The problem is that I don't see these theories as science and I suppose that I
could explain why and then you could try to explain why you think that I'm
wrong. But I suspect that, that would be a fruitless discussion. That would be
like any debate between two people with differing points of view. Each person
is sure that if the other person truly understood what he was saying, then that
other person would agree. So let's respect each other's differences and honest
motivations and leave it at that.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 9:00 PM
To: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-july/
The value judgement is not determined by science. You are correct that the
values do not come from science and that they reflect a particular
philosophical position. Science makes no judgements and has no values.
The values come from secular humanism. What makes it scientific is that science
is used to promote the values. That is, if we want a society based on humanist
values then how can we most efficiently bring that society into being or at
least come as close as possible to it? By observing the real world as it really
is and applying scientifically determined manipulations to it. The science
could just as easily be used to advance some other philosophy. You could apply
science to an effort to bring back a slave society. The science wouldn't care.
You could even use science to promote religion, but that would be rather
difficult because a scientific view of the world is so anathema to religion.
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all
decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this
sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running
for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from
within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation,
thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this
very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the
natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons
and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people
are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find
any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has
precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
On 7/8/2020 9:32 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
I understand the framework through which you view reality. You have described
it before and you are explaining it again.
Yesterday, I read what you wrote about the stages of human development. I
noted, in particular, something about slavery was an advancement over
barbarism. When a view of history proclaims one stage of human development to
be an advancement over another, to me that means that value judgments are
part of the theory. One can call the theory scientific, but what it actually
is, is a philosophical theory. Like many other theories, much of it reflects
reality from a particular point of view.
For many many years, you have been involved with what you call, "Scientific
Socialism". It influences how you think and how you see the world. I have no
reason to quarrel with that, just like I have no reason to quarrel with
people whose lives are guided by other philosophies or theories of religion,
from changing how they see the world. Each of us has our own way of being. no
one has the right to interfere. The only time there is an issue is when
someone assumes that it is his obligation to change another person's basic
belief system or intellectual identity.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-jul
y/
Again, science is fundamentally just the acceptance of reality. Reality is
not determined by faith. Reality is not determined by what we want to be
true. Reality is not determined by some ancient book that made proclamations.
Reality is going to be reality no matter what we believe it is and no matter
how we want it to be. Reality is completely indifferent to any made up system
of philosophy. The way to determine what reality is is by observing and
trying out manipulations of it to see what happens. If something happens that
you don't want to happen then you may be disappointed, but that does not give
you the right to claim that it didn't happen. Again, socialism is a certain
social and economic order. Communism is a certain social and economic order.
Such orders of society and economics are not determined to be true by
observing reality or by anything else. Again, socialism is determined to be a
desirable state of being through the philosophy of secular humanism. What
makes scientific socialism scientific is that scientific principles are
applied to the reality around us with the goal of bringing the state of
socialism into being. Again, that is, the actual real world is observed and
theories are developed that will predict what manipulations of the real world
will bring us closer to the desired situation that has been named socialism.
Those theories are applied and the results are examined to determine what
went right and what went wrong and why. Based on that observation new
theories are developed and applied. This is not related to religious
doctrine. It does not prescribe a certain way of doing things that must be
applied at all times. It does not proclaim any absolute truth. As for
historical materialism, that is a kind of retroactive experiment. That is,
the study of history is another way to observe reality. We can look at
situations in the past and look at what actions were applied to those
situations and what the results were. That way we learn that there have been
distinct stages in human history and we can analyze how they came into being
and why. History is also a matter of reality. History happened the way it
happened and no amount of wishing it had happened a different way is going to
change that and anyone who claims that it happened in a different way than it
happened is simply wrong just like anyone who rejects biological evolution
and claims that an invisible man with magical powers who lives in the sky
just created it all is simply wrong.
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all
decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this
sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running
for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from
within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation,
thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this
very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the
natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of
electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication,
some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and
you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that
we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at
bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless
indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
On 7/7/2020 4:00 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Let me try to respond without getting into a debate, without ruffling any
feathers.
