# The Rational Proof of God's Existence



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2005)

On several of the anti-Darwinist threads, I have been asked to back up my claim that God's existence can be demonstrated rationally.  To my shame, I have only responded by referring my interlocuters to Kant, Hegel or Marx.  This was necessary because my time is limited, and I thought it would be useful because I assumed that some people would already by familiar with these people's ideas.  How wrong I was!  As you might expect, this proof is rather complicated, which is why the common herd of religious believers must rest content with "faith."  But, if anyone's genuinely interested, I can take you through it in such a way that you will not only understand, but be utterly and completely convinced by.

This will be a lengthy process.  It will have to be taken step by step, and those steps will have to be little.  I will make sure that I have established each of my points before moving on to the next stage of the argument.  And of course I will have to pause periodically to kick away Gurrier, Nino Savatte and the rest of the pack of mangy curs who have nothing better to do than yap at my heels all day.  Many on these boards are fanatical anti-theists, and convincing them will not be easy.  But I shoulder the task with goodwill--someone has to do it--and it ought to be fun.  The rational proof of God's existence begins with the definitive characteristic of human society: exchange.  Yes, exchange.  The exchange, say, of a cow for a lamb.  This will eventually produce the commodity which, of which Karl Marx says:

"A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."

He was not using the words "metaphysical" and "theological" figuratively.  First, we need to agree that the exchange of a cow for a lamb involves the invention of a third factor: the concept of *value.*  The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb.  Is everyone with me so far?
Feel free to ask questions or to raise any objections at this stage, because we will not be retracing our steps as the argument progresses.


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 2, 2005)

surely proof, or even a rational demonstration, is a denial of faith, and without faith your God is nothing?


edited to add: and i look forward to being utterly convinced. bring it on..


----------



## revol68 (Sep 2, 2005)

what a pretentious muppet you are.

will this prove the existance of the flying spaghetti monster or some other heathen deity?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 2, 2005)

Are you saying that exchange is necessarily the definitive characteristic of all human societies, or just that it is so under capitalism? What about Durkheim + Mauss's contention that the gift is prior to exchange as the archetypal social interaction?


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2005)

I'll just watch for now.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> surely proof, or even a rational demonstration, is a denial of faith, and without faith your God is nothing?
> 
> 
> edited to add: and i look forward to being utterly convinced. bring it on..



Faith is what people who don't have the time or inclination to work through the rational proof must rely on.  The rational proof is very complicated, and most people simply can't be bothered to follow it.  In fact, I'm not altogether sure that *I* can be bothered, but I'll try to stick with it.  I reckon I'll limit myself to one post a day on this thread though, or it will take over my entire life.  So any objectors to what I've said so far have *one* day to raise their hands.  No going back later on.


----------



## Bonfirelight (Sep 2, 2005)

i have proof, but i'm waiting for the right time to reveal it to the world.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Are you saying that exchange is necessarily the definitive characteristic of all human societies, or just that it is so under capitalism? What about Durkheim + Mauss's contention that the gift is prior to exchange as the archetypal social interaction?



I would subsume the gift under the category of exchange, on the grounds that even a gift is made in the expectation of receiving something (prestige, affection, gratitude) in exchange.  I've already broken  my own rule, but from now on I'll just let everyone's comments pile up each day, and answer them, and hopefully advance the argument further, in my *one* daily post on this thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

What about the stuff _before_ the 'exchange'? 

Is 'value' the only possible mediating factor? 

Are the first two factors qualitatively the same as the third factor? 

Are you punning on agnus _dei_?

Isn't _production_ 'the definitive characteristic of human society' - even according to Old man Marx himself. Not exchange?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 2, 2005)

yes it is.

cos value has to be produced, even the need for the lamb as opposed to the cow has to be socially produced. 

The lamb and cow have to be "produced" ie domesticated, kept, fed  and watered.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 2, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Isn't _production_ 'the definitive characteristic of human society' - even according to Old man Marx himself. Not exchange?


It's an Engels quote, isn't it? Can't remember exactly how it goes. About we can distinguish humans from other creatures however we like, but humans _themselves_ do so when we begin to produce.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 2, 2005)

Gift exchange and commodity exchange are not the same thing; in commodity exchange the product is alienated, whereas in gift exchange it is not. Additionally, non-reciprocity is an option (although a socially costly one) in gift exchanges, unlike commodity exchange.

This is without even going into examples of 'free' gift-giving.

Edit: BA hits the nail on the head re: production.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 2, 2005)

*Meanwhile, on the subject of God...*

Try and make sense of this:




			
				the Guardian said:
			
		

> Irma Plummer, the mayor's emergency coordinator, had tears in her eyes and her voice was breaking as she asked God to help Baton Rouge.
> 
> "You have reminded us of how strong you are and we yield and acknowledge that," Ms Plummer said, her eyes tightly shut.
> 
> "Right now, Father, we pray first for your protection and your grace which is unceasing and unfailing ... I don't even know what to ask for today, Lord. I don't even know what will beset us today."


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 2, 2005)

The whole one post per day thing could get somewhat dull.

<drums fingers on table>


----------



## Poi E (Sep 2, 2005)

At first there were the words, and the words made God.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 2, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The whole one post per day thing could get somewhat dull.
> 
> <drums fingers on table>


I'm bored already.

It's going to be a slippery slope down into fallacy land.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> At first there were the words, and the words made God.


 Who then called himself Phil. I think that's where the 'rational proof' is actually leading.


----------



## montevideo (Sep 2, 2005)

i think it was saint-simon who got in there first with his 'science of production'. 

Maybe if we exhanged the cow & lamb (which aren't commodities in themselves) for say a chair or a table which would better fulfill the category.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 2, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> i think it was saint-simon who got in there first with his 'science of production'.
> 
> Maybe if we exhanged the cow & lamb (which aren't commodities in themselves) for say a chair or a table which would better fulfill the category.



chairs and tables are not commodities in themselves either.


----------



## montevideo (Sep 2, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> chairs and tables are not commodities in themselves either.



didn't say they were but they would have to have some sort of human labour applied to them in order for them to become chairs & tables (unlike cows or lambs) hence fulfill the category better.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 2, 2005)

> The lamb and cow have to be "produced" ie domesticated, kept, fed and watered.



surely the domesticating and keeping of lambs is as much a form of production as the shaping of wood into a table?


----------



## montevideo (Sep 2, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> surely the domesticating and keeping of lambs is as much a form of production as the shaping of wood into a table?



hence the words _in themselves_


----------



## magneze (Sep 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> On several of the anti-Darwinist threads, I have been asked to back up my claim that God's existence can be demonstrated rationally.  To my shame, I have only responded by referring my interlocuters to Kant, Hegel or Marx.  This was necessary because my time is limited, and I thought it would be useful because I assumed that some people would already by familiar with these people's ideas.  How wrong I was!  As you might expect, this proof is rather complicated, which is why the common herd of religious believers must rest content with "faith."  But, if anyone's genuinely interested, I can take you through it in such a way that you will not only understand, but be utterly and completely convinced by.
> 
> This will be a lengthy process.  It will have to be taken step by step, and those steps will have to be little.  I will make sure that I have established each of my points before moving on to the next stage of the argument.  And of course I will have to pause periodically to kick away Gurrier, Nino Savatte and the rest of the pack of mangy curs who have nothing better to do than yap at my heels all day.  Many on these boards are fanatical anti-theists, and convincing them will not be easy.  But I shoulder the task with goodwill--someone has to do it--and it ought to be fun.  The rational proof of God's existence begins with the definitive characteristic of human society: exchange.  Yes, exchange.  The exchange, say, of a cow for a lamb.  This will eventually produce the commodity which, of which Karl Marx says:
> 
> ...


How does exchange even start to prove Gods existence?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 2, 2005)

It's purely designed to keep you hanging on for the next installment - like that shit 'Lost', which I have stopped watching...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

But he does say:

"Feel free to ask questions or to raise any objections at this stage, because we will not be retracing our steps as the argument progresses."

which suggest that he will be dealing with our questions and objections before taking us upon his mighty shoulders for the next tiny step.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 2, 2005)

I find cows a bit creepy. Could you use another animal, a badger maybe? Cheers. So where were we? God has given badger's some intrinsic value that exists only when we humans try to trade the badger for some beans. Am I with you so far?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb.


The value of the cow is perceptible in the body of the lamb?

In any case, the value ascribed to an object isn't purely derivable from the object itself, or an object for which it is being exchanged, that would be silly. There is always going to be reference to factors outside of those objects, not least details of the actor ascribing value.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 2, 2005)

> God has given badger's some intrinsic value that exists only when we humans try to trade the badger for some beans. Am I with you so far?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 2, 2005)

goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> I find cows a bit creepy. Could you use another animal, a badger maybe? Cheers. So where were we? God has given badger's some intrinsic value that exists only when we humans try to trade the badger for some beans. Am I with you so far?


But what if I don't want a Badger?  Or Beans?  Does that mean god hates me?

My head hurts, it's all too much for my tiny mind.


----------



## axon (Sep 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb.


I agree the concept of value has to be introduced, but this doesn't prohibit this value from being described in material terms. 

Why can't the value be materialistically deemed to be the sum of the wants of party A as a function of that party's perception (perception as in material, i.e. what can be observed/reasoned) of how much the commodity will fulfill those needs, all offset againt the sum of the wants of party B including their perception of how the commodity will fulfill their wants?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 2, 2005)

I googled 'circle jerk' in Images but it's all too rude to post 

Y


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 2, 2005)

fractionMan said:
			
		

> But what if I don't want a Badger?  Or Beans?  Does that mean god hates me?
> 
> My head hurts, it's all too much for my tiny mind.


Ah, I think you're referencing Horstaldtz's Bean/Badger Paradox here, am I right?

*strokes beard thoughtfully* Impressive in its day of course, but if you read and properly understand Kant, Marx and Hegel it is quite comprehensively disproved.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Ah, I think you're referencing Horstaldtz's Bean/Badger Paradox here, am I right?
> 
> *strokes beard thoughtfully* Impressive in its day of course, but if you read and properly understand Kant, Marx and Hegel it is quite comprehensively disproved.



Ah, but you're forgetting the the squirrel/sparrow conundrum - without that any discussion on this point is fruitless


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> First, we need to agree that the exchange of a cow for a lamb involves the invention of a third factor: the concept of *value.*  The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb.


yr comparing apples and oranges! 

or, specifically, cattle and sheep. but the point's the same! 

yr not comparing like with like!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Ah, but you're forgetting the the squirrel/sparrow conundrum - without that any discussion on this point is fruitless


is that a red squirrel or a grey squirrel?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 2, 2005)

> The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb.


 Can you explain what you mean by value not being a material thing, and if you mean something else then write it out instead of using those stupid asterisks.


----------



## perplexis (Sep 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...
> "A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."
> 
> He was not using the words "metaphysical" and "theological" figuratively.  First, we need to agree that the exchange of a cow for a lamb involves the invention of a third factor: the concept of *value.*  The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb.  Is everyone with me so far?
> Feel free to ask questions or to raise any objections at this stage, because we will not be retracing our steps as the argument progresses.


I don't follow.

Perceptible? I don't understand why the "value" has to be "perceptible", the argument is circular- value can only exist if it is perceptible ("being capable of being perceived by the mind or senses"), in the same way as absolutely everything- any concept, by its very existence is "perceptible", this fails to prove its validity- what "value" do your cow and lamb actually have outside the mind of the one evaluating them (who must already possess the idea of value and round and round it goes)?

Why does exchange of goods require the invention of the notion of "value"? In order to do that I think you're imputing the act of exchange with motives which are not necessarily present. The act of exchanging one thing for another requires no sense of value- if I have a pile of pebbles and I move them around into a different configuration they have been exchanged, spatially. No concept of "value" was necessary unless I did this for a specific end. Inherent in each pebble are some attributes which enable them to be piled up as I please, but this is very far from them having any "value" in the sense of a property that is only acquired when they are exchanged.

And at the risk of repeating myself, and going round in circles of my own- the concept of "value" in the context of exchange goods not only requires the assumption of a purpose but also presupposes the notion of possession which is intimately tied with value- how can something be possessed in the absence of "value"?
...
Are you just attempting some rhetorical sleight of hand? Why does Marx have to come into it? You're going to have to really start from first principles if you want to be credible.

p.s. your arrogance is absolutely mind-blowing- you honestly believe you can prove the existence of god? I'd just like to ask now, how will we know when you're done? Will we all suddenly "believe"? Will light shine from our screens and bathe us in His Love? Surely the great luminaries which you name in your original post would have succeeded if it were possible? 
This is the most exciting thread I've seen for a while. But please keep up the momentum or I may get distracted by something shiny and forget the magnitude of what you're doing for humankind.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> is that a red squirrel or a grey squirrel?



We're not going to ressurect the shibboleth of the red/grey deabte at this time.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 2, 2005)

There goes salvation for you!


----------



## montevideo (Sep 2, 2005)

this is not a circle jerk, 

it's more like whenc homer tried to jump the canyon on bart's skateboard. We're simply here to record the event for posterity.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 2, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> We're simply here to record the event for posterity.


and laugh at stupidity.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 2, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> this is not a circle jerk,
> 
> it's more like whenc homer tried to jump the canyon on bart's skateboard. We're simply here to record the event for posterity.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Faith is what people who don't have the time or inclination to work through the rational proof must rely on.  The rational proof is very complicated, and most people simply can't be bothered to follow it.  In fact, I'm not altogether sure that *I* can be bothered, but I'll try to stick with it.  I reckon I'll limit myself to one post a day on this thread though, or it will take over my entire life.  So any objectors to what I've said so far have *one* day to raise their hands.  No going back later on.


 I'm looking forward to this one. Good work phil


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> <snip>  The rational proof of God's existence begins with the definitive characteristic of human society: exchange.  Yes, exchange.  The exchange, say, of a cow for a lamb.  This will eventually produce the commodity which, of which Karl Marx says:
> 
> "A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."
> 
> ...


 With you so far phil, but watching  like a hawk for signs that this value you're talking about is about to be treated as either an object held before the minds eye or as some sort of thing with analogous properties to material objects.


----------



## ICB (Sep 2, 2005)

Hmm, if the argument is going to hold then it will surely entail that SwapShop is the ultimate church and that Noel Edmunds is the pope.

My anticipatory no-hee-hee is that you're dressing up the ontological argument in Marx's false beard and itinerant's overcoat when we'd be better off putting it in Derrida's toutou and hobnail boots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2005)

i can't be alone in wondering why phildwyer has chosen u75 to air this extraordinary rational proof of the existence of god, something i've long understood had eluded the greatest minds in philosophy.

surely if he freally has cracked it, and this isn't some premature announcement akin to the story some years ago about warm fusion, he should be looking to coin it in rather than post it all up for free on a not-for-profit brixton-based message board.


----------



## axon (Sep 2, 2005)

perplexis said:
			
		

> p.s. your arrogance is absolutely mind-blowing- you honestly believe you can prove the existence of god? I'd just like to ask now, how will we know when you're done? Will we all suddenly "believe"? Will light shine from our screens and bathe us in His Love? Surely the great luminaries which you name in your original post would have succeeded if it were possible?



I predict that this thread will eventually end with Phil's proclaimation of his final proof, which if questioned will be met with "well it's obviously beyond your capability of understanding".


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2005)

perplexis said:
			
		

> Will light shine from our screens and bathe us in His Love?


i suspect it will shine from somewhere quite different.


----------



## perplexis (Sep 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i suspect it will shine from somewhere quite different.



But I was too polite to say _that_


----------



## pinkmonkey (Sep 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i can't be alone in wondering why phildwyer has chosen u75 to air this extraordinary rational proof of the existence of god, something i've long understood had eluded the greatest minds in philosophy.
> 
> surely if he freally has cracked it, and this isn't some premature announcement akin to the story some years ago about warm fusion, he should be looking to coin it in rather than post it all up for free on a not-for-profit brixton-based message board.


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> With you so far phil, but watching  like a hawk for signs that this value you're talking about is about to be treated as either an object held before the minds eye or as some sort of thing with analogous properties to material objects.



I'm with you here Bernie. It would be nice if this thread didn't just descend into abuse and flaming because that wouldn't actually defeat Phil's phaluses.

The concept of value is a pretty fundamental one. It presents a problem for syntacticians because the use of certain verbs (buy, sell, swap) etc. necessitates a third object to the verb which isn't easily explained structurally (Chomskian syntacticians have enough problems trying to explain ditransitives convinicingly). Given your obsession with subjects and objects (which I've never quite understood) I'm prepared to let you run with this one Phil and I'm always open to logical argument. But I warn you, small steps and I ain't reading Kant for no-one.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

But still there's _the before_....


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2005)

apart from the central tendentious assumption about "exchange" being the definitive characterstic of human societies,  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt thus far...




			
				MaoMao said:
			
		

> that wouldn't actually defeat Phil's phaluses


[Edit - I had no idea, Phil, you had more than one Phallus - my, you must be a gifted chap   ]


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

articul8 said:
			
		

> apart from the central tendentious assumption about "exchange" being the definitive characterstic of human societies,  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt thus far...


 No, you can't just 'give' him that one - it has to be attacked as he's building a case on it. Apparently.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2005)

what he's up against


----------



## jodal (Sep 2, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> surely proof, or even a rational demonstration, is a denial of faith, and without faith your God is nothing?
> 
> 
> edited to add: and i look forward to being utterly convinced. bring it on..


 Kirkegaard would have agreed with you on that one.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 2, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No, you can't just 'give' him that one - it has to be attacked as he's building a case on it. Apparently.


 Ah, Ok. I see what you mean. Now you mention it, that isn't entirely obvious at first sight.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 2, 2005)

I'm certainly not giving him the "value is perceptible in the body of the item exchanged for" thing. It sounds too much like intrinsic value and if it isn't he should explain it.

I'm also fairly happy taking the piss, though I imagine that will die down a bit.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No, you can't just 'give' him that one - it has to be attacked as he's building a case on it. Apparently.



yes, but as soon as he starts to give any kind of indication of where "value" is produced (or otherwise), he'll give himself away.  Hence, I'll wait for him to go astray.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2005)

over 300 proofs of god's existence. apparently. though i'd take them with a bit of salt.


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2005)

articul8 said:
			
		

> [Edit - I had no idea, Phil, you had more than on Phallus - my, you must be a gifted chap   ]



Sorry, I meant 'fallacies'. For some reason I was thinking of pricks.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

articul8 said:
			
		

> yes, but as soon as he starts to give any kind of indication of where "value" is produced (or otherwise), he'll give himself away.  Hence, I'll wait for him to go astray.


 Hence his built in dead mans grip, 'no going back over previous steps'...'do it now or i'll ignore it'...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> over 300 proofs of god's existence. apparently. though i'd take them with a bit of salt.


I'm thinking of #73 for some reason.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of #73 for some reason.


  

But getting back to the point, I've got a badger to trade.  How many beans are ye offering?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 2, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> But getting back to the point, I've got a badger to trade.  How many beans are ye offering?


 That's a metaphysical badger, you won't get much for it you know.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 2, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> That's a metaphysical badger, you won't get much for it you know.


Ok, I'll throw in a squirrel (grey I'm afraid).


----------



## Poi E (Sep 2, 2005)

Stop badgering the poor bloke. He's got a God to create.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 2, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of #73 for some reason.


252's pretty close, as is 315.  no, I didn't read them all


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 2, 2005)

To save us all a bit of time, I reckon I can fast-forward roughly where Phil's argument is going, although you'll all be kept in suspense(?) until tomorrow to find out if I'm right.

Alienation of labour -> objectification of the commodity -> science as the reification of the social and natural world _qua_ commodities (where the 'notional' atomic level of the natural sciences is equivalent to the notional currency-value of the commodity) + critique of induction/inference as a means of knowing about the world.

The main problem with this little narrative is that it assumes a kind of mechanistic and totalising science that no modern scientist would actually recognise. Ever since Bohr, Gödel, Heisenberg et al. science has had to come to grips with the indeterminate, the chaotic, the subjective, the probabilistic and the incomplete nature of our knowledge and theorising about the world, and has found that none of these established limits actually consitutes an invalidation of the conclusions that it is nevertheless reasonable to draw. In any case the third step in the process outlined above involves a sleight-of-hand movement from facts to values, that sneaks in a critique of the scientific method which piggy-backs on what began simply as an analysis or genealogy (and not a particularly revelatory one at that).

The only other refuge for the anti-scientist is to deny that induction is a valid means of gaining knowledge about the world, or maintain that some alternate means of gaining knowledge is logically necessary. The problem with this, as I see it, is that although a system of language-led and theory-laden observations of the world is necessarily incomplete, attaching arbitrary labels like 'God' to that of which you can't speak is an exercise in futility; it's like theorising about what could have happened before the big bang to cause it to take place, when the simple fact is that there could be no cause because there's no 'before'. Logically speaking this prior cause could perfectly well be the FSM, as logically it could be absolutely anything at all. One is obviously at liberty to believe in this entity, so long as you refrain from ascribing it any particular qualities whatsoever. Ultimately all that you gain from the activity of taxonomising the non-existent is a proliferation of signs without referents that might as well be grumbling or muttering noises, and are best refuted with an obscene gesture.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 2, 2005)

God? Or unit of exchange? Or simply a metaphor?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2005)

"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 2, 2005)

articul8 said:
			
		

> "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"


 Particularly metaphysical badgers.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> surely if he freally has cracked it, and this isn't some premature announcement akin to the story some years ago about warm fusion, he should be looking to coin it in rather than post it all up for free on a not-for-profit brixton-based message board.


Haven't you realised? It's because we're the only place where he might find people enlightened enough to understand the word of phildwyer (peace be upon his keyboard).

And of course, because the editorial boards of all the science and philosophy journals are stuffed full of militant atheists and Darwinists...


----------



## 8ball (Sep 2, 2005)

Ok, can we get onto the 'proving God's existence' bit now?

This is one of the most suspenseful threads since 'things you got stuck in your ear and had to go to the hospital' . . .


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 2, 2005)

> Haven't you realised? It's because we're the only place where he might find people enlightened enough to understand the word of phildwyer (peace be upon his keyboard).
> 
> And of course, because the editorial boards of all the science and philosophy journals are stuffed full of militant atheists and Darwinists...



Are there any ladies on this thread?

If he's looking to start a Word Of Phil cult he'll need ladies. No point in doing the cult thing otherwise. Unless he's gay of course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Are there any ladies on this thread?
> 
> If he's looking to start a Word Of Phil cult he'll need ladies. No point in doing the cult thing otherwise. Unless he's gay of course.


some ancient religions contained celebrants of but one sex - famously some of the rites of the great goddess, for example.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> some ancient religions contained celebrants of but one sex - famously some of the rites of the great goddess, for example.



That may be, but I'm not bending over for Phil no matter how convincing his argument...


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> over 300 proofs of god's existence. apparently. though i'd take them with a bit of salt.


Beautiful, elegant, and excellent news for the salt industry!



			
				GodlessGeeks said:
			
		

> ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
> (1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
> (2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
> (3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 2, 2005)

I have to hand it to Phil, at least he's different.

Does the pope know what you know Phil?


----------



## montevideo (Sep 2, 2005)

3 from phil

75 from the rest of us

i reckon phil's winning this one.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 2, 2005)

He's like bigfish and pbman rolled into one.


----------



## bugsy7 (Sep 2, 2005)

When I was a kid, I often used to imagine the world being turfed into absolute chaotic turmoil by someone suddenly producing unequivacal evidence that god doesn't exist.
Now I'm a bit older, I know exactly what would happen - fuck-all!

MsG


----------



## Purdie (Sep 2, 2005)

*as if i got time for this ...*



> The rational proof of God's existence begins with the definitive characteristic of human society: exchange. Yes, exchange. The exchange, say, of a cow for a lamb.



To exchange a cow for a lamb shows is stupid     There is nothing rational in exchanging an animal that can feed you for years for one that can just about keep you warm when it grows up   

Other than that, carry on ...


----------



## Purdie (Sep 2, 2005)

> Many on these boards are fanatical anti-theists, ....



Not Guilty   



> ... and convincing them will not be easy.



Define rationality


----------



## IMHO (Sep 3, 2005)

If you're going to explain how a creator created us, then you'll need to explain who created the creator. No good saying that the creator always existed. In that case, existence always existed.


----------



## Rune (Sep 3, 2005)

86 posts and no sign of the second stage of this proof. This will take so long the second coming will be here before his existance is proven. 


Maybe that's the plan.


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 3, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> If you're going to explain how a creator created us, then you'll need to explain who created the creator. No good saying that the creator always existed. In that case, existence always existed.



 But time is property of matter.
 Is God matter?


----------



## montevideo (Sep 3, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> But time is property of matter.
> Is God matter?



Does god matter?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> But time is property of matter.
> Is God matter?


god can't be matter because if s/he was then s/he couldn't be everywhere all at once - what about all the vacuums, in thermos flasks & in space?


----------



## Rune (Sep 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> god can't be matter because if s/he was then s/he couldn't be everywhere all at once - what about all the vacuums, in thermos flasks & in space?



But one of the things that is said about God is that he is everywhere. Omnipresent or something. Along with omnieverythingelse that he's supposed to be.


----------



## JHE (Sep 3, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> It's an Engels quote, isn't it? Can't remember exactly how it goes. About we can distinguish humans from other creatures however we like, but humans _themselves_ do so when we begin to produce.


It's from _The German Ideology_.






			
				KM & FE said:
			
		

> Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2


----------



## JHE (Sep 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> "A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."
> 
> He was not using the words "metaphysical" and "theological" figuratively.


Oh, for goodness sake!  Marx was being sarcastic.  He used 'metaphysical' and 'theological' to mean _obscure_ and _mystified_.  Isn't that obvious?

Can you really believe that Marx saw the commodity (or anything else, for that matter) as properly understood by means of theology or metaphysics?  That is the exact opposite of his approach!


----------



## revol68 (Sep 3, 2005)

no you see phildywer likes to take a new apporach to Marx which involves the stripping of all context from his quotes.

It achieves some amazing results, for example he can show that Marx rejected materialism by quoting Marx attacking Feuerbachs ahistorical materialism.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 3, 2005)

Maybe it would be taking things a bit fast to attempt a rational proof of God's existence without first being sure we all know and agree what we mean by    -God-, and what we mean by "existence"

Otherwise, we might just be talking at cross-purposes, having the illusion of debate, when in fact we all understand not what the other person is saying, but what we prefer to hear.  

I admit that defining god is difficult, perhaps an impossibility, -especially if God doesn't exist?- or in any case,   But, all the same, I think someone ought to do it, just for clarity's sake.  Not me though.  I'd be worried about blasphemy.  

Existence.  Well surely everyone knows what "existence" means..
But do they. ?

What do you think of the following propositions.  

Wales exists. 
Truth exists, 
Beauty exists. 
Quarks exist. 
Romantic music exists. 
Sexual desire exists.
Innocence exists.  
The past exists.
Evil exists. 
Fear exists. 
Hope exists. 
The future exists.
Godel's theorem exists. 
Rationality exists.
Gravity exists.
The blood of christ exists. 


This could go on for ever, but the list should make it clear that the meaning of "exists" is far from straightforward.  For that matter, the meaning of rational is not exactly straightforward either.  

There is a point of view that "existence" is a bankrupt materialist concept, and that it makes much more sense to talk about the tuned-in and the not-tuned-in, but if you think that's just hippy bollox, I won't be surprised.  

Anyway, not meaning to slow things down,   but seriously, it's probably a good thing that phil's waited so long to deliver his proof, as it gives us all the opportunity to get some clarity, and make sure we know what we're discussing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2005)

if god existed he'd have a rather quirky sense of humour to reveal the ineffable proof here, on this bulletin board.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've already broken  my own rule, but from now on I'll just let everyone's comments pile up each day, and answer them, and hopefully advance the argument further, in my *one* daily post on this thread.



It's now over 24 hours since your last post. C'mon, we're all waiting for part two of this fascinating exposition ...

* drums fingers *


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 3, 2005)

It gratifies me immensely to see so many earnest seekers of truth on these boards.  It has never been my policy to turn away those who thirst for wisdom.  However, I regret to say that I cannot respond to any of the PM’s I have received on this subject, nor can I agree to post more than *once* a day on this thread (although I may well break my post up into two or three so that it fits on the boards).  No mortal man could do more.  My apologies.

I shall begin by answering *all* of the objections raised to the first stage of my argument, then I shall move onto to second stage.  If anyone is still unsatisfied with my response they should say so, for I believe I can deal with every single query you can raise.  The best approach is probably to tackle the various posters one by one. 

GURRIER: Go away.  Go far away.  I candidly tell you that you are not welcome on this thread.  It is clear that, as usual, your only purpose is to troll, disrupt, derail, and distract those who sincerely want to learn.  There are plenty of other threads where the heathen can rage without restraint.

BUTCHERS: Before exchange, human beings were apes.  No, ‘value’ is not the only mediator between the objects, but it is the paradigmatic one.  No, the third factor (value) is not the same as the first two (cow and lamb).  Marx says that “producing the means of subsistence” defines human beings, but he clearly doesn’t mean producing food, for hunter-gatherers do not do that.  He says that they “indirectly [produce] their material life” thereby, so this production of subsistence is not material.  What Marx refers to is the production of the *concept,* the means by which human beings impose their own consciousness and perceptions upon the natural world.  This is how human beings live *qua* human beings: it is the production of their “means of subsistence,” and it is the “indirect means by which” they produce their material life, which is NOT the same thing as material production.  It is a prior stage, it is what makes material production possible.

BERNIE: Don’t worry, I’m not going to say that value is an object or anything analogous to an object, quite the reverse.  At this stage of the argument anyway.

FRUITLOOP: You couldn’t be more wrong in your attempt to predict may argument.  I did not say that gift and commodity exchange were the same, I said that the former is a species of the latter.  Non-reciprocity is an option in commodity exchange too, the owner of the cow could renege on the bargain once he’d taken possession of the lamb.  If you accept that gift-exchange *can* be made in the expectation of something else, my argument is valid anyway.  I’m talking about exchange *per se,* not any particular type of exchange.

KYSER: I’m not gay.  Ladies are always welcome.

SLEATERKINNEY: No, value is not material, it is a concept, an idea.

PICKMAN’S: Do you take me for a mug?  I’m published all these ideas before this, and been paid for them too.  This exercise is purely a public service.  Don’t mention it.

OK, I’m going to have a sausage.  I’ll send this off now, since many of you are becoming impatient.  I will continue in a minute.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 3, 2005)

A few more to consider or ignore, as you will.   

The national debt exists. 
Hallucinations exist. 
Delusions exist. 
I exist. 
You exist. 
Space exists. 
Time exists.  

What do you reckon.  Is existence a well-defined concept.  Does it always mean the same thing, no matter what you're talking about?


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 3, 2005)

I just wasted several minutes of my life reading this thread and I'm still none the wiser as to what is going on here


----------



## ZWord (Sep 3, 2005)

Anarchism exists.
Rationality exists.
Thoughts exist.
UFOs exist.  
Value exists. 

??


----------



## trashpony (Sep 3, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I just wasted several minutes of my life reading this thread and I'm still none the wiser as to what is going on here



Phil Dwyer is going to prove to us that God really does exist. Part one was yesterday (OP). Part two will follow later today, providing he hasn't choked on his sausage.

It could take some time so unless you're really interested, you may want to find something more useful to do with your life.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 3, 2005)

Ignorance exists.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 3, 2005)

And now to the second stage of my case.  Z-WORD, no, "existence" is by no means an easy category, you are right.  But I hope to allow my understanding of "existence" to emerge in the course of my argument.  As yest, I have not established the grounds on which to define it. AXON and PERPLEXIS, I think you’ll find that your points are addressed in the course of my argument here, but let me know if you don’t agree.  One of you (can’t remember which) said that the notion of “possession,” or private property, must precede exchange.  I’d argue that it comes into being simultaneously with exchange, and could have no content without the concept of exchange.  You both ask in what sense the value of the cow is “perceptible” in the material body of the lamb.  Let us consider the matter further.  

Obviously it is not materially perceptible.  When the “owner” of the cow looks at the lamb, he does not see a cow: he sees a lamb.  But he also perceives the *value* of the cow, he says to himself  “that lamb is *worth* one cow, it is the *equivalent* of one cow.”  The lamb thus has two distinct existences for him.  It has a natural, material and essential existence as a lamb, and it also has a conceptual, ideal and arbitrary existence as the value of a cow.  Thus we see how exchange necessitates the production of *concepts,* of *ideas.*  Human beings are defined by their ability to produce these ideas, animals cannot do it.  No ape will look at the lamb and see the value of a cow.  But human beings can--and by definition must--impose their ideas on the world.  The world has a dual existence for them: an existence in itself (the lamb qua lamb) and an existence that humans have invented (the lamb qua value of cow).  

I think we can push the argument a bit further at this second stage.  There are two worlds, the natural world and the world that human beings have made.  The latter, to return to a point made by BUTCHERS, is expressed in language, so that words are certainly a mediator between things, just as value is.  Now consider the notion of *mediation* itself.  Clearly, the exchange of just one cow for just one lamb will be a rarity.   In practice, exchange will take place between different quantities of these creatures, so that ten lambs will be exchange for five cows, for example.  This involves a second, and higher, leap of reasoning.  Now the respective owners must be able to conceive of some quality that cows and lambs share between them--a common denominator, if you will.  Cows and lambs must be *alike* in some way, they must be *equivalent.*  But naturally and materially speaking, of course, cows and lambs are different and not the same.  If they were the same there would be no point in exchanging them.  Human beings are thus faced with the task of *creating,* or *producing* an equivalence between two things that are naturally different.

Let us leave our ancestors in this conundrum for the present.  I want to ensure that everyone is with me so far.  Tomorrow, I will finish off any lingering objections to part one of my argument, provide the initial refutations to the objections to part two, and advance part three for the first time.  Once again, please be aware that I cannot respond to PM’s, nor will I be cajoled into posting further on this thread until tomorrow.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 3, 2005)




----------



## pinkmonkey (Sep 3, 2005)

So when are you going to mark my work, Phil?  I've been waiting for fuckin' weeks.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 3, 2005)

> I’d argue that it comes into being simultaneously with exchange, and could have no content without the concept of exchange.



I'm sure Idris will enlighten us but weren't there some tribes that didn't do exhange very much but had very clearly defined "this is our tribe's stuff" type property rights.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> One of you (can’t remember which) said that the notion of “possession,” or private property, must precede exchange. I’d argue that it comes into being simultaneously with exchange, and could have no content without the concept of exchange.


Both possession and exchange both depend on the concept of value. The difference between them is surely this: 

The concept of possession of an object requires only one person to have realised that there is such a concept as value which can be applied to the object (i.e. to his/herself).  
Exchange additionally involves:
a second person who has also understood the concept of value, _and_
concordance between the two persons' respective systems of valuation, so that they can agree on the equivalence in value of the items to be exchanged (which in turn necessitates either complex language to express concepts of value, or an inbuilt list of intrinsic values of things), _and_
the concept of trust so that both persons can engage in the exchange.


Therefore the the concept of "possession" is surely a subset of the set of concepts denoted "exchange", and therefore must have preceded it.

And I've _still_ no idea how God comes into this...


----------



## trashpony (Sep 3, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> And I've _still_ no idea how God comes into this...



Patience! He's going to tell us in about 40 days' time I reckon, by which time he hopes he'll have worn down our resistance - or that people that disagree with him will have become bored and stopped posting.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 3, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I just wasted several minutes of my life reading this thread and I'm still none the wiser as to what is going on here


The world's most pompous man is making an abject idiot of himself in public and  a crowd is gathering to point and laugh.  At least that's my reading of the situation.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 3, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Patience! He's going to tell us in about 40 days' time I reckon, by which time he hopes he'll have worn down our resistance - or that people that disagree with him will have become bored and stopped posting.


Boring potential converts? I don't think much of Phil's (peace be upon His keyboard) strategy...

I have it on some* authority that Rev. Sun Myung Moon is verily not quaking in his boots at this very moment.

* completely fictitious


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 3, 2005)

Look, does god exist _qua_ lamb?


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2005)

Phil

Here's a couple of pieces of research that you really should take into account:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000077

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050128_monkey_business.html

Monkeys with a sense of exchange. Which really means you can't be given your assumption that such things are limited to humans. Sorry. Start again.


----------



## laptop (Sep 3, 2005)

But Phil, Phil - 

Kurt Gödel spent the last few decades of his life trying to prove the existence of god using modal logic. 

And that was how everyone knew he'd totally lost it. 

And he failed. And if anyone could have done anything with modal logic, it was he.

He died of starvation, convinced that everyone around him was trying to poison him.

It's not too late. Back away from the keyboard, slowly, *now*. 

Take up watercolouring or something else relaxing.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 3, 2005)




----------



## TeeJay (Sep 3, 2005)




----------



## TeeJay (Sep 3, 2005)

Look really hard at the two images above.

Let your eyes unfocus and cross.

Let God's message reach out and touch you.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 3, 2005)

I shall be taking questions about God's special message between 10.00pm and 10.15pm tonight. Please do not respond to this post outside of these times, as I far more worthwhile and important things to do with my time than listen to your silly and irrational anti-religious dogma.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 3, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Phil Dwyer is going to prove to us that God really does exist.


Saturday evening thought: 

If God is omnipotent, then why isn't he/she/it able to prove it himself? And if he/she/it is, then by failing to do so, he/she/it's obviously lazy and hasn't got his/her/its mind on the job (which might explain why there's so many fuck-ups in this world).

Brought to you by the influence of a fine Islay single malt (which will remain nameless to keep U75 pure and unsullied by advertising  )


----------



## laptop (Sep 3, 2005)

Oooh, there's a single malt that turns drinkers into Gnostics*? 


