Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Please refrain from copy and pasting messages over and over and over, or you will be removed from the forum. We all have input to make so let's keep this at a discussion and not a text block of commercials. Here are some helpful guidelines for good discussion and debate recommended by one of our members:

  • * Stay on topic
  • * Be clear
  • * Build upon your points and address those of other people
  • * Refrain from making assumptions about others' unstated views
  • * If you disagree with somebody, do so politely
  • * Clarify your terms and seek to understand others' (but avoid semantic derails)
Note: The opinions expressed by the moderators and members of this discussion board do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Occupy Together or Occupy Wall St. In the spirit of free information, open discussion, and the freedom of expression, members are able to speak about issues relating and directly pertaining to the Occupy movement. You will be banned for hate speech or intentional misinformation and please refrain from any violent rhetoric; this is a peaceful movement. Thank you.
Wanting to be Indian
  • Posted on September 20, 2011

    When Spiritual Searching Turns into Cultural Theft
    Source: https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/wanting-to-be-indian/

    I don't necessarily agree with the overall message, but found it very interesting. The Lakota people were very welcoming to my interest in their culture. The sacred phrase "Mitakuye Oyasin" which means 'We are all related,' defeats this notion in my mind. One elder explained to me that a decade ago he would have never considered teaching anybody outside the tribe the spiritual tenets of their culture, but unfortunately the youth in the rez are rejecting it in favor of mainstream American pop culture crap. So he simply admitted in a grieving tone that he is now reaching out to anyone willing to learn the history, customs, traditions of the Lakota people.
  • slave January 2012 +1 -1 (+1 / -0 )
    The "native" is not in blood, rather in the lifestyle. With capitalism having decimated the "natives" lifestyle (many of who were hunters and gatherers) and at best restricting them to a reservation, the killed the "native" in them. The remaining blood, languages, traditions, relics, etc. was only a matter of time. All because "economics" (fundamentally rooted in ownership, the basis of other economic aspects such as lifestyle) is the infrastructure. Politics, culture, spirituality, morality, ideology, etc. (i.e., the superstructure) crumbles when the infrastructure is undermined. This is a basic demonstration of the validity of "dialectic materialism". Economics supports the material basis of our existence; how else we identify ourselves (based on the elements of the superstructure) is dialectically related to the structure of economics - i.e., the economic system.

    To build a new society we must pay the highest attention to its foundation i.e., the economic system. If we just try to build a new political structure (or culture, or spirituality / morality / ideology, i.e., a new superstructure) without an alternative sustainable economic system, we will end up building a dream / a sandcastle at best. The old system (i.e., capitalism) with its infrastructure and superstructure will remain by default (experience of the '60's is another example).

    http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/category/speeches/

    In this regard, OWS faces a very important tactical and strategic decision at this point.
  • SeaSea January 2012 +1 -1
    What decision would this be?
  • slave January 2012 +1 -1
    The decision to whether address the root cause of the problem in its most fundamental element: that is the issue of PRIVATE OWNERSHIP especially that of the means of production [e.g., land, factories, machinery and technology, raw materials, transportation routes, etc.] and the necessity for its abolishment and replacement by COMMON OWNERSHIP.

    In other words, strategically OWS has to decide quickly not just that the problem is the economic system of capitalism itself, and that it has to be anti-capitalist, but more deeply define more concretely what "anti-capitalist" means in our days by addressing the core element of its exploitative and destructive nature, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. It has to then offer TACTICAL ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS highlighting this issue by experimentally establishing COMMON OWNERSHIP projects of alternative cooperative work and living (i.e., "communal networks", "federation of worker's councils", etc.).

