life all over again, I would begin it in the same way. And not out of a sense of duty, not because I had to. For me, it is an organic necessity.


...I curse neither my fate nor the many years in prison, for I know that all this is necessary in order to destroy the other vast prison which lies outside the walls of this horrible “pavilion.” This is not idle philosophising, not cold calculation, but the result of an indomitable desire for freedom, for a full life. Out there, comrades and | friends are drinking our health, and I, alone in my cell, am thinking of them: may they live on, may they forge the weapons and be worthy of the cause for which the struggle is being waged....

There is sacrcly a sentiment more human and more noble, and one that bears little comparision with the previous statement. I can perhaps detect a possibility that the same words could have come from the mouth of national socialist; how much difference is there between love of class and love of race after all? the psychology is similar as varieties of collectivism, although the ideologies could not be more different. Another quote...

... It is necessary to instil in the masses our own confidence in the inevitable bankruptcy of evil, so that they will be left with no doubt, so that they will come through this moment in serried ranks, prepared for battle. This is the task of the theoreticians. But the tasks of the others are to lay bare and show up this evil, to lay bare the sufferings and torments of the masses and of the individual fighters torn from their midst by the enemy, to give them the meaning they actually have and which gives them the strength to bear everything courageously, without wavering. Only in this way is it possible to instil in the masses courage and understanding of the need for struggle. Those who influence the mind and those who put confidence in victory into the heart and mind are both needed. Scientists and poets, teachers and propagandists are needed. I recall the booklet “From the Battlefield” published by the “Proletariat"[1] Party, which described the sufferings of the people, the steadfastness and courage they displayed in the struggle, and the tremendous influence it had. How I would wish such a booklet to appear now! But now it is more difficult to collect and compare facts, because they cover so much ground and there are so many of them. But, on the other hand, there are greater opportunities and possibilities now. If someone would undertake this work, or at least only the guidance of this work, then in a year or two such book could appear. It would reflect not only our sufferings and our doctrine, but also that longing for a full and real life for the sake of which man would readily endure suffering and sacrifice....

The man who grew up to build the architecture of terror that would kill and torture thousands of people here talks about the "inevitable bankcruptcy of evil"? Whilst being torture in prison no less? if you look up Dzerzhinsky on google images, you'll find his portriat with his Jaw askew because of the effects of the torture. The term "Iron Felix" refers to the 15 ton iron statue of him that once stood in Moscow near the KGB headquarters.

I've been playing DEFCON recently and it has given me pause for thought. What has troubled me is that there were people precisely of my "faith" who were more than willing to use nuclear weapons. Here's Stalin:

Some comrades hold that, owing to the development of new international conditions since the Second World War, wars between capitalist countries have ceased to be inevitable. They consider that the contradictions between the socialist camp and the capitalist camp are more acute than the contradictions among the capitalist countries; that the U.S.A. has brought the other capitalist countries sufficiently under its sway to be able to prevent them going to war among themselves and weakening one another; that the fore-most capitalist minds have been sufficiently taught by the two world wars and the severe damage they caused to the whole capitalist world not to venture to involve the capitalist countries in war with one another again - and that, because of all this, wars between capitalist countries are no longer inevitable.

These comrades are mistaken. They see the outward phenomena that come and go on the surface, but they do not see those profound forces which, although they are so far operating imperceptibly, will nevertheless determine the course of developments. (Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, 1951).

Mao was even more open.

"Let's try to suppose, how many people would die if war breaks out? Of the 2.7 billion people on earth, the losses might be one-third, or perhaps, somewhat more, say half of mankind....As soon as war begins, atomic and hydrogen bombs will be used in abundance. I once argued about this with a foreign political leader. He said that in case of an atomic war absolutely everyone would die. I said that in the worst case half the people would die, but the other half would survive, and that imperialism would be wiped off the face of the earth and the whole world would become socialist. A certain number of years would pass, and the population would once again reach 2.7 billion and most likely even more."

At the same Conference (1957 Conference in Moscow), he also said: "How many Italians will survive an atomic war? None at all. But why do you think that Italians are so important to humanity?" (Source)

I can laugh at it, but Mao was being serious. Even more alarming is the quote about Che Guervara:

“If the nuclear missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of America, including New York City…We will march the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims…We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm.”

This is not hypothetical, but a direct reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. I know that the source for the cliam comes from John Lee Anderson's biography of Che and that he is referring to an interview Che gave with the UK's daily worker after the crisis.

In honesty, I have long given up trying to understand the people themselves. The level of mis-information from both Western and Communist sources is that high. The difference is that the West will select the worst possible representation of communists to fit the narrow profile of them as totalitarians and red fascists. Communist sources, due to the degree of control of information, can out right lie and falsify the historical record. It is an Orwellian education to say the least. it also underlies the fact that just how easily public opinion, including my own, has been systematically manipulated over the past century.