* The heresy that the universe was created by a minor deity, having an off day. The only *plausible* form of theism, but still not *rational*.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Obviously it is not materially perceptible.  When the “owner” of the cow looks at the lamb, he does not see a cow: he sees a lamb.  But he also perceives the *value* of the cow, he says to himself  “that lamb is *worth* one cow, it is the *equivalent* of one cow.”  The lamb thus has two distinct existences for him.  It has a natural, material and essential existence as a lamb, and it also has a conceptual, ideal and arbitrary existence as the value of a cow.  Thus we see how exchange necessitates the production of *concepts,* of *ideas.*  Human beings are defined by their ability to produce these ideas, animals cannot do it.  No ape will look at the lamb and see the value of a cow.  But human beings can--and by definition must--impose their ideas on the world.  The world has a dual existence for them: an existence in itself (the lamb qua lamb) and an existence that humans have invented (the lamb qua value of cow).
> 
> I think we can push the argument a bit further at this second stage.  There are two worlds, the natural world and the world that human beings have made.  The latter, to return to a point made by BUTCHERS, is expressed in language, so that words are certainly a mediator between things, just as value is.  Now consider the notion of *mediation* itself.  Clearly, the exchange of just one cow for just one lamb will be a rarity.   In practice, exchange will take place between different quantities of these creatures, so that ten lambs will be exchange for five cows, for example.  This involves a second, and higher, leap of reasoning.  Now the respective owners must be able to conceive of some quality that cows and lambs share between them--a common denominator, if you will.  Cows and lambs must be *alike* in some way, they must be *equivalent.*  But naturally and materially speaking, of course, cows and lambs are different and not the same.  If they were the same there would be no point in exchanging them.  Human beings are thus faced with the task of *creating,* or *producing* an equivalence between two things that are naturally different.



No, they don't need to be equivalent. If someone is exchanging a cow for a lamb, they will be aiming to get the greatest value possible to them. So if I have a cow, I'll exchange it for a lamb if the value to me is greater than the value of my cow. If it's the same I might as well not bother. Similarly the person who is giving me the lamb values my cow as greater than the value of their lamb. We each have our own value on the cow and the lamb, which are neccessarily different between the two of us and do not have to be equivalent.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 3, 2005)

yeah they only become equal through the logic of exchange value. Capital reduces everything to a exchange value, everything becomes qualitively the same in the form of money, only differing quantivly.

I would have thought that ole phildywer as a fan of Lukacs (and nodoubt Adorno) would have known this.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 3, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Oooh, there's a single malt that turns drinkers into Gnostics*?
> 
> 
> * The heresy that the universe was created by a minor deity, having an off day. The only *plausible* form of theism, but still not *rational*.


How dare you call me a Gnostic? 

I'm an atheist and bloody militant about it too.  :

(And that Darwin's a great bloke)


----------



## gurrier (Sep 3, 2005)

> "Human beings are defined by their ability to produce these ideas, animals cannot do it. No ape will look at the lamb and see the value of a cow. But human beings can--and by definition must--impose their ideas on the world. The world has a dual existence for them: an existence in itself (the lamb qua lamb) and an existence that humans have invented (the lamb qua value of cow)."



The lamb and cow both have use value to a human, exactly the same way that they have use value to a lion or a wolf.  Consider a lion chasing a cow who then meets a lamb.  He makes a value judgement on the value of the "lamb qua cow qua dinner" when deciding whether to chase the lamb or to continue chasing the cow.  He 'imposes his ideas on the world" - lamb = dinner, cow = dinner and so on.   

When the lion looks at the lamb, he does not see a cow: he sees a lamb. But he also perceives the *value* of the cow, he says to himself “that lamb is *worth* one cow, it is the *equivalent* of one cow.” The lamb thus has two distinct existences for him. It has a natural, material and essential existence as a lamb, and it also has a conceptual, ideal and arbitrary existence as the value of a cow. Thus we see how eating other animals necessitates the production of *concepts,* of *ideas.*

Then he eat the lamb.  The flying spaghetti monster touches him with a noodly appendage, distant galaxies collide and the lamb re-emerges from his tummy redesigned to be a dinasour.


----------



## laptop (Sep 3, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> How dare you call me a Gnostic?



OK, you want to join me in the Church of the Subjunctive Gnostics?

Credo: "*were* I to believe any of this tomfoolery, it'd have to be a minor creator..." etc.

There'll be tax-breaks and you can call yourself the Irreverend Parallelepipete.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 3, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> ...Then he eat the lamb.  The flying spaghetti monster touches him with a noodly appendage, distant galaxies collide and the lamb re-emerges from his tummy redesigned to be a dinasour.


NOTICE: Found, one unused pair of HTML tags, believed mislaid in post #124:

<flippant>
</flippant>

<key>Owner</key><string>gurrier</string>


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 3, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> ...There'll be tax-breaks and you can call yourself the Irreverend Parallelepipete.


Tax-breaks sound good, and I think it's compatible with my subscription to the Unintelligent Design movement...

*practises his new title*


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 4, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> OK, you want to join me in the Church of the Subjunctive Gnostics?
> 
> Credo: "*were* I to believe any of this tomfoolery, it'd have to be a minor creator..." etc.
> 
> There'll be tax-breaks and you can call yourself the Irreverend Parallelepipete.


Ooh!  Can I be an acolyte of some kind?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 4, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> NOTICE: Found, one unused pair of HTML tags, believed mislaid in post #124:
> 
> <flippant>
> </flippant>
> ...








no gurrier wasn't being flippant.  It was an erudite reference to physicist Bobby Henderson's alternative to Intelligent Design Theory, IINM.   

See http://www.venganza.org

now here's a theory it's hard to refute!


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 4, 2005)

On a sidenote, why the hell does everybody insist on using the word "qua"?  What is wrong with speaking plain bloody English?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 4, 2005)

Hearing no further criticism of my refutations of the first set of objections, I shall take the first stage of my argument as established.  I now proceed to the refutation of the second set of objections, and thence to the advancement of the third stage of my case for God.  As usual, I shall take each poster’s objections in turn.

GURRIER: For the second time, I tell you that you are not welcome on this thread, and that you must leave it immediately.  You are only here to cause trouble.  Anyone who doubts this should look at Gurrier’s fatuous post no. 123 above.  Note that it was posted exactly one minute after closing time, in accordance with his habitual pattern.  In any case, you have often boasted that you have me on “ignore,” a claim that is disproved by the drunken indiscretion of the above post, in which you quote from me directly.  You are once again proven a liar, who revels in brazen mendacity.  Why you would want to infest a thread started by someone you have on ignore is beyond me.  Go away.

SIHHI: Even if it is true that some peoples had the concept of property before they engaged in exchange, this does not indicate that they lacked the *concept* of exchange.  My argument is that the concept of property and the concept of exchange are *logically* co-dependent, and could not exist without each other.

PARALLEL: I suppose you are right to say that only one person need have the concept of property, and of course you are right to say that more than one person needs to have the concept of exchange.  But I put it to you, that if only one person had the concept of property, he would be regarded as a dangerous lunatic by his community, and would not be allowed to act on that concept.  In other words, the concept would have no practical existence.

LAPTOP: It is, of course, nonsense to say that the Gnostics believed the universe was created by a “minor deity.”  I suspect you know that and are simply mischief-making.

MAOMAO: Everyone should look at the links Maomao posted.  They are prize examples of the kind of pseudo-science currently being taught in our schools.  This kind of thing is far more pernicious than creationism.  It is an infernal amalgam of neoclassical economics and sociobiology, and its purpose is more or less openly to propagate the notion that market behavior is part of human nature.  Furthermore, even if these experiments had any validity, they seek only to prove than apes have the concept of “equality” (in the first case) and cause and effect (in the second).  Neither claims to show that they have the concept of exchange.

MONKEY: You  are confusing the ideas of *equivalence* and *equality.*  Yes, of course, in almost any practical instance, one or both parties will see the exchange as favorable to them: they will not think that the two objects are equal.  But in order to conceive of exchange at all, they must have the concept of  equivalence.  That is, they must be able to think of a quality that the two objects share, and in terms of which they can be measured and expressed.  There must, as I said before, be a “common denominator,” constructed out of the principle of equivalence, into which the value of different things can be translated.  This does not mean that any single act of exchange could not be vastly more beneficial to one participant than to the other.

As usual, any further objections to my refutations should be raised now, since we do not have time to go back over our ground later on.  I shall put forward the third stage of my argument after my bacon sandwich.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 4, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> On a sidenote, why the hell does everybody insist on using the word "qua"?  What is wrong with speaking plain bloody English?


As with most things on this thread, it's phil-mockery.  Phil uses a pompous turn of phrase and everybody incorporates it into their piss-taking.  I fear that you will have little success in promoting plain english with phil sadly, much wiser to join in the general mockery.


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> MAOMAO: Everyone should look at the links Maomao posted.  They are prize examples of the kind of pseudo-science currently being taught in our schools.  This kind of thing is far more pernicious than creationism.  It is an infernal amalgam of neoclassical economics and sociobiology, and its purpose is more or less openly to propagate the notion that market behavior is part of human nature.  Furthermore, even if these experiments had any validity, they seek only to prove than apes have the concept of “equality” (in the first case) and cause and effect (in the second).  Neither claims to show that they have the concept of exchange.



Well, it's entirely unclear to me in what way your sense of exchange is qualitatively rather than quantitatively different. But just ramble on because you always will. But you haven't dealt with any of the evidence properly, you've just slagged it off. Your next 38 steps are all bollocks because you've made assumptions in your first one.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 4, 2005)

The third stage of my proof of God’s existence is a bit more complicated than the first two.  We have established that exchange is the definitive characteristic of human society.  We have also established that the most basic form of exchange involves the ability to impose a concept on a thing.  We have further established that, for exchange to be possible on any large scale, human beings need the concept of equivalence, or a common denominator.  We must now consider what that common denominator might be.  

Let us begin by positing an act of exchange that, unlike our earlier exchange of a cow for a lamb, involves the products of human labour: a shield for a spear, let us say.  Of course, the objects share many qualities in common.  Both are made of wood, both are useful for fighting and so on.  But these will not serve as the principle of equivalence, because they are not true of *every* conceivable object.  The common denominator must be, precisely, *common,* it must be generally applicable to any object.  

The shield and the spear also share the common characteristic of being *products,* they have been made by human beings.  This human process of production is what has given these products their usefulness.  Perhaps then it is “labour” that serves as the common denominator of “value?”  But what kind of labour?  Can it be the individual, discrete acts of labour that went into the manufacture of the shield and the spear?   Can it be that if, for instance, a spear takes two hours of labour-time to produce and a shield one, the spear is twice as valuable as the shield?

 It cannot.  Where would the cow and the lamb, which are not the products of human labour, fit into this equation?  You might argue that these animals require domestication and feeding, but then what about the example of uncultivated land?  And what about the case of human labour itself?  If we say that human labour has itself been produced by human beings, we are moving onto a far wider understanding of “production.”  Significantly, because they are the hardest cases to conceptualize, land and labour are only regarded as possible objects of exchange very late in human history--they are the ultimate, the last, the final commodities.

This is probably a good time to take any objections.  We have shown that the general common denominator that facilitates exchange cannot be individual acts of production.  In the fourth stage of my argument, I will make a positive suggestion as to what that common denominator might be.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 4, 2005)

Just to be clear phil, we are talking about the existance of god as an entity outside of the human mind aren't we? Not something that 'exists' because lots of people think it does?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 4, 2005)

> I did not say that gift and commodity exchange were the same, I said that the former is a species of the latter.



But it isn't. I regularly give money to homeless people that I'll never see again, and I'm not even satisfying any particular moral principle since I don't really feel that I 'should' give them any money, and can't guarantee that the net effect of it will be positive (after all, they might spend it on skag). It's a 'free' gift that doesn't anticipate any reciprocation.



> Non-reciprocity is an option in commodity exchange too, the owner of the cow could renege on the bargain once he’d taken possession of the lamb.



Theft isn't an example of exchange either.



> If you accept that gift-exchange *can* be made in the expectation of something else, my argument is valid anyway. I’m talking about exchange *per se,* not any particular type of exchange.



Your statement that 'the definitive characteristic of human society is exchange' isn't justifiable in social terms and IMHO you've departed from reality already. At the very least, you're going to have difficulty arguing towards any general principle from axioms that are this historically and culturally relative.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 4, 2005)

The definitive characteristic of human or any society is communication anyway.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 4, 2005)

Just checking in . . . have we proved God's existence yet or are we still talking about chickens?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 4, 2005)

Nothing proven yet except the existance of a highly pretentious, arrogant and blinkered mindset.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 5, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> OK, you want to join me in the Church of the Subjunctive Gnostics?
> 
> Credo: "*were* I to believe any of this tomfoolery, it'd have to be a minor creator..." etc.
> 
> There'll be tax-breaks and you can call yourself the Irreverend Parallelepipete.



Lemme get this right...this is saying that the universe _was_ created by A.N. Deity but that this was some kind of Friday job? Or a YTS deity?

That would explain a lot...


----------



## ICB (Sep 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Ignorance exists.



Indubitably, there's a lot of idle chat about existence and truth on this thread.  Here's a timely primer....




			
				Simon Blackburn said:
			
		

> Philosophy deals in abstractions. It is concerned with highly general categories, such as mind, matter, consciousness, causation, time, values, and so on. The limit of abstraction is reached with categories that apply equally to everything. The paradigm is existence, which applies to everything, of whichever kind, that exists. Truth, by contrast, characterizes only some of the things we might say or believe, for to every truth about how things are, there corresponds the falsehood asserting that they are otherwise.


Source

I'm wondering whether Mr Dwyer's claim that the proposition "God exists" is true going to entail a robust or deflationary account of truth.  The good money is piling in for the robust horse (cow/sheep).


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 5, 2005)

Okay, I'm gonna post one serious post, then I'll join in the mocking:




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> We have established that exchange is the definitive characteristic of human society.


No, we haven't. You assumed it, without proof. What on earth makes you think there is *one* defining characteristic of human society? What society with any level of complexity could ever have *one* defining attribute? This is so simplistic I could do a more convincing analysis using spitballs.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> We have also established that the most basic form of exchange involves the ability to impose a concept on a thing.


Really. What about cooperation between ants? The queen could be said to be creating offspring in return for the food etc she is brought by the workers. What 'concepts' are involved in this?




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> We have further established that, for exchange to be possible on any large scale, human beings need the concept of equivalence, or a common denominator.


This may be true, but is startlingly uninteresting. 

You also haven't answered any questions about what kind of god it is you are going to prove the existence of.

*goes off to join the point-and-laugh brigade*


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 5, 2005)

*'exchange' and 'value'*

You can imagine a man stranded at birth alone on an island, with only a cow and a sheep for company. Imagine a sudden storm ensues, and the man knows that in a couple of minutes the rainwater will sweep down from the hills and wash away his animals. He only has time to save one - either the sheep in the pen at the back of the house or the cow in the field in front. 

This man will be able to make an evaluative judgement between the cow and the sheep even though he could have had no experience of exchange as Marx understood it. He would also be able to make enumerative judgements (i.e. if there were one cow but four sheep, or 2 cows and seven sheep then the choice would vary). So in this instance the man would be able to make a boundedly rational choice based on his preferences without needing any 'value' arising from 'exchange'.

You can understand the evaluation of all commodities, whether or not they instantiate social labour, as the sum of the set of boundedly self-maximising choices of all the individual actors, without needing to deify exchange as the sole basis of human interaction (which is a social fallacy anyway - what about kinship etc?). Neither do you need to create a ghostly 'value' that in reality has no more tangible existence than centimeters do as a unit of length - in fact surely it would be possible to make a similar argument that 'centimeters' and 'inches' magically come into existence only when man starts to understand the concepts of 'longer', 'shorter', etc, a hypothesis that is as self-evident as it is pointless.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 5, 2005)

*points and laughs*


----------



## ska invita (Sep 5, 2005)

...can some one fill me in? Has god been proved yet?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 5, 2005)

We're still waiting at the moment.


----------



## ICB (Sep 5, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> No, we haven't. You assumed it, without proof. What on earth makes you think there is *one* defining characteristic of human society? What society with any level of complexity could ever have *one* defining attribute? This is so simplistic I could do a more convincing analysis using spitballs.



I raised that after the OP, it was conveniently ignored in the responses to first objections.

Quality thread though.

*cocks eyebrow*
*snorts derisively*


----------



## trashpony (Sep 5, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Really. What about cooperation between ants? The queen could be said to be creating offspring in return for the food etc she is brought by the workers. What 'concepts' are involved in this?



This was also raised by someone else yesterday and he completely neglected to answer it. Mr Dwyer is like a missile on a mission - cannot be diverted off course.


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> You can imagine a man stranded at birth alone on an island, with only a cow and a sheep for company. Imagine a sudden storm ensues, and the man knows that in a couple of minutes the rainwater will sweep down from the hills and wash away his animals. He only has time to save one - either the sheep in the pen at the back of the house or the cow in the field in front.
> 
> This man will be able to make an evaluative judgement between the cow and the sheep even though he could have had no experience of exchange as Marx understood it. He would also be able to make enumerative judgements (i.e. if there were one cow but four sheep, or 2 cows and seven sheep then the choice would vary). So in this instance the man would be able to make a boundedly rational choice based on his preferences without needing any 'value' arising from 'exchange'.
> 
> You can understand the evaluation of all commodities, whether or not they instantiate social labour, as the sum of the set of boundedly self-maximising choices of all the individual actors, without needing to deify exchange as the sole basis of human interaction (which is a social fallacy anyway - what about kinship etc?). Neither do you need to create a ghostly 'value' that in reality has no more tangible existence than centimeters do as a unit of length - in fact surely it would be possible to make a similar argument that 'centimeters' and 'inches' magically come into existence only when man starts to understand the concepts of 'longer', 'shorter', etc, a hypothesis that is as self-evident as it is pointless.




 For once I agree.
 The sooner phil gets onto prescribed value the better.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 5, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> This was also raised by someone else yesterday and he completely neglected to answer it. Mr Dwyer is like a missile on a mission - cannot be diverted off course.



I take your point, but the problem is that I would actually like to arrive at my proof sometime this year.  At some stage one has to conclude that anyone who still does not grasp a particular point is simply incapable of doing so. On the other hand, I am determined that every serious reader will be completely convinced by my reasoning, and I believe that I can answer every possible objection.  In addition, it is polite to move at the pace of the slowest.  I really cannot extend my activity here beyond *one* lengthy post (broken into two) each day.  I will therefore try to strike a balance between addressing the substantive and sensible points raised, and indulging the willfully or actually stupid.  I may not get to the fourth stage of my proof today, because I want to make absolutely sure that everyone is convinced of the preceding stages first.

GURRIER: Have you no pride?  For the third time, I inform you that you are not welcome on this thread.  You have made it abundantly clear that your only purpose is to derail discussion with your bitter jibes and savage mockery. You are like a drunken gatecrasher who refuses to leave the party.  There’s nothing for you here.  Go home.

ICB: You are correct, my proof will be of the robust variety.

JO/JOE: I agree that “communication” is the definitive characteristic of human society.  At a later stage, I will be arguing that exchange is a form of communication, although not the only one (the other is language, broadly defined.)  I am constructing a more capacious definition of “communication” than you may be used to.

FRUITLOOP: It is not necessary for my argument to show that every human transfer of property is an example of commodity exchange.  All I need to demonstrate is that the *concept* of exchange, of equivalence, is a definitive characteristic of the human mind.  This is one manifestation of the human ability to *conceptualize* (again, language is the other).   In other words, human beings always and inevitably impose their own *concepts* on the world.  We do not see the same tree that a dog sees, because when we see the physical tree, we also see the *concept* of a tree.  Unlike the dog, we recognize the tree as a single instance of a general concept, and this determines how the tree appears to us. But I’m getting ahead of myself here.  It seems that you subscribe to a capitalist, neoclassical, market theory of value, since you say that value derives from the sum of the "self-maximizing choices" of individuals.  I don’t agree (and I’d point again to the revealing similarities between your theory and the Darwinist theory of evolution.)  But this is of no importance, since the theory of value I am about to outline will incorporate yours.

BRAINADDICT: As I say above, I am going to elaborate a more general definition of “exchange” than you may be expecting.  As my argument develops, you will see that commodity exchange and linguistic exchange are two different manifestations of one thing.  I intend to demonstrate the identity of financial value and linguistic significance.  Once again, though, its important not to get ahead of the argument here.  Your ant-example makes no sense, of course there are no concepts involved when the Queen gives birth as a result of being fed.

MAOMAO: Again, I recommend that everyone look at the links Maomao posted for absolutely textbook instances of “science” doing the work of ideology.   But this was not my refutation of your objection: that was the fact that neither of these experiments even claim to show that apes possess the concept of exchange.  One tries to show they have the concept of fairness, and the other to show that they understand cause-and-effect.  That’s all.

KYSER: Do not listen to Laptop, he will mislead you.  The Gnostics believed that the universe was created, not by a ’minor deity,’ but by the devil.

Well, I will pause there to make sure that everyone is satisfied that I have refuted their objections, or at least will agree to suspend them in those cases where I have indicated that my argument will address them at a later stage.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 5, 2005)

*Points accusing finger at Laptop*

You...you...FALSE PROPHET you!!!

*shakes fist*

I'm now all at sea in an intellectual and theological ocean, tossed by the passing currents at whatever rocks that reality has left for me


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, I will pause there to make sure that everyone is satisfied.


    

Satisfied? More than satisfied I'd say. This is the best entertainment I've had for ages   

I really hope this thread comes back to haunt you when you reach the ripe old age of 21


----------



## trashpony (Sep 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I take your point, but the problem is that I would actually like to arrive at my proof sometime this year.  At some stage one has to conclude that anyone who still does not grasp a particular point is simply incapable of doing so.



So you concede that I have a point in questioning your inability to address genuine flaws in your argument but then go on to say that the people that point out these gaping holes are, in fact, too stupid to follow your argument. Whereas IMO they are in fact bright enough to realise how utterly specious your argument actually is. 

I'm also a bit disappointed you haven't shared with us what you had for lunch today but do carry on.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 5, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> So you concede that I have a point in questioning your inability to address genuine flaws in your argument but then go on to say that the people that point out these gaping holes are, in fact, too stupid to follow your argument. Whereas IMO they are in fact bright enough to realise how utterly specious your argument actually is.
> 
> I'm also a bit disappointed you haven't shared with us what you had for lunch today but do carry on.



Breakfast, and I had something called a "power sandwich."  Please understand that I will take the time to answer every objection *within reason.*  I have to add this qualification because, as you can see for yourself, certain stalkers have infested this thread, and they will doubtless continue to raise pointless cavils even when all reasonable people are convinced, so determined are they to thwart the progress of truth.  In any case, no matter the pace at which I proceed, some will be disappointed.  There are those who are chomping at the bit to get on with the argument, but there are others who have not yet grasped all of the initial stages.  On balance, the latter probably exceed the former at present, so I shall make a pause here for them to catch up.  If you are among them, kindly ask your question, and I will answer it, as I have answered the others.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 5, 2005)

> and I had something called a "power sandwich."



You bought a Pret Half Sandwich didn't you?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> certain stalkers have infested this thread, and they will doubtless continue to raise pointless cavils even when all reasonable people are convinced, so determined are they to thwart the progress of truth.


ROFPML


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 5, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You bought a Pret Half Sandwich didn't you?



Never heard of it.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Please understand that I will take the time to answer every objection *within reason.*  I have to add this qualification because, as you can see for yourself, certain stalkers have infested this thread, and they will doubtless continue to raise pointless cavils even when all reasonable people are convinced, so determined are they to thwart the progress of truth.  Kindly ask your question, and I will answer it, as I have answered the others.



Ah - I see what you're doing there. If I ask a question that you can't answer, then I'm pointlessly thwarting the progress of truth (nice turn of phrase BTW). If you can, then I'm a reasonable person who is convinced of the veracity of your argument.

Just so we're clear. Do carry on - empowered by your 'power sandwich'.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 5, 2005)

> It is not necessary for my argument to show that every human transfer of property is an example of commodity exchange. All I need to demonstrate is that the *concept* of exchange, of equivalence, is a definitive characteristic of the human mind. This is one manifestation of the human ability to *conceptualize* (again, language is the other). In other words, human beings always and inevitably impose their own *concepts* on the world. We do not see the same tree that a dog sees, because when we see the physical tree, we also see the *concept* of a tree. Unlike the dog, we recognize the tree as a single instance of a general concept, and this determines how the tree appears to us.



Then how is it that pigeons can be trained to discriminate between Picasso and Monet paintings? Or between photos that have people or trees in them or not? Animals are poor at truly abstract categorisation, but then so are most people. 

I still don't see how you can assert that 'the *concept* of exchange, of equivalence, is a definitive characteristic of the human mind' (which seems weaker than the original statement in post #1) since as I've pointed out 'value' (which is to preference as 'length' or 'breadth'  are to extension) can exist prior to exchange in any case. However, I will await the remaining casuistry before passing judgement.



> It seems that you subscribe to a capitalist, neoclassical, market theory of value, since you say that value derives from the sum of the "self-maximizing choices" of individuals. I don’t agree (and I’d point again to the revealing similarities between your theory and the Darwinist theory of evolution.) But this is of no importance, since the theory of value I am about to outline will incorporate yours.



No, I said that value derives from the sum of choices made on the basis of individual preferences, which are self-maximising under the conditions of bounded rationality; and I still don't see what it has to do with Darwin.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 5, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Ah - I see what you're doing there. If I ask a question that you can't answer, then I'm pointlessly thwarting the progress of truth (nice turn of phrase BTW). If you can, then I'm a reasonable person who is convinced of the veracity of your argument.


Oh, I thought you were one of us  (the brotherhood of fanatic atheists against the progress of truth).  Do you want to sign up?  It's not a bad gig, although satan (our lord and master) can be a bit of a tough boss sometimes.  

Against truth! Against the obvious rationality and logic of all-powerful creators unsupported by evidence!
For science and blind faith in objectivity, scientific method, testable hypotheses and disprovability!

I don't think the rest of you realise the seriousness of the situation.  Only phil himself and the members of the brotherhood (we are many on this thread) realise that phil is the second coming.  An international action alert has been sent out to our acolytes in university science departments all over the world and we are flocking to this thread to halt the progress of truth.  We must stop him from revealing the ultimate truth of his divinity!  Join us or face an infinity of paradise!


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> GURRIER: Have you no pride?  For the third time, I inform you that you are not welcome on this thread.  You have made it abundantly clear that your only purpose is to derail discussion with your bitter jibes and savage mockery. You are like a drunken gatecrasher who refuses to leave the party.  There’s nothing for you here.  Go home.






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> And of course I will have to pause periodically to kick away Gurrier, Nino Savatte and the rest of the pack of mangy curs who have nothing better to do than yap at my heels all day. Many on these boards are fanatical anti-theists, and convincing them will not be easy. *But I shoulder the task with goodwill*



Consistent as a strobe light there, phil...


----------



## 118118 (Sep 5, 2005)

I think it would be very silly to argue that most people can make conceptualizations or categories. For example I clearly can:
Badgers and dogs are alike, because they both have four legs.
Simple. Whether or not all humans have this ability, and whether they are involved in all perceptions, I don't think you've shown.
The ontological arguement is


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 5, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I think it would be very silly to argue that most people can make conceptualizations or categories. For example I clearly can:
> Badgers and dogs are alike, because they both have four legs.
> Simple. Whether or not all humans have this ability, and whether they are involved in all perceptions, I don't think you've shown.
> The ontological arguement is



Just so I';m first to do it...

GOT YOUR NUMBER!!

*gets coat*


----------



## 118118 (Sep 5, 2005)

Shit, I didn't think of that.
lol


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 5, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I think it would be very silly to argue that most people can make conceptualizations or categories. For example I clearly can:
> Badgers and dogs are alike, because they both have four legs.
> Simple. Whether or not all humans have this ability, and whether they are involved in all perceptions, I don't think you've shown.
> The ontological arguement is


Or shit, depending on whether you've got an ounce of sense


----------



## montevideo (Sep 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> You can imagine a man stranded at birth alone on an island, with only a cow and a sheep for company. Imagine a sudden storm ensues, and the man knows that in a couple of minutes the rainwater will sweep down from the hills and wash away his animals. He only has time to save one - either the sheep in the pen at the back of the house or the cow in the field in front.
> 
> This man will be able to make an evaluative judgement between the cow and the sheep even though he could have had no experience of exchange as Marx understood it. He would also be able to make enumerative judgements (i.e. if there were one cow but four sheep, or 2 cows and seven sheep then the choice would vary). So in this instance the man would be able to make a boundedly rational choice based on his preferences without needing any 'value' arising from 'exchange'.
> 
> You can understand the evaluation of all commodities, whether or not they instantiate social labour, as the sum of the set of boundedly self-maximising choices of all the individual actors, without needing to deify exchange as the sole basis of human interaction (which is a social fallacy anyway - what about kinship etc?). Neither do you need to create a ghostly 'value' that in reality has no more tangible existence than centimeters do as a unit of length - in fact surely it would be possible to make a similar argument that 'centimeters' and 'inches' magically come into existence only when man starts to understand the concepts of 'longer', 'shorter', etc, a hypothesis that is as self-evident as it is pointless.




Indeed, or numbers in general; universally accepted, abstract concept, numbers are purely the creation of man. As opposed to _amounts_ which surely exist within nature regardless. Explaining amounts, or rather defining amounts, is therefore something we need to consider before we move forward? Do amounts, can amounts, exist without exchange? As in when a pack of carnivores hunt? Are they aware of amounts (as it were, mass) of the herd they are about to attack, can we ever know? Is quantification as aspect we need to consider?


----------



## Addy (Sep 5, 2005)

Indeed god does exist.
I met hime once, a few years back.
It was about 3am, i was out fishing when i saw the bright light.
At first i thought it was a balif or gamekeeper with a torch, until i was levitated by that strange forcefield.
..here we go again i thought, tin foil hats and anal probes   
This time it was different, i was welcomed by the visitors with a kind of awe.
Then the big guy appeared and greeted me.
He showed me a picture, and within that picture was another picture, and guess what? within that picture was another...etc
Then he placed thee picture under a sort of microscope and willed me to look.
I saw the picture moving, it was people and animals.
I hit the next zoom level and saw within those beings, more bodies moving around and doing their thing.
I zoomed again, and saw the same again....etc
The big guy laughed at me and revealed the plans of the experiment that was EARTH.
Then he showed me the plans of experiment universe..
Then i woke to the sound of my bite alarm, only to find i had hooked a minow.
It put my life into perspective that night.
I dont go fishing any more.
Nice thread


----------



## revol68 (Sep 5, 2005)

i thought marxs whole point was to move away from metaphysical shite which trys to find a primordal defining characteristic of man.

Can the ATF storm binary code? 

This thread has gone Waco.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 5, 2005)

* 100 at this thread.

Waits for Phil to start attempting to sell copies of The Watchtower.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 5, 2005)

I'm worried he's gone and isn't coming back. He promised the next instalment today and he hasn't delivered.

I want to know what happens in the end of the story!


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 5, 2005)

I still want to know if you are talking about the existance of god as an entity outside of the human mind.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 5, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I'm worried he's gone and isn't coming back. He promised the next instalment today and he hasn't delivered.
> 
> I want to know what happens in the end of the story!


 I'd like to think he's gone away to revise his arguments, but I seriously doubt it


----------



## trashpony (Sep 5, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> I'd like to think he's gone away to revise his arguments, but I seriously doubt it



Or just trying to figure out a way out of the huge hole he's just dug himself ...

Nah, that's not very likely either. I reckon it was down to his power sandwich - if he'd stuck to sausage sarnies, he'd be on a roll by now


----------



## Addy (Sep 5, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> if he'd stuck to sausage sarnies, he'd be on a roll by now



Would that then be a sausage roll?
or would it be that 'to roll' is an action, and that is not a concept of exchange?

 I'm talking bollox here, my first post is true though.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Post #1: The rational proof of God's existence begins with the definitive characteristic of human society: exchange. Yes, exchange.





> Post #149 I agree that “communication” is the definitive characteristic of human society.  At a later stage, I will be arguing that exchange is a form of communication, although not the only one (the other is language, broadly defined.)  I am constructing a more capacious definition of “communication” than you may be used to.


Exchange = 'Definitive characteristic of human society'

Communication = 'Definitive characteristic of human society'

Since both 'Communication' (C) and 'Exchange' (E) are identical to 'Definitive characteristic of human society', then both are identical to each other:

C = E

Also, from #149, Language (denoted L) is a subset of C, so

(L AND NOT C) = empty

Since C = E, it also follows that

(L AND NOT E) = empty

From #149, E and L are the two mutually exclusive subsets of communication,

i.e. (E AND L) = empty

Since C = E, it also follows that 

(C AND L) = empty

Therefore the set L = empty.

In other words, language does not exist, and you'd better all give up now.

Q.E.D.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 5, 2005)

I'm tempted to start a thread called :

_The rational proof of Phildwyers existence._


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 5, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> I'm tempted to start a thread called :
> 
> _The rational proof of Phildwyers existence._


Or 'The existence of a proof of Phildwyer's rationality'?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 5, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> Or 'The existence of a proof of Phildwyer's rationality'?



 

How about Phildwyer thinks therefore God exists.

If we can only refute Phils existence I think we will have refuted God.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 5, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> How about Phildwyer thinks therefore God exists.
> 
> If we can only refute Phils existence I think we will have refuted God.


Right people, let's get to it! 

*imagines himself as Ed Harris in 'Apollo 13'*


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Never heard of it.


You claim you are from the UK yet you say you have never heard of a Pret half sandwich?

You a complete fraud aren't you?

I bet you aren't Welsh either.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 5, 2005)

Look into the eyes. 




What do you see?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 5, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You claim you are from the UK yet you say you have never heard of a Pret half sandwich?
> 
> You a complete fraud aren't you?
> 
> I bet you aren't Welsh either.



Actually I don't think you get Pret outside London. I think he is in the UK, because he's eating bacon sarnies. 

Ah - the power of culinary detection 

That doesn't explain the mystery of the sausage 'rolls' though ...


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 5, 2005)

to save me time, has the Rev Dwyer proved it yet to ANYBODY'S satisfaction? or can i skip the thread for the time being?


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 5, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Actually I don't think you get Pret outside London. I think he is in the UK, because he's eating bacon sarnies.
> 
> Ah - the power of culinary detection
> 
> That doesn't explain the mystery of the sausage 'rolls' though ...


We really should't talk about him being a complete and utter fraud, someone who is trying to make fools out of all of us, a conveniently "out of the country" troll who covers his false identity by picking up snippets of "brit-slang" from other boards - I mean after all, that wouldn't really be on topic would it?


----------



## MarkMark (Sep 5, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> to save me time, has the Rev Dwyer proved it yet to ANYBODY'S satisfaction? or can i skip the thread for the time being?



skip it, it's rubbish


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 5, 2005)

cheers


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You claim you are from the UK yet you say you have never heard of a Pret half sandwich?
> 
> You a complete fraud aren't you?
> 
> I bet you aren't Welsh either.



How much?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> We really should't talk about him being a complete and utter fraud, someone who is trying to make fools out of all of us, a conveniently "out of the country" troll who covers his false identity by picking up snippets of "brit-slang" from other boards - I mean after all, that wouldn't really be on topic would it?



No, it wouldn't.  You should confine yourself to posting your amusing images and stop your attempts to derail.  I've met several members of these boards who can confirm that I am Welsh.  Including, I strongly suspect, you.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 6, 2005)

phil perhaps you should be working on turning the Ark of the Covenant into binary instead replying to posts that are blatantly below such a prophet.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> phil perhaps you should be working on turning the Ark of the Covenant into binary instead replying to posts that are blatantly below such a prophet.



Well, you do have a point.  In fact, your recent contributions as a whole have made a good deal of sense, and I shall include them in my response tomorrow (you're still a chopsy bastard though.)  I must resist the temptation to engage with these trolls at their own level.  They remind me of stray dogs at a picnic, staring fixedly at the food, and refusing to leave until they are thrown some scraps, no matter how frequently they are spurned away.  I should not feed them.


----------



## montevideo (Sep 6, 2005)

so far we seem to be echoing georg simmel's 'philosophy of money'. I don't know if we're going to get a suitably simmelesque conclusion. (If we are i suspect we're all going to be in for a disappointment).


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 6, 2005)

An abandoned baby was found in the street, miraculously still alive and unharmed in a small Romanian village.  The baby's apparent rescuers were a group of street dogs, who dispersed without comment.

Villagers reported hearing a baby crying and dog noises all through the night before, but at the time it was extremely cold, and the snow discouraged people from venturing outside to investigate the disturbance.

In the morning they found a naked baby, born several days earlier, huddled closely amid the pack of stray dogs who had kept the infant warm throughout the night.

The baby was alive and without a single scratch.

This amazing rescue happened some time ago and made national headlines and widespread TV coverage in Romania.

But today, much of the Romanian news media chooses to steer clear of the controversial topic of street dogs.  In a nation where the anti-dog sentiment has triumphed over benevolence, the spotlight of coverage is more often on isolated "dog attacks" (many of which are later determined to be knife-inflicted injuries).

But in the midst of it all, there are a few people who still remember the story of a dreadful winter, a helpless baby and a bunch of dogs. 






Woof! woof!
(trns.: chuck us a bacon sarnie mate! or maybe some *SAUSAGES*)

[erm... yes. The relevance of this is to demonstrate cooperative behaviour in non-humans.]


----------



## ska invita (Sep 6, 2005)

do us a favour phil, rather than this step by step approach to the argument, will you just do one post that lays out the hows and whatnots?  I've flicked through this thread and I cant see any argument of it...Im curious to know how you want to explain it...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

niksativa said:
			
		

> do us a favour phil, rather than this step by step approach to the argument, will you just do one post that lays out the hows and whatnots?  I've flicked through this thread and I cant see any argument of it...Im curious to know how you want to explain it...



The thing is, its impossible to do that without using the shorthand of technical philosphical terms or reference to philosophers.  And the whole raison d'etre of this thread is to avoid doing that.  As you may have noticed, many people here have absolutely zero knowledge of philosophy, so if I say something like "the next stage of my argument summarizes Hegel's account of Begriff in the Phenomenology," they'll all freak out.  And anyway, I fimly believe that God's existence is logically demonstrable to anyone, no matter how ill-read, as long as they approach the argument in good faith.   