    It must then be understood that the superstructure tasks of alternative politics (e.g., "direct democracy", "participatory democracy", "voluntary horizontal associations", etc.), culture (e.g., "collective arts and music", "dialectic learning and aesthetics", etc.), spirituality (e.g., depersonalization, demystification, collectivization of spirituality, etc.), morality (contextualization of morality, etc.), ideology ("dialectic materialism"), etc. can only take a more definite and functional meaning by being developed within the context of a practical / functioning alternative economic system. Here, such superstructure elements could be dynamically altered / refashioned to support the new economic infrastructure which in turn would promote the superstructure elements in a feedback loop - creating a functional coherent system.

    The above steps are necessary to meaningfully advance the movement i.e., towards full global economic (and other) emancipation. However, it would also result in a decisive "split" which by itself would not be necessarily a bad thing. However, I do believe that it may be premature at this point, especially because most folks (especially among the working class) are not familiar with the above concepts. So a period of "political education" is necessary. But here again I am not talking about the conventional "political education" where we would just deliver lectures / sermons and argue. I suggest an experimental and experiential education focused on the economic futures of the new economic system (i.e., common ownership, cooperative production, common exchange and distribution base on need and ability to produce) as a hands on learning method for an alternative to capitalism. Specifically, this requires a growing depth in relationships among members united by free association rooted in the alternative economic practices. For example, with respect to common ownership, activists should make any purchases and sales as a group / equitably i.e., with no one taking sole or divided possession. Any available life resources (e.g., labor, skills, tools, food, shelter, energy, health, etc.) should be brought to the table equitably and enjoyed collectively. By cutting away the middleman capitalist parasitical profits including insurance / rent / interest / taxes and waste the non-stolen labor is then used as life energy sustaining these "free experimental associations". With respect to cooperation, the members can then bring in their collective knowledge / experience / insight as well as seek outside engagement to collectively research and implement ways to increase productivity / reduce waste especially with increased and improved use of "science and technology". The fruits of this labor could then be shared equitably based on "need" and "ability to produce" necessitating a long-term commitment / "investment" and considering the vicissitudes of life that afflicts us all sooner or later. This model removes anonymity, provides transparency and equitable empowerment that are the necessary ingredients for a functional responsible engagement of its members conducive to sustainable improvement in growth and productivity.

    So what I am referring to above means that there has to be some meaningful understanding especially in a practical level via economically based experiments to demonstrate the possibility and viability of an alternative economic system, since being "anti-capitalist" is of no practical value unless one has a practical alternative. The means by which we organize in the movement represent in a microcosm the goals we consciously or subconsciously attempt to achieve (via the "dialectic materialist" relationship) and the above example I proposed is an example of that. Once an alternative is generally understood (i.e., by a significant minority) in practical terms, then a split would become not only desirable but necessary to advance the movement. For now, OWS may enter into a period of apparent stagnation, but providing a necessary "public space" for broadening the extent of the wider working class awareness especially with respect to the issue of "class consciousness" / "class struggle" / "class war", while at a more qualitative level it provides an opportunity for differing ideas to intermingle / influence each other in social "competition" proving their relevance and appropriateness for the major challenges of the movement. While some elements of the movement will grow stale, others will use the opportunity to lay the foundations for the next bigger move in the movement.
  • SeaSea January 2012 +1 -1 (+1 / -0 )
    If I may paraphrase you, "Its necessary to make a radical economic switch. The movement knows this while it hasn't thought through the details." This is an interesting economic topic I'd like to learn more about by talking to you.

    I've thought of a way around the problem of either stagnation or dividing the movement. Its to focus on two words: Greed and Jobs. My plan is to simplify reducing corporate greed, at the same time we accelerate creating jobs. I will try to speak of it without the various ideological labels and common political science conceptions.

    We'd adopt a goal to create Food Security that is internationally cross-culturally and diversely understood and believed possible. This without referring to left right or center, East or West, developing nation or developed nation, rich or poor people, etc. This would amount to seizing control over the distribution of all food through the United Nations.

    We'd explain that this would amount a moral and ethical choice the whole world makes now because it is the single most powerful and effective step to achieve the goal.