Having to debate that "communists aren't athiests" was a high tide for me. At first, it felt like rejection- but then it became something more profound. Even the people who profess to uphold reason and evidence have been sucked in by propaganda to the extent that the historical record is being re-written in public consciousness. it is alarmin how often lies become truth and truth becomes lies and yet because we each unwittingly repeat them, the lies live on. Our ideological conviction trumps the reality. How can I apologise for what communists did to people who don't even know- or want to know- what Communism is? Communists are guilty, but for the most part- it is what people think they are, not what they actually are.

So here again is the paradox. A more famous quote from Che. it is often abreviated but it seems to be the "essence" of the contradiction.

At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. Perhaps it is one of the great dramas of the leader that he or she must combine a passionate spirit with a cold intelligence and make painful decisions without flinching. Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice.
The leaders of the revolution have children just beginning to talk, who are not learning to call their fathers by name; wives, from whom they have to be separated as part of the general sacrifice of their lives to bring the revolution to its fulfilment; the circle of their friends is limited strictly to the number of fellow revolutionists. There is no life outside of the revolution.
In these circumstances one must have a great deal of humanity and a strong sense of justice and truth in order not to fall into extreme dogmatism and cold scholasticism, into isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.

To be sure this is not a public statement attempting to flatter the illusions of a bougeois liberal audience (because everything is justified for the revolution comrade ) there is also the letter he left behind for his children in the event of his death in Bolivia:

Above all, try always to be able to feel deeply any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary.

I of course don't know the man and could never ask him how on one hand he could reconcile acceptence of nuclear war with a love of humanity. There is a trap in thinking that we can love "all" humanity, because we can only love humanity in the abstract. The issue is thinking that the two are mutually exclusive, in believing that love of humanity and nuclear holocaust are seperate issues. That is not a dialectical way of thinking. creation and destruction; good and evil are not mutually exclusive. revolution destroys the old world in order to create the new; those with a good cause have to do evil in order to triumph. the evils of suffered by an individual are put in the context of a narrative concerning history and humanity. And like a religion, the coming of the millenium is a period of great destruction and liberation. The perversity of the human condition is that we only want to build a new world when the old world has been destroyed, and will die when we have nothing left to lose other than life itself. My guess, reading between the lines, is that the greatest monsters known to man were able to do what they did because they loved humanity in the abstract and that their actions would be redeemed as such love would become real with the advent of Communism.

Ronald Reagan once said that:

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

There are moments when I have to sit back and wonder. The curse of being a communist is understanding it and the incredable passions it stirs. it is simulateously so monsterous and yet so human. Much like theists live with an awe and a terror of their gods, so a communist in all probability feels the same way about thewhat it means for mankind to master the "laws of history".

Thanks for reading. I think to finish Reagan's jokes sums it up rather well.

 

[Laika]

The Death of God and the Atheist Revolution

I am going to try to briefly summarise the implications of the "death of god" which here refers to the collapse of religious belief and the advance of atheism from a position of scepticism (weak atheism) to positive affirmation that there is no god (strong atheism). This is a "revolutionary" position because it challenges the very nature of our understanding of reality and therefore of all things (some admittedly more than others). This account does share some characteristics with Christian fundamentalist characterisations of Atheism, because such characterisations apply typically to forms of materialism.

This summary therefore does not apply to all forms of atheism, but only to a very specific form. The best example is communist variety of atheism, but I have kept this sufficiently open that it could allow for a variety of interpretations. To exclude the possibility of the existence of god, necessarily uses materialist arguments that consciousness can only arise from natural phenomena and cannot exist independently of it as would be required for a god or a soul. Materialism is probably a necessary part of strong atheism.

The essay is deliberately inconclusive as this is a thought process being entertained by the author based on logical consistency rather than on the basis of proof. I have at present no reason- beyond intellectual bias- to assume this is true. it is therefore an intellectual exercise of "thinking aloud" and more of a preparatory document to know 'where to look' for future ideas, debates and controversies rather than a personal statement beliefs.

Moral Nihilism

As Frederick Nietzsche pointed out the "death of god" leads to a "trans-valuation of all values" because for most of human history, god has been the source of ethics. This characteristic does not apply to all forms of atheism; weak atheism ultimately is a form of scepticism of the existence of god and therefore of the source of ethics. it is not however a denial of the existence of god, and therefore does not challenge the source of ethical judgements wholesale. This is an attribute of a much stronger form of atheism.

Where once before god was considered the source of morality, so the 'death of god' leaves mankind the highest judgement of morality. The collapse of moral judgements based on religion is a nihilistic crisis of religious belief systems because it fundamentally challenges the notion of objective reality, truth and therefore ethics. If religion was a form of 'false consciousness', it follows that for most of the history of mankind our collective understanding was either entirely or partially false. To argue that it was entirely false leads to 'passive nihilism'; a state of extreme subjectivism in which all forms of objective meaning are denied. To argue that it is partially false leads to active nihilism because it means rejecting a false conception of objectivity that led to religious belief for a 'true' one to is not religious. In this nihilistic process, religion is deconstructed as an illusion and a form of strong atheism provides a 'burden of proof' for the non-existence of god as an objectively true statement.