However, since I don't have time today to write much, I suppose I can say a bit that will help those who do have some philosophical training to see where I am going.  REVOL68 and MONTEVIDEO are, of course, correct to discern the influences of Lukacs and Simmel on my argument.  I like to think that I move beyond them, however, by reconciling them with Saussurean linguistics and French post-structuralism.  The key here will be to show that financial value and linguistic semiosis are one and the same.  You can probably guess where I'll take it from there.  Before that, however, the fourth stage of my argument will expand on the Classical labour theory of value, through Marx's notion of labour-power as human activity per se, or as considered in the abstract, into a broader claim that the source of value is human subjective activity conceived as a totality.

My apologies for the technical terminology, I won't use such terms, or allude to philosophers you may not know again.  My purpose is to convince you of God's existence--and yes, JO/JOE, I do mean a God external to the human mind--using nothing but the language of the common people.  My argument requires no prior knowledge of philosophy or of anythig else.  Those who do have some knowledge may well want to move on faster than the rest, but after today I will not be granting such requests.  We must move, as I say, at the pace of the slowest, GURRIER and TEEJAY excepted of course.  Incidentally, I can't see those two clowns staying the course much longer, so we should be free of their infuriating distractions quite soon.  Anyway, you have my word that tomorrow I will finish dealing with the objections to stage two of my argument and (as long as all the objectors are happy that I'm answered them), give my intitial refutations to the objections to stage three, and also advance stage four in detail.  Breakfast from the "roach coach" this morning, I'm afraid.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 6, 2005)

Careful now everyone - we're dealing with a real intellectual heavyweight here:

http://www.usask.ca/philosophy/dwyer.htm

Mr Dwyer has asked me to clarify that this is in fact a joke and the person in that link is not our own Phil. He seemed concerned that a lot of people would confuse the two of them. Yet again he underestimates our intelligence, but we're getting used to that.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 6, 2005)

Or will he turn out to be a tenor and soprano saxophonist moonlighting as a cod theologian?:

http://www.roadhouserecords.ca/artists/philD.html


----------



## Loki (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> <reams of guff snipped>
> 
> And anyway, I fimly believe that God's existence is logically demonstrable to anyone
> 
> <more reams of guff snipped>



So go ahead then! I'm all ears.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Careful now everyone - we're dealing with a real intellectual heavyweight here:
> 
> http://www.usask.ca/philosophy/dwyer.htm



You're a fucking twat, Brainaddict, what the fuck do you think you're doing?  That's not me, ask the many posters who've met me, including the Editor.  But this is well out of order.  I think you owe me an apology.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 6, 2005)

If it's not you what's the problem? Do you have some kind of academic spat going on with this other Phil D?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> If it's not you what's the problem? Do you have some kind of academic spat going on with this other Phil D?



No Kyser, but this guy is obviously a real person who probably doesn't want himself paraded in this context.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You're a fucking twat, Brainaddict, what the fuck do you think you're doing?  That's not me, ask the many posters who've met me, including the Editor.  But this is well out of order.  I think you owe me an apology.


 erm, quite obviously it was a joke Mr Dwyer.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> erm, quite obviously it was a joke Mr Dwyer.



Well let's hope for your sake, and for that of U75, that the real Prof. Dwyer shares your sense of humour, and that he will not be in receipt of any unsolicited communication from the more, ahem, unusual characters around here.  Eh?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well let's hope for your sake, and for that of U75, that the real Prof. Dwyer shares your sense of humour, and that he will not be in receipt of any unsolicited communication from the more, ahem, unusual characters around here.  Eh?


 

I'm shaking in my shoes. D'you see how shaky my hand has gone? Wait, no, sorry, there was a train going past.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> I'm shaking in my shoes. D'you see how shaky my hand has gone? Wait, no, sorry, there was a train going past.



I hope you're right.  Because, believe you me, there is nothing--and I mean *nothing*--more vindictive and litigious than an American academic who feels their reputation has been besmirched.  But I'm sure you'll be alright, he looks like a nice guy.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I hope you're right.  Because, believe you me, there is nothing--and I mean *nothing*--more vindictive and litigious than an American academic who feels their reputation has been besmirched.  But I'm sure you'll be alright, he looks like a nice guy.


 And *boy* was his name besmirched here 

Hey, I've never noticed what a cool word 'besmirched' is. Besmirched besmirched besmirched besmirched besmirched besmirched besmirched....

As you were.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> And *boy* was his name besmirched here
> 
> Hey, I've never noticed what a cool word 'besmirched' is. Besmirched besmirched besmirched besmirched besmirched besmirched besmirched....
> 
> As you were.



Apologize.  Now.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 6, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> And *boy* was his name besmirched here


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Apologize.  Now.


 For what? I was insulting your philosophical abilities. It's what most other people on the thread have been doing for days in case you haven't noticed


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> For what? I was insulting your philosophical abilities. It's what most other people on the thread have been doing for days in case you haven't noticed



You should apologize because, although that unfortunate person is not me, YOU HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT.  Quite a few details fit, actually, and you probably thought it was me.  That's a pretty big crime around here, I believe.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You should apologize because, although that unfortunate person is not me, YOU HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT.  Quite a few details fit, actually, and you probably thought it was me.  That's a pretty big crime around here, I believe.


 No no Phil, I didn't think it was you. No one thought it was you. That man is a *philosopher*.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> No no Phil, I didn't think it was you. No one thought it was you. That man is a *philosopher*.



In which case, why did you mock him by sarcastically dubbing him "a real intellectual heavyweight," and how did you think you were "insulting my philosophical abilities" by comparing me to him?  Admit it, you thought it was me, and you were so excited you stopped thinking for a minute.  Just apologize and we'll forget all about it.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 6, 2005)

phil fuck off the high horse and start proving the flying spaghetti monster.

And if I remember my point about Lukacs was that you couldn't have read him to well if you held exchange equivalence to be somehow innate.


> yeah they only become equal through the logic of exchange value. Capital reduces everything to a exchange value, everything becomes qualitively the same in the form of money, only differing quantivly.
> 
> I would have thought that ole phildywer as a fan of Lukacs (and nodoubt Adorno) would have known this.



so i was actually criticising you for making reactioanary ahistoric claims.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> In which case, why did you mock him by sarcastically dubbing him "a real intellectual heavyweight," and how did you think you were "insulting my philosophical abilities" by comparing me to him?  Admit it, you thought it was me, and you were so excited you stopped thinking for a minute.  Just apologize and we'll forget all about it.


 No Phil, once again we seem to be stretching your comprehension skills, but let's run through it one more time. I was mocking *you* by comparing you to a man who *is* an intellectual heavyweight (or looks like it at a brief glance).


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> No Phil, once again we seem to be stretching your comprehension skills, but let's run through it one more time. I was mocking *you* by comparing you to a man who *is* an intellectual heavyweight (or looks like it at a brief glance).



No you weren't, you liar.  You thought it was me.  And BTW, if that Phil Dwyer really is your idea of an "intellectual heavyweight" you obviously have no notion of what's going on here.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> phil fuck off the high horse and start proving the flying spaghetti monster.
> 
> And if I remember my point about Lukacs was that you couldn't have read him to well if you held exchange equivalence to be somehow innate.
> 
> ...



Just *wait,* you impetuous little person.  I'm getting to it, in fact I'll be dealing at some length with the difference between Lukacs's historically specific concept of reification and the general Hegelian idea of alienation.  But I won't use those terms, because people won't understand them, and in any case, as you see, Brainaddict has cleverly found another way to derail this thread and prevent me from getting on with the argument, so we may never even get that far.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No you weren't, you liar.  You thought it was me.  And BTW, if that Phil Dwyer really is your idea of an "intellectual heavyweight" you obviously have no notion of what's going on here.


 I'd object to being called a liar by you if I thought anyone would listen to your opinion.

Quite apart from the apparent differences in thinking abilities between you and the linked phil dwyer, there is another difference - you argue like a teenager and he looks to be at least 40 - so you see there was never much risk of people confusing the two of you.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Just *wait,* you impetuous little person.  I'm getting to it, in fact I'll be dealing at some length with the difference between Lukacs's historically specific concept of reification and the general Hegelian idea of alienation.  But I won't use those terms, because people won't understand them, and in any case, as you see, Brainaddict has cleverly found another way to derail this thread and prevent me from getting on with the argument, so we may never even get that far.



So your basically going to reject Lukacs historical materialism in favour of some essentialist idealist Hegelian shit, and then go on to prove God or Geist from that. Nice

So a pompous reworking of a pompous dead German, what a great proof.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> I'd object to being called a liar by you if I thought anyone would listen to your opinion.
> 
> Quite apart from the apparent differences in thinking abilities between you and the linked phil dwyer, there is another difference - you argue like a teenager and he looks to be at least 40 - so you see there was never much risk of people confusing the two of you.



I am content to leave the question of whether or not you are a liar to the judgment of others: the evidence is clear enough.   Furthermore, this Phil Dwyer, while he seem to be a perfectly nice chap, does not enjoy an international reputation in philosophy.  I'd certainly never heard of him, or I wouldn't have used his name.  So the fact that you think my thought is comparable to his speaks volumes about your ability to evaluate philosophical arguments.  In fact, it makes me wonder what you're doing on this thread.  You don't seem to be interested in the discussion.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> So your basically going to reject Lukacs historical materialism in favour of some essentialist idealist Hegelian shit, and then go on to prove God or Geist from that. Nice
> 
> So a pompous reworking of a pompous dead German, what a great proof.


No, idiot, that's obviously not what I'm going to do.  Just *wait,* will you, I have to deal with Brainaddict first, for one thing, and then there'll be a while before we get onto reification.  Patience.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 6, 2005)

> So the fact that you think my thought is comparable to his speaks volumes about your ability to evaluate philosophical arguments.



Ermmm, no. I think it speaks volumes of BAs abiliity to type 'phil dwyer' into Google tho 

THe Many Faces of PhilD


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No you weren't, you liar.  You thought it was me.  And BTW, if that Phil Dwyer really is your idea of an "intellectual heavyweight" you obviously have no notion of what's going on here.


What, so you're saying he _isn't_ an "intellectual heavyweight" then? I hear some besmirching going on here!


----------



## revol68 (Sep 6, 2005)

sorry but I fail to see how discussing reificatian, alienation or commodity fetishism gets us any closer to proving the existance of a diety or for that matter anything outside the material realm.

So far your debate has centred on human concepts, how you intend to jump from there into the heavens is beyond me.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I am content to leave the question of whether or not you are a liar to the judgment of others: the evidence is clear enough.   Furthermore, this Phil Dwyer, while he seem to be a perfectly nice chap, does not enjoy an international reputation in philosophy.  I'd certainly never heard of him, or I wouldn't have used his name.  So the fact that you think my thought is comparable to his speaks volumes about your ability to evaluate philosophical arguments.  In fact, it makes me wonder what you're doing on this thread.  You don't seem to be interested in the discussion.


 I love the implication here that your thought does or should enjoy an international reputation 

Phil, I'm afraid that whatever you tell yourself, you have demonstrated your inability to read a text in a rigorous and scholarly manner over and over again on this very thread. You could not possibly, therefore, be a philosophy professor, hence the ludicrousness of me making the comparison. Do you understand the humour now? It's not funny when explained of course. It never is


----------



## trashpony (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, idiot, that's obviously not what I'm going to do.  Just *wait,* will you, I have to deal with Brainaddict first, for one thing, and then there'll be a while before we get onto reification.  Patience.



You are beginning to sound like you're losing yours.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> So far your debate has centred on human concepts, how you intend to jump from there into the heavens is beyond me.



I'm well aware of that.  Fear not though, once we get beyond the barracking, I will soon bring the matter within your capabilities.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 6, 2005)

so your going to make a leap that every other philosopher and theologian has had to bridge with faith?

Are you an Immanuel Kant Or an Immanuel Kan?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 6, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> so your going to make a leap that every other philosopher and theologian has had to bridge with faith?
> 
> Are you an Immanuel Kant Or an Immanuel Kan?


I'd give him top marx for effort though.

now where did I leave my coat?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> What, so you're saying he _isn't_ an "intellectual heavyweight" then? I hear some besmirching going on here!



How could I besmirch him?  I've never even heard of him.  He doesn't appear to have published anything to speak of.  I know nothing of him.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 6, 2005)

Or will he just Spinoza his way out of this one.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Or will he just Spinoza his way out of this one.



You know Foucault about it.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 6, 2005)

well Adorno about that.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 6, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *maomao*
> I'm with you here Bernie. It would be nice if this thread didn't just descend into abuse and flaming because that wouldn't actually defeat* Phil's phaluses*.



Aye, the original multi-dick man! I'm sure you mean 'fallacies' but I found this funny...and somewhat true.


----------



## Alf Klein (Sep 6, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You claim you are from the UK yet you say you have never heard of a Pret half sandwich?
> 
> You a complete fraud aren't you?
> 
> I bet you aren't Welsh either.


I'm from the UK and have never heard of a Pret half sandwich.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> well Adorno about that.



I'm not Saussure either.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

Alf Klein said:
			
		

> I'm from the UK and have never heard of a Pret half sandwich.



Its obviously some poncy London thing.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 6, 2005)




----------



## revol68 (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm not Saussure either.



well then whats all this Husserl a-Barthes then?


----------



## Alf Klein (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Its obviously some poncy London thing.


Probably

Please continue


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> well then whats all this Husserl a-Barthes then?



How many Schoepenhauers till Christmas?


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 6, 2005)

As Martin Luther put it: _"Money is the word of the clowns, through which they create everything in the world, just as the Noodle Monster creates through the true word."_


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 6, 2005)

Phil, it is impossible to prove whether or not a God exists through logic alone, and I can prove it.

Of course, in keeping with the format of the thread, you'll have to wait till tomorrow for me to do so.   

Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel!


----------



## revol68 (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> How many Schoepenhauers till Christmas?



Stop talking Stanley Fish (academic cockney rhyming slang) and get proving the flying spaghetti monster.


----------



## Poi E (Sep 6, 2005)

Does God exist yet? I've got an afterlife riding on this one.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 6, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> Does God exist yet? I've got an afterlife riding on this one.


And I've got four horsemen riding in the Apocalypse at 6.40* tomorrow at Newmarket!

* Which of course is sexagesimal for 6.66 (or a little beastie)


----------



## ICB (Sep 6, 2005)

This thread's improved considerably in the last few pages, more derailleurs than a Shimano factory. 



> Does God exist yet? I've got an afterlife riding on this one.


 I wouldn't wager that you'll be going out in a Blaise of glory.


----------



## axon (Sep 6, 2005)

My my my how this thread have moved on.  Unfortunatley I was busy at the weekend so haven't had chance to refute Phils second set of arguments, no doubt I will have detention for being absent without a note.  However, one line from Phil has caught my eye which I think means I don't really need to continue following this thread

"I am determined that every serious reader will be completely convinced by my reasoning"

There's no debating with this sort of closed minded thinking.  There is no room for Phils attitude to be modified, and there is the inbuilt assumption that if you are not convinced you are not taking it seriously.  Cheerio.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 6, 2005)

> This thread's improved considerably in the last few pages, more derailleurs than a Shimano factory.



*points with finger on nose*

AHHHH! Good one!


----------



## MarkMark (Sep 6, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> Does God exist yet? I've got an afterlife riding on this one.



no, but if you pray... very hard....


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 6, 2005)

Come on eveyone, we might all have had the existance of god proven to us by now, in the language of the common people to boot. Instead you're wasting phil's precious time asking him about sarnies and namesakes.

As you were phil..


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

axon said:
			
		

> My my my how this thread have moved on.  Unfortunatley I was busy at the weekend so haven't had chance to refute Phils second set of arguments, no doubt I will have detention for being absent without a note.  However, one line from Phil has caught my eye which I think means I don't really need to continue following this thread
> 
> "I am determined that every serious reader will be completely convinced by my reasoning"
> 
> There's no debating with this sort of closed minded thinking.  There is no room for Phils attitude to be modified, and there is the inbuilt assumption that if you are not convinced you are not taking it seriously.  Cheerio.



You misunderstand.  I mean that I will not move on until *you* are satisfied that I have answered your objections.  Obviously this doesn't apply to those who only come here to disrupt, since they will pretend not to be convinced even when they really are.  But you are not among them, so you have nothing to fear.  And since it was the weekend, I grant you amnesty from the 24-hour deadline.  I shall deal with your points tomorrow, don't worry.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 6, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Come on eveyone, we might all have had the existance of god proven to us by now, in the language of the common people to boot. Instead you're wasting phil's precious time asking him about sarnies and namesakes.
> 
> As you were phil..



The sad truth is, Jo/Joe, that many here are not only determined not to learn themselves, they are determined that *you* should not learn either.  The prospect of truth terrifies them.  But we find such embittered, twisted figures in every age, and in all societies.  The point is not to avoid such people, for that is impossible on earth, but to rise above them.


----------



## Addy (Sep 6, 2005)

Yeah, lets hear the end of the story grampaaa
I'm hoping its beter than my experience.
I might have to go fishing again....


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 6, 2005)

> The point is not to avoid such people, for that is impossible on earth, but to rise above them.




In a balloon?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 6, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> In a balloon?




Made of marzipan?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 6, 2005)

Come on, don't be silly now.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 6, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Come on, don't be silly now.




OK bubblegum


----------



## revol68 (Sep 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The sad truth is, Jo/Joe, that many here are not only determined not to learn themselves, they are determined that *you* should not learn either.  The prospect of truth terrifies them.  But we find such embittered, twisted figures in every age, and in all societies.  The point is not to avoid such people, for that is impossible on earth, but to rise above them.




Heathens the lot of them, debased animals, unfit for the word of god as mediated through our prophet Phil. 

Rumour is circling the townfolk that gurrier and others impatient with your prophecies have began constructing a golden calve.

I must impress on you the seriousness of the matter, if we are to spend any longer in this theological desert the people shall be lost to the word. Make headway and smit these heathens, then deliver us to the holy land.

In serene duty your humble servant
Revol


----------



## exosculate (Sep 6, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Heathens the lot of them, debased animals, unfit for the word of god as mediated through our prophet Phil.
> 
> Rumour is circling the townfolk that gurrier and others impatient with your prophecies have began constructing a golden calve.
> 
> ...



 

I think ol' philly is trying to groom people.


----------



## axon (Sep 6, 2005)

Well first of all I don’t think you should be limiting the concepts of value and exchange to humans, but this may well be a minor point that has arisen through your speciesm.
And agreeing with Brainaddict earlier, you haven’t established that exchange is the definitive characteristic of human society, you have shown that it is an aspect of human society (which doesn’t preclude it from non-human society).

But in the spirit of Christmas I'm willing to carry on and see where you are going.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 6, 2005)

axon said:
			
		

> Well first of all I don’t think you should be limiting the concepts of value and exchange to humans, but this may well be a minor point that has arisen through your speciesm.
> And agreeing with Brainaddict earlier, you haven’t established that exchange is the definitive characteristic of human society, you have shown that it is an aspect of human society (which doesn’t preclude it from non-human society).
> 
> But in the spirit of Christmas I'm willing to carry on and see where you are going.




I see the angel you're coming from!


----------



## MysteryGuest (Sep 7, 2005)

Look, Phil, there's probably some kind of one-liner you should, or could, post here to get yourself out of this mess - a one-liner that hints at all the various arguments and insights that you've ever had on this matter, a one-liner that in its smartness and neatness would amount to a big "fuck you" to all the scoffers and mockers and trollers and just plain rude people on this thread.


Would you mind awfully posting it?  It would save everybody, including yourself, a lot of time.


Ta.


----------



## Flavour (Sep 7, 2005)

How about,

"God exists because you make irrational decisions"


----------



## laptop (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> they will pretend not to be convinced even when they really are



Tsk. Epistemology and ontology re-takes for you Phil. 

Sample question: "Laptop *knows* that Phil is really convinced of the existence and omnipotence of invisible pink unicorns and the nonexistence of any other supernatural being; in fact the more detailed, the more rigorous and the more convincing Phil's arguments against this belief and against the possibility of him holding it the more securely Laptop knows this. Discuss".


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 7, 2005)

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool." 

"I am but mad north-north-west; when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw."


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 7, 2005)

We love you "phil"!


----------



## 118118 (Sep 7, 2005)

This may be a little late, that without labour there is no piece of land to exchange, as you don't own it (that could even mean just fencing off the piece of land). Didn't Locke say that the only way we appropriate property is through mixing our labour?


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 7, 2005)

Surely love and altruism SHOULD be the defining characteristics of a human society? I could see exchange working on an emotional level as a defining characteristic but not commodity exchange.
 I`m still perplexed as to how all this relates to the universal conciousness?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 7, 2005)

Over the next few days I will prove that life is but a dream.  I shall impart the good news to you in small chunks so that your feeble minds may absorb the truth and your puny questions may be rebuffed.  So, to start at the begining, row row row your boat.

Any questions?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 7, 2005)

fractionMan said:
			
		

> Over the next few days I will prove that life is but a dream.  I shall impart the good news to you in small chunks so that your feeble minds may absorb the truth and your puny questions may be rebuffed.  So, to start at the begining, row row row your boat.
> 
> Any questions?


Wait, this isn't Nietszche's Reverse-Ontological Death Hypothesis you're leading up to is it?
I refer you to Heidegger - who you clearly have no grasp of whatsoever.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 7, 2005)

I'll give you lot shome fill...fillosh...fillosofizing

'sall a load of bollox mate.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 7, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Wait, this isn't Nietszche's Reverse-Ontological Death Hypothesis you're leading up to is it?
> I refer you to Heidegger - who you clearly have no grasp of whatsoever.


It is clear to me that you have read, understood and agreed with everything I have postulated so far.  You are simply unaware of this fact.  On further reflection I think you'll realise that your assumption is unsound and that relevance aside, it is you who has a tenuous grasp of Heidegger.


----------



## montevideo (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> REVOL68 and MONTEVIDEO are, of course, correct to discern the influences of Lukacs and Simmel on my argument.



oh come now, i'd say more than just an _influence_. Given simmel was a major influence on lukacs let's start with him. _"Most relationships among men can be considered under the category of exchange. Exchange is the purest and most concerntrated form of al human interactions in which serious interests are at stake"_.These are the opening sentences from simmel's essay on exchange, they mirror almost precisely your own original assertion. 

The way i see it you want to introduce a 'truth' element (one that can be denied but can't be altered) that rationalises the act of faith necessary to produce god. So far you've dazzled us with technique.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 7, 2005)

It's quite a good thought really.  

No-one would want to deny that money exists would they?  Well maybe they would, for doctrinaire reasons, but, all the same, it's not particularly in question that money exists.  And money exists as money, rather than just bits of paper, because people have faith in it.  

That's why it says "In God we trust."  on the dollar bill.  It's a joke, but it's also not a joke at all.  

It's precisely because people put more faith in money than they do in God, that this planet is ruled by money, and run for the sake of money rather than humanity.  

I'd love to see a kind of holographic 3d picture of the circulation and collections of money, and their relationships to humanity.  I bet it would look like an organism with cancerous growths, and humanity servicing the cancer.  

So is reality "really" spiritual or material?


----------



## montevideo (Sep 7, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> It's quite a good thought really.
> 
> No-one would want to deny that money exists would they?  Well maybe they would, for doctrinaire reasons, but, all the same, it's not particularly in question that money exists.  And money exists as money, rather than just bits of paper, because people have faith in it.
> 
> ...




money is wholly man made. Even the element of exchange is mediated through social conditions, wholly subjective in their origin.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> oh come now, i'd say more than just an _influence_. Given simmel was a major influence on lukacs let's start with him. _"Most relationships among men can be considered under the category of exchange. Exchange is the purest and most concerntrated form of al human interactions in which serious interests are at stake"_.These are the opening sentences from simmel's essay on exchange, they mirror almost precisely your own original assertion.
> 
> The way i see it you want to introduce a 'truth' element (one that can be denied but can't be altered) that rationalises the act of faith necessary to produce god. So far you've dazzled us with technique.



Well, MONTEVIDEO, you know your philosophy.  Yes, I'm bascially starting with Simmel, although I'll be providing a more Hegelian reading of him that you suggest.  And Lukacs, although certainly influenced by Simmel, goes very far beyond him in his understanding of what money is, among other things.  But in any case, please remember what must be clear to you already: that very few, if any, posters on this thread have ever read any philosophy at all.  I promised that I would not intimidate them by learned or technical references, and I intend to keep my promise.  I shall make my case entirely in language that they will understand.  Yes, of course as you say "quantification is an aspect we need to consider."  The *value* of a thing is that thing considered quantitatively, while the *use* of a thing is that thing considered qualitatively.  Alternatively, we might say that value is the accidental manifestation, and use is the substantial essence of a thing.  The important point that I am in the process of demonstrating is that value is an alienated expression of use.  But you knew that already.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I must abandon the vocabluary of specialist philosophers and speak again in an ordinary tongue.

AXON and FRUITLOOP: You raise much the same question: is the concept of value limited to human beings?  FRUIT cites the example of pigeons which, as he claims, can distinguish between the paintings of Picasso and Monet.  I know nothing of pigeons, but of course I am familiar with dolphin-speak, dead-burying elephants, Koko the Talking Gorilla and the rest of the examples that are always trotted out at this stage of the argument.  I would deny that these animals are evincing the ability to conceptualize.  But even supposing that they were, is it not clear that there is so great a degree of difference between the conceptual range of Koko and that of even the most cretinous human being as to render their capacities altogether distinct and essentially different?  That is, the difference between human and animal conceptual abilities is one of kind rather than one of degree?  That is all my argument requires.

FRUITLOOP: You say: "value derives from the sum of choices made on the basis of individual preferences, which are self-maximising under the conditions of bounded rationality; and I still don't see what it has to do with Darwin."  As I said before, this shows that you adhere to the neoclassical, market or capitalist theory of value.  In contrast, I am going to argue for a modified version of the labour theory of value.  The two are generally held to be incompatible, but I am going to show that they are not.  MONTEVIDEO knows how I am going to do this, but he will keep quiet as he does not want to ruin the suspense.  Your theory of value is akin to Darwin insofar as he believes that *evolution* occurs "on the basis of individual preferences, which are self-maximising..." or in other words, that it is driven by the competitive adaptation of individual organisms.  The ideological complicity between Darwin and Adam Smith is well known and generally acknowledged, not least by Darwin himself.

Right, time for my breakfast break.  A bagel today.  I don't usually eat bagels, but today I will.  And a banana. Back in a tick.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 7, 2005)

> AXON and FRUITLOOP: You raise much the same question: is the concept of value limited to human beings?FRUIT cites the example of pigeons which, as he claims, can distinguish between the paintings of Picasso and Monet. I know nothing of pigeons, but of course I am familiar with dolphin-speak, dead-burying elephants, Koko the Talking Gorilla and the rest of the examples that are always trotted out at this stage of the argument. I would deny that these animals are evincing the ability to conceptualize. But even supposing that they were, is it not clear that there is so great a degree of difference between the conceptual range of Koko and that of even the most cretinous human being as to render their capacities altogether distinct and essentially different? That is, the difference between human and animal conceptual abilities is one of kind rather than one of degree? That is all my argument requires.



I never mentioned value in this context. I was simply pointing out that it appears that some animals do conceptualize in a way that is similar in kind to the way that humans do (unless of course you view all cognition as inherently linguistic, which I suspect you don't). The first paper was Watanabe, Sakamoto and Wakita, 1995 if you wish to look it up.



> FRUITLOOP: You say: "value derives from the sum of choices made on the basis of individual preferences, which are self-maximising under the conditions of bounded rationality; and I still don't see what it has to do with Darwin." As I said before, this shows that you adhere to the neoclassical, market or capitalist theory of value. In contrast, I am going to argue for a modified version of the labour theory of value. The two are generally held to be incompatible, but I am going to show that they are not. MONTEVIDEO knows how I am going to do this, but he will keep quiet as he does not want to ruin the suspense. Your theory of value is akin to Darwin insofar as he believes that *evolution* occurs "on the basis of individual preferences, which are self-maximising..." or in other words, that it is driven by the competitive adaptation of individual organisms. The ideological complicity between Darwin and Adam Smith is well known and generally acknowledged, not least by Darwin himself.



I have no problem with LTV. I was just pointing out that it's an insufficient way of looking at price in contemporary capitalism, since to do so you have to also understand how, in a climate of individual preference which is assumed to be self-maximising, capital nevertheless exerts its pressure on social consumption as a whole. 'Evolution on the basis of individual preferences which are self-maximising' is not something I recognise even from Darwin (can you give a reference for it?), and it certainly doesn't belong in any modern evolutionary theory, so I'll let that slide for the moment.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

To continue.  May I first request that, if anyone is unsatisfied with my answers to their objections, they say so as quickly as possible?  AXON waited three days, which I permitted since it was the weekend, but I wouldn’t want to make a habit of this.  My self-imposed posting limit is evidently frustrating some people as it is, to judge by the number of requests for short-cuts and so forth.  Those of you who are asking for a “one-liner” to explain everything are forgetting the purpose of this thread, which is to make sure that *everyone*--the bitter mockers and outright lunatics obviously excepted—is entirely convinced by what I say, and left with no doubts whatsoever regarding the existence of God.  This necessitates baby steps.  Fair enough?

118118: You have anticipated the fourth stage of my argument, which I will now proceed to make.  In stage three, I showed that individual acts of labour cannot be the source of value.  Only labour *generally* conceived can play this role.  It is labour *per se,* labour in the *abstract* which produces value.  Only labour so conceived can provide a common denominator in which the value of any thing can be expressed, and labour so conceived can play this role for any thing at all, even those things, such as an untilled field, which are not themselves the products of labour.  Now we need to ask what labour *per se* really is.  Clearly it is not wage-labour only, for many kinds of work are not paid.  Nor will the distinctions between “work” and “play,” “labour” and “leisure” hold up to close analysis: one man’s work is another’s play and so forth.  So the category of labour in the *abstract* (as opposed to in its *concrete* manifestations) is a very wide category indeed.  Does it not amount, in fact, to subjective human activity considered as a whole?  (This is a very important and difficult stage, please raise any objections immediately).

PARALLEL:  The purport of your weird algebra would appear to be that “exchange” and “communication” are both aspects of the same thing—the ability to conceptualize—and that it is this ability rather than exchange which is the definitively human characteristic.  Is that fair?  I agree: I was illustrating what it is to conceptualize by means of the example of exchange.  As I said before, language is the other manifestation of this ability.  But this ability lies behind both exchange and communication.  Just to be clear, by “conceptualize,” I intend the ability to subsume a particular thing beneath a general category—to recognize that tall brown thing with leaves as a particular instance of the general category “tree.”  Are you with me?  I shall return to the issue of language at a slightly later stage of my argument.

AZRAEL: Yes of course “love” *should* be the definitive characteristic of human society.  But it *is* not.  My argument will explain why this is the case, the distinction if you will between the “should” and the “is.”

TRASHPONY: As far as I can see you haven’t actually made any arguments here, so I don’t see why you’re moaning that I haven’t addressed them.  If I’m wrong, or if you want to make an argument now, please do so.  I have promised to answer *all* objections made by anyone who is not manifestly insane or malicious, and that certainly includes yours.

Well, I was going to say a bit more today, but this is probably quite enough to put on your plates for one morning.  Assuming that stages one and two are now fully established, tomorrow I will answer any criticism of numbers three and four and, time allowing, advance part five of my case for God.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 7, 2005)

fractionMan said:
			
		

> It is clear to me that you have read, understood and agreed with everything I have postulated so far.  You are simply unaware of this fact.  On further reflection I think you'll realise that your assumption is unsound and that relevance aside, it is you who has a tenuous grasp of Heidegger.


 Ffs, can we have the next stage of your argument please? I'm on the edge of my seat here and I can't wait for tomorrow, or for you to finish your salami


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> AZRAEL: Yes of course “love” *should* be the definitive characteristic of human society.  But it *is* not.  My argument will explain why this is the case, the distinction if you will between the “should” and the “is.”
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 7, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> phildwyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 7, 2005)

> 118118: You have anticipated the fourth stage of my argument, which I will now proceed to make. In stage three, I showed that individual acts of labour cannot be the source of value. Only labour *generally* conceived can play this role. It is labour *per se,* labour in the *abstract* which produces value. Only labour so conceived can provide a common denominator in which the value of any thing can be expressed, and labour so conceived can play this role for any thing at all, even those things, such as an untilled field, which are not themselves the products of labour. Now we need to ask what labour *per se* really is. Clearly it is not wage-labour only, for many kinds of work are not paid. Nor will the distinctions between “work” and “play,” “labour” and “leisure” hold up to close analysis: one man’s work is another’s play and so forth. So the category of labour in the *abstract* (as opposed to in its *concrete* manifestations) is a very wide category indeed. Does it not amount, in fact, to subjective human activity considered as a whole? (This is a very important and difficult stage, please raise any objections immediately).



So value therefore arises from human activity as a whole? I can't believe we're ten pages in and this is how far we've got. What exactly is the point of collapsing production into consumption, or use-, labour- and exchange-value into 'the totality of human subjective activity', other than to foist God on the unwary?


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 7, 2005)

i've not been paying much attention to this thread and haven't the time to read it all.  can someone PM when god has been proved to exist so i know where to direct my complaints to?


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 7, 2005)

Ok, as promised, I shall show that God's existence cannot be proven through logic alone.

Imagine there were two universes, identical in every way except spatio-temporal location.  One universe came about through the actions of a Creator, the other through the methods described by science.  Call them U1 and U2 (which is which is not important at this point).

The same logical arguments will hold true in both.

Therefore, it is impossible to distinguish one from the other through logic alone.

Therefore it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God through logic alone.

If you disagree, please let me know which universe is U1 and which is U2, if you can't then you are clearly unable to back up your assertion.

Thankyou and goodnight.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2005)

I may be a little tired but isn't that utter cack?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 7, 2005)

8ball said:
			
		

> I may be a little tired but isn't that utter cack?


 Yes. He just stated that 'the same logical arguments will hold true in both', without explaining why, then said 'they must be indistinguishable then'. A little circular I'd say.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 7, 2005)

More caffeine for everyone, then - my round.


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 7, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Yes. He just stated that 'the same logical arguments will hold true in both', without explaining why, then said 'they must be indistinguishable then'. A little circular I'd say.



Because logic is universal...


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 7, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> Because logic is universal...


 wtf are you on about? sez who? It might be universal in this universe (though only if you define it so that it is - so it doesn't actually mean anything to say it) but other universes could be completely different.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 7, 2005)

I think Phil has already stated that you can't know anything about the Creator by looking at the world.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 7, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I think Phil has already stated that you can't know anything about the Creator by looking at the world.



This would be the world the creator created?

So you can't know anything about the creator from His/Hers/Its creation?

I'm going back to being pretend pissed...


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 7, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> wtf are you on about? sez who? It might be universal in this universe (though only if you define it so that it is - so it doesn't actually mean anything to say it) but other universes could be completely different.



I disagree, but that's irrelevant.  The two universes I described were identical (apart from the exceptions I mentioned), and therefore their logic would also be identical.  And so the same logical arguments would hold true in both.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> TRASHPONY: As far as I can see you haven’t actually made any arguments here, so I don’t see why you’re moaning that I haven’t addressed them.  If I’m wrong, or if you want to make an argument now, please do so.  I have promised to answer *all* objections made by anyone who is not manifestly insane or malicious, and that certainly includes yours.



No, you're right, I haven't. Largely because I can't be bothered and also because my main motive is to draw attention to the fact that whenever you can't answer a question, that questioner is, in your estimation, an idiot, insane or malicious or all three.

Just in case people (of which there seem to be a fair few) can't be bothered to read your entire post.

Personally, I'm more interested in what you've had to eat - you're being a little secretive today.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 7, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> I disagree, but that's irrelevant.  The two universes I described were identical (apart from the exceptions I mentioned), and therefore their logic would also be identical.  And so the same logical arguments would hold true in both.


 But someone could just argue that the universes might *necessarily* operate to different rules if they were made in different ways. Which is not something anyone is in a position to prove or disprove.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 7, 2005)

Surely the words "God", "rational", "proof" and "logic" do not belong in the same sentence. Utterly pointless wank if you ask me.

Hurricane Katrina was "God's will" according to some Xtian evangelists. Makes a lot of sense....n'est pas.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Hurricane Katrina was "God's will" according to some Xtian evangelists. Makes a lot of sense....n'est pas.



Oh Jesus Christ, I knew it wouldn't be long.  Welcome to the thread Nino--I *don't* think!  (And BTW if you want to start doing your Patented Lumbering Sarcasm en francais, you need a few lessons first).


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 7, 2005)

I *don't* think...no you don't. You don't even know how to use asterisks.

Still stalking me, phil?


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 7, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> But someone could just argue that the universes might *necessarily* operate to different rules if they were made in different ways. Which is not something anyone is in a position to prove or disprove.



This is true, howerver if the universes operated in different ways, they would not be identical, so in terms of the point I made it follows that they would have the same logic.  If you cannot reconcile yourself with this, call it a 'thought experiment', not necessarily true, but interesting to contemplate nonetheless.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 7, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> This is true, howerver if the universes operated in different ways, they would not be identical, so in terms of the point I made it follows that they would have the same logic.  If you cannot reconcile yourself with this, call it a 'thought experiment', not necessarily true, but interesting to contemplate nonetheless.


 But don't you see how pointlessly circular it is? You're starting from the idea that the universes are identical in every way, then saying that therefore they must be indistinguishable. Well duh!

It is a thought experiment - but not one that has any use I can think of.


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 7, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> But don't you see how pointlessly circular it is? You're starting from the idea that the universes are identical in every way, then saying that therefore they must be indistinguishable. Well duh!
> 
> It is a thought experiment - but not one that has any use I can think of.



I misunderstood your objection, and perhaps I should have made my point clearer.