    I argue that if "done right" the world would be behind us and we can prevent preemptive strikes against us by suing in the Hague for a massive legal Injunction to prevent interference. See postings in The Big Ideas.
  • slave January 2012 +1 -1
    You indicated you distilled paraphrase of my statements: "Its necessary to make a radical economic switch. The movement knows this while it hasn't thought through the details." I suppose you may put it that way but what happened to "the devil is in the details"?

    The whole point of my discussion was to show that without economic power you can forget about any other power. By oversimplifying the statements it seems that you missed the whole point.

    There is a reason for "ideological labels" and "common political science conceptions". You may debate their construct, content, relevance but you cannot simply ignore them if you are serious about understanding the nature of entities by a "scientific approach".

    You think you have a plan. There have been literally millions of such plans as yours. They are all based on intentions, and deny the power structure. You cannot conjure up some kind of flying machine without factoring in gravity. You must have seen all those old comical and simultaneously painful flying attempt movies. It may be instructive to learn how the Wright Brothers did it and succeed. Then you may better appreciate what I was trying to communicate.

    "We'd adopt a goal to create Food Security that is internationally cross-culturally and diversely understood and believed possible. This without referring to left right or center, East or West, developing nation or developed nation, rich or poor people, etc." "United Nations...moral and ethical choice..."done right"..."suing in the Hague for a massive legal injunction..."

    Denying gravity won't make it go away. Know and understand the source and nature of power before you decide to tackle it. "If you play with fire, you get burned".
  • SeaSea January 2012 +1 -1
    Slave. Forgive me for trying to simplify your argument Your points are correct. I'm trying to discuss food capital along with possible Occupy actions. I think capital is different from "capitalism" and it precedes money. I think hoarding is an important point because it stops the flow of capital. If you hoard food it usually rots. By making money instead of growing food, we encourage hoarding. We should all be farmers. As we move sort of this way, trying to provide food security might be a way of having the economic power you say we need.

    You said we need economic power but presumably my plan didn't suggest that. Maybe it would grasp a very large part of economic power, which would be food. Perhaps you meant we need a lot of money to get started. I suggest that Occupy has captured the imagination of the world like never before. So I see money coming in once we provably show that we can lead, mean to lead, and will achieve something remarkable. I also theorize that Native Americans and other indigenous people will play an important part in this plan.

    I'm posting on this subject in the categories THE BIG IDEAS on "Food Security", and in EVENT PROPOSALS on "Occupy the UN" and "International GA". I'm trying to limit my posts to an economic solution by providing food security which, I argue, only Occupy can do.
  • SeaSea January 2012 +1 -1 (+1 / -0 )
    I was attracted to this discussion because of the title, and economics was being discussed. The word economy has very big meanings. What Native Americans were sitting on when Europe arrived was very big, with many big dimensions. The whole world today still "Wants to be Indian", if that means have the prosperity here. To the strict extent that I bring "spiritual" ideas per se in to my writing, I foresee Occupy's destiny is to reconcile our genocide of América del Norte with common morality, by providing an ethical center through food security using foods that indigenous people developed which we have appropriated.