This 'burden of proof' consists in not only that there was no god in the past or in the present, but that there is no god in the future as well. It is therefore closely related to forms of naturalism and materialism that deny the possibility of supernatural phenomena by attributing consciousness solely to a physical source, the brain. the mind and the brain are identical.

As consciousness cannot exist without the brain, this attacks also mysticism in which 'spiritual' attributes are held to exist in separation from the brain. This includes the notion of 'ideas' or 'values' that exist independently of man's consciousness and it is this which has sweeping ethical consequences.

Liberalism is based on a theory of 'natural law'. This conception of the 'law of nature' is not consistently materialist and therefore not atheist. Liberalism is therefore built on a legacy of mysticism, whether it is the "invisible hand" of "market forces", the notion of some intrinsic "human nature" which is equivalent to the soul and from which our "natural rights" are derived. The very concept of "humanity" is itself relies on religious understanding as the difference between a theistic and atheist liberal is whether consciousness is attributed to god or to man.

Materialism particularly attacks the dualistic notion of consciousness existing in separation from the brain bringing into question the very conception of 'free will'; if the mind is not separate from the brain, the will is determined by physical processes and is not 'free' of them. This changes how we define both 'freedom' and 'rights' because the very conception of what it means to be 'human' has itself changed. As such, liberalism is also a casualty of the 'death of god' because it entails the 'death of man' and the transformation of the self from being an entity based on free will to one on determined by natural forces. The primary means of understanding man as determined by natural forces is the theory of evolution.

evolution here refers not simply to the 'biological' process discovered by Charles Darwin, but a much broader conception of natural change based on natural causes. As there is no god, there is no creation; nature caused itself. As such natural laws are binding on all phenomena and the belief in the absence of god takes precedence over scientific enquiry. There is no creation, nor is there anything 'above', 'beyond' or 'behind' the material or natural world or acting upon it or otherwise intervening in it. As there is no longer 'free will', neither reason nor science can be held to be independent of natural phenomena. Human history and society become part of the natural phenomena studied by science, but only after changing the very definition of science itself. The death of god entail the end of the belief in the soul and therefore mystical conceptions of man based on 'free will'. There is no god because conscious has natural causes; there is no free will because consciousness is determined by nature.

Darwinism/Social Darwinism

The notion of a 'Darwinian' struggle for survival does serious damage to the belief in the 'sanctity of human life' and undermines arguments surrounding a 'human right to life'. When applied to society, this has implications of how people value human life as can be seen by both Nazi and Soviet experiments. Whilst the latter was not in the strict sense based on a theory of genetic or biological evolution, it was based on a theory of a wholly naturalistic socio-economic evolution. In both cases, the sanctity of human life and the Judaeo-Christian origins of the theory of human rights was attacked leading to widespread human rights abuses.

Creationism has an advantage that the intrinsic value of human life is divorced from an actual person because it is gods commandment. this lays the basis for a system of law. it is however, inherently hypocritical. The argument that Darwinian theories apply only to nature and not to society is a weak argument; it substitutes the belief in god creating nature, for the belief that man creates society. Because man possesses 'consciousness', he therefore creates social relations meaning that the processes in society and nature are not comparable based on attributing consciousness as the cause to society, but not to nature. this is equivalent to saying that man is god because they have the attributes of a god (i.e. consciousness) which is not consistent with materialist atheism.

A distinction must be drawn between National Socialist and Communist forms of 'darwinism' as the former attributed the status of a 'god' to the leader or Furher, whereas the latter did not consciously attribute any such status to any individual because society was a wholly 'material' process and consciousness was suboridnate to nature/matter.

Scientific discovery has done much to advance human knowledge, and whilst it has been a source of wonder and awe, the awareness that we are ultimately at the mercy of forces of nature largely beyond our control it attacks our egotism. When we gaze up at the stars, we are struck by an awareness of the distances involved, it is hard not to be struck at our own insignificance in the universe. the individual is such a small organism on such a small planet hurtling round a massive ball of gas we call the sun in a great spiral of rocks and other bodies or burning gas. the enormity of these forces and their apparent timelessness in comparison to the human scale of our own lifetimes mean that our sense of self is fundamentally challenged and so it is with the belief in our own moral significance.

a Darwinian approach to society emphasises therefore not the welfare of the individual, but of the species (or the 'race'). it is a collectivistic ideology that emphasises that individual suffering in the 'survival of the fittest' may potentially be for the 'common good'. the elimination of 'inferior' or 'reactionary' elements of society is demonstrated to be a natural process and is inevitable; with the understanding that this process is scientifically understood and that mankind can master these processes through the state, it can be "accelerated" by the conscious elimination of those sections of society that we believe are undesirable. Whether this id measured in terms of race or class makes little difference in terms of the moral arguments, though it does change the methods involved. Far from genocide being considered a 'crime against humanity', to allow the human race to be "burdened" by allowing those elements which are damaging to the whole would be considered a crime against humanity.