The two universes are not indistinguishable, if you knew the spatio-temporal location of each you could distinguish them.  Likewise, if you could contact the creator and ask them which was their handiwork.  However, using logic alone, they are indistinguishable, which was my point - the ultimate goal of this thread is impossible, God cannot be (dis)proven through logic alone.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 7, 2005)

Although I have little time for attempts to decipher the secrets of the universe through argumentation, I don't think the exercise is entirely pointless.  However when phil's tardis-like* intellect is at the controls it most certainly is.  Has anybody agreed that any of the stages of his argument are proven?  

I demonstrated that his paragraph defining what makes a human being special works perfectly well if you substitute lion for person.  

Parallelpipette demonstrated that two of phil's assertions take together implied that language does not exist.  

Several people provided evidence that exchange is not the definitive characteristic of human society.  

Now we have another set of fantastically unbacked up assertions, built upon these spectacularly unproven foundations.  



> Nor will the distinctions between “work” and “play,” “labour” and “leisure” hold up to close analysis: one man’s work is another’s play and so forth. So the category of labour in the *abstract* (as opposed to in its *concrete* manifestations) is a very wide category indeed. Does it not amount, in fact, to subjective human activity considered as a whole? (This is a very important and difficult stage, please raise any objections immediately).


*labour produces value
*the distinction between work and other subjective activity does not exist
*therefore scratching my arse / cracking one off / whatever I do produces value

What is this value?  It's not use value, it's not exchange value (or how much am i offered for scratching my arse?) in fact it's not any kind of value that's recognised by anybody.  

It's just pure sophistry and rubbish.  The type of thing that you'd expect from a dim philosophy student trying to sound smart and grown up, except phil's not even any good at it.  

*tardis-like: it looks a lot bigger from the inside


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 7, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> It's just pure sophistry and rubbish.  The type of thing that you'd expect from a dim philosophy student trying to sound smart and grown up, except phil's not even any good at it.
> 
> *tardis-like: it looks a lot bigger from the inside



*round of applause for gurrier*


----------



## axon (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> the difference between human and animal conceptual abilities is one of kind rather than one of degree?


I completely disagree with this poinit.  I think it is entirely one of degree; there is no magic point at which brain mass/synaptic connections/human society/levels of labour and exchange suddenly become so great that there is a flash of magic energy and everything is different.
The overlap is blatantly obvious between animal and human conceptual abilities when I mess about with mine using various chemicals, and from the fact that we recognise increasing abilities of animals being able to conceptualise as we go (and loathe to use this expression as it is wrong to imply "up" but you know what I mean) up the evolutionary tree.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> So the category of labour in the *abstract* (as opposed to in its *concrete* manifestations) is a very wide category indeed.  Does it not amount, in fact, to subjective human activity considered as a whole?


I think you need to expand on this bit.  Does labour in the abstract preclude any other abstract concepts (or material entities for that point) from amounting to subjective human activity?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Although I have little time for attempts to decipher the secrets of the universe through argumentation, I don't think the exercise is entirely pointless.  However when phil's tardis-like* intellect is at the controls it most certainly is.  Has anybody agreed that any of the stages of his argument are proven?
> 
> I demonstrated that his paragraph defining what makes a human being special works perfectly well if you substitute lion for person.
> 
> ...



This is very impressive Gurrier.  Since, as you've loudly announced a million times, you have me on ignore, you must have *intuited* my argument by sheer force of will.  Anyway, I am delighted that you have finally decided to engage me on the level battlefield of serious debate.  I keenly anticipate kicking your arse all over it.  Beginning with your schoolboy confusion between "exchange value" and "value."  There, I've given you a hint as to what you can expect tomorrow, now run off and read up on quickly, because you're going to need all the knowledge you can pack into your hot little head.  Besos, y hasta manana!


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 7, 2005)

> In stage three, I showed that individual acts of labour cannot be the source of value. Only labour *generally* conceived can play this role.



What does 'the source of value' mean? Does it mean 'the yardstick by which value is measured in capitalist society'? Ascribing value to things doesn't give it any independent existence any more then measuring in feet and inches gives length an autonomous existence; the form _must_ inhere in the content.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> PARALLEL:  The purport of your weird algebra would appear to be that “exchange” and “communication” are both aspects of the same thing—the ability to conceptualize—and that it is this ability rather than exchange which is the definitively human characteristic.  Is that fair?  I agree: I was illustrating what it is to conceptualize by means of the example of exchange.  As I said before, language is the other manifestation of this ability.  But this ability lies behind both exchange and communication.  Just to be clear, by “conceptualize,” I intend the ability to subsume a particular thing beneath a general category—to recognize that tall brown thing with leaves as a particular instance of the general category “tree.”  Are you with me?  I shall return to the issue of language at a slightly later stage of my argument.


It was actually my way of showing that, since you had stated that both Exchange and Communication were the defining characteristic of human nature, then they had to be the same thing as each other; and since you also described Language as the other type of Communication, then Exchange and and Language must be mutually exclusive, the logical inference was that Language could not exist. 

It was an attempt to draw your attention to this apparent absurd conclusion of your statements, without being able to draw a Venn diagram online.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, MONTEVIDEO, you know your philosophy.






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> But in any case, please remember what must be clear to you already: that very few, *if any*, posters on this thread have ever read any philosophy at all.


You really are a thick twat aren't you?

Saying "few, if any" implies "few or none". You have already said that one poster 'knows his philosphy' which completely contradicts this. Why then do you claim that it 'must be clear to us already' that few or none of the poster on this thread have ever read any philosophy at all? 

If you are unable to even be consistent or accurate in simple things like this then why the hell should we waste our time thinking you are going to produce a coherent argument for a far more complex topic. You are a joke. 

For someone who seems to pride themselves on their understanding of language and logic you have a very shakey grasp on both.

I suggest you stay over in the US and continue to defraud people who don't know any better, with your fake 'brit lit' medievalist posing, and continue to keep them sweet with your rabid neo-platonist religious-right apologisms.  

_"Come seeling night,
Scarf up the tender eye of pitiful day..."_

(you will of course recognise the quote)


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 7, 2005)

I think this thread needs to be conducted exclusively from the toilet from now on:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3496810&postcount=47


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I think this thread needs to be conducted exclusively from the toilet from now on:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3496810&postcount=47



Hey man, do you mind?  I'm having my lunch.  Chicken and broccoli, since you ask.


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Sep 7, 2005)

although people have already said it, phil this is rediculous you have even began to prove god existence quoting marx ? and value in economics to do this really is strange.

if you were to equate god with energy/existence i could have gone along with you some what but this just silly

in less you state what you mean by god this is going nowhere

and your arrogance is really quite amazing, this is certainly no discussion on the matter(whatever that is)


----------



## gurrier (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This is very impressive Gurrier. Since, as you've loudly announced a million times, you have me on ignore, you must have *intuited* my argument by sheer force of will.


There is a button on vbulletin that says 'view post' which allows you to view posts of ignored posters.  I have been unable to resist the temptation on this thread of watching you make a royal arse of yourself in public.  I'll pray for greater fortitude in future so that I don't waste any more of my time in conversation with arrogant idiots.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Anyway, I am delighted that you have finally decided to engage me on the level battlefield of serious debate.


Don't flatter yourself phil, you're not capable of serious debate.  When you first arrived in this forum I spent some time and effort attempting to engage you in serious debate (see: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=107109 ).  In the course of this 'debate' I learned just how mendacious and arrogant you are when confronted by somebody who points out the fairly obvious and glaring holes in your argument. For example, you did not take kindly to being made aware of  the elementary point that one should have some idea of what the theory of evolution by natural selection is before writing long philosophical tracts about it. A point that has been made to you be large numbers of eminent scientists in the past and which you dismissed by - hilariously - referring to them as 'semi-educated'.  That thread provided me with conclusive proof that you are incapable of serious debate and indeed you consider anybody who attempts to engage in serious debate as intellectually inferior to you.  Your notion of 'serious debate' is self congratulatory and empty showing off.  

I also note that you have once again claimed that "The ideological complicity between Darwin and Adam Smith is well known and generally acknowledged, not least by Darwin himself."  Have you forgotten, phil, that I took the time to research this claim and showed it to be a lie?  

You see phil, there's no point in trying to engage in serious debate with somebody who completely lacks intellectual integrity.  There is, on the other hand, some point in mocking you publicly to minimise the risk that others who know your style less will be browbeaten and bullied by your desperate attempts to appear learned and superior. 




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I keenly anticipate kicking your arse all over it. Beginning with your schoolboy confusion between "exchange value" and "value." There, I've given you a hint as to what you can expect tomorrow, now run off and read up on quickly, because you're going to need all the knowledge you can pack into your hot little head. Besos, y hasta manana!


No phil, even such a king-sized portion of arrogance can't possibly manage to change the words that I wrote.  I wrote "What is this value? It's not use value, it's not exchange value (or how much am i offered for scratching my arse?) in fact it's not any kind of value that's recognised by anybody." 

I distinguished between "use value" and "exchange value" and pointed out that your definition of value could not be reconciled with either of these well-defined concepts.  When you use a term like 'value' in a way that is contradictory to any of the well known ways in which it is used, the onus on you to specify the definition that you are using.  You Imply that people who ask for a definition of a term when you use it in ways that are not commonly understood or well defined are uneducated.  In fact, your failure to define such basic foundations of your argument just shows how poor your understanding of logical argument is.  Even as philosophers go, you are piss poor at what you do. You haven't even mastered the basic principles of logic.  

Furthermore, phil, your very first post to this thread contained the following piece of text



> "First, we need to agree that the exchange of a cow for a lamb involves the invention of a third factor: the concept of *value.*"



It is in the context of exchange, according to you, that the concept of *value* gets invented.  Not only are you guilty of the thing that you incorrectly sneer at me for, you are also guilty of saying things that are demonstrably untrue and ridiculous.


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Sep 7, 2005)

but what has this got to do with god ?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> I also note that you have once again claimed that "The ideological complicity between Darwin and Adam Smith is well known and generally acknowledged, not least by Darwin himself."  Have you forgotten, phil, that I took the time to research this claim and showed it to be a lie?



It seems that our self-styled "pit-bull" has truly slipped the leash.  Gurrier's hilarious and desperate eagerness to assure us in his tagline that "I bite" bespeaks an insecurity so profound as to approach the abysmal.  You "bite," do you, Sir?  My how intimidating.  In reality however, his sting more nearly resembles that of the serpent than that of the hound.  As with most low animals, he is full of venom, and he uses all his snaky wiles in his endeavor to seduce and deceive.  He seems quite unembarrassed at having been stripped and exposed in his oft-repeated *lie* that he had me on ignore: no doubt he has grown accustomed to such public humiliations over many years.  

I have no intention of allowing him to derail this thread, as he has so many others, with his obsessive, barking need to defend the long-outdated Darwinist theory of evolution.  He has been beaten back to his kennel too often, and too conclusively, for anyone to take his fanaticism on that subject seriously.  Two well-known quotations will suffice to send the cur slinking away to his lair.  One is from Stephen Jay Gould: "Darwin's theory of evolution is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature." (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002, 25).  The other is from Darwin himself:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work". Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876) 

And that, I do believe, is that.  Tune in tomorrow to see me thrash Gurrier again, this time making a mockery of his picayune, pathetic, pipsqueak and pisspoor attempt to make some sense of the labour theory of value.  You will not be disappointed.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 7, 2005)

I think Phil has certainly proved one thing on this thread. Unfortunately, it isn't the existence of God. Back to random meaninglessness then. <Sighs>


----------



## Loki (Sep 7, 2005)

Disjecta Membra said:
			
		

> but what has this got to do with god ?


Fuck knows!

Can someone pm me when phil actually gets to the point and "proves" his assertion?


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> He seems quite unembarrassed at having been stripped and exposed in his oft-repeated *lie* that he had me on ignore: no doubt he has grown accustomed to such public humiliations over many years.


I don't think you understand how the "ignore" function works on vbulletin do you?

He actually says he has you on "ignore" by default, but that any specific post can be revealed by clikcing on one button. This doesn't take you off "ignore" - it simply reveals this one post.

Try playing around with your own account and you will see how it works. There is no question that he is "lying".

_You spotted snakes with double tongue,
Thorny hedgehogs, be not seen;
Newts and blind-worms do no wrong,
Come not near our Fairy Queen.

Weaving spiders, come not here;
Hence, you long-legg'd spinners, hence;
Beetles black, approach not near;
Worm nor snail, do no offense._


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 7, 2005)




----------



## TeeJay (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...this time making a mockery of his *picayune*, pathetic, pipsqueak and pisspoor attempt to make some sense of the labour theory of value...


Why are you trying to drag the disaster in New Orleans into all this?  

Utterly disgusting! I think you owe everyone an apology.


----------



## 888 (Sep 7, 2005)

Why does your thinking insist so much on this qualitative difference between humans and other animals?


----------



## 888 (Sep 7, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> *labour produces value
> *the distinction between work and other subjective activity does not exist
> *therefore scratching my arse / cracking one off / whatever I do produces value
> 
> What is this value?  It's not use value, it's not exchange value (or how much am i offered for scratching my arse?) in fact it's not any kind of value that's recognised by anybody.



It is, by scratching your arse you have relieved yourself of an itch... you could even sell your arse-scratching service labour to others.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Can someone pm me when phil actually gets to the point and "proves" his assertion?



Please, Loki and the rest of you, bear with me.  I'm very serious when I say I can prove the existence of God rationally, and I fully intend to do so *exclusively* in layman's terms.  But you can see for yourselves what kind of maniacs I have to deal with here.  Unfortunately, these boards are vulnerable to infestation by the mentally ill and the psychotically deranged.  There are also those malicious spirits who simply do not want you to learn the truth, who quite literally hate God, and who will do anything in their power to prevent you from understanding Him.  If you'll look back to my OP, you'll see that I fully anticipated having to beat off this mob at regular intervals.  Its time-consuming, and it makes what all must surely concede was always a rather ambitious undertaking even more onerous.  But I remain steadfast and cheerful, and you may rest assured that I will not allow myself to be dissuaded from bringing you the Light.  Just wait until I've dealt with Gurrier, then he'll doubtless crawl off to lick his wounds and pretend to put me on "ignore" again, and we can get on a bit faster after that.  Hang in there.


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2005)

Right Phil, anyone who wants to argue with you is mentally deranged 

You don't bother even dealing with objections you just deny them.  You're an arrogant fucking prick and I hope you die of syphilis.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...There are also those malicious spirits who simply do not want you to learn the truth, who quite literally hate God, and who will do anything in their power to prevent you from understanding Him...


Are you saying that the devil and his demons are at work on this thread? Maybe you think that mentall ill people are possessed by evil spirits? By the way, who are you referring to when you talk about the "mentally ill"?

Or maybe you are talking about yourself:

_"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't."_


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

maomao said:
			
		

> Right Phil, anyone who wants to argue with you is mentally deranged
> 
> You don't bother even dealing with objections you just deny them.  You're an arrogant fucking prick and I hope you die of syphilis.



Did we get a bad match from the Adult Dating Services this evening?


----------



## Loki (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Please, Loki and the rest of you, bear with me.  I'm very serious when I say I can prove the existence of God rationally



Well get on with it then! We're 320+ posts into this marvelous proof you've promised us on this thread and still not a sausage.


... 




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Just wait until I've dealt with Gurrier, then he'll doubtless crawl off to lick his wounds and pretend to put me on "ignore" again, and we can get on a bit faster after that.  Hang in there.



What's gurrier got to do with this "proof"? Can't you tell us anyway?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 7, 2005)

Being inspired by something an economist says does not meant that your subsequent biological theory is built around it to the exclusion of possibly better ideas. It does not mean Darwin merely attempted to translate Malthus' economics into biological language. Even if there are similarities, it does not make the biology wrong. Dismantle the science by all means, if you can (you can't), but do so with better science. Bashing it with ideological sticks is transparent and pointless.

Now give us god and stop meandering.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Well get on with it then! We're 320+ posts into this marvelous proof you've promised us on this thread and still not a sausage.
> What's gurrier got to do with this "proof"? Can't you tell us anyway?



Only 4 or 5 of these posts are me making substantive attempts to forward my case for God.  The rest are: 

1.  People's objections--mostly reasonable ones.
2.  My refutations of those objections.
3.  Some people still raising the original objections.
4.  My (usually) conclusive refutations of the above.

These four have to be repeated at each stage of my argument.  If I refused to take objections, or to refute them, people would moan that I hadn't *proved* the existence of God, wouldn't they?  Then we have:

5.  The mentally ill.
6.  The malicious spirits.
7.  The random drunks.

There's really not much I can do about this lot, you must admit.  I suppose I should really ignore them, and I usually do, but if I *always* did that, people would complain that I hadn't answered all the objections.  I have, however, added the caveat that I will only answer them "within reason."  Even that caused squeals of outrage from Trashpony and others.  So you can see I'm in a bind.  And no, I can't "just tell you" the proof of God's existence.  I have to *prove* it, to demonstrate it beyond all rational doubt.  There's no point in me "just telling you" and ordering you to take it on faith, you'd tell me to piss off, and quite right too.  I'm sure you understand that it is no simple task to prove that God exists, and it is even more difficult to do so in the language of the common man.  But it will be more than worth the wait.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 7, 2005)

It's up to you what you respond to phil.


----------



## Loki (Sep 7, 2005)

In your first post you said "But, if anyone's genuinely interested, I can take you through it in such a way that you will not only understand, but be utterly and completely convinced by."

326 posts later I'm none the wiser. What's taking you so long?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Only 4 or 5 of these posts are me making substantive attempts to forward my case for God.  The rest are:
> 
> 1.  People's objections--mostly reasonable ones.
> 2.  My refutations of those objections.
> ...




OK - bonkers or troll - which is it?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 7, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> OK - bonkers or troll - which is it?



Bonkers. Why don't you do a poll


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> It's up to you what you respond to phil.



Yeah, but just look at post 320 above, from the obviously drunken Maomao.  Now, I answered all his objections days ago, and he's clearly forgotten this in his alcohol-haze.  Should I answer him?  Or should I dismiss him?  If I choose the latter, what's to stop him reappearing next time he's on a bender and accusing me of ignoring his arguments again?  Once again, I don't want to leave *any* reasonable doubt here, so I have to answer anything that even seems like it may be rational.  Unless you want the job of sifting out the drunks, loonies and trouble-makers for me?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Bonkers. Why don't you do a poll



See what I mean?  Drunk, loony, malicious, or just misguided?  Its not so easy to tell, eh?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 7, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Bonkers. Why don't you do a poll




I so wish I could. It would be called _Godspot the reckoning_


----------



## trashpony (Sep 7, 2005)

Possibly malicious. But I'm getting really fed up with you dismissing everyone who has posted a perfectly reasonable and rational criticism of any point of your argument as stupid, mentally ill or the work of the devil.

It's a point I've raised at least twice and you don't seem to be able to respond. 

I am, however, grateful for your continuing exposition of your eating habits. It's proving to be a useful case study for my thesis.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> See what I mean?  Drunk, loony, malicious, or just misguided?  Its not so easy to tell, eh?




I reckon you could be all those things - but don't forget _Jesus saves_


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Possibly malicious. But I'm getting really fed up with you dismissing everyone who has posted a perfectly reasonable and rational criticism of any point of your argument as stupid, mentally ill or the work of the devil.
> 
> It's a point I've raised at least twice and you don't seem to be able to respond.
> 
> I am, however, grateful for your continuing exposition of your eating habits. It's proving to be a useful case study for my thesis.



Alright, alright.  Tell me which rational points, not made by obvious loonies, I've failed to respond to, and I'll respond to them.  I really, truly will.  Dinner tonight at a friends, but I've been told to expect Welsh lamb, and I'm bringing a 12-pack of Yuengling black and tan.  You?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 7, 2005)

phil, it's page 14 and you haven't got agreement on your first meagre steps.

Give us god or accept defeat.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 7, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Possibly malicious. But I'm getting really fed up with you dismissing everyone who has posted a perfectly reasonable and rational criticism of any point of your argument as stupid, mentally ill or the work of the devil.
> 
> It's a point I've raised at least twice and you don't seem to be able to respond.
> 
> I am, however, grateful for your continuing exposition of your eating habits. It's proving to be a useful case study for my thesis.




Godspots song would be

I'm right
Cos I think I am
I'm right
I can't prove I am
I'm right
I'm not listening to you
I'm right - you lot don't have a clue

repeat ad nauseum.........

Altogether now.........


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> I reckon you could be all those things - but don't forget _Jesus saves_



Look, I draw the fucking line at Jesus freaks.  This is a thread about *God.*  Get away.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Look, I draw the fucking line at Jesus freaks.  This is a thread about *God.*  Get away.




I thought your next trick would be to 'prove' christianity is the only true faith.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> I thought your next trick would be to 'prove' christianity is the only true faith.



And I think you're a trolling Christian.  There's no place for Christians here.  Bugger off.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ]Dinner tonight at a friends, but I've been told to expect Welsh lamb, and I'm bringing a 12-pack of Yuengling black and tan.  You?



Are you flirting with me?  

I'm about to go to bed - early start tomorrow. And I'm in the UK - and you're clearly not - which goes to show that you've not been entirely truthful.

I will go through the thread tomorrow morning and print out every single reasonable criticism I feel you've failed to answer and they'll be waiting for you, weight of a brick, when you log on tomorrow.

Manana, muchacho


----------



## exosculate (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And I think you're a trolling Christian.  There's no place for Christians here.  Bugger off.




The blasphemy of it all!


----------



## exosculate (Sep 7, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I'm about to go to bed - early start tomorrow. And I'm in the UK - and you're clearly not - which goes to show that you've not been entirely truthful.




Hang on - he can prove it. Have faith.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Are you flirting with me?
> 
> I'm about to go to bed - early start tomorrow. And I'm in the UK - and you're clearly not - which goes to show that you've not been entirely truthful.
> 
> ...



Quite possibly.  It depends.  But really, how dare you impugn my truthfulness--my word is my bond, I assure you.  I've never claimed to be in the UK.  Except when I am, which is quite often.  Anyway, sweet dreams, and I look forward to your post in the morning.  Besos.


----------



## comstock (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> .  Unfortunately, these boards are vulnerable to infestation by the mentally ill .



Infestation. You normally use that word for rats or cockroaches  . What *are* you on about?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 7, 2005)

I've been waiting for days now. I've never been known for my patience, it must be said. However, I think I've done bloody well frankly, I've been posting on this thread since the beginning, determinedly.

My theory is that he intends to bore us into submission. Come to think of it, I may have said that on Monday. Or was it Sunday ...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I've been waiting for days now. I've never been known for my patience, it must be said. However, I think I've done bloody well frankly, I've been posting on this thread since the beginning, determinedly.
> 
> My theory is that he intends to bore us into submission. Come to think of it, I may have said that on Monday. Or was it Sunday ...



I'll bore you into submission alright.  But shouldn't we finish the thread first?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> See what I mean?  Drunk, loony, malicious, or just misguided?  Its not so easy to tell, eh?



I see you've yet again gone for the "indulge in cheap insults" option, phil.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 7, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Godspots song would be
> 
> I'm right
> Cos I think I am
> ...



D'you think he might be a Millwall fan?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'll bore you into submission alright.  But shouldn't we finish the thread first?



  
Has he gone yet?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 7, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> D'you think he might be a Millwall fan?




Have you not noticed - if your reduce the number of letters in _Millwall_ to three, then change the letters you chose completely - it spells the word _God_.

I rest my case.

Need I say more.

Very telling.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 7, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Has he gone yet?




Run while you still can - I think he wants you as a cult member.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 7, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> Infestation. You normally use that word for rats or cockroaches  . What *are* you on about?



He's attempting to provide us with a yardstick for measuring his supposedly capacious intellect. To him most U75 users are vermin, and he is as God.

To us (or me at  least) he's merely a very good illustration of the arrogance of the ignorant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 7, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Has he gone yet?



I doubt it. He said he was going out, but I doubt he really has any friends (except his collection of gonks, perhaps), so he's probably still reading this and indulging in self -abuse while imagining "boring" you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 7, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Have you not noticed - if your reduce the number of letters in _Millwall_ to three, then change the letters you chose completely - it spells the word _God_.
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> ...



Thank you for proving to me the existence of G-d!

However, I noticed you were able to do it in a single post. Do you think you can find it in your heart to show phildwyer your method so that he can cut through his reams of intellectual masturbation and get down to cases like you do?

Please?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I doubt it. He said he was going out, but I doubt he really has any friends (except his collection of gonks, perhaps), so he's probably still reading this and indulging in self -abuse while imagining "boring" you.



Twat.  And that will be my last word for this evening.  Trashpony, I want a full report on my desk when I arrive in the morning.  I thank you and goodnight.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 7, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Being inspired by something an economist says does not meant that your subsequent biological theory is built around it to the exclusion of possibly better ideas. It does not mean Darwin merely attempted to translate Malthus' economics into biological language. Even if there are similarities, it does not make the biology wrong. Dismantle the science by all means, if you can (you can't), but do so with better science. Bashing it with ideological sticks is transparent and pointless.
> 
> Now give us god and stop meandering.


You do realise that phil claims that this malthus quote is darwin's personal admission to being heavily influenced by _adam smith_.  So while your point is quite correct, phil's point is even more wrong than most mortals could possibly imagine.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Twat.  And that will be my last word for this evening.  Trashpony, I want a full report on my desk when I arrive in the morning.  I thank you and goodnight.



Bollocks. 

I was only posting on this thread because I thought it shouldn't be a men-only discussion.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 7, 2005)

_"A tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."_


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 8, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Alright, alright.  Tell me which rational points, not made by obvious loonies, I've failed to respond to, and I'll respond to them.  I really, truly will.



*puts hand up*

Ooh, ooh, mine first!


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 8, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> the ability to conceptualize...it is this ability rather than exchange which is the definitively human characteristic. Is that fair? I agree: I was illustrating what it is to conceptualize by means of the example of exchange



It's taken you since Friday to say 'You know conceptualisation, right?'   

Please say today you'll go onto 'well...'


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Possibly malicious. But I'm getting really fed up with you dismissing everyone who has posted a perfectly reasonable and rational criticism of any point of your argument as stupid, mentally ill or the work of the devil.
> 
> It's a point I've raised at least twice and you don't seem to be able to respond.
> 
> I am, however, grateful for your continuing exposition of your eating habits. It's proving to be a useful case study for my thesis.



That's what he does: he's an arrogant egomaniac who hasn't got time for other people or their views. In phil's world only his view is the correct one and he is dazzled by the image of the percieved 'beauty' of his thoughts and opinions. This is why he cannot see anything else.

One way to view this thread and others he has started is to see it as an extension of his ego. Indeed, when he talks of "God" he is, perhaps, referring to himself. Personally I think he is suffering from a variety of psychological conditions: one of which may be Hollywood syndrome - which is a form of narcissism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Twat.  And that will be my last word for this evening.  Trashpony, I want a full report on my desk when I arrive in the morning.  I thank you and goodnight.



Twat. That's something *you* dream about, isn't it?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 8, 2005)

Don't you love the way that when phil shoots himself in the foot, he doesn't just take potshots with a little pistol, he gets a huge Heckler & Koch machine gun and turns his feet into a bloody pulp? It's very entertaining to watch. Carry right on phil.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> That's what he does: he's an arrogant egomaniac who hasn't got time for other people or their views. In phil's world only his view is the correct one and he is dazzled by the image of the percieved 'beauty' of his thoughts and opinions. This is why he cannot see anything else.
> 
> One way to view this thread and others he has started is to see it as an extension of his ego. Indeed, when he talks of "God" he is, perhaps, referring to himself. Personally I think he is suffering from a variety of psychological conditions: one of which may be Hollywood syndrome - which is a form of narcissism.



That or he believes he's pulling off some elaborate hoax whereby he "proves" his hypothesis, but only in relation to *his* g-dhood and dominion over the poor _schmucks_ of Urban that he managed to decieve.

As far as "pulling off" goes, however, I believe it's an apt description of phildwyer's behaviour.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> That or he believes he's pulling off some elaborate hoax whereby he "proves" his hypothesis, but only in relation to *his* g-dhood and dominion over the poor _schmucks_ of Urban that he managed to decieve.
> 
> As far as "pulling off" goes, however, I believe it's an apt description of phildwyer's behaviour.



Or as Iggy Pop might say "he's banging on his drum, having lots of fun".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Don't you love the way that when phil shoots himself in the foot, he doesn't just take potshots with a little pistol, he gets a huge Heckler & Koch machine gun and turns his feet into a bloody pulp? It's very entertaining to watch. Carry right on phil.



It *does* have a certain fascination, doesn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Or as Iggy Pop might say "he's banging on his drum, having lots of fun".




He is. 
The fact that so many of his intellectual peers (and there are lots of people with 3 'A' levels and a good vocabulary) consider him to be a wanker appears to me to show that your original labelling off him as an onanist was accurate.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 8, 2005)

*the story thus far (reader's digest version)*

I'd like to summarise Phil's argument so far, as much for my own satisfaction as anything else:

People have the ability to categorise objects in the world, and to communicate those categories to others. Phil feels that this is an ability unique to humans, whereas I (and others) think it is present in other animals but to a lesser degree - in effect, we are to categorisation and communication as elephants are to noses: the inheritors of the highest complexity of evolution of a particular group of related traits. The categories that we can perceive in things range from those whose members are completely determined by the objects themselves to those that are mostly subjective along a continuum that could be represented as:

length ------ colour ----------value

since even aliens would presumably agree on how long something is (assuming we could translate their units of measurement), whereas colour perception could only be constant for beings that see the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and value is highly variant from one person to another.

A subset of human activity is called 'exchange'. This has been seen for a while as a particularly important area of human activity, for reasons which may be inherent but which I am inclined to believe are socio-political. In order to take part in exchange, it is a precondition that objects must be able to be seen as having value. Phil additionally maintains that the fact that they all possess value means that they must have some element which is common to all of them, and this element arises from their participation in labour, which he takes to mean the totality of human activity. So it follows that things have value through their involvement in some specific kind of human activity, even if it's not immediately obvious what that activity is.

Of course, we kind of already knew this, as it was initally stated that for things to take part in exchange they have to have value, and as 'exchange' is a subset of 'all human activity', it follows that anything that could take part in exchange (and therefore has value) also takes part in the 'totality of human subjective activity'. The problem I often find with this kind of totalising narrative is that is suffers from problems of disaggregation: it obviously doesn't make sense to say that every activity imparts value to objects (napping, farting etc), so we're still left with the question of what kinds of activity affect the value of objects. What Phil's answer to this is, isn't clear at the moment, but personally I would have thought that one answer is that only activities that affect the relationship of marginal utility between actors and products can affect value.

N.B. This kind of description, whilst interesting and perhaps useful, can only ever represent the general social nature of exchange etc. For various reasons the world of actual prices and rates isn't directly accessible from this level of abstraction; i.e. it has only an analytic character and no predictive capacity.

Did I go wrong anywhere?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 8, 2005)

This thread has better staying power than a marathon runner!!!


----------



## exosculate (Sep 8, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Did I go wrong anywhere?




You never mentioned God once!


----------



## exosculate (Sep 8, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> This thread has better staying power than a marathon runner!!!




Its the humour that carries it through.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 8, 2005)

just checking in, not reading the thread, but do i need to go to church yet?


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 8, 2005)

Phil, you still haven`t answered my point from 2 pages ago.

 "Isn`t exchange of emotion more important than exchange of commodity"

 I am also failing to see how any of this relates to the universal conciousness?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 8, 2005)

> I am also failing to see how any of this relates to the universal conciousness?



You're not alone in that   

  at exosculate. I had a nagging feeling there was something missing....


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 8, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> just checking in, not reading the thread, but do i need to go to church yet?



Nah, still not there yet.

I'm on tenterhooks with suspence tho...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 8, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Now we have another set of fantastically unbacked up assertions, built upon these spectacularly unproven foundations.
> 
> *labour produces value
> *the distinction between work and other subjective activity does not exist
> ...



Obviously, the only way this thread has any chance of arriving at its destination is if I refuse to feed the trolls.  From now on, therefore, I will return to strict observance of my one post per day limit (although that post may be divided into two or three for convenience).  I will also avoid being drawn into the petty backbiting that thrills the trolls and nutters so much.  This means resisting even the temptation to pay back in his own currency the mendacious and ignorant wretch known as:

GURRIER: In response to my distinguishing between "exchange-value" and "value," you ask "what is this value?"  You point out that your "cracking one off" as you so charmingly put it, produces no value (we except here the value it presumably has for the unfortunate Mrs. Gurrier who, we sincerely hope, is thereby spared your foul embraces for the evening).  You also admit the distinction between use-value (the cow qua cow) and exchange-value (the cow qua value-of-lamb).  What you do not see is that exchange-value is merely the *expression,* the *manifestation* of a logically prior concept.  Obviously the exchange-value of the cow in the body of the lamb has no physical existence.  But if we want to exchange 10 cows for 7 lambs, we will need a medium in which exchange-value can be expressed or manifested.  This common substance, which *manifests* or *expresses* itself as exchange-value, is *value.*

Value is thus an *abstraction* from exchange-value.  Where does it come from?  In the previous stage of my argument, I established that it can only come from human labour, but also that it cannot come from individual acts of human labour.  It is, in fact, human labour *per se,* or human labour in the *abstract.*  Does this, perhaps, mean that it is the sum total of all the individual acts of human labour--the socially necessary average labour time required to produce a given commodity?  It does not.  SNALT (to use this category's common acronym) can determine the *price* of a commodity, but price is only a measurement of value.  Price says "the value of commodity X is Y dollars."  It *measures* value, it is not the *same* as value.

Here we come to the vital part of this stage of my argument.  Value, I contend, is an alienated manifestation of subjective human activity considered as a whole.  It is *not* a manifestation of wage-labour, as is commonly thought.  It expresses labour in the abstract.  But what is labour, considered in the abstract?  Not "work," and not "production," we can all think of examples of labour that do not fit those descriptions.  Labour in the abstract (or "labour-power" as it is known to philosophy) is co-terminus with human life itself.  

I hope that at least some of you will begin to discern the theological implications of my argument at this stage.  If you are still a bit lost, however, just let me know and I'll be happy to provide a "road-map" explaining the way to God, although such a brief outline will obviously not substitute for the *proof* that I am offering.  Bagel and banana again for me this morning, and then I will respond to those of my interlocuters I deem worthy.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 8, 2005)

*points and laughs*


----------



## exosculate (Sep 8, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I contend



As in - he contended that god had a future.

A strange way to make a proof.

*falls upstairs*


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 8, 2005)

> GURRIER: In response to my distinguishing between "exchange-value" and "value," you ask "what is this value?" You point out that your "cracking one off" as you so charmingly put it, produces no value (we except here the value it presumably has for the unfortunate Mrs. Gurrier who, we sincerely hope, is thereby spared your foul embraces for the evening). You also admit the distinction between use-value (the cow qua cow) and exchange-value (the cow qua value-of-lamb). What you do not see is that exchange-value is merely the *expression,* the *manifestation* of a logically prior concept. Obviously the exchange-value of the cow in the body of the lamb has no physical existence. But if we want to exchange 10 cows for 7 lambs, we will need a medium in which exchange-value can be expressed or manifested. This common substance, which *manifests* or *expresses* itself as exchange-value, is *value.*



I still can't see the necessity for the third category of abstract 'value'. The category of length requires the precondition 'extension', but there is no way to imagine 'extension' as in any way distinct from how long things are; what has extension has length and vice versa. Likewise there can be no value distinct from exchange- or use-value except for the category of already instantiated labour. A man looking at a cow sees only its use-value to him, it's exchange-value for other objects, and the value that has been instantiated it in (its 'cost').



> Price says "the value of commodity X is Y dollars."



Price says only 'the price of commodity X is Y dollars'.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 8, 2005)

If we sift through the garbage spewed by the loonies, there were actually quite a few sensible observations made yesterday.  Let me respond to them as best I can.

FRUITLOOP (1): You offer us two cogent posts, to which I shall respond separately.  No, I am not equating the "source of value" with the "measurement of value in capitalist society."  On the contrary, I am arguing that capitalist society systematically disguises the true source of value, rendering it imperceptible to all but the most intrepid investigors.  As you have now seen, I'm arguing that, not the "source" of value,but *value itself* is *us.*  It is human life itself.  *We* are value.

FRUITLOOP (2): Yes, basically you've got my argument right.  You object that not every human activity (Gurrier's "cracking one off," for instance) creates value, and you are right.  But my argument is that value is human activity in the abstract, per se, considered as a whole etc etc., rather than individual acts, or even the sum total of individual acts.  It is human subjective activity as a *concept.*  Are you still with me?

PARALLEL: Sorry mate, you've lost me.  I'm not saying that "language doesn't exist," for that would be a silly thing to say.  Please explain further if you so wish, and I will get back to you.

AXON: You question my distinction between animal and human consciousness.  I take it, however, that you accept that there *is* such a distinction to be made, and that you merely dispute the boundary line I draw?  Or is it that you think the difference is quantitatve rather than qualitative?  If the latter, I would point out that logically, at a certain point, quantitatve difference turns into qualitative difference.  So if you agree that the quantitative difference between the human and the animal mind is very large indeed, you have conceded my point.  I think so anyway, let me know if you disagree.

888: The absolute distinction between human and animal consciousness is necessary to prove the existence of God.  I do not believe that God exists for animals, I do not believe they are conscious of Him, or that He created them.  I believe both of human beings.  So it is incumbent upon me to show that the two kinds of mind are qualitatively different.  

EXOSCULATE: Go away.  This is not a thread for Christians to prosyletize.  I am not a Christian, I despise prosyletizers, and I especially despise Christian prosyletizers.  I tell you straight that you are not welcome here.  Go and preach your "Word" elsewhere, freak.

AZRAEL: Again, you are right that love *should* be the foundation of human csonciousness.  But I am not concrned here with what ahould be, but with what *is.*  I can and will show you why love is not, empirically, the foundation of human consciousness.  Will that suffice?

TRASHPONY: It appears that you have merely been playing with my affections, tossing your mane to get my attention, only to shy away when approached.  Very well, but please refrain from criticizing me for not answering objections when you neither make any yourself, nor point out those made by others.  You admit that: "I was only posting on this thread because I thought it shouldn't be a men-only discussion."  I fully agree.  Feel free to continue.