    *p96 III

    The ethical center through food security already intimately involves Native Americans and other indigenous people since we eat the food they developed. I am trying to theorize that involvement goes further. According to the history I have learned which I call HSRS — standing for History/memory, Science/learning, Religion/belief System — people can be divided into two major classes indicating whether they are the leaver/sojourner or the taker/invader. The two correspond to a stronger woman influence or a stronger patriarchal influence, respectively. I do not refer to the strong woman influence as matriarchal because such a designation does not come from indigenous people. I do refer to its counter-part as patriarchal, because that is indeed what GRA heritage people say themselves. GRA stands for Greco-Roman-Abrahamic. The leaver sojourner is closer to a buddhist ethic, the ethic which I theorize Occupy will have to exemplify if it is to succeed. Its similar to the romanticized "close to nature" ethic attributed to indigenous people. I don't use the term human because it too is a GRA invention. The indigenous approach is more Earthy, thus it is more capable of taking care of Earth with its TEK, than is the "heavenly" GRA WMS approach. TEK is "traditional ecological knowledge" and WMS is "western modern science." See the discussion "How to Disagree".
  • SeaSea January 2012 +1 -1
    I came to occupytogether assuming it represented a broad swathe of the ideas of the Occupy movement. The Green Party did not have such a forum for discussion. In my opinion they were limited by tight top down patriarchal control even though they ran female and even American Indian candidates. They may have helped us get here however. I think Occupy is still patriarchal, but not top down. I had determined that Native Americans were neither top down nor patriarchal. So, although I have to use WMS ideas since it is the language of the invading EuroAmericans, I want to find TEK in an Occupy discussion.

    One of @Slaves original statements was that I might be over-looking private property as the culprit, as though I thought I had a scheme, but not a good one since it would leave in place private property. He suggested (and I think correctly) that ignoring private property was to ignore gravity or fire (ignoring physics). Please don't think I mean to suggest how strict Slave is regarding how private property exists or whether it should exist. :) I only mean that TEK and Native Americans, as exhibited by their (4DQ) and (AMR) variables, which correspond respectively to Newton's ** M and A variables, and Marx's S and V — see P 304 in the Intl Publishers ed and P 332 in the Modern Library ed of Marx's "Capital" — variables, are variables which can be used to distribute property fairly. I call them the fair feeding variables. So whereas excessive private property is a problem, fair private consumption of food might be a solution.

    I'm suggesting that Native American TEK teaches this. And I'm not trying to romanticize about an ideal Native American society. Simply that their knowledge, including their knowledge of physics, might help Occupy balance how we've been force fed WMS knowledge. See F. David Peat's "Blackfoot Physics". I'm arguing that TEK and WMS are both "provable" by the conventions of HSRS, and that we might need both, to solve our problems. HSRS is merely a holistic conception of history, perceived as a system.

    ** They correspond when you divide M by A, whereas Newton multiplied M times A. His M stands for food, and his A stands for people who are fed in a feeding physics. See discussion "How to Disagree".
  • slave January 2012 +1 -1
    I am sorry @Sea but I often get lost when I read your writings, and suspect others may have the same perception. I suggest that you pay serious attention by the way you try to communicate ideas. After all good ideas are no good if they cannot be well communicated and remain sequestered. That is why I have suggested some rules of communication based on "universally" accepted values detailed in the rules and tools of "critical thinking" discussion thread http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/2189/rules-and-tools-of-critical-thinking#Item_8

    For example, if you consider these criteria extracted from the site:

    Intellectual Standards (Universal Attributes) to assess Thinking

    - CLARITY (ask at least three basic questions for clarification: seek Elaboration, Illustration [e.g., picture, metaphore], Example [the best means for concrete expressions e.g., in a particular / specific context],
    - PRECISION (Detail and Specificity appropriate to the context)
    - ACCURACY
    - RELEVANCE
    - DEPTH
    - BREADTH
    - LOGIC / POINT OF VIEW
    - SIGNIFICANCE
    All the above should be appropriate to the context.

    and apply them to your writing I hope you can see how it can be further improved to communicate.