I get that the theory you are talking about is called Scientific Socialism.
That's its name. Its adherents believe that it is scientific. It is a
particular frame of reference through which to view history and often, many
historical phenomena appear to fit neatly within it.
Now here I am, an outside observer. I've read a lot of different ways of
viewing history, of analyzing human behavior, some of them historical, some
sociological, some psychological, and some religious. Many of them claim to
be all encompassing frameworks. Each of them, at one time or another, has
seemed to describe reality in an accurate manner.
I have also encountered people who have chosen one particular intellectual
or religious framework through which to view reality. To each person, his or
her way of understanding the world, is the correct way and he or she is
confident that the evidence that this is true, is obvious. On this list, I
encountered Mustafa and he is tireless in his attempts to convince us that
his particular brand of Islam is the correct and proper way to view the
world and order our lives. While on my trip to Kenya in 1986, I encountered
an Evangelical Christian couple who were members of our tour group. They
were very kind people, and they were particularly helpful to me from time to
time. Because of their concern for me, they felt impelled to talk with me
about my future and the welfare of my soul. Remember that rabbi I told you
about? Before the final incident regarding the Hanukah party, there was a
weekend retreat for women who were members of Hillel Houses from several
colleges in the area. The rabbis from all of the four houses participated.
They represented different branches of Judaism. One of them was ultra
Orthodox. The rabbi from my Hillel House tried to encourage every Jewish
person to strongly identify with the Jewish people and his aim was to be
inclusive. But the Orthodox rabbi was very different. I remember him talking
with a group of us one evening before bedtime, asking each of us about our
personal lives and practices. His response to my answers was, "You're not
even Jewish".
So I've encountered several men who are strong adherents to various belief
systems, who believe that these systems represent the true reality, and that
it would be better for me if I would accept that particular system. One is
Islam. One is Evangelical Christianity. One is Reconstructionist Judaism.
One is Orthodox Judaism, and then there is Scientific Socialism. The last
system differs in that it does not include a belief in God or require
religious practices. But it does require strict adherence to a specific way
of viewing human history and analyzing human behavior and it requires strict
party discipline.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 2:02 PM
To: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-ju
l
y/
Well, if you distrust rigid belief systems you really should take up
scientific thinking. In science all beliefs are tentative pending incoming
evidence.
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all
decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this
sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are
running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being
devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying
of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time
of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the
population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In
a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to
get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect
if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but
pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
On 7/7/2020 9:19 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I guess I will just stumble along with my strong adherence to humanist
values and my distrust of rigid belief systems.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 9:50 PM
To: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-j
u
l
y/
Well, let me assure you that scientific socialists have always defended any
historical movement that has moved humanity along toward ultimate
liberation wherever that ultimate is. That means that scientific socialists
defend not only the American revolution, but also every other bourgeois
revolution. It is a defense of the transition from feudalism to capitalism
and as much as we are opposed to capitalism in the current historical stage
it was still a progressive movement when it originated.
We also defend the transformation of slavery to feudalism, the
transformation from barbarism to slavery and the transformation of savagery
to barbarism. Given the social and economic relations at the time of their
inception all of these systems were progressive in their historical
contexts. As for not having a framework, I would suggest that you need one.
I really think it should be the scientific framework because science, at
its most basic, is simply the recognition of reality. It does not always
give you the truth. That is because there are just too many factors to
consider that the human brain cannot wrap itself around all of them.
However, all philosophical idealist frameworks in some way deny reality. A
scientific framework will get you closer to the truth than any other
framework. If you go without a framework and just pick and choose any stray
idea that might come your way without their necessarily even being related,
without a theoretical framework through to evaluate them, you have no built
in bullshit detector. But, at least, don't be surprised when socialists
defend a revolutionary movement in its historical context.