Right, that's it for today.  No trolls will be responded to, no loonies chastized, no liars exposed.  I'm going to work.  Tomorrow, I shall refute any objections to parts three through five of my argument and, if there remains time enough, advance part six.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 8, 2005)

> EXOSCULATE: Go away. This is not a thread for Christians to prosyletize. I am not a Christian, I despise prosyletizers, and I especially despise Christian prosyletizers. I tell you straight that you are not welcome here. Go and preach your "Word" elsewhere, freak.



I wish you'd go away - I think your godspots growing haemorrhoids.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 8, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> you'll see that I fully anticipated having to beat off this mob at regular intervals.  Its time-consuming, and it makes what all must surely concede was always a rather ambitious undertaking even more onerous.  But I remain steadfast and cheerful, and you may rest assured that I will not allow myself to be dissuaded from bringing you the Light.



Phil (or should I start calling you Zarathustra?  ),

How exactly are you able to justify your claim that human labour is the source of all value?  Didn't Marx give this short shrift, with good reason, in "Critique of the Gotha Programme"?:



> Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. The above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.



So, according to Marx, you are peddling bourgeois mystification as philosophical truth.


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 8, 2005)

100+ posts since I made my point that the goal of this thread is impossible without a response from it's author.

Do you only respond to points that you think you can answer, or do you consider me to be a 'troll/nutter'?  Please clarify.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 8, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> 100+ posts since I made my point that the goal of this thread is impossible without a response from it's author.
> 
> Do you only respond to points that you think you can answer, or do you consider me to be a 'troll/nutter'?  Please clarify.



No, sorry mate, I did mean to respond to you but I'm a bit busy today and I just forgot.  Jo/Joe too.  I'll put you guys at the top of my list for tomorrow, 'kay?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2005)

are we nearly there yet?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 8, 2005)

No. I thought I had tenacity too. Been proved wrong.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 8, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> are we nearly there yet?




If its a boy - can I call him Jesus?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> If its a boy - can I call him Jesus?


i suspect damien would be more appropriate...


----------



## gurrier (Sep 8, 2005)

> What you do not see is that exchange-value is merely the *expression,* the *manifestation* of a logically prior concept. Obviously the exchange-value of the cow in the body of the lamb has no physical existence.



As I understand it, from a marxist point of view 'exchange value' is the manifestation/expression of "use value" filtered through various distorting factors (fetishisation of commodities, etc).   The *value* of which phil speaks seems to be some sort of inherent mystical value which has about as much evidence to support it as does the flying spaghetti monster praise be to him.  If you are allowed to introduce such inherent qualities into things (as opposed to use value which is a human, or social, projection of a quality onto a thing) then you might as well just cut to the chase and claim that exchange value is the expression of the FSM himself.  There is exactly as much evidence to back it up.  



> But if we want to exchange 10 cows for 7 lambs, we will need a medium in which exchange-value can be expressed or manifested. This common substance, which *manifests* or *expresses* itself as exchange-value, is *value.*


If we want to exchange 10 cows for 7 lambs we don't need anything at all, we just swap 'em.  Barter doesn't need any concrete medium to manifest exchange values, as the objects are themselves the manifestation of the exchange values.  The medium in which exchange values are expressed or manifested in more advanced economies is called 'money'.  The common substance which *manifests* or *expresses* itself as exchange value is *use value* which is not an inherent or metaphysical quality at all, but related to the practical needs of humans in society.


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 8, 2005)

This looks entertaining. Anyone mind if I join in? Might make me stop watching the cricket for a minute at least (a sport I abhor and despise as dull, turgid, boring, uneventful, obtuse and well not very entertaining, and yet ...).

So...




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> AXON: You question my distinction between animal and human consciousness.  I take it, however, that you accept that there *is* such a distinction to be made, and that you merely dispute the boundary line I draw?  Or is it that you think the difference is quantitatve rather than qualitative?  If the latter, I would point out that logically, at a certain point, quantitatve difference turns into qualitative difference.  So if you agree that the quantitative difference between the human and the animal mind is very large indeed, you have conceded my point.  I think so anyway, let me know if you disagree.
> 
> 888: The absolute distinction between human and animal consciousness is necessary to prove the existence of God.  I do not believe that God exists for animals, I do not believe they are conscious of Him, or that He created them.  I believe both of human beings.  So it is incumbent upon me to show that the two kinds of mind are qualitatively different.



... if you'll forgive my selective quoting, but it looks as if this is forming the core of your argument.

So there is clearly a difference between the human mind and the mind of any other given animal, yes, this is undoubtedly and unarguably true. We might even be on fairly safe ground to categorise this difference in such a way as to put a value judgement on it (just for fun, seeing as we're putting value judgements on everything else), and say that the human mind is better/more intelligent/more sophisticated in some way than any other animal's mind, possibly by quite some margin.

There is also clearly a difference between, say, the chimpanzee mind and the mind of all other non-ape primates which could also have that same 'better' value judgement put upon it, even qualified by 'very large'. I say non-ape, as gorillas seem qutie clever too, and I wouldn't want to upset any gorilla fans out there by asserting the abilities of the chimpanzee over them.

So, imagine a world where chimpanzees (let's not bring dolphins into this, please) are the 'clearly most intelligent' animals around. They might even just be intelligent enough to put themselves up on a pedestal and say that they aren't animals like the rest of the natural world, they are something different and special about them, there is a difference between their consciousness and mere animal consciousness. Perhaps then they'd be allowed by you the luxury of having been created by some metaphysical thing that you may call 'God' and they would likely call 'oook'.

Now imagine a world in which neither people nor chimps exist and.. do you see where I'm going with this? The core of your argument would appear to be that there is something special about humans that marks them apart from the rest of the 'mere animals'. My counterargument would be that there is nothing special about the difference in our abilities. We are cleverer than chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are cleverer than marmosets. Marmosets are cleverer than antelopes. Antelopes are cleverer than crocodiles. Perhaps the discussions about 'value' and 'exchange' are an attempt to categorise this supposedly special difference in our abilities, but talk to any biologist and I'm sure you'll find myriad examples of exchange and value in the natural world, with increasing abstractness depending on the intelligence of the animals involved. Sure, our notions of value are more abstract and sophisticated than any other animals, but again it's just the top of a sliding scale encompassing the whole animal world.

So there. Of course, maybe I just don't feel special enough, and that's why the whole God thing doesn't work for me ...


----------



## axon (Sep 8, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> AXON: You question my distinction between animal and human consciousness.  I take it, however, that you accept that there *is* such a distinction to be made, and that you merely dispute the boundary line I draw?  Or is it that you think the difference is quantitatve rather than qualitative?  If the latter, I would point out that logically, at a certain point, quantitatve difference turns into qualitative difference.  So if you agree that the quantitative difference between the human and the animal mind is very large indeed, you have conceded my point.  I think so anyway, let me know if you disagree.



Well, it's not the position of a boundary line I dispute but the existence of one.  You stated earlier "_the difference between human and animal conceptual abilities is one of kind rather than one of degree?_", which implies you think there is not just a qualititative difference but some fundamental difference.
As for a quantitative difference turning into a qualititative difference,yes logically this is the case but it does not mean that the range needed to obtain this transformation is included within the two extremes of the system in question.

Also you may have missed my point regarding 



			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> So the category of labour in the *abstract* (as opposed to in its *concrete* manifestations) is a very wide category indeed. Does it not amount, in fact, to subjective human activity considered as a whole?


I contend that value doesn't amount to subjective human activity considered as a whole.  Value is an aspect of subjective activity (whether it be by humans or chimpanzees).  Of course if you were to make the concept of value a very very wide category then it could possibly encompass subjective human activity.  But then again the same arguement could be made that the concept of cupboards amounts to subjective human activity considered as a whole, given a wide enough definition of "cupboards".

But enough of this banter, show us yer god.


----------



## andrewwyld (Sep 8, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> God's existence can be demonstrated rationally.


The impossibility of such a demonstration can be demonstrated rationally.  The impossibility of demonstrating God doesn't exist is, of course, equally great.  The best that can be hoped for is a sane argument for or against the position; both can be attempted, although usually the nature of the subject matter makes this unlikely, as there is nothing like a fallacious shouting match to liven up the day (except some sort of injury).

I have heard people argue God exists because otherwise we would not have a word, "god" (although we also have a word, "phlogiston", which fails to explain combustion, although it is not as silly a theory as it is usually painted).  I have heard other people argue God does not exist because the energy of the universe is continuously increasing, a conclusion reached by using a relativistic expression for mass and a Newtonian expression for kinetic and potential energy -- in effect, adding two and two, making five, subtracting four, and imagining that the remaining one meant something.

These examples are meant to show that people are really, really desperate to have a proof of their position and will go to very silly lengths to generate one.

Anyway -- I am sure your proof is way better than these but it cannot be completely defensible!  For that matter, virtually nothing is, so your best bet is to take a weaker, but more defensible, attitude of arguing in favour without claiming complete proof.


----------



## comstock (Sep 8, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I do not believe that God exists for animals, I do not believe they are conscious of Him, or that He created them.  I believe both of human beings.  So it is incumbent upon me to show that the two kinds of mind are qualitatively different.



You've lost me there. So there is a God, but he created man alone, not animals. So according to your proof who/what created animals, and the planet they live on and the rest of the physical universe? And how do you deal with the theory of evolution etc. 

As there was clearly a time before man, was there also a time before God?

And who created time?

Is it me being thick here?


----------



## bugsy7 (Sep 8, 2005)

I've been following this for yonks now and I'm still none the wiser.
I wish this filldwya geezer would just get on with it and present his "evidence" so that each of us can evaluate it individually. But instead of that, he's leading us up the fucking garden path. Treating us like eejits who need to be taken along slowly because we're not in his intellectual league.
Fucking pompous, presumptuous twat!

MsG


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 8, 2005)

it sure is taking a long time, I could have created the earth by now and populated it with lots of lovely animals.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2005)

After D'Israeli, and apols to his ghost...



> A sophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.



I think little else needs to be said...


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 9, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> AZRAEL: Again, you are right that love *should* be the foundation of human csonciousness.  But I am not concrned here with what ahould be, but with what *is.*  I can and will show you why love is not, empirically, the foundation of human consciousness.  Will that suffice?



 LOL   

 Like I said I understand the words should and is. 

 Here




			
				Azrael23 said:
			
		

> Phil, you still haven`t answered my point from 2 pages ago.
> 
> "Isn`t exchange of emotion more important than exchange of commodity"
> 
> I am also failing to see how any of this relates to the universal conciousness?



 Look I believe in God. IMO its the sum of all conciousness and seeing as theres a lot of conciousness in the cosmos is beyond our understanding ATM.
 Knowledge or proof of the concept won`t come from writing long posts with tidbits from textbooks. I believe that if god is the sum of all conciousness then we are in essence a part of that concept. Surely then the best path is inwards to try and find that connection.
 Obviously some people will have difficulty in accepting such a concept however if you think about it even our own "inner worlds" are vast and how much can anyone truly say they`ve mapped as it were.
 Phil you don`t need to prove it to people this way, the way you prove it is by your deeds and the mark you leave on people.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

bugsy7 said:
			
		

> I've been following this for yonks now and I'm still none the wiser.


Confucious say you search for wisdom in wrong place


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 9, 2005)

bluestreak's daily question: does god exist yet?  i'm feeling particularly sinful today and i'd be quite relieved if He doesn't.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> bluestreak's daily question: does god exist yet?  i'm feeling particularly sinful today and i'd be quite relieved if He doesn't.


 No but he may do by 2pm, when phil finishes his steak and kidney pie. 

You can run, but you can't hide. Really, you can't. He's omnipresent. Or will be, when phil finishes his pie.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2005)

Dammit I was hoping Benj would be enough to close this down...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> As I understand it, from a marxist point of view 'exchange value' is the manifestation/expression of "use value" filtered through various distorting factors (fetishisation of commodities, etc).   The *value* of which phil speaks seems to be some sort of inherent mystical value which has about as much evidence to support it as does the flying spaghetti monster praise be to him.  If you are allowed to introduce such inherent qualities into things (as opposed to use value which is a human, or social, projection of a quality onto a thing) then you might as well just cut to the chase and claim that exchange value is the expression of the FSM himself.  There is exactly as much evidence to back it up.
> 
> If we want to exchange 10 cows for 7 lambs we don't need anything at all, we just swap 'em.  Barter doesn't need any concrete medium to manifest exchange values, as the objects are themselves the manifestation of the exchange values.  The medium in which exchange values are expressed or manifested in more advanced economies is called 'money'.  The common substance which *manifests* or *expresses* itself as exchange value is *use value* which is not an inherent or metaphysical quality at all, but related to the practical needs of humans in society.



There were several excellent objections raised yesterday, and my refutations of these will enable me simultaneously to advance stage six of my argument for God.  As long as we are not visited by a new plague of fools and hecklers, and as long as the current crop can keep their barracking to a minimum and their drinking within moderation, we should be able to make substantial progress now.  Let us begin with GURRIER.

GURRIER: You are floundering like a fish out of water on this terrain.  To be more polite, you offer a decent “first-level” interpretation of Marx’s theory of value.  But if we consider the matter more deeply, we will soon discover a whole different, higher level of hermeneutic to his reasoning.  We will learn, as he says in lines I quoted in my OP, that value is rife with “metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.“  Again I tell you that he was not speaking figuratively here.  To advance to this higher level, we must distinguish between, *not* two as you claim, but *three* species of value.  They are:

1.  Use-value.  Contrary to what you say, this is indeed inherent in the physical body of the object.  Its is the cow qua cow.  It is be impossible for the cow to be useful unless its physical body is present.  You cannot get milk from a cow that isn’t there.  Obviously this use-value is not “natural,” since it only exists for human beings, nor is it *identical* with the body of the cow, but it is nevertheless an inherent property of the cow, part of the cow’s qualitative essence.

2.  Exchange-value.  This is the cow qua value-of-lamb.  It is not inherent in the cow: it is a human *concept* imposed upon the cow.  Despite this, it is perceptible in the body of the cow.  It is not perceptible by the senses: it is perceptible by the mind.  But human beings are able to recognize this exchange-value in the body of the cow.  Exchange-value is not part of the qualitative essence of the cow: it is the cow considered quantitatively, as when ten cows equal seven lambs. 

3.  Value per se, or to use a term that is strictly inaccurate but may help you grasp the concept, *financial* value.  This is the *abstract* form of exchange-value.  It is exchange-value *abstracted* from the body of the cow and so, unlike exchange-value, it is not perceptible in the body of the cow.  We might say that it is the *concept* of exchange-value.  Financial value is necessary for any large-scale exchange of objects.  It is this last type of value that will most concern us today.

Now, you appear to assume that financial value is “money.”  You are entirely mistaken.  Money is the medium in which financial value is represented.  It is, if you like, the language in which financial value is expressed.  But it *not* the same thing as financial value.  It is unsurprising that you miss this Truth, for it has only recently been revealed to us.  Consider: until very recently it was universally believed that financial value was somehow inherent in the physical properties of gold and other precious metals.  For millennia, people believed that gold *was* financial value, or in a slightly more sophisticated version, that financial value “lived in“ the body of gold.  Of course, we now know that this is not true; financial value can be represented in other forms, such as banknotes.  But today, the real and ultimate Truth about money is even clearer, for most financial value no longer has *any* material form.  There is very little material money, of any kind, in existence compared to the amount of financial value that, as our masters tell us, exists.  

Or does it?  How can we say that something that has no material being whatsoever “exists?”  Well, we can know that it exists by its *effects.*  How effective is financial value?  Very fucking effective indeed; in fact the Spaniards call money “effectivo.”  Anyone can see that financial value is the most effective force in existence, we might even say that it rules the entire world, and that to a large and growing extent it determines the thoughts and actions of every person in the world.  So this all-powerful force does not, materially speaking, exist.  What do we call such a force?  Do we not call it a “spirit?”

Lest any are tempted to sprint ahead and beat me to the finishing-post, I am *not* going to argue that financial value is God.  I will consider next what financial value *really* is, and show that it is not what it appears and pretends to be.  First, however, I shall return to the other objections made yesterday.  Breakfast at the “roach coach” again today for me.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It is be impossible for the cow to be useful unless its physical body is present.  You cannot get milk from a cow that isn’t there.


Idiot. The cow's usefulness is a product of the presence of the human, not inherent in the cow itself. You can't get milk from a cow if *you're* not there.

*sigh*
Why do I bother?

Answer: because there is yet more entertainment to be had.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Idiot. The cow's usefulness is a product of the presence of the human, not inherent in the cow itself. You can't get milk from a cow if *you're* not there.



Really Brainaddict, you must not allow your visceral fear and hatred of God to prevent you from reading with due care and attention.  As I clearly said above: 

"Obviously this use-value is not “natural,” since it only exists for human beings, nor is it *identical* with the body of the cow, but it is nevertheless an inherent property of the cow, part of the cow’s qualitative essence."

Isn't this clear?  How could it be clearer?  Surely you are prejudiced against God, and very much hope that He will prove not to exist, and this terror drives you into blatant and symptomatic misreading.  Unless you are simply here to cause disruption?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Really Brainaddict, you must not allow your visceral fear and hatred of God to prevent you from reading with due care and attention.  As I clearly said above:
> 
> "Obviously this use-value is not “natural,” since it only exists for human beings, nor is it *identical* with the body of the cow, but it is nevertheless an inherent property of the cow, part of the cow’s qualitative essence."
> 
> Isn't this clear?  How could it be clearer?  Surely you are prejudiced against God, and very much hope that He will prove not to exist, and this terror drives you into blatant and symptomatic misreading.  Unless you are simply here to cause disruption?


 Do you understand the word 'inherent'?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Do you understand the word 'inherent'?



Yes.  Do you?  What do you think it means?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes.  Do you?  What do you think it means?


 In this context it would mean something essential and native to the cow's being - i.e. specifically *not* something projected onto it by human consciousness.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> In this context it would mean something essential and native to the cow's being - i.e. specifically *not* something projected onto it by human consciousness.



No.  To be inherent is something different than to be essential.  To be inherent is to *inhere* in the essence.  It is a quality of the essence, not the essence itself.  But it is an *inherent* quality, and thus cannot exist apart from the essence.  The fact that use-value only exists for human does not mean that it can be detatched from the body of the object.  It cannot.  You cannot get milk from a cow that isn't there.  Anyway, I have more substantive onjections to respond to, so I will leave you with that.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No.  To be inherent is something different than to be essential.  To be inherent is to *inhere* in the essence.  It is a quality of the essence, not the essence itself.  But it is an *inherent* quality, and thus cannot exist apart from the essence.  The fact that use-value only exists for human does not mean that it can be detatched from the body of the object.  It cannot.  You cannot get milk from a cow that isn't there.  Anyway, I have more substantive onjections to respond to, so I will leave you with that.



I would suggest you take this up with dictionary.com who define 'inherent' thus:

in·her·ent   Audio pronunciation of "inherent" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.

    Existing as an *essential* constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

in·her·ent (n-hrnt, -hr-)
adj.

    Occurring as a natural part or consequence.

Main Entry: in·her·ent
Pronunciation: in-'hir-&nt, in-'her-
Function: adjective
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature <an infant's inherent ability to learn to walk> —in·her·ent·ly adverb

inherent

adj 1: existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; "the Ptolemaic system with its built-in concept of periodicity"; "a constitutional inability to tell the truth" [syn: built-in, constitutional, inbuilt, integral] 2: present at birth but not necessarily hereditary; acquired during fetal development [syn: congenital, inborn, innate] 3: in the nature of something though not readily apparent; "shortcomings inherent in our approach"; "an underlying meaning" [syn: implicit in(p), underlying]


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 9, 2005)

But this is the phil definition of "inherent", in a thread about the phil definition of "god".

phil == Humpty Dumpty


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No.  To be inherent is something different than to be essential.  To be inherent is to *inhere* in the essence.  It is a quality of the essence, not the essence itself.  But it is an *inherent* quality, and thus cannot exist apart from the essence.  The fact that use-value only exists for human does not mean that it can be detatched from the body of the object.  It cannot.  You cannot get milk from a cow that isn't there.  Anyway, I have more substantive onjections to respond to, so I will leave you with that.


 You don't get it do you? For something to be inherent it has to be inseparable from the cow right?
All you need to do to remove the value from a cow is to remove the humans involved with it. It now no longer has any value. 
The value is not, therefore, inherent.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> But this is the phil definition of "inherent", in a thread about the phil definition of "god".
> 
> phil == Humpty Dumpty


 Indeed

In which case we must all concede that 'god' exists - for god can mean whatever phil wants him to mean 

You win phil.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 9, 2005)

Actually there is a very good and concrete example that proves (and I do mean proves) Phil wrong about the inherent nature of use-value.

It is quite possible that within some space of time the entire human population will be either lactose intolerant or vegan.  At which point the cow's milk will have zero use value for humans.  Therefore, the use-value is not inherent in the cow, but is a value projected onto it by humans.

QED.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2005)

Surely anything only has 'value' when placed in context?

Our poor cow has no inherent or intrinsic value. However, it has _potential_ value as food/clothing for a predator but this value can only be realised when said predator is in the same presence as the cow...


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2005)

> In which case we must all concede that 'god' exists - for god can mean whatever phil wants him to mean



God is in all of us, in our hearts and in our heads and in our souls.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> God is in all of us, in our hearts and in our heads and in our souls.


 Where 'god' is defined as 'caffeine'?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Where 'god' is defined as 'cafeinne'?



Well for me it's a voice in my head that tells me to go to Whitechapel at night to clean the streets. 








































Travis Bickle style


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 9, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The absolute distinction between human and animal consciousness is necessary to prove the existence of God.  I do not believe that God exists for animals, I do not believe they are conscious of Him, or that He created them.  I believe both of human beings.  So it is incumbent upon me to show that the two kinds of mind are qualitatively different.



At what point in human evolution did humans become conscious of God? Would it be possible for other animals to become conscious of Him? Has He been sat around for aeons waiting for human consciousness to evolve?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Travis Bickle style


OT but who is/was Travis Bickle?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> OT but who is/was Travis Bickle?



Vietnam vet Travis Bickle is 26, a loner in the mean streets of New York City, slipping slowly into isolation and violent misanthropy. In solving his insomnia by driving a yellow cab on the night shift, he grows increasingly disgusted by the low-lifes that hang out at night: "Someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets." His touching attempts to woo Betsy, a Senator's campaign worker, turn sour when he takes her to a porn movie on their first date. He even fails in his attempt to persuade child prostitute Iris to desert her pimp and return to her parents and school. Driven to the edge by powerlessness, he buys four handguns and sets out to assassinate the Senator, heading for the infamy of a `lone crazed gunman'...

...from IMDB










			
				Travis Bickle said:
			
		

> Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

aha, thanks kyser - the penny drops.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 9, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Vietnam vet Travis Bickle is 26, a loner in the mean streets of New York City, slipping slowly into isolation and violent misanthropy. In solving his insomnia by driving a yellow cab on the night shift, he grows increasingly disgusted by the low-lifes that hang out at night: "Someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets." His touching attempts to woo Betsy, a Senator's campaign worker, turn sour when he takes her to a porn movie on their first date. He even fails in his attempt to persuade child prostitute Iris to desert her pimp and return to her parents and school. Driven to the edge by powerlessness, he buys four handguns and sets out to assassinate the Senator, heading for the infamy of a `lone crazed gunman'...
> 
> ...from IMDB



John Hinckley's favourite movie. He shot Reagan to try and impress Jodie Foster who played the child prostitute in the movie. Didn't impress her much I don't think.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2005)

cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets
cleanthestreetscleanthestreetscleanthestreets


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Actually there is a very good and concrete example that proves (and I do mean proves) Phil wrong about the inherent nature of use-value.
> 
> It is quite possible that within some space of time the entire human population will be either lactose intolerant or vegan.  At which point the cow's milk will have zero use value for humans.  Therefore, the use-value is not inherent in the cow, but is a value projected onto it by humans.
> 
> QED.


 yep, that's probably the simplest and most elegant refutation - though we were all saying pretty much the same thing.

we're not going to let you get away with 'inherent value' phil - you could pull all sorts of tricks with it if we did. but the main reason we won't let you get away with it is that *it doesn't exist*.


----------



## laptop (Sep 9, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> He's omnipresent. Or will be, when phil finishes his pie.



Does that mean that the deity is inherent in the gastric juices and what follows, but not in the pie?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 9, 2005)

*cough*

post 27

*cough*


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Does that mean that the deity is inherent in the gastric juices and what follows, but not in the pie?


 No you poor fool, it means that the *quality of steakness*, once incorporated into a human being, is transmogrified into *inherent tummy value*, which of course is the first step in proving the existence of god. Not that you'd ever understand that, or in fact any of my arguments, for you are a fool, and a poor one at that, as I have just proved.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 9, 2005)

goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> At what point in human evolution did humans become conscious of God? Would it be possible for other animals to become conscious of Him? Has He been sat around for aeons waiting for human consciousness to evolve?


*Directs goldenecitrone back to the original evolution thread that prompted phildwyer to start this one*


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 9, 2005)

Still waiting for a response.

Maybe I need to 'sex up' my argument?

*thinks*

OK, so there's two identical strippers, right...


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2005)

Actually, instead of using the cow, why hasn't phil been using lap dancing as an analogy for God???


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Actually, instead of using the cow, why hasn't phil been using lap dancing as an analogy for God???


Because phil, aside from being virginal, chaste and incredibly well-endowed (ego-wise), gets all hot and bothered at the thought of women writhing in a provocative manner, thus distracting him from his philosophical ponderings.

I think that once he gets laid he'll grok what G-d really is.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> The value of the cow is perceptible in the body of the lamb?
> 
> In any case, the value ascribed to an object isn't purely derivable from the object itself, or an object for which it is being exchanged, that would be silly. There is always going to be reference to factors outside of those objects, not least details of the actor ascribing value.



For convenience, I will now begin answering your objections one by one.   Fridge has drawn our attention to this post that he made ages ago.  I don't see his point though, obviously value of any kind only exists for human beings.  Or are you talking about "price" rather than "value?"  Please clarify and I'll respond.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I would suggest you take this up with dictionary.com who define 'inherent' thus:
> 
> in·her·ent   Audio pronunciation of "inherent" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
> adj.
> ...



Your dictionary says the same as me.  That which is inherent in a thing is "an essential constituent or characteristic" that thing.  It is not the *essence* of that thing, but a quality of that essence.  See?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> You don't get it do you? For something to be inherent it has to be inseparable from the cow right?
> All you need to do to remove the value from a cow is to remove the humans involved with it. It now no longer has any value.
> The value is not, therefore, inherent.



Wrong again.  The fact that the value only exists for human beings does not mean that it is not inherent in the object.  Let me put it another way: use-value does not exist apart from the physical body of the object.  The usefulness of a cow in giving milk does not exist apart from the body of the cow.  It is thus an inherent property of the cow.  Exchange-value, in contrast, is not an inherent property of the cow but a *relational* property: it is bestowed upon the cow by virtue of its *relation* to the lamb.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Travis Bickle style



I see you in the Harvey Keitel role actually.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Actually there is a very good and concrete example that proves (and I do mean proves) Phil wrong about the inherent nature of use-value.
> 
> It is quite possible that within some space of time the entire human population will be either lactose intolerant or vegan.  At which point the cow's milk will have zero use value for humans.  Therefore, the use-value is not inherent in the cow, but is a value projected onto it by humans.
> 
> QED.



No, it is *exchange-value* which is "projected" onto the cow, if you want to use Freudian terminology.  The cow's use-value is inseparable from the cow, or from any other thing.  Look, its bleeding obvious, Christ knows why you guys are struggling with this idea so much.  You can't use a thing if its not there.  That's ALL.  Its usefulness to you is dependent on the physical presence of its material body.  THAT'S ALL!  Is this not obvious?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> Ok, as promised, I shall show that God's existence cannot be proven through logic alone.
> 
> Imagine there were two universes, identical in every way except spatio-temporal location.  One universe came about through the actions of a Creator, the other through the methods described by science.  Call them U1 and U2 (which is which is not important at this point).
> 
> ...



But my point is, or will be, that the capacity for logic and the other a priori categories of the human mind can *only* have come about through creation by God.  Therefore if there were two identical universes whose logics were identical, they would *both* have been created by God.  It is impossible for such a universe to have come about by what you call "the methods described by science."  And anyway, what methods are these?  "Science" has no way to account for the existence of the universe, or even for the existence of life.  But I do.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 9, 2005)

Anyway, I'm knackered so that's yer lot for tonight.  Fruitloop, Articlu8, JonathanS2, Axon, Andrewwyld, Comstock, Azrael23 and the rest of you who still have objections pending, I haven't forgotten you, and I will get to you as soon as I can.  Tomorrow I am going gambling in Atlantic City, so I will not be able to deal with you until Sunday, and most probably it will be Sunday night, which is Monday morning for you.  But I have promised to answer *all* rational objections, and my word is my bond.  I will ensure that all reasonable people are completely convinced by what I have to say.


----------



## Cid (Sep 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> For convenience, I will now begin answering your objections one by one.   Fridge has drawn our attention to this post that he made ages ago.  I don't see his point though, obviously value of any kind only exists for human beings.  Or are you talking about "price" rather than "value?"  Please clarify and I'll respond.



Bollocks, most species have at least some sense of 'value' - a squirrel will not stash bad nuts, a cat will exchange affection in order to obtain nicer food for itself etc etc. Your assumption that civilization is built on trade/exchange/communication/whatever is also a fallacy, for one thing there is no way you can prove it, and secondly it would seem far more likely that it is a complex amalgum of responses to environment/needs etc. Or do you think communication is only found in humans too?



> But my point is, or will be, that the capacity for logic and the other a priori categories of the human mind can *only* have come about through creation by God. Therefore if there were two identical universes whose logics were identical, they would *both* have been created by God. It is impossible for such a universe to have come about by what you call "the methods described by science." And anyway, what methods are these? "Science" has no way to account for the existence of the universe, or even for the existence of life. But I do.



To asign the value 'God' to an unknown quantity does not prove it's ('it' because it is impossible that an omnipotent being could be defined by sex) existence. You are substituting one 'impossibility' (or in this case I would say an incomprehensible unknown) with a sociologically imposed value that you have no proof for. Equally I could say that the universe was created by chi (as in the buddhist life-force concept) and 'prove' it using your theory. Similarly it would be easy to 'prove' its nonexistence by talking about the impossibilty of an omniscient being that allows its creations to feel pain as, by definition, it will feel all this pain or the impossibility of the same being requiring worship etc etc ad nauseam. These are no more proofs than yours, but you take my point (well, you probably don't, but that's your problem).


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Let me put it another way: use-value does not exist apart from the physical body of the object.


This may be true, *but* the physical body of the object can exist without the use-value. 
The fact that the use-value cannot exist independent of the cow is irrelevant. The cow can exist without the use-value. This is because the use-value is a result of human judgement, not a part of the cowness of the cow.

This is so obvious I can't believe you're struggling with it (well, by this point in the thread I can I guess...). The concept of use-value for an object cannot exist without someone to *use* the object. If there is no user, there is no use-value. The fact that the use-value cannot develop an independent existence and go off on its own to have babies does *not* mean that it can exist independently of human judgments. Whereas a cow *can* exist independently of human judgements. It could go off into the mountains and live out its whole life without ever being seen by a human, and its use-value would be zero.


----------



## Valve (Sep 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You can't use a thing if its not there.  That's ALL.  Its usefulness to you is dependent on the physical presence of its material body.  THAT'S ALL!  Is this not obvious?



You have conflated 'use' with the use in 'usefulness' i.e., it is one thing for something to have a use-- and thus the ability to be used, whereas the thing's 'usefulness' to one is not dependent on the physical presence of its material body (your ability to 'use' it is, however); an object can be useful to one but not present.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 10, 2005)

> But my point is, or will be, that the capacity for logic and the other a priori categories of the human mind can *only* have come about through creation by God.



This is no more then the 'it must be so' arguement of ID. Evidence free and ideological driven. Does it not occur to you that our capacity for logic reflects the ordered world that our ancestors interacted with over millions of years? Science can't explain pre-big bang, but it does a dman good job thereafter.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> For convenience, I will now begin answering your objections one by one.   Fridge has drawn our attention to this post that he made ages ago.  I don't see his point though, obviously value of any kind only exists for human beings.  Or are you talking about "price" rather than "value?"  Please clarify and I'll respond.


Value. Lots of other people are dealing with the same approximate point though (i.e. that value of any sort is not solely intrinsic to the object being valued).


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 10, 2005)

> Its usefulness to you is dependent on the physical presence of its material body. THAT'S ALL! Is this not obvious?



Not striclty true. Something only needs to allegedly exist for it to be useful.


----------



## Valve (Sep 10, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Not striclty true. Something only needs to allegedly exist for it to be useful.


indeed: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3511629&postcount=442


----------



## Loki (Sep 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Tomorrow I am going gambling in Atlantic City



 Gambling is not something God approves of!

Timothy 6:10; Hebrews, Proverbs 13:11; 23:5; Ecclesiastes 5:10, Luke 6:38; 2 Corinthians 9:7 

It contravenes Jesus' command that we should love our neighbors as we love God. Since we would never try to gain at God's expense, then we certainly should not try to gain at our neighbor's expense. It doesn't matter how much control a gambler has or how much the gambler is able to lose - what matters is the gambler's interest in receiving an undeserved gain while others at the same time lose. Gambling is, then, a violation of Jesus' most basic commandment for humanity.

Heathen!!!!


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 10, 2005)

Exchange value between rabbit and cow - aka trying to talk to phildwyer...


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 10, 2005)

at teejay


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 11, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But my point is, or will be, that the capacity for logic and the other a priori categories of the human mind can *only* have come about through creation by God.


Prove it


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 11, 2005)

It is gratifying to see that the clamour of the furious heckling mob has now dwindled to the morose chattering of a handful of puzzled apes, whose antics can serve as light refreshment rather than presenting any serious impediment to the debate.  Today I shall refute the remaining objections to parts three through five of my argument, and later (or perhaps tomorrow), I shall return to the fresh objections raised against part six.  Then I shall move on to part seven, in which we will consider whether financial value is best considered as an idea or as a spirit. 

FRUITLOOP: You dispute the need for a third category of “abstract value,” and say that “there can be no value distinct from exchange- or use-value except for the category of already instantiated labour.”  But my argument is that abstract, or financial value, *is* “already instantiated labour” in alienated form.  I shall then argue for an expanded definition of “labour” such that it becomes co-terminus with human life itself.  Which brings me to:

ARTICUL8: The passage from Marx that you quote gives his critique of the Classical political economists’ labour theory of value--the LTV as outlined by Ricardo and Smith, the version of the LTV that inspired Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Marx is in the middle of developing his wholescale demolition of this LTV, which he will publish in Capital.  His critique of Classical political economy will rest upon his expansion of the category of “labour” from being the individual acts of production to being human subjective activity considered as a whole, or human life itself.        

JONATHANS2:  I am claiming that the difference between humans and animals is qualitatively distinct from the difference between, as you say, chimps and marmosets, or any other members of the animal kingdom.  In fact, it is a difference that distinguishes us from the condition of animality per se.  It is, as I have been arguing, the ability to *conceptualize,* which is expressed in two distinct but, as I shall claim, also unified media: exchange and language.  Thus far I have only dealt with exchange, but I shall be coming to the subject of language presently.

ANDREWWYLD: Again, let me clearly state that I am offering a rational *proof* of God’s existence that will convince any who are not actively vicious or insane.  So obviously I do not admit your case that such a proof is logically impossible.  Let me remind you also that my proof will not be *empirical* (for I agree with you that empirical proof of God is impossible) but *rational.*

COMSTOCK: I believe in the process of evolution, as described by William Paley in 1802, and as developed by many modern advocates of “intelligent design.”  I believe that the human mind was created by God, but that neither the human body nor anything material were. Except insofar as God constitutes the conditions of possibility for existence.  But to define God as “the conditions of possibility of existence” is (a) tautological, and (b) says nothing whatsoever *about* God.  But I should probably delay my explanation of the nature of God until I have demonstrated His existence.

AZRAEL: I completely agree that the search for God must be directed inwards.  The proof of God’s existence is to be found in the inherent capacities of the human mind, although as I have often said, this proof will concern a God who is demonstrably external to the human mind.

I am unsure whether to press on now and explain why I say, and what it is to say, that financial value is a “spirit.”  Would it not be more sensible to describe it as an “idea?”  It would not, but on reflection I had better wait to ensure that I have now answered *all* the objections to stages three through five of my argument.


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 11, 2005)

Oh goody, more distraction from the cricket. I don't know how you can justify or defend such a belief in that qualitative difference. Experiments (sorry, I don't have any to quote off the top of my head right now) have shown that the more intelligent of the other animals do have some ability to conceptualize. And they clearly do take part in both 'exchange' and 'language'. Ours is just more sophisticated, but it's just an extension of what exists in other parts of the animal world, not a step change.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 11, 2005)

How is the qualitative difference between humans and animals essential to phil's argument?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 11, 2005)

JonathanS2 said:
			
		

> Oh goody, more distraction from the cricket. I don't know how you can justify or defend such a belief in that qualitative difference. Experiments (sorry, I don't have any to quote off the top of my head right now) have shown that the more intelligent of the other animals do have some ability to conceptualize. And they clearly do take part in both 'exchange' and 'language'. Ours is just more sophisticated, but it's just an extension of what exists in other parts of the animal world, not a step change.



This is where the argument generally rolls around to Koko the Talking Gorilla.  While I concede that apes can be taught to conceptualize at an *extremely* rudimentary level, I would argue that, huaving been so taught, they become *human.*  Certainly Koko agreed: having attained the ebility to identify her consciousness with the first-person singular, she always categorized herself as human, and regarded her fellow apes as "black bugs," beneath contempt.  The researchers eventually concluded that they had committed a greivous and cruel act in bestowing self-consciousness on a creature whose nature was not equipped for its ramifications.  There is a qualitative difference between the animal and the human mind, and the pathetically limited extent of Koko's conceptual abilities emphasizes and does not contradict that fact.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 11, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> How is the qualitative difference between humans and animals essential to phil's argument?