    For example, you use ideas like "patriarchy", WMS vs. TEK, private property, Marx and Newton's variables, food security, etc. that do not seem to be coherently related. I suggest you start with one central idea, apply the above "Intellectual Standards" to explain it so it is well understood, and then branch off to the other ideas similarly showing the coherence and the "evidence" (rather than the "claims") that would support your assertions. Good writing is about clear thinking.
  • SeaSea January 2012 +1 -1
    @Slave.
    Thanks for the suggestions. I guess I need a lot of help. :)
    I thought suggesting a winning strategy would be clear. Is it not clear that we can win? Or that the breadth and scope of a victory is too vague? Should we not try to "win" but merely try to make things better? What If I started saying, in order achieve our goals, I suggest a strategy of feeding people, and that might involve the ideas of Marx. What about that I'm in Sacramento which could be considered the food capitol of the world, and is very influential? Am I wrong to talk about physics and include mental/emotional and spiritual parts of it? Are merely using any mathematical/logical variables too obtuse.? Any specific suggestions you have I will try to use.
  • slave January 2012 +1 -1
    @Sea, I do not want to be too suggestive. I can only tell you my impression. I believe you should try to elaborate a central concept (if there is one) as clearly and precisely as you can (along with the other criteria listed above) and then show how the other ideas follow from that or are related to that.

    This resource is somewhat dated and not exactly related, but might help.
    http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/marxism-and-indigenous-strugglesspeech-to-sacramento-marxist-school-november-21-2002/
  • SeaSea January 2012 +1 -1
    @Slave.
    I am trying to use your suggestions for

    CLARITY, PRECISION, ACCURACY, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, LOGIC / POINT OF VIEW, and SIGNIFICANCE.

    The central concept is for Occupy to lead the world. Its desires are sound but it lacks a plan to defeat the legions of ideas and interests and forces that block it. Social forces that have come to be over the centuries that are arrayed against us. I will continue to try to clarify the ideas I said, which you quoted, and which you said aren't coherently related — "patriarchy", WMS vs. TEK, private property, Marx and Newton's variables, food security. I thought they were coherently related because they all pertain to either economic understanding, political action, or useful basic knowledge. I seem them as knowledge building blocks to build a foundation upon which to base each and every policy decision. And I thought that by advocating only one policy (feeding everyone), that that would be coherent. :)

    Patriarchy is a distillation of woman's knowledge which was suppressed for thousands of years. WMS and TEK are two very different scientific views of the world, but which are both active today. WMS has led to environmental destruction and TEK promises to lead to the opposite. Private property has to do with greed and Karl Marx did important work with the ideas. Newton's variables are distilled logic that is applied everywhere. Food security seems like a very ethical approach to gaining the support of the world, to do something that would improve all the world, and yet wouldn't be a plan to take over the details of people's lives. It would merely to prevent hoarders from being able to prevent people from eating. By calling it physics with mental/emotional and spiritual dimensions, its a consilience of knowledge. Something all particpants in the United Nations can agree on.

    — é ÷ × —
  • SeaSea February 2012 +1 -1
    The United Nations is dominated by the USA, but that doesn't make it bad. Russia and China might be seen as just power-playing members of the Security Council. And if Congress is out of touch then certainly the U.N. is out of touch. If Occupy doesn't look carefully at what the U.N. is and what it does, we may end up as irrelevant as the Green Party, even though we capture headlines. If the headlines don't show the wisdom of what we doing, they've gotten us nothing.
  • SeaSea February 2012 +1 -1
    What is the wisdom of what we are doing? And what would make the world take notice?

    I'd like to mention what the scholarly world took notice of some few hundred years ago. And I'd like to mention what wisdom or its lack was demonatrated at that time by today's USA superpower and its European allies. Maybe that would provide a context for being wise today and being noticed and thereby having Occupy make a difference, in the USA and worldwide. But before I embark on those two points I'd like to note that I think the power to change things, to really change things, to bring about a non-violent revolution where the world's govts and police forces and armies and the financial institutiions are our partners in doing it, that power resides in the USA. And my writing will try to show that the wisdom resides here also. Having said that though, I don't think we should ignore the wisdom and power in other lands. Only that our economic fortune allows us to do certain things. And as for wisdom, that resides in many places. So on that point we aren't any more wise. However our civil liberties may allow us more freedom of action to act wisely, and to make our actions very effective.