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all
decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this
sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are
running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being
devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying
of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time
of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the
population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In
a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and
genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are
going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we
should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no
good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
On 7/6/2020 3:38 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger, You're correct. I don't read socialist analysis and I don't see the
world or history through that lens. I guess you could say that I'm
eclectic. I see things through different frames of reference. I've
described myself many times as rebellious.
I know that you're not going to appreciate this analogy, but perhaps Carl
will. When I was in college, for a period of time, I used to go to
activities and classes at the Hillel Foundation. I guess that I was still
identifying as Jewish, sort of, and I liked the rabbi. He was part of a
particular branch of Judaism a division of the Conservative branch of
Judaism called Reconstructionist, and I thought the ideas were intriguing.
So I went to classes and I read the book by the founder of
Reconstructionism. The point of Reconstructionism was that Jews would
always be despised by non Jews and they would always be in danger. Jewish
religious ceremonies and symbols had little to do with God. God was the
goodness and health and each individual. However, since the rest of the
world would see the Jewish people as separate, it was our responsibility
as part of the Jewish people to make Jewish identity a positive and
meaningful experience and to hold our way of life up to the world as an
illustration that no one, not the Nazis or anyone else could destroy us.
That all sounded really intriguing to me, at least in theory. The problem
was that Rabbi Kraft expected us to put the theory into practice. But on
the Wednesday afternoon during the free hour that the college set aside
for extra curricular activities when Hillel was having its Hanukah party,
the Anthropology/Sociology Club was having a talk about India in which I
was interested so I chose to attend the talk. The next time Rabbi Kraft
saw me at Hillel, he took me aside to ask why I hadn't been at the Hanukah
party. When I explained why, he scolded me, reminding me of my duty as a
Jew to celebrate the religious holidays of my people. That was the last
time I was ever at Hillel House.
I had similar difficulties accepting all of the tenets of psychoanalytic
theory when I attended social work school. Some of it battled with my
beliefs about the equality of the sexes. But some of it seems helpful. So
I'm not disciplined enough to study and accept orthodox socialist theory.
Miriam
u-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 3:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-
j
u
l
y/
The American revolution was most certainly a bourgeois revolution and it
was conducted for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. At the time the
bourgeoisie was a revolutionary class even if it was in the late stages of
ridding the world of the last vestiges of feudalism. As such the American
revolution along with the other bourgeois revolutions was a progressive
step forward for humanity. If you are surprised that a socialist would
defend bourgeois revolutions in their historical context then, for one
thing, you do not have the vaguest idea of socialist analysis of the broad
view of historical materialism and the stages through which the class
struggle has passed over time. For another thing you apparently have never
bothered to read all the libraries full of socialist historical analysis
of the rise of slave society out of barbarism and the feudal revolutions
that led humanity forward from one oppressive class system to other less
oppressive class systems. For another thing, if you are surprised by this
then you have apparently never read Marx himself on the subject of
historical materialism. For another thing, if you are surprised by
something like this you have apparently never payed the slightest bit of
attention to much of anything I have ever posted on this list. If you
would bother to learn something about what socialists actually have to say
then you would not be so surprised when they say them. It amazes me that
socialists can be saying things for centuries and it still surprises
someone.
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all
decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this
sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are
running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being
devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are
dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is
a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in
the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is
restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical
forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in
it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose,
no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
On 7/6/2020 9:22 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Well, I am surprised that a socialist would defend a war that was fought
so that businessmen in the colonies could stop paying taxes to the king
of England. They weren't fighting for freedom. They were fighting so
they could keep all of their profits and continue slavery.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 9:52 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl Jarvis
<carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of
-
j
u
l
y/
Okay, Canada is politically not that different from the United States and
they did not have a revolutionary war. I guess I will have to say this
again. It was not the American revolutionaries who woke up one morning
and said, we are going to wage war on the British in order to get our
way. Asking if that revolutionary war was worth it when Canada wound up
in virtually the same situation is just like the question that was asked
of Trotsky about the Russian revolution. Was it worth it considering all
the lives lost and all the destruction? Trotsky said that the question
was teleological. The point is that the war was forced on the
revolutionaries. They had to fight back or end up dangling from ropes.