An important factor in this is that a Darwinian struggle for survival both necessitates and glorifies warfare as a form of purification through the elimination of one's enemies. War is also not limited to the war between countries, but within them and it is the role of the state to wage such a war against the "in-pure". Where once the power of life and death was reserved for god, now it belongs to mankind- or more precisely, the collective embodiment of mankind in the state.

The Problem of Evil

The "death of god" necessitates a re-examination of the problem of evil. If evil is not caused by god, it is caused by natural phenomena (again, mankind if considered part of nature at this point). There is therefore considerable overlap between misotheism and anti-theism; the hatred of god (misotheism) and the opposition/hatred of religion (anti-theism) share common characteristics because as religion is an illusion, religious belief is a prison from which we are condemned and must escape to be truly free. The goal is therefore to escape from this prison of our own ignorance, and by doing so become 'truly free'. The nature of this 'freedom' is quite different from liberal conceptions of freedom based on free will. Those who profess religious belief are therefore both prisoners of their own ignorance, and their willingness to defend those beliefs necessarily makes them the 'prison guards'. The antagonism therefore between 'idealism' and 'materialism' therefore necessitates a struggle between these two social forces. The source of evil is therefore not god, but the belief in god could well be argued to be evil because it denies mankind the power to overcome their ignorance.

As there is no longer 'free will', this in turn affects the notion of 'free thought'. As mind and the brain are identical and consciousness is caused by natural processes, so thought is determined. Thought is therefore not of the individual because they do not represent an 'individual' agent as they do not have free will. Rather they are part of a society and therefore thought is- to a greater or lesser extent determined by the society. The process of socialisation is one governed by objective laws and by socialisation, our thought is determined. As such thought is determined and can be scientifically understood so thought can be to some extent 'controlled'. The individual never loses entirely their autonomy as they remain a physically separate person from a group, but they remain dependent on the group both for the means to subsist and to think. This form of atheism, and the social consciousness it entails, necessitates state atheism and a conscious bias in society based on recognition of the 'new' objective truths, ethics of that society.

As such, this society does not eliminate evil. it is not a god who can by an act of will remove all the evil from the world. It cannot make people 'good' if those standards of good are alienated from our actual capacities. it can also compel its members to do what is conventionally considered evil. Death takes on a new and different meaning, for it is not the beginning of the afterlife, nor the end of this life. It is part of the stream of humanity. The individual is mortal. The society, humanity, and perhaps the state, is immortal. humanity is new object of devotions, sacrifice and worship. Evil is a natural phenomena; society can only work within the laws of nature. No matter how good a person's intentions may be, they cannot necessarily save the people they care about from those natural laws because they may not have the earthly power to do so. the danger is that as society is assumed to be governed by natural laws- these catastrophes are not simply earthquakes, hurricanes but as those created by man; war, dictatorship and possibly famine. that is a totalitarian philosophy that the state is a force of nature, that the pursuit of earthly power is nature of man and power is good. God is dead and so is our own self-conception that man can become gods. there is no utopia, but as man loses the illusion of supernatural power and instead gains the knowledge to earthly power. it is our lack of self-knowledge that raises questions as to whether we are worthy of it. Do we need a soul to know that we are good and how far do the standards of good change when we are our own master?

 

[Laika]

I realised something. For a long time I have pretended to be a commie. it's strange to look back and realise that you never really believed something for all those years. I wanted to believe in it, but only because I was a cripple. being a communist was a way to convince myself of my own perfection, so I didn't have to feel the pain of seeing myself as the imperfect person I really am.

I have to learn to let go and to let my guard down. If, as I suspect I may well be, I am a true believer, it won't matter what other people think of me when I have a high opinion of myself based on my own efforts. I am frightened for people to think I am stupid, as my intelligence is a way of compensating and concealing my other faults. my lack of a sex life, not having a job, a group of freinds to talk to when I'm feeling low or to play with when I need cheering up. I realised that I always had some degree of control over my own depression but I wasn't aware of it. I believed that my own negative thoughts were other peoples thoughts about me. I think that has been the source of my greatest loneliness- thinking I know things about people that I clearly don't know.

I've been wondering whether to experiment with religious ideas. the point is to learn to play with them. it's something that I've lost over the years from taking things too seriously. the desire and ability to play, to do, just becase you can. I take myself too seriously and then I feel I've left myself down. I can do alot more than be a communist. I can be myself. there is and only ever will be one of me after all. thats where the love of mankind leads eventually; once you've forgiven everyone for the unthinkable, you forgive yourself for being human and expecting yourself to be more than that.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I realised something. For a long time I have pretended to be a commie. it's strange to look back and realise that you never really believed something for all those years. I wanted to believe in it, but only because I was a cripple. being a communist was a way to convince myself of my own perfection, so I didn't have to feel the pain of seeing myself as the imperfect person I really am.