    I referred to the scholarly world above because politicians and armies use scholars. They formulate propaganda in favor of their policies by using the best quotes and reports of scholarly work, by appropriating scientific knowledge and technology, and in the case of the ancient Romans, by attempting to steal the Greek mathematician Archimedes. I say we must work through the United Nations. Well the knowledge we must use must be superior to the knowledge the United Nations depends on today. And a few hundred years ago, Newton, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Marx, developed ideas which are still percolating and transforming our world today. These ideas are still being transformed. Occupy must be at the lead in this work.

    So making our wisdom known to the world on behalf of all people's common need to eat — please note in other discussions on this BB. the various points I've made about a feeding physics and how our strategy should be to literally feed everyone — is what I am urging Occupy to do. I am saying that things happened a few hundred years ago that spill over in to today which are active political currents in the USA that can be applied to today's problems. Learning from the past, and learning from the present.

    I doubt if many Occupiers would discount the hungry masses, food riots, future wars fought over food and water — as today we fight over oil. So although there are a host of issues that we can focus on, its at least plausible that we'd decide to focus on food. I write from Sacramento the food capital of the world. Here we have an ECO-OCCUPY.COM, "OSWGWHE" Occupy Sacramento Working Group on Workers Health and the Environment" which is about stopping corporate practices that prevent people from putting healthy food on the table. Email OSWGWHE@GMAIL.COM.

    Well a few hundred years ago, today's USA set out towards world domination, just as Marx was writing and as the USA started by genociding premier food providing Native Americans. Thus it is that I see historical contexts that cause food shortages that relate directly to here and now strategies to ending the shortage. And I think this is something Occupy should focus on. An international political party keyed to the United Nations could effect this.
  • slave February 2012 +1 -1
    How could United Nations help "the food crisis" when they are at least partly responsible for creating it?

    Why do you keep pretending "Native Americans" are any "better" people, when many among them once the opportunity presented itself became as exploitative as any "white" etc. counterparts (e.g., running casinos, helping to exploit other "Native Americans" in the reservations and beyond)?

    Shouldn't we be seeing a great distribution of the newly found "casino wealth" / etc. among the "Native Americans" if this concept of "Native American" had any validity?

    Why do you keep citing Marx as support, while he clearly opposed defining populations based on "ethnocentric" / "national" / etc. superficial (i.e., non-economic class) notions (e.g., "Native American") despite the socioeconomic prejudices that superficially enforced such groupings?

    What does Newton (and his second "law" where m=mass, a=acceleration, f(force) =m x a) have to do with any of this?
  • SeaSea February 2012 +1 -1
    Slave,
    Wow, you ask tough questions. I tired of answering them before as with Ira's questions. However I will try to answer these questions, though I do so with trepidation.

    How do you support your statements about Marx any better than I do? I have cited page and chapter from Das Kapital. However Marx is very deep involved and historical and people today are used to more palatable ways of dealing with ideas. Ideas which, however palatable they may be rendered, still result in violent confrontations with the police. I am carefully explaining how to do a revolution with the police and armies and govts on our side. It may be that you insist on a "class" interpretation of Marx which, though very common, isn't the only interpretation possible. I interpret him as a physicist, I wish you'd cite something from Marx himself to support your statements. Then I could answer more directly.

    Newton's f = ma, and Marx's S=(s/v) x V — see citation above —, and my f = m/a, use equivalent logical math to arrive at very similar conclusions. The only difference is that Newton's describes how to use force without conditioning it by first feeding people. Mine and Marx's describe how to use feeding to condition how force effects people. I call Marx's s and v the fair feeding variables. This is the logic I've devised which labels Marx as the world's greatest physicist, a physicist of and for people, not of and for mindless capitalist machinations.