Because I will be deriving my proof of God's existence from the uniquely human ability to conceptualize.  Actually, admitting that Koko the Talking Gorilla could do so too probably wouldn't scupper my argument, but it would introduce all sorts of complications, and serve as a stumbling-block for the feeble-minded.  In any case, I'm utterly sick of talking about Koko.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2005)

are we nearly there yet?​


----------



## exosculate (Sep 11, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> are we nearly there yet?​




I'm not sure we have entered the _Dr Doolittle_ stage of the investigation.


----------



## Valve (Sep 11, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You can't use a thing if its not there.  That's ALL.  Its usefulness to you is dependent on the physical presence of its material body.  THAT'S ALL!  Is this not obvious?



And, once again- as pointed out previously by myself and others-

'You have conflated 'use' with the use in 'usefulness' i.e., it is one thing for something to have a use-- and thus the ability to be used, whereas the thing's 'usefulness' to one is not dependent on the physical presence of its material body (your ability to 'use' it is, however); an object can be useful to one but not present.'


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 11, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Because I will be deriving my proof of God's existence from the uniquely human ability to conceptualize.  Actually, admitting that Koko the Talking Gorilla could do so too probably wouldn't scupper my argument, but it would introduce all sorts of complications, and serve as a stumbling-block for the feeble-minded.  In any case, I'm utterly sick of talking about Koko.


Ah, the Argument From Nausea....


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2005)

_Reification_: that's the name of the game. Or in the case of my dear friend phil: rectalisation*.  




*Yeah, I made it up.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 11, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> _Reification_: that's the name of the game. Or in the case of my dear friend phil: rectalisation*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I prefer Godstification.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This is where the argument generally rolls around to Koko the Talking Gorilla.  While I concede that apes can be taught to conceptualize at an *extremely* rudimentary level, I would argue that, huaving been so taught, they become *human.*  Certainly Koko agreed: having attained the ebility to identify her consciousness with the first-person singular, she always categorized herself as human, and regarded her fellow apes as "black bugs," beneath contempt.  The researchers eventually concluded that they had committed a greivous and cruel act in bestowing self-consciousness on a creature whose nature was not equipped for its ramifications.  There is a qualitative difference between the animal and the human mind, and the pathetically limited extent of Koko's conceptual abilities emphasizes and does not contradict that fact.



When I want to emphasise certain words in a text I tend to use _italics_ or *bold* type. You don't misuse the apostrophe, why do you misuse the *asterisk*? It's convention innit? And I thought you were a *postgraduate* too.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 11, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> phildwyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*ahem*
I was quite serious phil, how does it follow that "logic and the other a priori categories of the human mind can *only* have come about through creation by God"?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 12, 2005)

Where does Nelly the elephant fit into all of this. That's what I want to know.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Because I will be deriving my proof of God's existence from the uniquely human ability to conceptualize.  Actually, admitting that Koko the Talking Gorilla could do so too probably wouldn't scupper my argument, but it would introduce all sorts of complications, and serve as a stumbling-block for the feeble-minded.  In any case, I'm utterly sick of talking about Koko.



That's fine, the Koko stuff was a pile of poo anyway. If you teach an ape enough signs and then stare at it long enough, it will produce sentences. Apes have no problem learning symbols and relating them to objects and events. This is because apes, like many animals have fundamental categorisation and lexical abilities. What they don't have is syntax. I still believe that the ability to concieve value comes within the remit of the former abilities rather than the latter.

But of course you won't bother actually trying to understand the animal mind. You'll just jump up and down and say that it must be so because you say it's so and anyone who tries to disagree is being 'empirical' rather than 'rational'. What I really want to know is if there's a single urbanite who actually agrees with you thus far.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> I prefer Godstification.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 12, 2005)

Good question maomao - are there any urbanite who can accept phil's arguments thus far? Anyone at all?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 12, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Good question maomao - are there any urbanite who can accept phil's arguments thus far? Anyone at all?


Me me me sir *puts up hand*

Actually, no.


----------



## Cid (Sep 12, 2005)

Poll? 

and no.


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 12, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Because I will be deriving my proof of God's existence from the uniquely human ability to conceptualize.  Actually, admitting that Koko the Talking Gorilla could do so too probably wouldn't scupper my argument, but it would introduce all sorts of complications, and serve as a stumbling-block for the feeble-minded.  In any case, I'm utterly sick of talking about Koko.



Let me get this straight, I wouldn't want to be confused or feeble-minded here.

You're presenting a rational proof of God's existence, one which no right-thinking person could possibly argue with or deny. An objection has been raised to one of your fundamental arguments, that the ability to conceptualise is uniquely human. You then say you might be forced into admitting that a non-human could conceptualise, but that this wouldn't actually scupper your argument (even though it is in direct conflict with your 'uniquely human ability' premise). You then dismiss this by saying 'it's a stumbling block for the feeble-minded, and you're sick of talking about it'.

Hmm.

You will no doubt try to claim that Koko is some kind of special case and that by the actions of those who were doing the experiments with her, she became human. To which I say all those experimenters were doing was teaching Koko how to communicate in a way which we could understand. Gorillas clearly already have extremely rich methods of communication between each other, and it is entirely possibly that were we able to fully understand this gorilla language, it would become clear that all gorillas have the ability to conceptualise in the same way that Koko did.


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 12, 2005)

Man is foremost a creator. Conceptualisations exist as the potential creation of a scenario. Therefore you could argue that we are Gods in training.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 12, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> Man is foremost a creator. Conceptualisations exist as the potential creation of a scenario. Therefore you could argue that we are Gods in training.


Speak for yourself.  I passed my exams with flying colours and have been a full fledged god for aeons now.


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 12, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But my point is, or will be, that the capacity for logic and the other a priori categories of the human mind can *only* have come about through creation by God.  Therefore if there were two identical universes whose logics were identical, they would *both* have been created by God.  It is impossible for such a universe to have come about by what you call "the methods described by science."  And anyway, what methods are these?  "Science" has no way to account for the existence of the universe, or even for the existence of life.  But I do.



I don't agree that God is a prerequisite for logic, indeed I believe that even an omnipotent being is constrained by logic and can only do things that are _logically_ possible (that is, not logically impossible).  However, as this part of your argument comes later, I suppose I have no choice but to wait patiently until you get to that stage.

I do not claim to know what science claims was the origin of the universe, I merely know that it has such a claim and the majority seem to believe it.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 12, 2005)

I must confess to still not being convinced by all this 'labour in the abstract' business. It seems to me that:

1) There are a multiplicity of facts about our experience of the world which categorise as objects; each object encapsulates a multitude of experiential facts - a 'sheep' has hooves, wool of a certain colour/quality, an age, gender etc etc.

2) The use-value of an object depends on the participation of a subset of the object's properties with a subset of the total set of human activities. We know that both are always a subset because for every property there is an activity that doesn't require it, and for every object there is a property which isn't involved in any particular set of activities (even with man-made objects some aspects will be integral to the use-value, and others will be conincidental aspects of its design and construction).

3) The fact that we impute a use-value to objects explains why a person would labour to obtain them, why they bother to maintain objects as personal possessions, and why it is possible to exchange objects with others who participate in the same activities (which might or might not be the case). The exchange-value of an object depends on its having a use-value to other people, since an object with no use-value to anyone else could have no exchange-value (think of a diabetic stranded with a group of other people on a desert island. Happily for him he's brought a whole suitcase of insulin, which has enormous utility to him, but no exchange-value at all if he's the only diabetic on the island).

4) Under capitalism the rate of exchange from cows to sheep (or anything else) is given by the price, which reflects the rate at which objects are exchanged with other objects in a competitive market system. There is no way, given the amount of previously embodied and direct labour involved in the production of a particular object, to ascertain the price of that object in the market system; i.e. prices cannot be inferred from instantiated labour.

5) Price is not determined by use-values either. There is no way that, given a knowledge of the characteristics of an object and its participation in human activites, you could accurately predict its price; price is determined by the participation of an object in a particular economic and social system.

7) The paradox of money prices is that by applying the same kind of measurement to things that are heterogenous they divorce the prices of things from their consituent elements in the world - it isn't possible to determine prices of individual goods from the factors of production (in their simplest form: land, labour and capital goods) times the rate of profit without circularity of reference.  What this means is that since it is not possible to recursively reduce the value of capital goods to “already instantiated labour" without appealing to pre-existing economic factors such as the rate of profit, “already instantiated labour" (alienated or otherwise) is not sufficient to explain the rate of exchange of a particular object in a competitive market system.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 12, 2005)

goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> Where does Nelly the elephant fit into all of this. That's what I want to know.


Nelly the elephant packed her trunk
and said goodbye to the circus
of she road with a trumpety trump
trump trump trump

Anyone know the rest of the words?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 12, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Nelly the elephant packed her trunk
> and said goodbye to the circus
> of she road with a trumpety trump
> trump trump trump
> ...



To Bombay
A travelling circus came
They brought an intelegent elephant
and Nellie was her name

One dark night
she slipt her iron chain, and of she ran
to Hindustan and was never seen again

oooooooooooooooooo...
Nellie the elephant pack her trunk and
said goodbye to the circus
of she road with a trumety trump
trump trump trump

Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
and trumbled of to the jungle
of she road with a thrumety trump
trump trump trump

Night by night she danced to the circus band
When Nellie was leading the big parade she looked
so proud and grand

No more tricks for Nellie to performe
They taught her how to take a bow and she tooked
to crowd by storm

oooooooooooooooooo...
Nellie the elephant pack her trunk and
said goodbye to the circus
of she road with a trumety trump
trump trump trump

Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
and trumbled of to the jungle
of she road with a thrumety trump
trump trump trump

The head of the heard was calling far far away
they meet one night in silver light
on the road to Mandaley

oooooooooooooooooo...
Nellie the elephant pack her trunk and
said goodbye to the circus
of she road with a trumety trump
trump trump trump

Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
and trumbled of to the jungle
of she road with a thrumety trump
trump trump trump


----------



## nogoodboyo (Sep 12, 2005)

Fucking hell.  I'm not half glad I missed this one.


----------



## bugsy7 (Sep 12, 2005)

Dear Phil,

I don't believe in god and I don't like football either. Am I doomed?

Worried of Sittingbourne.

MsG


----------



## bugsy7 (Sep 12, 2005)

Hah! Found it!
Phil, if you want to read up on your wacky theory, it's in a book with the titel "Die Auserkorenen des Herren" (The Chosen Ones of the Lord) by Joachim Staedler and Pinkas Bredemeier, published in 1804.
Very interesting reading, nur musst du Deutsch können.

MsG


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> a handful of puzzled apes,.



isn't that just the nature of our species-being     Or the inexorable horizon of Dasein's existential condtion?
`


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 12, 2005)

any sign of god yet?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 12, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> To Bombay
> A travelling circus came
> They brought an intelegent elephant
> and Nellie was her name
> ...


 It's vulnerable to Augustine's famous refutation though.


----------



## Loki (Sep 12, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> any sign of god yet?


Nope! I suppose Phil will get round to his amazing revelation by about post #1000.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 12, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> It's vulnerable to Augustine's famous refutation though.



Sounds like one of those geeky card-collecting games.

"Raise you 3 axiom points"
"You can't play Plato on a Deconstructivist!"


----------



## gurrier (Sep 12, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> It's vulnerable to Augustine's famous refutation though.


Not if you understand *the first thing* about the developments of the Silesian school and their interpretation of Hegel, Marx and Roy of the Rovers.  Ignorant fool.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 12, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Not if you understand *the first thing* about the developments of the Silesian school and their interpretation of Hegel, Marx and Roy of the Rovers.  Ignorant fool.


 Trump, trump, trumpety trump


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 12, 2005)

I think 20 pages is more then enough.

0 out of 10 phil.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 12, 2005)

Just checking in - sure it's been more than 5 days now.

Have we sorted out this God thing yet?

Have we sorted out the origins of the universe?
What was it then, a big bang, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? 

Have we sent all those religious leaders their P45's?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 12, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> I think 20 pages is more then enough.



Hang in there Jo/Joe, just have to fend off the nutters a bit longer, and we'll be there shortly.  Well, not shortly exactly, but not too long either.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hang in there Jo/Joe, just have to fend off the nutters a bit longer, and we'll be there shortly.  Well, not shortly exactly, but not too long either.



That means you'll be beating yourself up. If there's a nutter on this thread, it's you.


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 13, 2005)

Hmm, a pseudo-scientific/philosophical/theological version of Mornington Crescent? That could be fun ...


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 13, 2005)

Fun? I'm afraid you've just broken Russell's Seriousness Injunction there. Disqualified!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2005)

That only applies on Hegel's birthday when taking a route through Cockfosters, though.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 13, 2005)

JonathanS2 said:
			
		

> Hmm, a pseudo-scientific/philosophical/theological version of Mornington Crescent? That could be fun ...


It already is fun - though I'm still waiting for the laser display board  to light up with the revelation about God's existence.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2005)

http://www.phill.co.uk/comedy/waitgod/

Note the URL as well. Merely a coincidence? That's clear evidence of God's hand in the universe, you blind capitalist Darwinian materialists, as you would know if you'd ever read any Kant.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 13, 2005)

I think there are signalling problems on the God line at the moment, but if you wait an hour or so four will arrive in quick succession.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 13, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> are there any urbanite who can accept phil's arguments thus far? Anyone at all?


Nope - and because of statements like this:



			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I believe that the human mind was created by God, but that neither the human body nor anything material were. Except insofar as God constitutes the conditions of possibility for existence. But to define God as “the conditions of possibility of existence” is (a) tautological, and (b) says nothing whatsoever *about* God. But I should probably delay my explanation of the nature of God until I have demonstrated His existence.


So he's made the assumption that God exists (otherwise how could he/she/it create the human mind?), in an attempted proof of God's existence. Not rational at all 

And I do wonder how a God which created mind, but nothing material, is going to be remotely relevant to anything even if we do accept his existence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hang in there Jo/Joe, just have to fend off the nutters a bit longer, and we'll be there shortly.  Well, not shortly exactly, but not too long either.




You're fending yourself off, phil?

Is that another euphemism you've come up because you're ashamed of your addiction to masturbation?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

First of all, anyone who thinks that my proof is taking too long should direct their complaints to the ragged band of cackling mockers who continue to traipse in my wake.  Without their incessant chorus of whoops and hoots, we would have arrived at our destination long ago.  At present, however, we are forced to pause periodically in order to purge the most noxious of them from our midst.  Anyway, after one of our regular spring-cleaning sessions, I shall try today to clear up the remaining objections to my case thus far.  Tomorrow, I shall expand on what doubtless seems to many of you my rather startling assertion that value is a spirit.  As usual, I shall deal with you one by one.

NINOSAVATTE: I am afraid that the time has come for you to leave this thread.  You have openly boasted that your only purpose here is to disrupt and derail.  Even BRAINADDICT, even GURRIER, have occasionally managed to contribute something of worth to the discussion, but you have done (and apparently intend to do) nothing but inflict your dour, humorless, deadly dull jibes on us at regular intervals.  And your French is painfully atrocious.  You are utterly lacking in joie de vivre, jeu d’esprit and je ne sais quois.  Your effervescent wit keeps me amused all day—I *don’t* think.  Be off with you.  

VIOLENTPANDA: You're on thin ice too.  And, in all seriousness for a moment, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for endorsing, on another thread, the myth that Jews are "tight-fisted."  I mean that, you should be ashamed.

FRUITLOOP: You are still equating *price* with *value.*  Everything you say is true of an object’s *price*--it is determined by the market, by the laws of supply-and-demand as well as by the costs of production and so on.  But price is a measure, and an expression of something else, something that lies behind it and to which it refers.  This something else is financial value in the abstract, and it is with this strange and mysterious force that we will be primarily concerned here.

DOOMSY:  I agree that everything God does is logical, and this is in fact a tautology.  But I would add the proviso that prefect logic is unavailable to the human mind, since we are placed in particular and determinate social and historical circumstances, and the perspective of the totality is unavailable to us.  Hence the expression “God moves in mysterious ways.”

VALVE:  I have not conflated “use” and “usefulness,” but have introduced a third category: *use-value.*  This refers to a value that only exists for human beings but which is also an inherent property of the object’s physical body.

BLOOM: The a priori does not *necessarily* come from God, but it certainly does *not* come from experience, or from the world.  The a priori is what makes human experience of the world possible.  It must therefore either come from God or be somehow “hard-wired” into the human mind.  If the latter is the case, we are faced with the impossible task of explaining where it comes from: clearly evolution is not a possibility in this case.

PARALLEL: I was not assuming the existence of God, I was asked a question about whether I believed He had created animals, and I answered it in the negative.  I am at a loss to see why you think that the fact that God created the human mind, if it is proved to be true, would be irrelevant to our experience.  There’s not too much experience to be had without a mind, as Nino will tell you.

JONTHANS2: I still don’t see, and you haven’t shown me, why you think animals can conceptualize.  With regard to Koko I refer you to the intervention by:

MAOMAO: I completely agree that the Koko experiment is bullshit.  But if you think that animals can conceptualize, in the sense that I am using the term, you would have to show animals that can either (a) speak, or (b) exchange different quantities of different objects—two sticks for three carrots or whatever.  And, despite the best attempts of Koko’s manipulators, there are no such animals anywhere in the universe.
I think that takes care of everything, but please let me know if I’ve missed anyone out—it can be hard to wade through the deluge of nuttiness that periodically floods this thread.  If I hear no further objections, I shall proceed to stage seven of my argument tomorrow.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

> First of all, anyone who thinks that my proof is taking too long should direct their complaints to the ragged band of cackling mockers who continue to traipse in my wake. Without their incessant chorus of whoops and hoots, we would have arrived at our destination long ago. At present, however, we are forced to pause periodically in order to purge the most noxious of them from our midst.



Hey, sophistry boy!! How about you take your 'proofs' and compile them into one or two posts that can then be argued with instead of this US TV season length, multi-part epic extravaganza?

It'll still be bollocks but at least it'll be quickly digestible bollocks. A bit like sheep.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> First of all, anyone who thinks that my proof is taking too long should direct their complaints to the ragged band of cackling mockers who continue to traipse in my wake.


I cackle. I mock. I have a ragged band. Apparently. Join me and traipse in phil's wake


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2005)

Traipse on!!!


----------



## gurrier (Sep 13, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> I cackle. I mock. I have a ragged band. Apparently. Join me and traipse in phil's wake


I'm not sure if I'm quite ragged enough for the band, but I can tear a few holes in my trousers if that will help?

What type of music will we play to go with the cackling and mocking?


----------



## Loki (Sep 13, 2005)

How about a conga line?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if I'm quite ragged enough for the band, but I can tear a few holes in my trousers if that will help?
> 
> What type of music will we play to go with the cackling and mocking?


 Greensleeves I think.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

I'll not be ragged, but I'll certainly traipse along and join in the cackling and mocking.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Hey, sophistry boy!! How about you take your 'proofs' and compile them into one or two posts that can then be argued with instead of this US TV season length, multi-part epic extravaganza?



This from the man whose urge to reach the Truth is so urgent that he recently took the time to research and type in the *full* lyrics to "Nelly the Elephant."  Unless you knew them already?  You did, didn't you?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I'll not be ragged, but I'll certainly traipse along and join in the cackling and mocking.


 Hooray! We have a bourgoise addition to our band of honest working men! 

I'd suggest you at least make an effort with the raggedness though. Stab a few holes in your jeans or summat. No, you're not allowed to buy them with holes - let's have a little authenticity!


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This from the man whose urge to reach the Truth is so urgent that he recently took the time to research and type in the *full* lyrics to "Nelly the Elephant."  Unless you knew them already?  You did, didn't you?



Sorry, I got as far as the capitlised 'truth' and fell about laughing...

Typing Nelly the Elephant into Google wasn't *that* hard...and no I couldn't remember the preamble or 4th verse. Unlike you clearly I'm not regressing into a sensence of second childhood...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This from the man whose urge to reach the Truth is so urgent that he recently took the time to research and type in the *full* lyrics to "Nelly the Elephant."  Unless you knew them already?  You did, didn't you?


so, this quest to prove the existence of god ain't going too well, then?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Typing Nelly the Elephant into Google wasn't *that* hard



I'd call it "soft" actually.


----------



## Loki (Sep 13, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so, this quest to prove the existence of god ain't going too well, then?


Sure is taking a while. *buys another bucket of popcorn*


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so, this quest to prove the existence of god ain't going too well, then?


 *snorts with laugher*

You could say that.


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> DOOMSY:  I agree that everything God does is logical, and this is in fact a tautology.  But I would add the proviso that prefect logic is unavailable to the human mind, since we are placed in particular and determinate social and historical circumstances, and the perspective of the totality is unavailable to us.  Hence the expression “God moves in mysterious ways.”
> 
> ...
> 
> BLOOM: The a priori does not *necessarily* come from God, but it certainly does *not* come from experience, or from the world.  The a priori is what makes human experience of the world possible.  It must therefore either come from God or be somehow “hard-wired” into the human mind.  If the latter is the case, we are faced with the impossible task of explaining where it comes from: clearly evolution is not a possibility in this case.



I shall assume you mean 'perfect' logic.  All logic is 'perfect logic', so long as the reasoning is valid - logic is 'a priori' knowledge, which means it is knowable with no experience whatsoever.  Social and historical circumstances have absolutely no bearing on logic whatsoever, 1+1=2 is true, has always been true and will always be true, regardless of any human circumstances which may occur.

In response to your responses to Bloom, I would argue that if you are not going to show that the 'a priori' comes from *necessarily* a God, then you are not proving God's existence through reasoning.  If there is any other possible explaination, whether it can be explained or not, and no matter how unlikely, then there is no logical proof.

Your statement "The a priori is what makes human experience of the world possible" is preposterous - *any* experience of the world is 'a posteriori' by definition.  The 'a priori' is independent of our experience of the world.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> There’s not too much experience to be had without a mind, as Nino will tell you.


Miii-aaow!!


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 13, 2005)

god?  god?

anyone seen god?

i've got a message that needs delivering just as soon as possible....


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

> Your statement "The a priori is what makes human experience of the world possible" is preposterous - *any* experience of the world is 'a posteriori' by definition. The 'a priori' is independent of our experience of the world.



Preposterous is the right word - surely all those latin words should be in _italics_

*shakes head at shocking state of academic debate on this thread*


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> VALVE:  I have not conflated “use” and “usefulness,” but have introduced a third category: *use-value.*  This refers to a value that only exists for human beings but which is also an inherent property of the object’s physical body.


And you've *still* not addressed the fact that the value must also be an inherent property of the valuer as well as all of the things in the rest of the world that produce that property in the valuer and, for that matter, their inter-relationship. With any of them different the value would not be the same.

Either that or you're defining an entirely new phrase which postulates a perceivable property called "use-value" which has no relationship to any concept of value that can be illustrated in the rest of the world.

This isn't even new because it was raised as an objection to your _first_ post. The introduction of your new types of value doesn't change anything because they don't seem to exist.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> god?  god?
> 
> anyone seen god?
> 
> i've got a message that needs delivering just as soon as possible....



Seen _a_ God.

Not sure if it's the same one tho.

He walked off muttering something about 'Jesus, if this thread is what my existance is reduced to I'm off'


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> god?  god?
> 
> anyone seen god?
> 
> i've got a message that needs delivering just as soon as possible....


 Presumably something along the lines of 'You're a cunt'? I'll pass it on if I see him.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2005)

I'm feeding the troll, aren't I?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I'm feeding the troll, aren't I?


 But has it ever been so much *fun*?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> I shall assume you mean 'perfect' logic.  All logic is 'perfect logic', so long as the reasoning is valid - logic is 'a priori' knowledge, which means it is knowable with no experience whatsoever.  Social and historical circumstances have absolutely no bearing on logic whatsoever, 1+1=2 is true, has always been true and will always be true, regardless of any human circumstances which may occur.
> 
> In response to your responses to Bloom, I would argue that if you are not going to show that the 'a priori' comes from *necessarily* a God, then you are not proving God's existence through reasoning.  If there is any other possible explaination, whether it can be explained or not, and no matter how unlikely, then there is no logical proof.
> 
> Your statement "The a priori is what makes human experience of the world possible" is preposterous - *any* experience of the world is 'a posteriori' by definition.  The 'a priori' is independent of our experience of the world.



Yes, of course the a priori is independent of our experience of the world.  But it *does* make our experience of the world possible.  And, what will prove more important to my case, we can deduce the existence of the a priori from the a posteriori.  You're right about my response to Bloom, I was unclear.  Yes, if there is *any* other explanation for the a priori than God, my proof will fail.  But there is no other explanation.  I agree that abstract logic transcends human experience, but the problem is that *humans* don't transcend human experience, and so this level of abstraction is unavailable to us.  Well I could go on all day, but as you see we have quite a few companions on our quest who are not versed in the technical language of philosophy, and I am bound to talk to them in their own humble dialect.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

> I'm feeding the troll, aren't I?



Nah, we're all being reall, really bad and attempting to drag a serious thread into the gutter of material existance from the impossibly high realms it should exist in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer

why didn't you sort out this proof of god bit & then post it, instead of trying to do what the greatest philosophical & religious minds have tried and failed to do - only in dribs and drabs & in front of the entire english-speaking world - thus making you look a bit of a muppet?


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I believe that the human mind was created by God, but that neither the human body nor anything material were.






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I was not assuming the existence of God


Please tell me how these two statements are compatible. 



			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I am at a loss to see why you think that the fact that God created the human mind, if it is proved to be true, would be irrelevant to our experience.


What I said was that I cannot see how a God which created human mind, _but not anything material_ (to paraphrase your statement above), would be relevant to our experience. A mind created by God might allow a logical proof of God's existence, but what impact would this logical proof existence have without any manifestation of this God in the material world, given that he/she/it would not have created anything material? This is somewhere between the Agnostic and Deist world-views.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I completely agree that the Koko experiment is bullshit.  But if you think that animals can conceptualize, in the sense that I am using the term, you would have to show animals that can either (a) speak, or (b) exchange different quantities of different objects—two sticks for three carrots or whatever.  And, despite the best attempts of Koko’s manipulators, there are no such animals anywhere in the universe.



I wouldn't need to prove they speak, animals don't have phonological or syntactic abilities. Monkeys can however judge how much orange juice should be traded for pictures of lady monkeys' bumbums which I feel proves my point enough _to at least warrant some evidence against_.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> phildwyer
> 
> why didn't you sort out this proof of god bit & then post it, instead of trying to do what the greatest philosophical & religious minds have tried and failed to do - only in dribs and drabs & in front of the entire english-speaking world - thus making you look a bit of a muppet?



This post has given me a revalation. An epiphany, if you will.

PhilD _is_ God and he's trying to proove/justify his own existence...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> And you've *still* not addressed the fact that the value must also be an inherent property of the valuer as well as all of the things in the rest of the world that produce that property in the valuer and, for that matter, their inter-relationship. With any of them different the value would not be the same.
> 
> Either that or you're defining an entirely new phrase which postulates a perceivable property called "use-value" which has no relationship to any concept of value that can be illustrated in the rest of the world.
> 
> This isn't even new because it was raised as an objection to your _first_ post. The introduction of your new types of value doesn't change anything because they don't seem to exist.



Fridge, you've said this, or something like it, several times now, and I *still* don't know what you mean.  Yes, of course, value cannot exist apart from human beings.  Yes, of course it depends upon the "valuer," as you put it.  I've happily conceded that, and moved on to identify the three kinds of value of which human beings can conceive.  I don't see what your problem is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> This post has given me a revalation. An epiphany, if you will.
> 
> PhilD _is_ God and he's trying to proove/justify his own existence...


he's taking the epiphany, that's what he's doing!


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> he's taking the epiphany, that's what he's doing!



*passes PM his coat*


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

Could I just draw your attention to my new tagline?

Thank you.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

*contemplates new tagline*

OOOOoooOOOOO


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

maomao said:
			
		

> Monkeys can however judge how much orange juice should be traded for pictures of lady monkeys' bumbums which I feel proves my point enough _to at least warrant some evidence against_.



This shows that they can grasp cause-and-effect, not the principle of exchange.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fridge, you've said this, or something like it, several times now, and I *still* don't know what you mean.  Yes, of course, value cannot exist apart from human beings.  Yes, of course it depends upon the "valuer," as you put it.  I've happily conceded that, and moved on to identify the three kinds of value of which human beings can conceive.  I don't see what your problem is.


My problem is that you keep saying that value is a perceptible inherent property of the valued item. Why? It's not.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

of course it should have read 'and his ragged band of merry cackling mockers' but that tight-arse editor won't let us have really cool taglines like that


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This shows that they can grasp cause-and-effect, not the principle of exchange.


No, they rate the pictures according to which monkeys they are of, and are prepared to trade certain amounts for them but no more depending on things like the social status of the monkeys concerned. (I was forgetting about that actually.)


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> Please tell me how these two statements are compatible.
> 
> What I said was that I cannot see how a God which created human mind, _but not anything material_ (to paraphrase your statement above), would be relevant to our experience. A mind created by God might allow a logical proof of God's existence, but what impact would this logical proof existence have without any manifestation of this God in the material world, given that he/she/it would not have created anything material? This is somewhere between the Agnostic and Deist world-views.



The fact that God did not create the material world does not imply that He is not manifest within it.  In any case, it depends what you mean by "create."  Obviously any omnipotent being would, in a sense, have "created" everything that exists.  But equally obviously our bodies and those of animals are the products of evolution, not creation *ex nihilo.*


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This shows that they can grasp cause-and-effect, not the principle of exchange.



Read the links I posted earlier, you're bluffing.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> My problem is that you keep saying that value is a perceptible inherent property of the valued item. Why? It's not.



Oh right, this again.  *Use-value* is an inherent property (or, to be more precise, inherent in the properties) of the object.  Why?  Because you need the object to be physically present in order to use it.  You seem to think that the fact that it is only useful for human beings means that its use-value is not inherent in its properties, but in fact there is no contradiction here.  Use-value can be both inherent in the object and only existant for human beings.  I can't see the logical difficulty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The fact that God did not create the material world does not imply that He is not manifest within it.  In any case, it depends what you mean by "create."  Obviously any omnipotent being would, in a sense, have "created" everything that exists.  But equally obviously our bodies and those of animals are the products of evolution, not creation *ex nihilo.*


why is it "obvious" that "our bodies" are the products of evolution?

it wasn't bloody obvious to that ussher bloke, nor to william hervey. nor to some of the greatest religious & philosophical -- and scientifick -- minds the world's produced.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The fact that God did not create the material world does not imply that He is not manifest within it.  In any case, it depends what you mean by "create."  Obviously any omnipotent being would, in a sense, have "created" everything that exists.  But equally obviously our bodies and those of animals are the products of evolution, not creation *ex nihilo.*



I.e. God created the world but not each person individually, who were all created by their parents having sex.

He did however, create..what? Human minds? Thought?

You're starting to flounder here Phil...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh right, this again.  *Use-value* is an inherent property (or, to be more precise, inherent in the properties) of the object.  Why?  Because you need the object to be physically present in order to use it.  You seem to think that the fact that it is only useful for human beings means that its use-value is not inherent in its properties, but in fact there is no contradiction here.  Use-value can be both inherent in the object and only existant for human beings.  I can't see the logical difficulty.


But "use-value" is different for different valuers in different situations. So it can't be purely present as a property of the object - unless it is actually just the same as the aspects of the object that the valuer considers in context and uses to judge value, in other words, it's not a value at all.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> why is it "obvious" that "our bodies" are the products of evolution?
> 
> it wasn't bloody obvious to that ussher bloke, nor to william hervey. nor to some of the greatest religious & philosophical -- and scientifick -- minds the world's produced.



It is obvious that human beings evolved from apes.  But this is in no way incompatible with an intelligent designer of the universe, despite what the Darwinian fundamentalists will tell you.  When they do (and they will), I can give you some questions to ask them that are guaranteed to produce entertaining results.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It is obvious that human beings evolved from apes.  But this is in no way incompatible with an intelligent designer of the universe, despite what the Darwinian fundamentalists will tell you.  When they do (and they will), I can give you some questions to ask them that are guaranteed to produce entertaining results.


no! 

*WHY* is it obvious? eh?  because apes look a little like humans?

there's a fair fucking gap between an ape and a human, be the ape never so well mannered. if we are descended from apes, what the flying fuck are they still doing about? and why aren't closer relatives like neaderthals &c? eh?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> no!
> 
> *WHY* is it obvious? eh?  because apes look a little like humans?
> 
> there's a fair fucking gap between an ape and a human, be the ape never so well mannered. if we are descended from apes, what the flying fuck are they still doing about? and why aren't closer relatives like neaderthals &c? eh?


 This thread (or should I say phildwyer) brings out the troll in everyone


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> But "use-value" is different for different valuers in different situations. So it can't be purely present as a property of the object - unless it is actually just the same as the aspects of the object that the valuer considers in context and uses to judge value, in other words, it's not a value at all.



No, its not "purely" present as a property of the object, yes it can be different for different people etc.  None of this obviates my point.  Once again, the three-fold distinction I am establishing is between use-value, exchange-value and value *per se* (aka financial value).  Have you grasped the nature of this distinction now?  It is by no means easy at first, but it can certainly be explained in language that everyone can understand.  I thought I'd already done this, but maybe not?  I know its easy to get distracted by the silly people.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

But surely financial value comes under exchange value, since all 'financial value' is, is the value of X object exchanged for Y promises to pay, and that finance is just another way of managing and putting a value on the exchange of goods?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2005)

but why's god have to have some sort of exchange value anyway?  

are some people's prayers worth more than others, & if so who detemines that? some sort of celestial secretariat?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 13, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> but why's god have to have some sort of exchange value anyway?
> 
> are some people's prayers worth more than others, & if so who detemines that? some sort of celestial secretariat?



Pope

Bishop

Priest

Acolyte

Layperson

?

I don't see what exchange value and whether monkey's get it or not has to do with prooving Gods' existance meself.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> But surely financial value comes under exchange value, since all 'financial value' is, is the value of X object exchanged for Y promises to pay, and that finance is just another way of managing and putting a value on the exchange of goods?



Close.  Financial value certainly comes *from* exchange-value, but we can't equate the two.  As I showed in my initial example of the cow and the lamb, exchange-value already exists in barter, while financial value does not.  Financial value is exchange-value in the *abstract,* once it has been *abstracted* from material objects.  For this reason, I call it the *concept* of exchange-value.  The next distinction to grasp is that between financial value and *money,* but you're probably aware of that already (if only because I patiently explained it about three hundred posts ago).


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Pope
> 
> Bishop
> 
> ...


but what if yr a lutheran and therefore believe in the priesthood of all believers & salvation by faith alone? eh?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 13, 2005)

> The next distinction to grasp is that between financial value and *money,* but you're probably aware of that already (if only because I patiently explained it about three hundred posts ago).



Can you reprise this briefly as I didn't get it the first time (cut and paste is fine).


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Can you reprise this briefly as I didn't get it the first time (cut and paste is fine).



No problem, this is me talking to GURRIER about two hundred posts ago (he never replied, needless to say).

3.  Value per se, or to use a term that is strictly inaccurate but may help you grasp the concept, *financial* value. This is the *abstract* form of exchange-value. It is exchange-value *abstracted* from the body of the cow and so, unlike exchange-value, it is not perceptible in the body of the cow. We might say that it is the *concept* of exchange-value. Financial value is necessary for any large-scale exchange of objects. It is this last type of value that will most concern us today.

Now, you appear to assume that financial value is “money.” You are entirely mistaken. Money is the medium in which financial value is represented. It is, if you like, the language in which financial value is expressed. But it *not* the same thing as financial value. It is unsurprising that you miss this Truth, for it has only recently been revealed to us. Consider: until very recently it was universally believed that financial value was somehow inherent in the physical properties of gold and other precious metals. For millennia, people believed that gold *was* financial value, or in a slightly more sophisticated version, that financial value “lived in“ the body of gold. Of course, we now know that this is not true; financial value can be represented in other forms, such as banknotes. But today, the real and ultimate Truth about money is even clearer, for most financial value no longer has *any* material form. There is very little material money, of any kind, in existence compared to the amount of financial value that, as our masters tell us, exists. 

Or does it? How can we say that something that has no material being whatsoever “exists?” Well, we can know that it exists by its *effects.* How effective is financial value? Very fucking effective indeed; in fact the Spaniards call money “effectivo.” Anyone can see that financial value is the most effective force in existence, we might even say that it rules the entire world, and that to a large and growing extent it determines the thoughts and actions of every person in the world. So this all-powerful force does not, materially speaking, exist. What do we call such a force? Do we not call it a “spirit?”


----------



## Crispy (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Do we not call it a “spirit?”



Not if you want to be taken seriously, no.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Not if you want to be taken seriously, no.



This is going to be the next stage of my argument, actually.  What would you call it?  An idea?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Or does it? How can we say that something that has no material being whatsoever “exists?” Well, we can know that it exists by its *effects.* How effective is financial value? Very fucking effective indeed; in fact the Spaniards call money “effectivo.” Anyone can see that financial value is the most effective force in existence, we might even say that it rules the entire world, and that to a large and growing extent it determines the thoughts and actions of every person in the world. So this all-powerful force does not, materially speaking, exist. What do we call such a force? Do we not call it a “spirit?”


Oh this is poor. This is very poor indeed. 0 out of 10. This is where you've been going for 500 fucking posts? I thought (god knows why) that at least it would be *vaguely* defensible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Oh this is poor. This is very poor indeed. 0 out of 10. This is where you've been going for 500 fucking posts? I thought at least it would be *vaguely* defensible.


i didn't.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sep 13, 2005)

Hi, only been reading this since page 10 (I read the first page but it didn't seem much different tbh), so, is phildwyer's main supposition so far that god did not create the material world but created logical human minds?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This is going to be the next stage of my argument, actually.  What would you call it?  An idea?