I have to learn to let go and to let my guard down. If, as I suspect I may well be, I am a true believer, it won't matter what other people think of me when I have a high opinion of myself based on my own efforts. I am frightened for people to think I am stupid, as my intelligence is a way of compensating and concealing my other faults. my lack of a sex life, not having a job, a group of freinds to talk to when I'm feeling low or to play with when I need cheering up. I realised that I always had some degree of control over my own depression but I wasn't aware of it. I believed that my own negative thoughts were other peoples thoughts about me. I think that has been the source of my greatest loneliness- thinking I know things about people that I clearly don't know.

I've been wondering whether to experiment with religious ideas. the point is to learn to play with them. it's something that I've lost over the years from taking things too seriously. the desire and ability to play, to do, just becase you can. I take myself too seriously and then I feel I've left myself down. I can do alot more than be a communist. I can be myself. there is and only ever will be one of me after all. thats where the love of mankind leads eventually; once you've forgiven everyone for the unthinkable, you forgive yourself for being human and expecting yourself to be more than that.

Someone once said (and someone here on RF has it as their tagline--no idea who...) that the mark of a superior mind is the ability to entertain a thought without having to accept it as being real or true (or something like that...seems like it was shorter and pithier when I noticed it last). I entertain lots of thoughts, and find lots of thoughts entertaining. I've spent the last few decades trying to get past having to make judgments on those that I can't resolve, which has led me to what I see as a healthy skepticism and pragmatism about most everything in life. May your path become happier as you move along it!

 

[Laika]

Someone once said (and someone here on RF has it as their tagline--no idea who...) that the mark of a superior mind is the ability to entertain a thought without having to accept it as being real or true (or something like that...seems like it was shorter and pithier when I noticed it last). I entertain lots of thoughts, and find lots of thoughts entertaining. I've spent the last few decades trying to get past having to make judgments on those that I can't resolve, which has led me to what I see as a healthy skepticism and pragmatism about most everything in life. May your path become happier as you move along it!

thanks. its the epiphany I've sort of been waiting for. will just have to see how it goes.

 

[Laika]

I have to face up to some hard truths about my ideology. Under almost any definition, it is evil and it is only a question of degrees. I've been dodging this for a long time and in denial because I am only human, but its really a question of moral courage to face up to the truth. I have yet to determine whether it is indeed objectively 'evil' because that involves making a knoweldge cliam that can be demonstrated to be objectively true. so far as I know, this pretty much means reliance on religious belief so far and it is only by openly rejecting that in favour of discussing ethical problem, not as moral ones, but as scientific ones, that I'm ever going to reach a conclusion. its better to know the truth than to stay ignorant.

Rejecting communism would be hard, and most likely a very gradual process that will take time. I cannot however convince myself that I can reject it based on moral standards that I don't agree with or accept because they are religious and, worse, because they are hypocritical. I need something stronger. it is hard to tell whether this is rejection or acceptence, but either way it will give me some measure of peace that I'm not lying to myself any more. I want the truth even if its hard to accept. if I have the truth I can at least change for the better.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I have to face up to some hard truths about my ideology. Under almost any definition, it is evil and it is only a question of degrees. I've been dodging this for a long time and in denial because I am only human, but its really a question of moral courage to face up to the truth. I have yet to determine whether it is indeed objectively 'evil' because that involves making a knoweldge cliam that can be demonstrated to be objectively true. so far as I know, this pretty much means reliance on religious belief so far and it is only by openly rejecting that in favour of discussing ethical problem, not as moral ones, but as scientific ones, that I'm ever going to reach a conclusion. its better to know the truth than to stay ignorant.

Rejecting communism would be hard, and most likely a very gradual process that will take time. I cannot however convince myself that I can reject it based on moral standards that I don't agree with or accept because they are religious and, worse, because they are hypocritical. I need something stronger. it is hard to tell whether this is rejection or acceptance, but either way it will give me some measure of peace that I'm not lying to myself any more. I want the truth even if its hard to accept. if I have the truth I can at least change for the better.

I appreciate your quandary. I started by looking at nature--how non-human species and early/indigenous humans live and lived. In doing so, I saw that while there may be some (not very much, to my mind) evidence of dialectical materialism, there is more evidence that shows there is nothing that evolution or life is driving towards, except survival and reproduction. There are limits to the need for organization, and no species shows evidence of needing a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to succeed as a species. And so on. Nor is there any substantial support for the inevitability of capitalism, socialism, communism, monarchy, democracy...at least not in the ways humans have constructed them...

In nature, there is evidence of conflict and competition, with no inevitable winners or losers, just survivors and adaptors. There is evidence of cooperation and caring, again with no inevitable winners or losers, just those who successfully adapt to conditions and survive. And there is evidence of peaceful coexistence, species and groups getting along with neighbors just because they are neighbors--benign neglect might be a good term for the attitude. Nowhere is there evidence of any central control, and even in social groups, dominance is often as much a result of group selection of the leaders as it is individual assertion of leadership...a neverending balance between the interests of the group and the interests of its individual members.