However, whether it was worth having a war or not independence was won.
Canada has a significant amount of de facto independence too even if it
was never officially separated from Britain, but it might never have
achieved that de facto independence if the U.S. independence had not been
achieved first. It still remains, though, that even though you may have
plenty of adventurists and terrorists scattered through history no actual
revolution has ever happened because revolutionaries went out spoiling
for a war. A revolutionary war is always a war of self defense.
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond
all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose
this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others
are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly
being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds
are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there
ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an
increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and
misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind
physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get
hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme
or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has
precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no
design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
On 7/5/2020 1:59 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well said. Of course all we can do at this late date is speculate.
Still, we have had 244 years in which we might have built a
nation that really served all the people, rather than the mostly
white, male property owners.
We listened to yesterday's Fourth of July speech this morning,
because we got up too early and needed something to warm us up.
It's not normal July weather, very wet and a bit on the chilly side.
But we're doing our part in saving the atmosphere by not burning
propane or wood. Funny thing about Donald Trump's speeches, I
used to wish that we had anyone other than George Bush II to listen to.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/5/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
I don't know how you can stand to listen to him. I can barely
tolerate hearing the short clips of what he says that are played
on podcasts. I could never sit through a whole speech.
Yesterday, I heard someone question whether or not our war of
independence was necessary in order to achieve a workable
democratic society. It was pointed out that Canada has done at
least as well as the US, perhaps even better if you look at
their medical system and their lack of a history of slavery,
than the US, without declaring their independence from Great
Britain in a revolutionary war. And I'm not convinced that our
constitution is better than most. In practice, our political and legal
system has turned out to be deeply flawed.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 12:57 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: UNAC: On This Fourth of
July,https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-
o
f
-
j
u
ly/
Richard Dawkins speaks truth...as far as we know it to be at
this present time.
I just finished listening to a speech by Donald Trump that
sounded as if it came straight out of my grade school history
book(1940-1949).
Donald Trump regaled us with stories of the four great faces
carved upon Mount Rushmore. Of course it was a Whitewash lesson
as told by a White Supremacist.
There can be no question that the Constitution was heads and
shoulders above any other documents of the day. But it did not
mean that it was cast in concrete, never to be changed. As with
any document, changing times make them obsolete, if not adjusted.
And of course, that is exactly what has happened to our Constitution.
While it might be recognized by its drafters, much of the
language in the amendments would shock some of them, and be strongly
opposed by others.
And what does it do for us to raise up those Founding Fathers as
if they were perfect men? They were men of the times they lived in.
Some believed that rank and file Americans should not be allowed to
vote.
Some who stood tall for the Rights of Independence were slave
owners, and did not include their human property in such Rights.
And some were certain that women should not concern themselves
with Men's Business, such as politics.
In 244 years from now, as folks look back on these troubled
times, how will they describe our actions?
Will we be trashed because we did not think in "modern terms"?
Let us respect our Founding Fathers as the men they were,
struggling to carve a nation out of a vast continent, beset on
one hand by an oppressive British King, and on the other hand
facing the anger of the Indigenous Occupants of the land they were
attempting to take over.
Can't we simply accept that they did what they did due to the
world as they found it? Does that make America any less desirable as a
place to live?
Does pointing out our current short comings make us any less Americans?
And by the way, just who is Donald Trump speaking for? I was
highly embarrassed by his speech. It was a political rallying
call, declaring many dedicated Americans as a threat to our
nation because we take exception to much of Donald Trump's behavior.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/5/20, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
UNAC: On This Fourth of July
https://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-j
u
l
y
/
h tt
ps://socialistaction.org/2020/07/04/unac-on-this-fourth-of-july
/
--
___
Richard Dawkins
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is
beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it
takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are
being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives,
whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from
within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying
of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there
ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically
lead to an increase in the population until the natural state
of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of
electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going
to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice.
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we
should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no
evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