That's a better word, yes. Please continue


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> Hi, only been reading this since page 10 (I read the first page but it didn't seem much different tbh), so, is phildwyer's main supposition so far that god did not create the material world but created logical human minds?


 phil's suppositions are endless. we all lost count long ago.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 13, 2005)

Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> Hi, only been reading this since page 10 (I read the first page but it didn't seem much different tbh), so, is phildwyer's main supposition so far that god did not create the material world but created logical human minds?



I think so. I think at the moment, he's working on the unique non-material creations of those minds.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sep 13, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> phil's suppositions are endless. we all lost count long ago.


After noticing that Fridgemagnet and Phildwyer are still arguing a point from page 1 I didn't think it was really necessary to read the inbetween 9...


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> After noticing that Fridgemagnet and Phildwyer are still arguing a point from page 1 I didn't think it was really necessary to read the inbetween 9...


 or indeed any of it...

though it has been fun


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 13, 2005)

What a bloody let down.  I want my money back.


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> to a large and growing extent it determines the thoughts and actions of every person in the world.



So does the Sun.  Your point being?


----------



## gurrier (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No problem, this is me talking to GURRIER about two hundred posts ago (he never replied, needless to say).


Oh sorry about that.  Since I've changed my tagline I've gone all soft and almost felt sorry for you so didn't bother pointing out what a pile of steaming nonsense your argument was.  

There is no qualitative distinction between exchange value and financial value.  They are both abstractions, financial value merely generalises the abstraction already inherent in the concept of exchange value.  Financial value is identical to exchange value in economies which are based on generalised commodity production.     

Phil still hasn't managed to grasp the concept of 'inherent' qualities.  For quality A to be inherent in thing B, A must be present in B regardless of the circumstances in which B finds itself.  This is patently not the case with value of any type as value is not inherent in the body of anything.    

But, in any case, I think we have established that this part of the argument has failed to convince anybody here.  I suggest moving on to the next phase.  Although some might say that there is little point in building an argument based upon unproven foundations, I think the urgent requirement for fresh comic material negates this necessity in this case.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

And just out of interest phil, is there anything you've said so far that couldn't be summed up by saying: 'humans are capable of abstract thought'?

Is this what you meant? If not, could you explain how what you are saying is any different? If so, why didn't you just bloody say it?


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This is going to be the next stage of my argument, actually.  What would you call it?  An idea?



Let me get this straight, _money_ is God?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 13, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Although some might say that there is little point in building an argument based upon unproven foundations



*wags finger*

Ah! but you don't need proof for logic!
However, logic is something sorely lacking so far.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> This is where you've been going for 500 fucking posts?



No, this is where I was 300 posts *ago,* as you'd know if you'd read the thread instead of just popping your head over the parapet and getting it blasted off once in a while.  And I also appended an addendum warning that I was *not* going to argue that financial value is God, for that would be a very silly argument indeed.  Now just SHUT UP you deeply annoying man, and pay attention from here on in.  I'm going to bash Gurrier for a while to let off some steam.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 13, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> *wags finger*
> 
> Ah! but you don't need proof for logic!
> However, logic is something sorely lacking so far.


But you do need logic for proof!


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> you deeply annoying man


*feels all proud and warm inside*


----------



## gurrier (Sep 13, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight, _money_ is God?


More precisely, the EURO is clearly the one true divinity.  The cult of sterling is a heresy.

HEATHEN!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight, _money_ is God?



Doomsy, I specifically said that financial value is not God when I first posted this yonks ago.  Moreover, financial value is not money, and money is not God either.  What nonsense, how could it be?


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 13, 2005)

So, if the 'Spirit of financial value' isn't God, what is it?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 13, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> So, if the 'Spirit of financial value' isn't God, what is it?



Exactly!  This is the next question we will discuss.  I'm assuming that financial value is either a "spirit" or an "idea," and we will consider the relative merits of these appellations.  First though, I must chastize Gurrier for his latest absurdities.  I may be some time.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 13, 2005)

im sorry but only a fucking child thinks money has to be in cash. Your once again using trivial points to try and claim some sort of profoundness.

Also if you think "finance" is a spirit, would you accept that it is a spirit that we create and recreate through our alienated activity, and if this is the case then surely "god" as a spirit is just something we create from our own alienation.

FFS this is marxism 101 you pretentious muppet!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2005)

> Originally Posted by* phildwyer*
> _NINOSAVATTE: I am afraid that the time has come for you to leave this thread. You have openly boasted that your only purpose here is to disrupt and derail. Even BRAINADDICT, even GURRIER, have occasionally managed to contribute something of worth to the discussion, but you have done (and apparently intend to do) nothing but inflict your dour, humorless, deadly dull jibes on us at regular intervals. And your French is painfully atrocious. You are utterly lacking in joie de vivre, jeu d’esprit and je ne sais quois. Your effervescent wit keeps me amused all day—I *don’t* think. Be off with you._



God speaks....or is that how you see yourself? Of course it is: ego the size of a small country...indeed.

Where have "openly boasted that your [my] only purpose here is to disrupt and derail"? I think you made that up, like you've made up much of what you've posted here.

Btw your French isn't any better. When was the last time a French person used the word "plume" for pen? Besides I have an excuse if my French is "bad", I've only been learning the language for 4 months. What's your excuse? You're a bully pure and simple.

And the way you sign off with "I *don’t* think" isn't funny, clever or witty. It is also a misuse of the asterisk. Did you say you were a postgraduate?

You are nothing but a peddlar of stierscheiβe. How's your German, shit-for-brains?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 13, 2005)

Please - the word spirit implies an entity with some sort of self-determination.  I really am taking you (even) less seriously now.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 13, 2005)

'Financial value' (if you insist on calling it that) was always a type of measurement applied to objects that are available for exchange in a market system. The phenomenon of the gold standard comes about not because financial value was thought to somehow reside in gold, but because gold was a commodity of relatively stable scarcity that was capable of acting as a guarantee of the durability of the value of currency - the threat of the redemption of paper money for gold prevented issuers from devaluing their own currency by putting too much of it in circulation. In modern economic systems the disincentives associated with inflation are sufficiently well understood to make such a guarantee unnecessary.

The change from a barter economy to a monetary one implies precise quantification of values - it's not possible to imagine value in a monetary economy except  in discrete, impersonal mathematical units, whatever these happen to be; financial value is always already numeric quantities of money. The numeric value of money is what has always been important, not the presence of physical money - it's self-evident that an IOU written on a scrap of paper is 'worth' as much to the bearer (and provokes equal annoyance when lost) as the same denomination in real money. The computerisation of this is just an inevitable extension of a process which has been going on for some time - didn't the Knights Templar make most of there money by allowing travellers to the Holy Land to pay in money or gold in their country of origin, in exchange for bonds that could be recouped for hard currency on arrival?

Financial value on its own has no compulsive force - it requires (and reflects) power relationships between social agents, and ceases to have any meaning when the supporting institutions of civil society no longer function. Money represents the mathematical abstraction of a certain kind of social relationship, but is itself no more important that ideology, which limits the actions of capital to varying degrees in different societies.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Exactly!  This is the next question we will discuss.  I'm assuming that financial value is either a "spirit" or an "idea," and we will consider the relative merits of these appellations.  First though, I must chastize Gurrier for his latest absurdities.  I may be some time.


You're reifying again phil.


----------



## bugsy7 (Sep 13, 2005)

bugsy7 said:
			
		

> Hah! Found it!
> Phil, if you want to read up on your wacky theory, it's in a book with the titel "Die Auserkorenen des Herren" (The Chosen Ones of the Lord) by Joachim Staedler and Pinkas Bredemeier, published in 1804.
> Very interesting reading, nur musst du Deutsch können.
> 
> MsG


Here it is again, Phil. You're just plagiarising something that's been around for almost 200 years and presenting it as your own. Have you no shame? However, the original  presentation is much better than yours.

Hier ist es abermals, Phil. Das ist lediglich ein Plagiat einer alten These, die seit 200 Jahren existiert, und die du als deine eigene vorgibst. Schämst du dich nicht? Die ursprüngiche Behandlung ist jedoch viel besser als deine.

MsG


----------



## exosculate (Sep 13, 2005)

bugsy7 said:
			
		

> Here it is again, Phil. You're just plagiarising something that's been around for almost 200 years and presenting it as your own. Have you no shame? However, the original  presentation is much better than yours.
> 
> Hier ist es abermals, Phil. Das ist lediglich ein Plagiat einer alten These, die seit 200 Jahren existiert, und die du als deine eigene vorgibst. Schämst du dich nicht? Die ursprüngiche Behandlung ist jedoch viel besser als deine.
> 
> MsG



hehehe


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 14, 2005)

I think this thread is even better than the 100+ monster about Bolshevism. Definately in need of archiving.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 14, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This is going to be the next stage of my argument, actually.  What would you call it?  An idea?



No, I'd call it a meme


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 14, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> No, I'd call it a meme



Actually you might be right--but not in the way you think you are.  I'll take it under consideration...


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 14, 2005)

Phil, is this going to be sorted by Friday?  I'm going on holiday, and won't have net access for a week and a half.

I intend to spend the break working on my next major thesis, "The Scientific Proof of God's Nonexistance", which may pique your interest.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 14, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> is this going to be sorted by Friday?




Hell yeah, we'll definitely have a god by Friday!

Here's an idea to speed things up phil: instead of directing your arguments at the *least* intelligent of us, direct them at the people who have attained your own lofty heights of intellectual achievement. Presumably it will then take about five minutes.

And oddly enough, you may find a larger number of people than you hitherto suspected capable of following your arguments...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 14, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> Phil, is this going to be sorted by Friday?



Who will prove that Robinson Crusoe is the big white God of the island?


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 14, 2005)

If he can't sort it, nobody can...


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 14, 2005)

> Phil, is this going to be sorted by Friday? I'm going on holiday, and won't have net access for a week and a half.



You'll be fine mate, we'll still be here.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 14, 2005)

goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> Who will prove that Robinson Crusoe is the big white God of the island?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2005)

*ever get the feeling
you've been cheated?*​


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 14, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> And oddly enough, you may find a larger number of people than you hitherto suspected capable of following your arguments...



he has an argument?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 14, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> he has an argument?




He meant sacraments!


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 14, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> He meant sacraments!


 yep, that was what I meant. d'oh!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2005)

i've given this thread the best part of 600 threads, and i have seen NOTHING to make me think that phildwyer was on anything else but a big WIND UP!


----------



## Loki (Sep 14, 2005)

Come on, someone bagsie the 600th post with something witty and incisive.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2005)

bollocks!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 14, 2005)

Right, if I read correctly there are only *two* serious objections remaining to my argument thus far.  I shall deal with them tonight, and tomorrow we will look at the conclusions to be drawn from what we have learned.  In order to speed things up a bit, we will do this by way of advancing the next stage of my case, which is that financial value is best described as a *spirit* rather than as an “idea,” and still less as a “thing.”  I will make this case in two ways: (a) by asking whether financial value can exist apart from or outside the human mind, and (b) by offering a definition of what financial value is in essence, as opposed to in appearance.  If anyone—and I do mean *anyone*--feels that I have not dealt with their objection made earlier, or if anyone is unconvinced by anything I have said so far, *now* is the time to say so, as we cannot return to this ground again if we are to have any chance at all of proving God’s existence in the near future.

GURRIER: The fact that, as you say, “financial value merely generalizes the abstraction already inherent in the concept of exchange value” does *not* mean, as you wrongly claim, that “there is no qualitative distinction between exchange value and financial value.”  The qualitative distinction lies precisely in the generalization.  This is very important, so I’ll explain it carefully (again).  Exchange value exists in any act of exchange, it is the cow qua value-of-lamb.  This exchange value is a concept, a symbol if you like, but it is a symbol of a concrete object (the lamb).  But financial value is a symbol of a quite different nature.  Due to its function as a *universal* equivalent, a common denominator, it can only represent a quality that all objects can be conceived as having in common.  That quality is human labour-power (*not* individual acts of labour) or, as I have argued, human life itself.  Financial value is an alienated representation of human life, while exchange value is not.  Is this clear now?

Secondly, you are utterly wrong about the nature of “inherent” qualities.  They do *not* have to be present in an object “regardless of circumstances,” as you wrongly state.  Rather, they have to be present in an object under *present* circumstances.  For example, if I have a red car, the car’s redness is an inherent quality of the car.  It is not something that can be separated from the car under present circumstances.  But if I paint the car blue, this previously inherent quality no longer inheres in the car.  “Inherent” does not imply “eternal,” which would be silly, if you think about it, for nothing on earth is eternal and so in that case nothing could be inherent, could it?  Therefore there can be such a thing as an inherent value, and we call this kind of value the “use value,” as I have explained many times before.

FRUITLOOP: You are correct to say that “financial value is always already numeric quantities of money.”  But you are wrong to say that people have always been aware of this fact.  Only very recently has the secret of financial value been revealed, it is an excellent example of a Revealed Truth.  Until the seventeenth century, people did indeed believe that value “lived in” gold, or that it *was* gold.  Economic historians call this openly magical and fetishistic kind of thinking “bullionism.”  Bullionist economists recommended that a nation or a person try to acquire as much gold as possible and, having acquired it, to hoard it.  It was not until the seventeenth-century revolution in “political economy,” led by William Petty and Nicholas Barbon, that people realized that it financial value could be separated from bullion.  Bank-notes were first invented in this period, for example, although the myth that they somehow “referred to” gold survived, with growing implausibility, into the twentieth century.  

Secondly, it is not quite accurate to say that “money represents the mathematical abstraction of a certain kind of social relationship.”  What money represents—or used to represent, since we are now moving into a “post-money” society—is *value.*  What *value* represents is human life itself, human life *per se.*  That does not, of course mean that value *is* human life per se.  On the contrary, it is the *opposite* of human life, although it is also a representation of human life.  

Well, you may well be able to see where I’m going here, but we should pause here for the pack to catch up.  I anticipate a good deal of squabbling at this stage, but hopefully we can get onto our inquiries as to the true nature and essence of value, as well as its false form of appearance, tomorrow.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 14, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> hopefully we can get onto our inquiries as to the true nature and essence of value, as well as its false form of appearance, tomorrow.



I might have to throw a sicky and get some popcorn


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 14, 2005)

That's not a cow you idiots!


----------



## bugsy7 (Sep 14, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Although it appears I'm making a complete cunt of myself, I'll continue....


Actually, you didn't say that, Phil, but you do very much remind me of Bush, who doesn't like to be reminded he's not omnipotent. 
But haven't you yet twigged that you're working very hard towards the above quote as far as everybody else on the thread is concerned? Povero bastardo!

MsG


----------



## revol68 (Sep 14, 2005)

oi phildwyer fancy responding to my question?



> If you think "finance" is a spirit, would you accept that it is a spirit that we create and recreate through our alienated activity, and if this is the case then surely "god" as a spirit is just something we create from our own alienation.
> 
> FFS this is marxism 101 you pretentious muppet!
> Edit/Delete Message


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 14, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> oi phildwyer fancy responding to my question?



Depends.  Are you Bugsy7 in disguise?  You look a bit like him.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 14, 2005)

if i can recall bugsy7 is a pseudo republican so no Im nothing like him.

Do you fancy answering my question? 

I mean if you can prove the existance of god im sure you could get round to answering that, no?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 14, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> if i can recall bugsy7 is a pseudo republican so no Im nothing like him.



I beg to differ.  You both have stupid names with pathetic numbers in them, for one thing.  And there are other things, too.  You're both Irish, aren't you?  And you're both pissed.   And you're both about 14 years old.  So on reflection I fancy I've got one or two better options for this evening than to argue with a couple of indistinguishable teenage Irish pissheads.  I'm sure you understand my position on this.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 14, 2005)

> If you think "finance" is a spirit, would you accept that it is a spirit that we create and recreate through our alienated activity, and if this is the case then surely "god" as a spirit is just something we create from our own alienation?
> 
> FFS this is marxism 101 you pretentious muppet!



sober as a judge mate.

Why is my question not valid?

I mean i've played by the rules the whole way through this thread, you've even commented on it yourself.

I mean it's a very simple question, no?

Of course Marx said Yes, and infact Marx's concept of alienation is really Fuerbachs criticism of religion applied to the state. Im interested where you differ from Marx on this.

Please be so kind as to shine your infinite wisdom upon my childish question.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 14, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> sober as a judge mate.
> 
> Why is my question not valid?
> 
> ...



OK, OK, I'm getting there.  I find it hard to differentiate your relative politesse on this thread from the torrent of abuse to which you subject me, and everyone else, on other threads.  But we'll consider you a new person here.  Basically, I find Feuerbach's to be a simplistic reading of Hegel, and I find that Marx's early materialism (which he later abandons, although not explicitly enough to please you) to be the result of his mechanistic appropriation of Feuerbach, which shows all the signs of a youthful and ill-conceived infatuation.  In short, we do not create God, as Feuerbach said, God creates us.  But we'll already have baffled half of our little insane clown possee here, so I cannot continue in this vein.  I said that I would do this without relying on allusions to philosophers, and I mean to fulfill my promise.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 14, 2005)

Okay forgetting about young Marxs apparent infatuation with Fuerbach , could you atleast answer my wee simple question?

_*If you think "finance" is a spirit, would you accept that it is a spirit that we create and recreate through our alienated activity, and if this is the case then surely "god" as a spirit is just something we create from our own alienation?*_


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 14, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Okay forgetting about young Marxs apparent infatuation with Fuerbach , could you atleast answer my wee simple question?
> 
> _*If you think "finance" is a spirit, would you accept that it is a spirit that we create and recreate through our alienated activity, and if this is the case then surely "god" as a spirit is just something we create from our own alienation?*_



See edit above--does that answer it?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 14, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Okay forgetting about young Marxs apparent infatuation with Fuerbach , could you atleast answer my wee simple question?
> 
> _*If you think "finance" is a spirit, would you accept that it is a spirit that we create and recreate through our alienated activity, and if this is the case then surely "god" as a spirit is just something we create from our own alienation?*_



Alright, you're obviously not going to let me rest until I've answered this, although what good it will do I don't know because I can't possibly prove it at this stage of my argument, and so anything I say will be taken as a mere assertion and greeted with the usual howls of confusion and outrage.  But yes, we create the spirit of value, but God creates us, so actually its God who creates the spirit of value.  Happy now?


----------



## Loki (Sep 14, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> OK, OK, I'm getting there.



When exactly?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 14, 2005)

So you accept that we create "finance" through alienated activity? So how does this in anyway prove useful for understanding "god"?

And im sorry but why would you accept that human alienation creates "finance" (a force much more palpable and "real" than god) yet you can't accept that human alienation creates god?

Im afraid your going to have to show us some evidence as to how god created man, evidence not present in discussions about value, exchange value or "finance".


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 14, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> When exactly?



Oh for Christ's sake, WTF do you want from me?  Do you think its *easy* proving the existence of God without using any technical terms or referring to any sources, speaking only in terms that even the densest can readily comprehend?  Do you?  Especially against the background clucking and shrieking of the most remarkable collection of nutters and perverts it has ever been my misfortune to encounter?  OK Mr. Smarty-pants, perhaps *you'd* like to teach the class today...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 14, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> So you accept that we create "finance" through alienated activity? So how does this in anyway prove useful for understanding "god"?
> 
> And im sorry but why would you accept that human alienation creates "finance" (a force much more palpable and "real" than god) yet you can't accept that human alienation creates god?
> 
> Im afraid your going to have to show us some evidence as to how god created man, evidence not present in discussions about value, exchange value or "finance".



Look, bugger off, alright.  I knew this would happen.  You'll have to follow me step by step if you want to be convinced.  Raise your objections at the appropriate stage of the argument, neither rushing ahead of the pack nor lagging behind.  How hard is that, FFS?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 14, 2005)

Sorry teacher, I know your having a hard time teaching us unruly and ill educated children but I thought that since you were discussing "finance" as spirit, it would be a good time to bring up the fact that Marx saw finance as the product of alienated human activity. I thought perhaps this was also a good time to mention that Marx was propelled to such an analysis vis a vis Feuerbachs analysis of religion, and perhaps this entity you call god is really just the product of alienated human activity. 

Im really really sorry and I promise not to be a show off again, ever.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 14, 2005)

You have nerves of steel and the drive of a herd of buffalo, phil. Go get 'em.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 14, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Look, bugger off, alright.  I knew this would happen.  You'll have to follow me step by step if you want to be convinced.  Raise your objections at the appropriate stage of the argument, neither rushing ahead of the pack nor lagging behind.  How hard is that, FFS?




Have you proved the existence of god?

I'd better go back and read this.


----------



## Loki (Sep 14, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh for Christ's sake, WTF do you want from me?



I believe, "The Rational Proof of God's Existence", as evinced in the thread title of this thread wot you started yourself. 

600+ posts later and no-one's any the wiser as to your remarkable "proof".

Any chance you can reveal it sometime soon?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 15, 2005)

seems ole Phil has found himself at the limits of knowledge and like Icarus has been engulfed in a flame made of his own arrogance.

It's amazing how his stumbling block turnt out to be one erected by someone as old and unhip as Feuerbach.

fucking Greeks they all lok the fucking same to me!


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 15, 2005)

*cough* think you mean Icarus *cough*


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 15, 2005)

no sign of god yet then?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 15, 2005)

> FRUITLOOP: You are correct to say that “financial value is always already numeric quantities of money.” But you are wrong to say that people have always been aware of this fact. Only very recently has the secret of financial value been revealed, it is an excellent example of a Revealed Truth. Until the seventeenth century, people did indeed believe that value “lived in” gold, or that it *was* gold. Economic historians call this openly magical and fetishistic kind of thinking “bullionism.” Bullionist economists recommended that a nation or a person try to acquire as much gold as possible and, having acquired it, to hoard it. It was not until the seventeenth-century revolution in “political economy,” led by William Petty and Nicholas Barbon, that people realized that it financial value could be separated from bullion. Bank-notes were first invented in this period, for example, although the myth that they somehow “referred to” gold survived, with growing implausibility, into the twentieth century.



Wasn't the first use of gold to stand in for bushels of grain? It seems to me that gold was a token from the outset. Bullionism I just see as a wacky offshoot of mercantilism, privileging existing capital over production or trade.


----------



## Loki (Sep 15, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> no sign of god yet then?


Sadly not, phil's still getting round to it. I gather he doesn't think we're enlightened or educated enough to understand his marvelous "proof".


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Sadly not, phil's still getting round to it. I gather he doesn't think we're enlightened or educated enough to understand his marvelous "proof".



Just what's your fucking problem, eh?  Why don't you make your objection, if you have any, or just shut up and leave the field clear for other people?  As I've said at every opportunity, my whole point is that *everyone* will be able to understand my proof.  The reasons its taking a long time are (a) its a difficult excercise in itself; (b) I'm trying to make it simple, and (c) people like you just jumping in to cavil and moan without contributing anything of your own.  Sorry to be so harsh, but there you have it.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sep 15, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Sadly not, phil's still getting round to it. I gather he doesn't think we're enlightened or educated enough to understand his marvelous "proof".


Thats sort of like the "it was just a dream" cop out you get in crap TV shows.

Phil gives argument.
Urban says argument is rubbish.
Phil says urban is just not intellectually advanced enough to take it.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 15, 2005)

i know, i mean if he has to lower himself to refute the claims of such two bit philosophers like Feuerbach and Marx then he will forever langusih in the swamp of ignorance. Such a beatiful and sublime flower as phildwyer must only be planted in the richest of metaphysical terrain, in the heavens, where it must be protected from the crass brutality of the material realm which under the command of a "crude marxist" reading is forever "storming heaven".


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> It's amazing how his stumbling block turnt out to be one erected by someone as old and unhip as Feuerbach.



Hah!  I eat Feuerbach for breakfast mate.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> Thats sort of like the "it was just a dream" cop out you get in crap TV shows.
> 
> Phil gives argument.
> Urban says argument is rubbish.
> Phil says urban is just not intellectually advanced enough to take it.



Sparrow, rather than just tag along with the baying mob, perhaps you'd care to grace us with the parts of my argument that you consider "rubbish?"  For I believe I have answered all objections made thus far--not, as you falsely suggest, with mere arrogant dismissal, but with the most meticulous and painstaking refutations, to which any sentient and rational being would have to consent.  If you disagree, point out the bits you don't follow, and I will be more than delighted to go over them again for your benefit.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i know, i mean if he has to lower himself to refute the claims of such two bit philosophers like Feuerbach and Marx then he will forever langusih in the swamp of ignorance. Such a beatiful and sublime flower as phildwyer must only be planted in the richest of metaphysical terrain, in the heavens, where it must be protected from the crass brutality of the material realm which under the command of a "crude marxist" reading is forever "storming heaven".



You *are* Bugsy7 in disguise.  Either that or you have a split personality, alternating between earnest, Grasshopperesque requests for crumbs of wisdom and infantile, sneering sarcasm.  If you're so desperate to have my interpretation of Feuerbach, start a thread on the old loony.  On this thread, the whole point is that we're not discussing individual philosophers, because most people here have never heard of them.  Not everyone is as compendiously knowledgable as you, you know.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2005)

Good to see pd's been reduced to personal attacks on individual posters based around perceived age and usernames...

Phil - how's about a 3-4 post summary of your complete 'proof' on another thread that can be eaten, chewed and digested as a whole as opposed to your (admittedly rather cunning) 'I'll be back with the next proof after steak pie' approach?


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 15, 2005)

You haven't been answering objections, though, you've been saying "That's my next point, I'll tell you later", and then not doing so...


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 15, 2005)

What's the big difference between inscribing money on bits of paper and writing it into magnetic patterns on a disk? Does the fact that most people now commit their novels to the computer rather than manuscript mean that we are entering a 'post-writing society'?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Sparrow, rather than just tag along with the baying mob, perhaps you'd care to grace us with the parts of my argument that you consider "rubbish?"  For I believe I have answered all objections made thus far--not, as you falsely suggest, with mere arrogant dismissal, but with the most meticulous and painstaking refutations, to which any sentient and rational being would have to consent.  If you disagree, point out the bits you don't follow, and I will be more than delighted to go over them again for your benefit.


Phil, at the moment people are making all the comments that I would want to make about your theory so I'm quite happy to let them do so. After all, it doesn't look like that much new has been said for the last few pages. If I notice something that I don't think adds up and that no-one else mentions, then I'll be quite sure to let you know.   

What however I do feel you're going to do is outline this theory, and then if people keep pointing out the holes in this then you're just going to turn round and say that everyone is intellectually inferior and thats why they can't get it. Which frankly _is_ arrogant, and in my mind, a cop out.

I for one would actually be interested to hear how you are going to argue this. I certainly can't say I'd agree with it but I would like to hear your argument. I just wonder when you're actually going to give it.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Wasn't the first use of gold to stand in for bushels of grain? It seems to me that gold was a token from the outset. Bullionism I just see as a wacky offshoot of mercantilism, privileging existing capital over production or trade.



I believe that cattle were the first known currency, although cowrie shells may precede them.  Coinage does not appear until sixth-century Lydia under Croesus.  Gold is, of course, by far the most widespread and long-lasting embodiment of the general equivalent.  But it doesn't really matter which material one chooses: my point is that until the seventeenth-century people universally identified financial value with the medium in which it was expressed.  They assumed that money--whatever form it took--was valuable *in itself,* they were unaware that it was merely a *token* referring to an *anterior* form of value.  "Bullionism" was universal for centuries before mercantilism; in fact it was so universal that it didn't even have a name--it was not considered to be a mere theory, it was assumed to be the obvious truth.  It acquires the name "bullionism" only in the course of the dispute with the first people to notice that it wasn't true: the mercantilists of the 1620's, especially Mun, Malynes and Misseldon.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 15, 2005)

but thats just bollox phil, unsubstaniated bollox. Infact i'd go so far as to say it is a bare faced lie.

Phil this is hilarious, you are such a cretin you can't even deal with the basics of Marx nevermind proving the existance of an entity that millions of Theologians working for thousands of years have been unable to prove without recourse to faith.

Seriously you claim to be an academic, what University pays you a wage? Toytwon?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 15, 2005)

The Babylonians used weights of gold as a stand-in for bushels of grain (the unit of currency) long before the first coinage as such. How does that tally with 'until the seventeenth-century people universally identified financial value with the medium in which it was expressed'?


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 15, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Phil this is hilarious, you are such a cretin you can't even deal with the basics of Marx nevermind proving the existance of an entity that millions of Theologians working for thousands of years have been unable to prove without recourse to faith.



Yeah, but infinite monkeys and all that, perhaps he's onto something


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> Phil, at the moment people are making all the comments that I would want to make about your theory so I'm quite happy to let them do so. After all, it doesn't look like that much new has been said for the last few pages. If I notice something that I don't think adds up and that no-one else mentions, then I'll be quite sure to let you know.
> 
> What however I do feel you're going to do is outline this theory, and then if people keep pointing out the holes in this then you're just going to turn round and say that everyone is intellectually inferior and thats why they can't get it. Which frankly _is_ arrogant, and in my mind, a cop out.
> 
> I for one would actually be interested to hear how you are going to argue this. I certainly can't say I'd agree with it but I would like to hear your argument. I just wonder when you're actually going to give it.



Alright, lookit, I'll tell you the problem I'm facing here.  If I go ahead and make my argument without *proving* it at every stage, people will (quite rightly) say that it sounds absurd and ridiculous.  Because it *does* sould absurd and ridiculous unless you understand how we get to each stage.  I can outline my whole argument now, but to anyone who isn't familiar with the history of philosophy, economics, linguistics and theology, it will sound wildly speculative.  I *can* explain it in terms that everyone can grasp, but I think it is quite understandable that this should take a while, especially in the bear-pit of U75.  

But anyway, who cares, really?  Here you are then.  The next few stages of my argument will be as follows: I'm going to argue that financial value is a spirit, not an idea.  Then I'm going to show that it is a representation of human life.  Then I'm going to show that it is the opposite, the negation of human life or, in other words, death.  Then I'm going to show that its the devil (DON'T PANIC, obviously, I'll have to define what the "devil" is first).  Then I'm going to show that the history of language exactly parallels the history of financial value.  Then I'm going to argue that financial value and language are actually the same thing.  Then I'm going to show that they are best understood as *representation* considered in the abstract.  Then I'm going to show that the history of representation involves its increasing autonomy, its growing lack of referentiality.  Then I'm going to show that this is the devil too.  Then, to cut a very long story short, I'm going to define God in opposition to the devil, on the principle of "deus inversus."  Then, having defined "God," I will show that He not only exists, but created the human mind.  I will do this, as some have already guessed, by reference to the Kantian a priori.

See what I mean?  I can't expect people to agree with the argument in this form, can I?  If I start going on about "the devil" and such without first carefully establishing what that term means, people won't understand, and why should they?  I *can* prove it all, and it really won't take all that long, but really, why should I bother?  I'm going to go for a swim, and see if I can think of a reason.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 15, 2005)

No phil no one would think thats a ridiculous argument put forward by a complete headcase, with a very shallow grasp of philosophy. No one would think that at all.


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2005)

A question: phildwyer, have you ever persuaded anyone else of the existence of God with this irrefutable proof?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> A question: phildwyer, have you ever persuaded anyone else of the existence of God with this irrefutable proof?



Yes.  I've published it in various books and articles over the last ten years.  Quite a few people here know this to be true.


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Then, having defined "God," I will show that He not only exists, but created the human mind.



You do realise that this part of the argument is the only part anybody is interested in, right?


----------



## robotsimon (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes.  I've published it in various books and articles over the last ten years.  Quite a few people here know this to be true.



Just because you persuaded someone to publish your 'theories' does not indicate that you have persuaded anyone that those theories are true.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> especially in the bear-pit of U75.


Today I'm a BEAR! 

*GRRRROWLL*

NB Please note new tagline.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sep 15, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> You do realise that this part of the argument is the only part anybody is interested in, right?


This is the part which I would be most interested in.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Today I'm a BEAR!
> 
> *GRRRROWLL*
> 
> NB Please note new tagline.



BA vs Phil, today:


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But anyway, who cares, really?  Here you are then.  The next few stages of my argument will be as follows: I'm going to argue that financial value is a spirit, not an idea.  Then I'm going to show that it is a representation of human life.  Then I'm going to show that it is the opposite, the negation of human life or, in other words, death.  Then I'm going to show that its the devil (DON'T PANIC, obviously, I'll have to define what the "devil" is first).  Then I'm going to show that the history of language exactly parallels the history of financial value.  Then I'm going to argue that financial value and language are actually the same thing.  Then I'm going to show that they are best understood as *representation* considered in the abstract.  Then I'm going to show that the history of representation involves its increasing autonomy, its growing lack of referentiality.  Then I'm going to show that this is the devil too.  Then, to cut a very long story short, I'm going to define God in opposition to the devil, on the principle of "deus inversus."  Then, having defined "God," I will show that He not only exists, but created the human mind.  I will do this, as some have already guessed, by reference to the Kantian a priori.


Sorry guys, got carried away with the bear theme for a moment there and didn't actually read this veritable stream of verbal ordure.

Now I have done, can I be the first to say:

Hehehehehehehe. Ahahahahahahah. HAHAHAHAHAHAH. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... 


































*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA....*

Stop phil, stop, you're killing me - I can't take it any more


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2005)

> I'm going to argue that financial value is a spirit, not an idea.



And you have the bare faced cheek to criticise a practically applicable and observable idea like memes and still spout bullshit like this?


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2005)

So, phil, has anyone ever told you 'I agree with your theory, it has convinced me of the existence of a Kantian Supreme Being'?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes.  I've published it in various books and articles over the last ten years.  Quite a few people here know this to be true.



L Ron Hubbard has whole religion (which he was kicked out of for heresey) and published decology based on his ideas.

DAVID ICKE has had at least 2 books published about the world being governed by lizards.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 15, 2005)

financial value is a spirit
financial value is a representation of human life
financial value is death
financial value is the devil
financial value and language are the same thing
financial value and language are representation
a growing lack of referentiality is the devil
god is the opposite of the devil
god exists and created the human mind

I was going to say something serious but there is really no point is there?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2005)

Isn't it amazing how on this thread, posters who are often quite antagonistic to each other are united?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2005)

Has he finished yet? Not sticking to the timetable as far as I can make out.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 15, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I was going to say something serious but there is really no point is there?


Indeed. I was trying to remember the last time I saw such weak, cheap, lame-arsed 'logic' dressed up as serious argument. Then I remembered. It was in CHURCH!!


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 15, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Has he finished yet? Not sticking to the timetable as far as I can make out.


 Post 641 presents a summary of the arguments. I wouldn't bother if I were you.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 15, 2005)

> *Defining Bullshit*
> _A philosophy professor says it's a process, not a product._
> 
> "We live in an era of unprecedented bullshit production," observes Laura Penny, author of the forthcoming (and wittily titled) Your Call Is Important to Us: The Truth About Bullshit. But what is bullshit, exactly? By which I mean: What are its defining characteristics? What is its Platonic essence? How does bullshit differ from such precursors as humbug, poppycock, tommyrot, hooey, twaddle, balderdash, claptrap, palaver, hogwash, buncombe (or "bunk"), hokum, drivel, flapdoodle, bullpucky, and all the other pejoratives* favored by H.L. Mencken and his many imitators? The scholar who answers the question, "What is bullshit?" bids boldly to define the spirit of the present age.
> ...


Full article: http://slate.msn.com/id/2114268/


----------



## Loki (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes.  I've published it in various books and articles over the last ten years.  Quite a few people here know this to be true.


Yes, I've read one of them.






It's unfortunate they spelt "God" wrong on the cover


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Post 641 presents a summary of the arguments. I wouldn't bother if I were you.



Well, I thought I ought to have a look. This is getting more bizarre day by day.

And Agent Sparrow I noticed your post - if you read back through the thread, you'll find he's been challenged numerous times on his 'if you disagree with me you're stupid and/or mad' stance but it rolls off him like shit off a shovel.

I'd leave now if I were you before you get sucked into the fathomless mire  

I've tried and I keep getting sucked back in. It's the voices I tell ya ...


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2005)

I liken this thread to having a really good poo or a good sinus clearing nose blowing, ort a car crash

You know you shouldn't look but you do anyway.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 15, 2005)

That proves it.  Thanks phill, I'm off to church.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> So, phil, has anyone ever told you 'I agree with your theory, it has convinced me of the existence of a Kantian Supreme Being'?



Yep.  Lots of people.  In print.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> And you have the bare faced cheek to criticise a practically applicable and observable idea like memes and still spout bullshit like this?



OK Kyser, before we proceed any further, let's hear your understanding of the terms "spirit" and "idea" respectively.  Doesn't have to be particularly complex, just your instinctive, common-sense understanding of what these terms mean.  Then I'll show you which one describes "value" best, and why.  And I'm willing to bet you that you'll agree with me.  Go ahead.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> L Ron Hubbard has whole religion (which he was kicked out of for heresey) and published decology based on his ideas.
> 
> DAVID ICKE has had at least 2 books published about the world being governed by lizards.



Heh.  PM me if you want references to my stuff.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 15, 2005)

so phil you going to explain to me how your idea of finance as spirit is just a really fucked up reading of marx's concept of alienation?

I think you don't have fucking clue about marx, infact your just a left hegelian.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> so phil you going to explain to me how your idea of finance as spirit is just a really fucked up reading of marx's concept of alienation?
> 
> I think you don't have fucking clue about marx, infact your just a left hegelian.



Marx *was* a left Hegelian, twit.  I'm not though.  Anyway, perhaps we should try a new tack here, to sidestep those who seek to distract us from our goal.  As I have done to Kyser above, I now throw down the gauntlet to you.  Do you believe financial value is (a) an idea, (b) a spirit, or (c) something else?  Unlike you, I won't demand absolute coherence, just answer off the top of your head, and I'll bet you that I can convince you I'm right.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Well, I thought I ought to have a look. This is getting more bizarre day by day.
> 
> And Agent Sparrow I noticed your post - if you read back through the thread, you'll find he's been challenged numerous times on his 'if you disagree with me you're stupid and/or mad' stance but it rolls off him like shit off a shovel.
> 
> ...