Humans have tried many different solutions to the problem of social organization, which seem to arise primarily when our societies settled down into permanent villages and agriculture and grew to be so big that not everyone can know everyone else in the group. That particular patterns of arrangement have stood the test of time and are currently dominant does not mean they are inevitable, or in the long term, sustainable. Apparent success now does not necessarily mean success in the long term, nor does it communicate which solution is better than others, or "best" in some universal or abstract way.

That's where I started my move away from Marxism--the realization that it, like the other great political and social and economic philosophies, is flawed. Maybe not completely flawed, but flawed in that each system ignores some important features of reality while playing up the importance of other features, in order to justify themselves, which in turn justifies systems of social governance for society that centralize power and wealth among a small portion of the population to a degree unheard of anywhere else in nature.

Maybe this helps?

 

[Laika]

Maybe this helps?

it does.I've had the same monologue going round in my head for many years now and am starting to get some resolution over it through it is very painful.

I appreciate your quandary. I started by looking at nature--how non-human species and early/indigenous humans live and lived. In doing so, I saw that while there may be some (not very much, to my mind) evidence of dialectical materialism, there is more evidence that shows there is nothing that evolution or life is driving towards, except survival and reproduction. There are limits to the need for organization, and no species shows evidence of needing a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to succeed as a species. And so on. Nor is there any substantial support for the inevitability of capitalism, socialism, communism, monarchy, democracy...at least not in the ways humans have constructed them...

This really hinges on how we look at nature and how far we see it through the lense of a particular ideology. all preceding systems such as feudalism and capitalism rely on conceptions of reality that involve considerable degree of abstraction as to the causes of natural and social phenemoena. the existence of god is inferred from natural and social processes which arguably lead back to a creator of some sorts. Belief in a god of somesort has been near universal throughout human history, but with enourmous diversity of opinion over what that 'god' actually is. The problem is whether there can be said to be unifying principles for understanding these processes, how we derive them and whether we can know if they are a true reflection of them. Dialectical Materialism is both a philosophy of nature of society and tries to find a single frame work to comprehend it, so the argument perhaps is over whether nature and society are incomprehensible or not.

In nature, there is evidence of conflict and competition, with no inevitable winners or losers, just survivors and adaptors. There is evidence of cooperation and caring, again with no inevitable winners or losers, just those who successfully adapt to conditions and survive. And there is evidence of peaceful coexistence, species and groups getting along with neighbors just because they are neighbors--benign neglect might be a good term for the attitude. Nowhere is there evidence of any central control, and even in social groups, dominance is often as much a result of group selection of the leaders as it is individual assertion of leadership...a neverending balance between the interests of the group and the interests of its individual members.

Marxist ideology rejects free will and so is deterministic. there is quite alot of subtly in defing how it "determines" as it never denies individual agency. So yes, there are no inevitable winners or losers, but the nature of reality means that there are necessary steps and stages which those individual animals can take to advance their own survival and adapt. That much- at least when you've already done it- is predictable and necessary. Given that communist ideology refers to future processes, they are inferred and there isn't a huge amount of evidence to support them as the "history" has still yet to be made and written.

I've come to realise that marxism was never really about "equality of outcome" but was only ever concerned with equality as the abolition of social class. there is clearly an argument that that there are degrees of dominance accross all societies, even in one that were not hierarichial. So communism is perhaps more

Humans have tried many different solutions to the problem of social organization, which seem to arise primarily when our societies settled down into permanent villages and agriculture and grew to be so big that not everyone can know everyone else in the group. That particular patterns of arrangement have stood the test of time and are currently dominant does not mean they are inevitable, or in the long term, sustainable. Apparent success now does not necessarily mean success in the long term, nor does it communicate which solution is better than others, or "best" in some universal or abstract way.

agreed.

That's where I started my move away from Marxism--the realization that it, like the other great political and social and economic philosophies, is flawed. Maybe not completely flawed, but flawed in that each system ignores some important features of reality while playing up the importance of other features, in order to justify themselves, which in turn justifies systems of social governance for society that centralize power and wealth among a small portion of the population to a degree unheard of anywhere else in nature.

I've found myself having to chose between the view that marxism is flawed or that reality itself is "flawed" and therefore it is my ideals that need revision. The latter has been very painful as its sort of an admission that reality can never perfectly reflected our ideals and that the alternative to rejecting those ideals is to lower the bar for them. I've realised that I still basically think in ways that come from when I was influenced by Christianity, and that communism has been the sort of omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc, god. So ultimately, it involves giving up the search for "god" and a perfect world and a utopia. the question is whether that lowering of expectations means giving up communism or not. at the moment, I'm still willing to say that it is more accurate as a description of reality than the alternatives.

 

[Deidre]

I don't think reality is flawed. It's perfectly imperfect, and our perceptions are what need to change, perhaps.

Hi Red.

 

[Laika]

I don't think reality is flawed. It's perfectly imperfect, and our perceptions are what need to change, perhaps.

Hi Red.

Well said. Hey D. how are things treating you?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

it does.I've had the same monologue going round in my head for many years now and am starting to get some resolution over it through it is very painful.