    If you or no one on this Occupy BB is concerned with how Native Americans have been treated — whose treatment prevented them from taking care of this land (essentially prevented them from continuing to increase its fertility as they have done for thousands of years while EuroAmericans continue to use "salt the earth" tactics) and feeding everyone, and whose treatment by the USA thus set up the problems we are trying to fix now (have you ever heard of "The Great Law of Peace")—, then that is a great shame. I suspect it may be so. I suspect that Occupy may never achieve its goals. However I respect what Occupy is trying to do and so I offer my ideas because being rejected by Occupy is more worthy than being rejected by the establishment scientific community.

    I believe I have put forth important serious stuff. And so if you simply don't get it, why don't you make citations regarding Marx like I do? And also, why don't you acknowledge that you've read the other postings I've made here on this same subject in the discussions: "How to Disagree", "Ethical Center ...", "Evolution of Capitalism", "Global Debt Jubilee", "It Has to Start Somehere", "Strategy Labor and Environment", "Women and Physics", "The Uses of Feminist and Womanist Theory", "Feeding Physics", "Has Occupy Hit a Wall".

    I suspect you and I will never agree. I consider Marx a physicist and have explained that at some length in the above posts. Could you explain how your idea of Marx is different in relation to what I have said? Then maybe answering your questions would make more sense. Incidentally, you criticize my communication or writing style. How does your use of constant quotation marks " ......" and constant slashes .... / ...., actually help yours?

    Newton's Second Law has everthing to do with this because I am a scientist — and I've explained what I mean by science in the above posts. Search on the key HSRS.

    Marx and Weber are considered the "greatest" sociologists. And those who swear by that idea seem to ignore Mary Wolstonecraft, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Simone de Beauvoir, Sandra Harding, Gerda Lerner, and other women, not to mention Black women like Maya Agelou or Bell Hooks, etc. And not to mention poor working men and women of whatever description.

    Look for "Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory, by Catharine A MacKinnon. http://blogs.vassar.edu/smashinghistory/files/2011/10/MArxismMethod-and-the-State-MAckinnon.pdf

    Marx didn't really cover women. Whereas, perhaps all people and certainly Occupiers are sociologists of a sort, and certainly you and I are, people seem to think that physics is different. I'm trying to explain that sociology and all knowledge is a subfield of physics, once women are taken in to account, and once Newton's quintessential logic is changed from explaining raw violent force, in to explaining people's need to feed eachother. Consider carefuly how I've said that "physics is the study of physicality, a physicality that has physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual dimensions."
    I wish you well, Sea
    — é ÷ × —
  • slave February 2012 +1 -1
    Now you start exposing your weaknesses by starting to attack me "If you or no one on this Occupy BB is concerned with how Native Americans have been treated...", "How does your use of constant quotation marks " ......" and constant slashes .... / ...., actually help yours?" etc.

    Instead of answering my very direct questions, you skirt around them. At first I thought it was because you did not understand them, and you some difficulty with English comprehension / communication but now I see that is not the issue. You are prejudiced and happy with your long-reached conclusions which though may satisfy your intellectual appetite, do absolutely nothing to describe the reality, not to mention change it.

    Your approach / thought process is "tangential", i.e., it barely touches the surface of the issues, and that is why I advised you to consider the deeper issues. I am sorry that you are not up to it.

    "How do you support your statements about Marx any better than I do?" I am not a "Marxist" but I have read Marx more thoroughly and tried to understand him more than most who claim to know and understand him not to mention calling themselves "Marxist". If you claim to know something about someone, you better show the evidence.

    "It may be that you insist on a "class" interpretation of Marx which, though very common, isn't the only interpretation possible." Do you think anybody who even has a superficial understanding of Marx can take this seriously??
    "Hitherto, every form of society has been based ... on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes." (Marx, Communist Manifesto)

    "Newton's f = ma, and Marx's S=(s/v) x V — see citation above —, and my f = m/a, use equivalent logical math to arrive at very similar conclusions..." Your conclusions about the relationship of these equations to your vague "feeding" agenda is absurd. I tried to understand you at first thinking I was missing something, and then tried to help you understand the vagueness of these and explain them better, but now conclude that they are simply absurd and based on your extremely superficial logical processing of information (i.e., "tangentiality").