This really hinges on how we look at nature and how far we see it through the lense of a particular ideology. all preceding systems such as feudalism and capitalism rely on conceptions of reality that involve considerable degree of abstraction as to the causes of natural and social phenemoena. the existence of god is inferred from natural and social processes which arguably lead back to a creator of some sorts. Belief in a god of somesort has been near universal throughout human history, but with enourmous diversity of opinion over what that 'god' actually is. The problem is whether there can be said to be unifying principles for understanding these processes, how we derive them and whether we can know if they are a true reflection of them. Dialectical Materialism is both a philosophy of nature of society and tries to find a single frame work to comprehend it, so the argument perhaps is over whether nature and society are incomprehensible or not.



Marxist ideology rejects free will and so is deterministic. there is quite alot of subtly in defing how it "determines" as it never denies individual agency. So yes, there are no inevitable winners or losers, but the nature of reality means that there are necessary steps and stages which those individual animals can take to advance their own survival and adapt. That much- at least when you've already done it- is predictable and necessary. Given that communist ideology refers to future processes, they are inferred and there isn't a huge amount of evidence to support them as the "history" has still yet to be made and written.

I've come to realise that marxism was never really about "equality of outcome" but was only ever concerned with equality as the abolition of social class. there is clearly an argument that that there are degrees of dominance accross all societies, even in one that were not hierarichial. So communism is perhaps more



agreed.



I've found myself having to chose between the view that marxism is flawed or that reality itself is "flawed" and therefore it is my ideals that need revision. The latter has been very painful as its sort of an admission that reality can never perfectly reflected our ideals and that the alternative to rejecting those ideals is to lower the bar for them. I've realised that I still basically think in ways that come from when I was influenced by Christianity, and that communism has been the sort of omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc, god. So ultimately, it involves giving up the search for "god" and a perfect world and a utopia. the question is whether that lowering of expectations means giving up communism or not. at the moment, I'm still willing to say that it is more accurate as a description of reality than the alternatives.

This is where I've turned to pragmatism--and I hope, away from the Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) ways of thinking that include Christianity, Communism, Materialism, etc. I don't look for perfection, or perfect understanding, or a great universal answer to everything because that is part of WEIRD thinking. Instead, I look for what works, now, in this situation, under these conditions, given the very obvious limits on perception and conception as well as the likelihood of other veiled barriers to comprehension and understanding of reality as it really is. The sciences, as imperfect as they are, are illuminating about the material aspects of the world--but my experience and beliefs suggest that there might be more than what the sciences as they are currently constructed and functioning deal with. But whether and what is still up for identification and discussion.

To me, now, after years of wrestling with these issues you bring up, I find that there is no one tool, no one frame of reference, no on ideology, no one lens of analysis that can explain everything that we confront and experience in this life--and certainly, that the set the Western intellectual tradition has developed for us is limited and of limited use.

 

[Laika]

This is where I've turned to pragmatism--and I hope, away from the Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) ways of thinking that include Christianity, Communism, Materialism, etc. I don't look for perfection, or perfect understanding, or a great universal answer to everything because that is part of WEIRD thinking. Instead, I look for what works, now, in this situation, under these conditions, given the very obvious limits on perception and conception as well as the likelihood of other veiled barriers to comprehension and understanding of reality as it really is. The sciences, as imperfect as they are, are illuminating about the material aspects of the world--but my experience and beliefs suggest that there might be more than what the sciences as they are currently constructed and functioning deal with. But whether and what is still up for identification and discussion.

To me, now, after years of wrestling with these issues you bring up, I find that there is no one tool, no one frame of reference, no on ideology, no one lens of analysis that can explain everything that we confront and experience in this life--and certainly, that the set the Western intellectual tradition has developed for us is limited and of limited use.

I'm still a materialist and that is what keeps pushing me further down the communist road, inspite of my reluctence. At the heart of it, there remains something emancipating in the belief that we can comprehend everything because everything is material and therefore observable (and consciousness is a property of matter rather than something beyond it). the belief that there are no limits to knowledge is the basis for the belief that there are no limits to progress. So long as their is a single objective reality, even with the great variations of individual experience, subjectivity of religious experience is not an obsticle to progress. What has not been explianed can still be explianed. There is however some battle overwhether this is a form of faith or does represent a 'scientific' worldview of sorts. So long as its true, I'd go with it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm still a materialist and that is what keeps pushing me further down the communist road, inspite of my reluctence. At the heart of it, there remains something emancipating in the belief that we can comprehend everything because everything is material and therefore observable (and consciousness is a property of matter rather than something beyond it). the belief that there are no limits to knowledge is the basis for the belief that there are no limits to progress. So long as their is a single objective reality, even with the great variations of individual experience, subjectivity of religious experience is not an obsticle to progress. What has not been explianed can still be explianed. There is however some battle overwhether this is a form of faith or does represent a 'scientific' worldview of sorts. So long as its true, I'd go with it.

I am much less certain about our knowledge of the universe/reality, and the ability of humans, individually or collectively, to come to a firm understanding of that universe/reality. In that, I'm a skeptic in the original sense of the term, and am pragmatic, trying to limit my understanding to what we can demonstrate--and leaving what is speculation as speculation until it is demonstrated.

What you say could be called a belief or faith, a belief or faith that humans can and will continue to know and master more and more about the universe. I am skeptical of that belief. As some scientist (or person often quoted by scientists--sorry, I forgot who and am not going to go look it up right now) once observed, the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine. It would not surprise me at all if humans are never able to come up with a theory of everything.

But, I ask, why is it important that knowledge have no limits? that progress has no limits? That everything be explained, eventually?

 

[Deidre]

Well said. Hey D. how are things treating you?

Life is quite good. I hope your life is going well, too.
I will have to scroll through this thread to brush up on the topic here.

 

[Laika]

Life is quite good. I hope your life is going well, too.
I will have to scroll through this thread to brush up on the topic here.

the majority of this thread is me quietly screaming at the knowledge of how far I've strayed from the conventional wisdom and wondering where the hell I'm going next. so you haven't missed much.

Aside from the personal crisises played out in this thread, life is pretty good at the moment. (my depression has eased up alot, so I'm quite content).

 

[Laika]

I am much less certain about our knowledge of the universe/reality, and the ability of humans, individually or collectively, to come to a firm understanding of that universe/reality. In that, I'm a skeptic in the original sense of the term, and am pragmatic, trying to limit my understanding to what we can demonstrate--and leaving what is speculation as speculation until it is demonstrated.

What you say could be called a belief or faith, a belief or faith that humans can and will continue to know and master more and more about the universe. I am skeptical of that belief. As some scientist (or person often quoted by scientists--sorry, I forgot who and am not going to go look it up right now) once observed, the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine. It would not surprise me at all if humans are never able to come up with a theory of everything.

But, I ask, why is it important that knowledge have no limits? that progress has no limits? That everything be explained, eventually?

Emotionally, its much more reassuring than the powerlessness of ignorance. the idea that progress has no limits is also a good thing, as at the moment pretty much no matter where you look someone is finding some crisis, some reason to be pessimistic and an "end of the world" scenario, etc.

Marxists tend to think that the number of such theories is not a co-incidence but is symptomatic of a crisis of capitalist ideology and that our society is losing control and is frightened of unintended consequences. I'm pretty young and look forward at the future with the knowledge that I'm going to live through it and all I can see is disaster [the environmental stuff scares the hell out of me], so this has been pretty important for fighting depression. I have a real sense that there just isn't a future as the "realism" of our society simply shuts down the number of possibilities whilst at the same time being based on ignorant platitudes of "this is how the world works". I've spent many years unpicking it and this belief has been the one that's kept me going. I have to wonder whether I could have re-covered from depression without it as our understanding psychology is in a mess as well. we've advanced from eletrodes to drugs if you can call that 'progress'. so yeah, this is a bit of a sacred cow.

it has however taken me a long time to realise it was a faith of sorts as it involved admitting ignorance on many aspects of marxist philosophy to get myself to "go back to the drawing board". I'm still sceptical and conservative as to whether it could qualify as 'science' because it changes the definition of the word so much. dialectical materialism involves committing some really big scientific heresies from an ideological/philosophical point of view and my own ignorance on the subject makes me wonder whether this is the right thing to do. it still seems better to try than not to.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Emotionally, its much more reassuring than the powerlessness of ignorance. the idea that progress has no limits is also a good thing, as at the moment pretty much no matter where you look someone is finding some crisis, some reason to be pessimistic and an "end of the world" scenario, etc.

Marxists tend to think that the number of such theories is not a co-incidence but is symptomatic of a crisis of capitalist ideology and that our society is losing control and is frightened of unintended consequences. I'm pretty young and look forward at the future with the knowledge that I'm going to live through it and all I can see is disaster [the environmental stuff scares the hell out of me], so this has been pretty important for fighting depression. I have a real sense that there just isn't a future as the "realism" of our society simply shuts down the number of possibilities whilst at the same time being based on ignorant platitudes of "this is how the world works". I've spent many years unpicking it and this belief has been the one that's kept me going. I have to wonder whether I could have re-covered from depression without it as our understanding psychology is in a mess as well. we've advanced from eletrodes to drugs if you can call that 'progress'. so yeah, this is a bit of a sacred cow.

it has however taken me a long time to realise it was a faith of sorts as it involved admitting ignorance on many aspects of marxist philosophy to get myself to "go back to the drawing board". I'm still sceptical and conservative as to whether it could qualify as 'science' because it changes the definition of the word so much. dialectical materialism involves committing some really big scientific heresies from an ideological/philosophical point of view and my own ignorance on the subject makes me wonder whether this is the right thing to do. it still seems better to try than not to.

I think it's good that you're thinking about it all, and questioning. For me, I'm quite content to ask questions and look for answers, and not get too frustrated or hung up when I don't find an answer right away, or in one source--because I don't think any one source does or could have all of the answers, except to the most trivial of questions. Keep going!