    "If you or no one on this Occupy BB is concerned with how Native Americans have been treated..." Stop hiding behind your ethnocentric heritage. I have seen enough butchers of all "ethnic origins", "nationality", "race", "sex", "religion", "politics", "ideologic pretense", etc. etc. to fall for your "Native American" trap / crap. Didn't Obama teach you / us something? Or do you expect others not to have learned that lesson too?

    "I believe I have put forth important serious stuff..." I do not criticize you based on your initial opinions / positions (everyone has to start somewhere); rather, but based on your refusal to improve your communication and improve, advance, or reconsider / change your underlying assumptions and / or validity or relevance / significance of your ideas and proposals. You have kept missing the fundamental issues at the heart of the crisis that we face. You can address many symptoms in a dying patient but miss the one disease at the heart of it all.

    "Incidentally, you criticize my communication or writing style. How does your use of constant quotation marks " ......" and constant slashes .... / ...., actually help yours?"
    My criticism is based on the content of your opinions, the false assumptions, and their superficial / tangential interrelationship. This is different than your criticizing your writing style. As for the frequent use of "..." quotation marks in my writing, I do very intently (i.e., it is not a quirk). It is meant to express the dual (or sometimes) multiple meaning of terms I use, asking the reader to become conscious of the real meaning of the term I use by examining the CONTEXT. It points out to the corruption in the language due to very many arbitrary ways of using words which makes communication difficult, therefore social change difficult, and so the status quo very happy. When you do not use the quotation marks you are assuming that the reader understands the term as you do, i.e., not having them question your usage in the specific context which should then be followed or have been preceded by clear and specific explanation. This is the work you have to do when you want to build something (i.e., something of social value, constructively) rather than just expressing yourself. As for the slashes ... / ... it is an effective means of expressive two or more interrelated concepts, which is unavoidable and especially useful when discussing issues that may be more easily misunderstood and for situations attempting to increase depth and broadth of discussion by pointing to interrelated subjects. Again, the essential quality of the discussion should be first based on the actual content of the information being communicated. The format / syntax of the writing / communication is of secondary priority and should be assessed based on the CONTEXT of the specific topic / communication and even the audience.

    "Newton's Second Law has everthing to do with this because I am a scientist — and I've explained what I mean by science in the above posts."
    You cannot define "science" / "scientist" any which way you want, especially if it shows no improved insight / relevance to reality - i.e., another abuse of language. Again you help the antisocial construct of the status quo if you don't help to improve it, especially as it relates to reality.

    "Marx didn't really cover women. Whereas, perhaps all people and certainly Occupiers are sociologists of a sort, and certainly you and I are, people seem to think that physics is different. I'm trying to explain that sociology and all knowledge is a subfield of physics, once women are taken in to account, and once Newton's quintessential logic is changed from explaining raw violent force, in to explaining people's need to feed eachother. Consider carefuly how I've said that "physics is the study of physicality, a physicality that has physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual dimensions."
    I do not understand how Marx's ideas on women have anything to do with the rest of the paragraph - i.e., grouping error, which can lead to confusion unless you clearly and specifically establish the relationship, preferably directly. The rest of the paragraph sounds absurd and incomprehensible despite you having repeated this many times previously. Don't expect repetition to influence many here when you and the clarity of your thought and your intentions are being judged by the "rules of critical thinking" which I have pointed out to you previously.

    I hope you change your ways and become more constructive and thus productive for the movement. With our "freedom of our expression" and our "demands to be heard" by each other comes a responsibility, that of "social constructiveness". We have serious life-threatening issues to attend to and build around, if we cannot prove value in this critical context, we cannot expect much attention. We must do our best to grow, ask for help to grow collectively when we need to acquire additional skills and experience, and help others how show aptitude and social responsibility to grow, growing the movement collectively and constructively.