!Buenos tardes, mamasita!  Got anything to say yet or just checking in?  Bienvenidos either way.  Pull up a chair...


----------



## revol68 (Sep 15, 2005)

finance is an  absraction of human activity, it is our activity under alienated conditions that comes to stand above and against us. It therefore appears as a something with an ontology and dynamic of it's own. It is more than an idea yet is not something seperate from the material realm therefore it is not a "spirit" in the theological sense.


----------



## Loki (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Marx *was* a left Hegelian, twit.  I'm not though.  Anyway, perhaps we should try a new tack here, to sidestep those who seek to distract us from our goal.  As I have done to Kyser above, I now throw down the gauntlet to you.  Do you believe financial value is (a) an idea, (b) a spirit, or (c) something else?  Unlike you, I won't demand absolute coherence, just answer off the top of your head, and I'll bet you that I can convince you I'm right.


This is like watching a train crash in very, very, very slow motion.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> finance is an  absraction of human activity, it is our activity under alienated conditions that comes to stand above and against us. It therefore appears as a something with an ontology and dynamic of it's own. It is more than an idea yet is not something seperate from the material realm therefore it is not a "spirit" in the theological sense.



Good.  Not bad, anyway.  But surely value does not merely *appear* to have "an ontology and a dynamic of its own," it actually *does* have these things.  Surely it is we human beings who only "appear" to have these things?  For does not financial value control us, and not we it?  Is it not far beyond the control of even the most powerful human beings?  

Furthermore, financial value most certainly *is* "separate from the material realm."  It has no material existence at all, does it?  Although, like any other spirit, it can manifest itself in material form when it chooses to do so.  Now, what do you think a "spirit" is "in the theological sense."  You must have some idea, right?  Kindly explain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2005)

this thread's going nowhere, isn't it?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> OK Kyser, before we proceed any further, let's hear your understanding of the terms "spirit" and "idea" respectively.  Doesn't have to be particularly complex, just your instinctive, common-sense understanding of what these terms mean.  Then I'll show you which one describes "value" best, and why.  And I'm willing to bet you that you'll agree with me.  Go ahead.



Idea: a notion or fancy
Spirit: depending on the context can mean vim, pizazz, derwing do OR an indefinable essence of the human character, similar to 'soul' or 'body energies'

Finance is NOT some contemporary manifestation of the evil in the human spirit/nature/whatever - money/finance are simply inefficient rationing mechanisms NOT some manifestation of 'the devil'.

Point being phil that as I'm an atheist your attempts to reconstruct The Inferno for me are credible in the same way that 'Good Omens' by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman is. Plus you haven't come up with anything as inventive as the idea of widespread, low level sin being accumulated through the day to day inefficiencies of capitalism, such as mobiles without a signal, the M25, idiots leaving packages on tube platforms and so on.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> This is like watching a train crash in very, very, very slow motion.






			
				me said:
			
		

> I liken this thread to having a really good poo or a good sinus clearing nose blowing, ort a car crash
> 
> You know you shouldn't look but you do anyway.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> This is like watching a train crash in very, very, very slow motion.



You know what?  Most people on this thread are at least entertaining.  But you, Loki, are the most boring, turgid, monotonous, droning, plodding, slow, lumbering, creaking old fogie that I have ever encountered.  You have no sense of humor, of wit, of irreverence, of light-hearted fun, no effervescence, no zing, no zim.  You resemble a dead man.  You spread tedium wherever you go.  I swear, just looking at your name makes me start to nod off.  Loki.  Loki.  Its *fucking* boring.  Really, it is.  How four small letters can have this effect on me I don't know, but you manage it somehow.  Now if you'll excuse me, I need a long nap.


----------



## Loki (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You know what?  Most people on this thread are at least entertaining.  But you, Loki, are the most boring, turgid, monotonous, droning, plodding, slow, lumbering, creaking old fogie that I have ever encountered.  You have no sense of humor, of wit, of irreverence, of light-hearted fun, no effervescence, no zing, no zim.  You resemble a dead man.  You spread tedium wherever you go.  I swear, just looking at your name makes me start to nod off.  Loki.  Loki.  Its *fucking* boring.  Really, it is.  How four small letters can have this effect on me I don't know, but you manage it somehow.  Now if you'll excuse me, I need a long nap.


 Good rant! I could say much the same of you, we're 650+ feckin posts into this and I'm still waiting for this amazing proof you have.

Care to cut to the chase? Or do we need to be "educated" for another 500 posts...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Good rant! I could say much the same of you, we're 650+ feckin posts into this and I'm still waiting for this amazing proof you have.
> 
> Care to cut to the chase? Or do we need to be "educated" for another 500 posts...



ZZZZzzzzzZZZZzzzzzZZZZzzzz...mmmfffffgghhh.... ZzzzZzzzzZZZzz


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Idea: a notion or fancy
> Spirit: depending on the context can mean vim, pizazz, derwing do OR an indefinable essence of the human character, similar to 'soul' or 'body energies'
> 
> Finance is NOT some contemporary manifestation of the evil in the human spirit/nature/whatever - money/finance are simply inefficient rationing mechanisms NOT some manifestation of 'the devil'.
> ...



A highly confused post Kyser, how I have alarmed you!  But you've given me something to work on here, I'll get back to you... after my chicken and broccoli!  Actually, I then have to drive 100 miles, and do some other stuff, and I'll probably want to have a bit of a chat to Trashpony too.  But then I'll get back to you.  Oh yes.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Good.  Not bad, anyway.  But surely value does not merely *appear* to have "an ontology and a dynamic of its own," it actually *does* have these things.  Surely it is we human beings who only "appear" to have these things?



I would have said that's entirely the other way round. Financial value is a creation and reflection of human nature.



> For does not financial value control us, and not we it?  Is it not far beyond the control of even the most powerful human beings?



This whole notion of control is misplaced. No, we can't entirely control financial value, but neither does it entirely control us (ie, there are many other factors). It is beyond the control of the most powerful human precisely because it arises from the actions of millions of other human beings. It would be like trying to change the weather with a hairdrier.


----------



## Loki (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ZZZZzzzzzZZZZzzzzzZZZZzzzz...mmmfffffgghhh.... ZzzzZzzzzZZZzz


Yep, I can type with my arse too. Why don't you just get on with it and post up your amazing proof?


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> its the devil


You are Cathy Bates and I claim my satanic fiver


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Yep, I can type with my arse too.



You can't type any other way mate!


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 15, 2005)

> For does not financial value control us, and not we it? Is it not far beyond the control of even the most powerful human beings?



The same could be said of a fine pair of tits (apologies ladies). Aren't a fine pair of tits more then a physical reality? Aren't they also an idea?  A spirit? An abstraction of human activity?  Whatever the answer, they're better than cash.

Come on folks, let's get to page 30 without answering the original question at all.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> A highly confused post Kyser, how I have alarmed you!  But you've given me something to work on here, I'll get back to you... after my chicken and broccoli!  Actually, I then have to drive 100 miles, and do some other stuff, and I'll probably want to have a bit of a chat to Trashpony too.  But then I'll get back to you.  Oh yes.



Sorry, you haven't alarmed me and I was going for a combination of pre-emptive strike and brevity all in one since looking at your previous posts about money/finanace being the incarnation of the devil in contemporary society...

However. your invective assault on Loki was well worth the read and your 'Oh yes' at the end of your post has now given me an image to work on:







...Oh yes


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 15, 2005)

I've a mate in the poice who guards the homes of politicians and the like. He guarded the Majors and said they were just like their Spitting Image puppets.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2005)

It was pds use of 'oh yes' wot did it guv...

BTW - did _you_ think I was 'alarmed' by pd's *challenge*


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 15, 2005)

I imagine it would take a little more than that.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> I would have said that's entirely the other way round. Financial value is a creation and reflection of human nature.
> 
> This whole notion of control is misplaced. No, we can't entirely control financial value, but neither does it entirely control us (ie, there are many other factors). It is beyond the control of the most powerful human precisely because it arises from the actions of millions of other human beings. It would be like trying to change the weather with a hairdrier.



Well yes, up to a point.  It is worth thinking long and hard about the concept of financial value before we move on, because the rest of my argument will be completely incomprehensible unless we have thoroughly grasped it.  Financial value is a creation and reflection, not of human nature, but of human subjective activity or "labour-power."  It is our own activity confronting us in an alien form.  But it is certainly outside our control, it is independent of human beings.  Even those people who manipulate financial value do so in the interests and according to the dictates of financial value itself.  Even they are under its control.  

As for the rest of us: do you work for a living?  Maybe when you'd rather be doing something else?  In that case, you are devoting 40-plus hours of your *life* each week to the demands of financial value.  Do you buy things with money?  Perhaps your sense of your self is at least partly defined by those things?  Then, to that extent, you are constructing your identity according to the demands of financial value (as mediated through the machinations of Kyser Soze and his advertizing amigos).  And even if you drop out, live in a squat and eat out of dustbins, everyone else in society will be living according the demands of financial value, and so your life will inevitably be affected by it.  There is no escape.

I submit, then, that all of us are controlled by financial value, and not the other way around.  In fact, this situation has come to seem normal, even natural, to us.  It is easy to forget that it is a very recent phenomenon, historically speaking.  It is also a very *odd* phenomenon because, after all, IT DOESN'T EXIST.  No-one can touch, taste or smell financial value.  It exists only in our minds, and yet it also controls our minds.  What *is* it?  Is it an idea or a spirit?  That is my question to you for this evening.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Idea: a notion or fancy
> Spirit: depending on the context can mean vim, pizazz, derwing do OR an indefinable essence of the human character, similar to 'soul' or 'body energies'
> 
> Finance is NOT some contemporary manifestation of the evil in the human spirit/nature/whatever - money/finance are simply inefficient rationing mechanisms NOT some manifestation of 'the devil'.



Well, we'll see about that.  Let's think about it some more.  I've already shown that financial value is human activity confronting us in alien form, and that it has no material existence.  Perhaps, then, it is an idea?  But surely it is more than a "notion or fancy" as you define that term here.  You are free to decide for yourself that a "notion or fancy" does not exist, or you are free to replace it with another "notion or fancy," or you are free to live your life unaffected by this "notion or fancy."  None of these is true of financial value.  So if financial value is an "idea," it is a very peculiar kind of idea indeed.  An "idea" so unique, in fact, as not to warrant being described as such at all.

Is it, then, a "spirit?"  First of all, your definition of "spirit" above does not correspond to the sense in which I am using the word.  I am using it in the sense that, for example, Satan is a spirit.  Now, such a spirit differs from an idea in that (a) it is independent of the human mind: it exists above and beyond the mind of any individual; (b) it has real power and real effects; (c) it exists in an antagonistic or hostile relationship to human beings, damaging or harming them in some way; (d) it can take a material form, although it is not itself material.

Well, it will probably take many here a good long time to digest these truths, so I will pause here for a while.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well yes, up to a point.  It is worth thinking long and hard about the concept of financial value before we move on, because the rest of my argument will be completely incomprehensible unless we have thoroughly grasped it.  Financial value is a creation and reflection, not of human nature, but of human subjective activity or "labour-power."  It is our own activity confronting us in an alien form.  But it is certainly outside our control, it is independent of human beings.  Even those people who manipulate financial value do so in the interests and according to the dictates of financial value itself.  Even they are under its control.
> 
> As for the rest of us: do you work for a living?  Maybe when you'd rather be doing something else?  In that case, you are devoting 40-plus hours of your *life* each week to the demands of financial value.  Do you buy things with money?  Perhaps your sense of your self is at least partly defined by those things?  Then, to that extent, you are constructing your identity according to the demands of financial value (as mediated through the machinations of Kyser Soze and his advertizing amigos).  And even if you drop out, live in a squat and eat out of dustbins, everyone else in society will be living according the demands of financial value, and so your life will inevitably be affected by it.  There is no escape.
> 
> I submit, then, that all of us are controlled by financial value, and not the other way around.  In fact, this situation has come to seem normal, even natural, to us.  It is easy to forget that it is a very recent phenomenon, historically speaking.  It is also a very *odd* phenomenon because, after all, IT DOESN'T EXIST.  No-one can touch, taste or smell financial value.  It exists only in our minds, and yet it also controls our minds.  What *is* it?  Is it an idea or a spirit?  That is my question to you for this evening.


Financial value is merely the expression of a power relationship though, it is a way of referring to the concepts upon which current society depends.


----------



## Loki (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, it will probably take many here a good long time to digest these truths, so I will pause here for a while.


Thanks though for taking the trouble to enlighten us once more.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> The same could be said of a fine pair of tits (apologies ladies). Aren't a fine pair of tits more then a physical reality? Aren't they also an idea?  A spirit? An abstraction of human activity?  Whatever the answer, they're better than cash.



You jest, but I'll give you a serious answer.  No, they're not "better" than cash.  You know why?  Because you can *buy* them with cash.  Cash is "better" than anything else in the world.  Cash can transform everything in the world, altering its nature.  Strange stuff, cash, when you think about it.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 15, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Is it, then, a "spirit?"  First of all, your definition of "spirit" above does not correspond to the sense in which I am using the word.  I am using it in the sense that, for example, Satan is a spirit.


What is "Satan"? Is it related to The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Are you going to prove the existence of "Satan" before introducing it into your argument?


----------



## IMHO (Sep 16, 2005)

*Wake up and smell the coffee, peeps! Phil is Master of Troll, explaining nothing whilst tying himself, and everyone who posts, in knots. This is an exercise in talking bollox for eternity!*


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

Its really not, you know.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

No, I mean, really its not.  Take a serious look at my posts 689 and 690 above.  It took us a while to get there, I know, but that was hardly my fault.  Yes, we're having a laugh and all that, no-one enjoys a flame war more than me, but I really am putting forward quite an interesting argument, if you'll think about it.


----------



## IMHO (Sep 16, 2005)

So why didn't you post your WHOLE PROPOSITION, from start to finish, so that we'd have the opportunity to respond in full, rather than in parts? I think we'd be able to see your big picture without freaking. Even though we're only humans.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 16, 2005)

no your not phil your using a crude grasp of alienation to bestow supernatural powers onto the world.

Your a grade A cock.

Seriously perhaps before trying to get to grips with the likes of Lukacs and Adorno perhaps you should go back to the basics of Marx and especially his relationship with Feuerbach, may I suggest his Critique of Hegels Philosophy of the Right and the On The Jewish Question. Ironically these are Marx at his most humanist yet you seem to think they are Marx's crudest interpretations of Feuerbach.

Perhaps you should get a Marx for Beginners book, they are quite useful for people just getting to grips with ole Charlie, I mean im sure you'll be on to Grundisse in say 8 years.


----------



## IMHO (Sep 16, 2005)

Phil, re. your concept of value and exchange.

CREATION

The creation of somethig from nothing.

Say you start with nothing. You ask me for a £1 coin; I give it. You have something from nothing. I, however, am £1 in negative value. Are you saying that "creation" makes an equivalent negative? For every positive molecule or universe there is an equivalent negative molecule or universe? If so, where is god in the exchange? Or maybe I misinterpret you?

I'm getting drawn in


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 16, 2005)

What I don't understand is where you pull this "satan" thing from. Doesn't "satan" need just as much proving as "god" - in which case why bother messing around with it along the way?


----------



## IMHO (Sep 16, 2005)

Phil, who created the creator? If you say the creator always existed, then surely time, space, matter, energy, whatever else, could have always existed?


----------



## 118118 (Sep 16, 2005)

For some reason a find this argument deeply sickening.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 16, 2005)

Anyway, why does something that you can't see that has causes have to be a spirit. I can't see atoms, or evolution, or genes... these have to be inferred from our sense data just like financial value, why does financial value have to be explained like this, what makes it so utterly unlike everything else.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 16, 2005)

You bunch of heathens.  Bow down to the wisdom of Phil


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> <snip>
> 
> Perhaps you should get a Marx for Beginners book, they are quite useful for people just getting to grips with ole Charlie, I mean im sure you'll be on to Grundisse in say 8 years.



Maybe phil should buy this...

Pretty sure I've seen one to Marxism in Waterstones...the Quantum Universe one  is really good - pretty much tells any layman all they'l ever need to know, and more importanly, understand about QM...


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> (a) it is independent of the human mind: it exists above and beyond the mind of any individual; (b) it has real power and real effects; (c) it exists in an antagonistic or hostile relationship to human beings, damaging or harming them in some way; (d) it can take a material form, although it is not itself material.


(a) independence of the human mind means that it would still exist if there were no human minds at all.  It is, therefore, not independent of the human mind; if all humans on earth were to die in some kind of disaster, financial value would cease to exist.

(c) Only if you don't have enough!

(d) It can be _represented in_ material form, but cannot _take_ material form.  A five pound note is not five pounds, it is a token which is _worth_ five pounds.

And ideas fit your criteria too:

(a) Ideas exist independently of the human mind, if you take 'the human mind' to mean "the mind of any individual" as you appear to.

(b) Ideas have real power and effects.  Take, for example, Laws.

(c) Certain ideas can be harmful too, eg. racism, homophobia, etc. 

(d) So can ideas, I could make a painting, or a sculpture of a unicorn, even though such creatures only exist as ideas.

So it would appear that your argument for financial value as a spirit is either wrong, or would be consistent with an idea as well as with a spirit.  Either way, further proof is required.

If you can prove financial value has a consciousness of its own, I will concede it is a spirit.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

> If you can prove financial value has a consciousness of its own, I will concede it is a spirit.



Worms. Can. Opening. 

The starting point for this is emergent behaviours in complex systems, and is a hugely contoversial idea (HA!) about how AI, or some form of artificial (or more accurately, non-biological) consciousness could emerge spontaneously out of the chaotic mess of say, the financial markets or that the internet 'develops' a consciouness based on random elements interacting with each other (e.g. a virus program gets out and starts self replicating in a way that leads to emergent consciousness, or a 'Ghost In The Shell' scenario where a program makes itself smarter)

Other associated phrases include 'ghost in the machine'...to an extent thay're a throwback to the early days of mechanisation where, because a human built it a part of their 'spirit' was contained in the inert materials and the ongoing habit that humans have of naming machines.

Besides which it's hardly an argument phil could be invovled with since his 'strength' is clearly philosophical musings removed from the material world.


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 16, 2005)

Well, I'm not going to believe that financial value is a spirit until I'm convinced that the fiver in my pocket decides how it's going to be spent. 

Otherwise, financial value has no 'power', the effects which are apparent in the world are the total balance of millions of discrete transactions rather than a malign force.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 16, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not going to believe that financial value is a spirit until I'm convinced that the fiver in my pocket decides how it's going to be spent.
> 
> Otherwise, financial value has no 'power', the effects which are apparent in the world are the total balance of millions of discrete transactions rather than a malign force.




Money talks!


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Financial value is...independent of human beings.


phil you are wrong in so many ways that I can't be arsed to outline them all. But I'm going to pick on this particular point as an example of the incredible, horrible inanity of your argument. It simply isn't true. It can't be true. I've explained why. Other people have explained why. I know five-year-olds who could explain why. You are just refusing to listen.

*begins to chant*

You're WRONG, and you know you are....etc etc


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You jest, but I'll give you a serious answer.  No, they're not "better" than cash.  You know why?  Because you can *buy* them with cash.  Cash is "better" than anything else in the world.  Cash can transform everything in the world, altering its nature.  Strange stuff, cash, when you think about it.



No. No no no no no. Cash is not better than anything else in the world. You cannot buy anything with cash. In fact, now I come to think of it, your whole argument seems to revolve around a kind of fetishistic notion of money, imbuing it with 'spirit' by trying to jump through some extravagent semantic hoops.

Your argument actually reminds me of a fairly well known (in the appropriate circles anyway) mathematical proof that one is equal to zero. The prover takes his/her audience through a series of seemingly entirely plausible and mathematically correct steps, and the logical conclusion of these steps is that 1 = 0.

The difference is that there's only one flaw in that proof, and it's a lot harder to spot.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well yes, up to a point. It is worth thinking long and hard about the concept of financial value before we move on, because the rest of my argument will be completely incomprehensible unless we have thoroughly grasped it. Financial value is a creation and reflection, not of human nature, but of human subjective activity or "labour-power." It is our own activity confronting us in an alien form. But it is certainly outside our control, it is independent of human beings. Even those people who manipulate financial value do so in the interests and according to the dictates of financial value itself. Even they are under its control.
> 
> As for the rest of us: do you work for a living? Maybe when you'd rather be doing something else? In that case, you are devoting 40-plus hours of your *life* each week to the demands of financial value. Do you buy things with money? Perhaps your sense of your self is at least partly defined by those things? Then, to that extent, you are constructing your identity according to the demands of financial value (as mediated through the machinations of Kyser Soze and his advertizing amigos). And even if you drop out, live in a squat and eat out of dustbins, everyone else in society will be living according the demands of financial value, and so your life will inevitably be affected by it. There is no escape.
> 
> I submit, then, that all of us are controlled by financial value, and not the other way around. In fact, this situation has come to seem normal, even natural, to us. It is easy to forget that it is a very recent phenomenon, historically speaking. It is also a very *odd* phenomenon because, after all, IT DOESN'T EXIST. No-one can touch, taste or smell financial value. It exists only in our minds, and yet it also controls our minds. What *is* it? Is it an idea or a spirit? That is my question to you for this evening.



If you are going to simply plow on with this casuistry based on some kind of Bent Marxism then I think I'm going to quit the thread here, since as a way of looking at the world this is very far from revelatory. How much better (and clearer) it would be to say that when the self-maximising productive capacities of the worker are yoked to the demands of the self-maximisation of the capitalist class, the products of the worker's labour appear to him in alienated form. Such a situation comes about not because of the autonomous existence of 'financial value' (which is still largely undefined in your exposition so far) but because of the historical circumstances of class struggle.

What confronts the worker in alienated form is not 'financial value' in some abstract sense, but simply the alienated products of his labour. 'Financial value' as you correctly state, doesn't exist. Whilst it is useful to talk about use value, exchange value, ideology and labour, it seems to me you have created a new category whose analytic usefulness is entirely lacking, other than perhaps for the process of 'godstification'. I would be willing to bet that in every single occurence of the word 'financial value' in your statements, it is far better to replace it with another term entirely - people don't live according to the dictates of 'financial value' but according to the dictates of ideology or global capitalism; goods are not exchanged in capitalism according to their 'financial value' but according to their price. What on earth is the point of a terminology that is so infinitely receding?

Any discussion of whether this illusory referent is idea or spirit will just be so much hot air unless you can demonstrate some way in which we need this concept - some behaviour or effect in the world that can only be explained with reference to it. I've asked nicely enough now, but it's starting to appear that the definition is simply lacking, and your explanation thus far is merely 'springes to catch woodcocks'.




			
				118118 said:
			
		

> For some reason I find this argument deeply sickening.



Word.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But anyway, who cares, really? Here you are then. The next few stages of my argument will be as follows: I'm going to argue that financial value is a spirit, not an idea. Then I'm going to show that it is a representation of human life. Then I'm going to show that it is the opposite, the negation of human life or, in other words, death. Then I'm going to show that its the devil (DON'T PANIC, obviously, I'll have to define what the "devil" is first). Then I'm going to show that the history of language exactly parallels the history of financial value. Then I'm going to argue that financial value and language are actually the same thing. Then I'm going to show that they are best understood as *representation* considered in the abstract. Then I'm going to show that the history of representation involves its increasing autonomy, its growing lack of referentiality. Then I'm going to show that this is the devil too. Then, to cut a very long story short, I'm going to define God in opposition to the devil, on the principle of "deus inversus." Then, having defined "God," I will show that He not only exists, but created the human mind. I will do this, as some have already guessed, by reference to the Kantian a priori.


Oh dear.  Oh dear, oh dear.  I was midway through writing a response about the preposterousnous of a car being 'intrinsically red' and the plain silliness of taking an abstraction, totalling it across society and then imbuing the generalised abstraction with a consciousness.  I think somebody has pointed out that you could substitute virtually any abstract concept for financial value in the argument without making it any more or less meaningful. 

However, from the above route map, it's pretty clear to me that the argument  
henceforth will be conducted almost exclusively within the borders of la-la land, a place where it is sufficent to show a shared quality between two things in order to place an equals sign between them.  Thus, there's little point in persisting with calls for rigour or logic.  We have far, far greater leaps across the ocean of logic to come and since it has taken the best part of 700 posts to convince nobody that the first and mildest such leap is defensible, the universe could well end before we get to the end of it if we don't let him get on with it, so I might as well shut up and settle in to watch the carnage unfolding from a safe distance.

Phil, you are as mad as a bag of fannies.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 16, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Oh dear.  Oh dear, oh dear.  I was midway through writing a response about the preposterousnous of a car being 'intrinsically red' and the plain silliness of taking an abstraction, totalling it across society and then imbuing the generalised abstraction with a consciousness.  I think somebody has pointed out that you could substitute virtually any abstract concept for financial value in the argument without making it any more or less meaningful.
> 
> However, from the above route map, it's pretty clear to me that the argument
> henceforth will be conducted almost exclusively within the borders of la-la land, a place where it is sufficent to show a shared quality between two things in order to place an equals sign between them.  Thus, there's little point in persisting with calls for rigour or logic.  We have far, far greater leaps across the ocean of logic to come and since it has taken the best part of 700 posts to convince nobody that the first and mildest such leap is defensible, the universe could well end before we get to the end of it if we don't let him get on with it, so I might as well shut up and settle in to watch the carnage unfolding from a safe distance.
> ...


 Agree with everything you said there Gurrier. Including the last bit.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

Given the leaps of logic and faith, I reckon we could combine this thread with mine in TV/Film about writing a reality consistent action adventure movie...


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 16, 2005)

don't listen to them phil, i think you should publish !!


----------



## trashpony (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'll probably want to have a bit of a chat to Trashpony too.



Ooh gosh. Can't wait.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 16, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> However, from the above route map, it's pretty clear to me that the argument henceforth will be conducted almost exclusively within the borders of la-la land


Congratulations phildwyer, you've got the job!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2005)

Is this thread still going?


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 16, 2005)

It's going to be made into an ITV mini-series.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It's going to be made into an ITV mini-series.



Starring Robson Green?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 16, 2005)

LostNotFound said:
			
		

> don't listen to them phil, i think you should publish !!



Damn right. They all laughed at David Icke, remember. Stick to your guns, bud.


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 16, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Phil, you are as mad as a bag of fannies.



That's the best thing i've ever heard


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> this thread's going nowhere, isn't it?



Except perhaps to church on sunday.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Given the leaps of logic and faith, I reckon we could combine this thread with mine in TV/Film about writing a reality consistent action adventure movie...



You're kidding! This thread would just about pass muster for a second-rate episode of "MacGyver", let alone a "reality consistent action adventure movie"!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2005)

fractionMan said:
			
		

> You bunch of heathens.  Bow down to the wisdom of Phil


Er, okay then...








...where is it?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes.  I've published it in various books and articles over the last ten years.  Quite a few people here know this to be true.


Then why don't you just give us the names of thiose boks so we can go look them up and find your proof.?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> For some reason a find this argument deeply sickening.



Why?  You clearly also find it interesting, and not entirely unconvincing, since (like many people who've been dismissive on the public thread) you've repeatedly PM'd me with your own reflections about it, and to ask me to explain various points at greater length.  BTW, I'm sorry I haven't responded to your last PM yet--it was very detailed, as you see I'm a bit busy, and I thought your questions would probably be answered on the thread anyway.  Anyway, I'm really interested in what sickens you about my argument.  Do you mean its implications, or the way its being made, or what?

There are already so many comments on and objections to the latest stage in my argument that its is probably best to take them one by one.  So that's what I'll do.  I must ask that the more impatient among you bear with me here: this is an important bit.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Financial value is merely the expression of a power relationship though, it is a way of referring to the concepts upon which current society depends.



This gets said a lot, and I'm never quite sure what it means.  To which "power relationship" do you refer, and how does money "express" it?  If you mean the relation between empolyer and employee, for example, you're right--but each instance of this is just an expression of the fundamental opposition between financial value and human labour-power in general.  I suppose that is a "power relationship," but its a relationship between concepts not people.  Above all, though, its a logical contradiction: value is the dialectical opposite of labor-power.  Remember here that part of my earlier argument was that "labour-power" is co-terminus with human life per se.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

> o which "power relationship" do you refer, and how does money "express" it?



You've been talking about Marx and don't know this?

Money = ration tokens to purchase goods, services and people
More money = more power to purchase goods/services/people

Employer/employee is about ownership, not money.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 16, 2005)

mods, could we have the thread title changed to something more appropriate please? "The Rational Proof of Phildwyer's Sanity" I think please.

He'll still be losing the argument, but at least most of this thread will look a lot more on topic...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> no your not phil your using a crude grasp of alienation to bestow supernatural powers onto the world.



The concept of "alienation" is inherently "supernatural."  What, after all, is being alienated?  The answer takes various forms as history progresses--"labour-power" for Marx, "species-being" for Feuerbach, "Geist" for Hegel--but it always designates the *essence* of human beings.  We are alienated from our essence, whatever you consider that to be.  Can an "essence" ever be anything other than "supernatural?"  Certainly an essence is not material, it is not a thing.  This is why Althusser and the materialist Marxist tradition abandon the notion of alienation.  

(BTW, a major problem in the history of Marxist thought has been that Lenin did not read the 1844 manuscripts, which were only published after his death.  That work explains Marx's use of "alienation" in accessible terms, and demonstrates its centrality to Capital.  But due to his ignorance of this and other important texts, Lenin missed the Hegelian allusions in Marx's theory of alienation, and of course he was in a position to impose his erroneous interpretation on Communist intellectuals everywhere.  But I digress.)


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 16, 2005)

can we rationally prove that it's 5.30 now please.  i know it's not but i want to go home.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You've been talking about Marx and don't know this?
> 
> Money = ration tokens to purchase goods, services and people
> More money = more power to purchase goods/services/people
> ...



Still don't get it.  You're saying that money is power, which is true, but where's the "relationship" here?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 16, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> can we rationally prove that it's 5.30 now please.  i know it's not but i want to go home.


 I have faith in phil. He'll manage it


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

That the more money you have the more power you _can_ have. It isn't a guarantor that one follows the other outside of consumerism tho.

I.e. a lottery winner has a lot of money but, unless they use that money to buy houses they rent out, they have very little power beyond the ability to negotiate better prices (10% off for cash for example) and consume goods and services.

However, a landowner with little money but title over several tenenacies has power over their tenants because they can take their housing away. The lottery winner can do this, but only through spending their money and passing it to the tenant.


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2005)

How is this all related to Foucault's notion of truth as a discourse of power?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 16, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> How is this all related to Foucault's notion of truth as a discourse of power?


 With a trump, trump, trumpety trump!


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> How is this all related to Foucault's notion of truth as a discourse of power?



Yer Mum.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> (a) independence of the human mind means that it would still exist if there were no human minds at all.  It is, therefore, not independent of the human mind; if all humans on earth were to die in some kind of disaster, financial value would cease to exist.
> 
> (c) Only if you don't have enough!
> 
> ...



It doesn't have self-consciousness in the human sense, no.  But it does have its own logic and rationality, as well as the capacity for independent and autonomous actions.  The fluctuations in relationships between various forms of financial value determine the destinies of nations and the thought-processes of individuals.  Value even reproduces, like a natural creature: if you leave it in the bank and don't touch it at all, it "grows" all on its own.  In fact, this completely preposterous idea that value "grows" is the foundation of the global economy, which completely depends upon it.  

That is one way in which financial value is a unique "idea," so unique as to call for some other appellation.  It is not like any other idea.  For another example, consider that financial value is human subjective activity confronting us in alienated form.  Obviously this is true of no other idea.  As another example, consider the ethical status of financial value: are not its effects malign and destructive to an extent that far surpasses any other "idea?"  In short, financial value has so many qualities that distinguish it from other "ideas" that we can say it is qualitatively distinct from them.


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Yer Mum.


No. Really, I'm genuinely interested in how it ties up. Really. Honestly. Scout's honour, dib-dib-dob and hey nonny no and all that.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> That the more money you have the more power you _can_ have. It isn't a guarantor that one follows the other outside of consumerism tho.
> 
> I.e. a lottery winner has a lot of money but, unless they use that money to buy houses they rent out, they have very little power beyond the ability to negotiate better prices (10% off for cash for example) and consume goods and services.
> 
> However, a landowner with little money but title over several tenenacies has power over their tenants because they can take their housing away. The lottery winner can do this, but only through spending their money and passing it to the tenant.



But I still don't see how it follows from this that value is "the expression of a power relationship," or whatever Bloom said.  I suppose it involves power relationships or something, but I don't see how it can be identified with any of them in particular.  Anyway, we must distinguish between money and financial value per se.  The latter can take many forms, of which money is only one.  I'd argue that, rather than expressing a relationship between people, value *is* power, it can do things on its own.  I'm going to make it deliver a pizza now.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> No. Really, I'm genuinely interested in how it ties up. Really. Honestly. Scout's honour, dib-dib-dob and hey nonny no and all that.



Why don't you start by giving us *your* opinion on the matter?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 16, 2005)

> value *is* power, it can do things on its own. I'm going to make it deliver a pizza now.



I think you'll find that the delivery boy is actually expecting money.


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2005)

*My* *opinion* is that *this* *whole thing* is a naive piece of *scholasticism* and *pseudo*-*meta**physical* *b*u*l*l*s*h*i*t*. Ok, *your* *turn*.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 16, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that the delivery boy is actually expecting money.


Furthermore, I think you'll find that if you leave it up to its own devices, 'financial value' will take a bloody long time to choose its toppings.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

Money is the practical expression of financial value - i.e. if an object is priced at £10, if needs £10 to buy it. The use-value of the object may or may not be £10 since those are emotionally subjective values. You can also argue that the £10 is also a subjective or aribtrary value, but this will be decided upon by production costs and the margins that manufacturer and retailer want to achieve.

Your pizza isn't bought with 'value' - it's bought by you promising to pay the vendor the production, distribution and profit cost of the pizza. 'Value' comes into it when you subjectively choose the flavours, assess the nutritional content or whatever purchase decision making process you go through before choosing your pizza.

'Value' is entirely subjective - something that is 'good value for money' is a subjective statement arguing that X represents a good exchange of promise to pay, usually in vague comparison with an identical or similar product.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Oh dear.  Oh dear, oh dear.  I was midway through writing a response about the preposterousnous of a car being 'intrinsically red' and the plain silliness of taking an abstraction, totalling it across society and then imbuing the generalised abstraction with a consciousness.  I think somebody has pointed out that you could substitute virtually any abstract concept for financial value in the argument without making it any more or less meaningful.



Certainly this is the crux of this stage of my argument.  If one could, as you say, "substitute virtually any abstract concept for financial value in the argument," then financial value is an idea and not a spirit.  (Incidentally, its this terminological leap that always causes the most difficulty.  For some reason, people thinks spirits are somehow more supernatural and weird or spooky than ideas.  But they're not, once you start to define the terms).  Fortunately, however, financial value is different from other ideas in several important and obvious ways:

1.  It rules the world.
2.  It is alienated human activity.
3.  It is efficacious, it does things.
4.  It is immensely malign and destructive.

INNIT?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

> How is this all related to Foucault's notion of truth as a discourse of power?[/qutoe]
> 
> 'Truth' is only powerful when you have the ability/opportunity to define it on your own terms (e.g. the 'truth' of the WMD, 'History is written by the winners' etc.)


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 16, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Furthermore, I think you'll find that if you leave it up to its own devices, 'financial value' will take a bloody long time to choose its toppings.



bollocks.  everyone knows financial value always chooses a spicy meatfeast.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 16, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> bollocks.  everyone knows financial value always chooses a spicy meatfeast.




sorry, that's not right.

it's my mate spence who chooses spicy meatfeast, financial value prefers hawaiian.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

Tell ya what Phil - what you should do is some research into the concept of 'goodwill' and 'brand value' when it comes to assigning monetary value to intangible objects and entities...


----------



## Crispy (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Value even reproduces, like a natural creature: if you leave it in the bank and don't touch it at all, it "grows" all on its own.  In fact, this completely preposterous idea that value "grows" is the foundation of the global economy, which completely depends upon it.



It doesn't grow. You lend it to the bank, they use it as capital in whatever they judge to be profiable and in return you get a small slice of their profit, called 'interest'. Nothing supernatural about that.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 16, 2005)

> financial value prefers hawaiian.



in which case Phil is right, it IS evil.


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It doesn't have self-consciousness in the human sense, no.  But it does have its own logic and rationality, as well as the capacity for independent and autonomous actions.  The fluctuations in relationships between various forms of financial value determine the destinies of nations and the thought-processes of individuals.  Value even reproduces, like a natural creature: if you leave it in the bank and don't touch it at all, it "grows" all on its own.  In fact, this completely preposterous idea that value "grows" is the foundation of the global economy, which completely depends upon it.
> 
> That is one way in which financial value is a unique "idea," so unique as to call for some other appellation.  It is not like any other idea.  For another example, consider that financial value is human subjective activity confronting us in alienated form.  Obviously this is true of no other idea.  As another example, consider the ethical status of financial value: are not its effects malign and destructive to an extent that far surpasses any other "idea?"  In short, financial value has so many qualities that distinguish it from other "ideas" that we can say it is qualitatively distinct from them.



You're wrong, but i've only just noticed your post and am sneaking out of the office (not very) early cos it's friday, and therefore cant be arsed to reply properly.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 16, 2005)

> It doesn't grow. You lend it to the bank, they use it as capital in whatever they judge to be profiable and in return you get a small slice of their profit, called 'interest'. Nothing supernatural about that.



I keep mine in a rolled-up sock and it doesn't grow at all


----------



## Crispy (Sep 16, 2005)

Humans

1.  Rule the world.
2.  Are alienated.
3.  Are efficacious, they do things.
4.  Are immensely malign and destructive.

INNIT?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

> But it does have its own logic and rationality, as well as the capacity for independent and autonomous actions. The fluctuations in relationships between various forms of financial value determine the destinies of nations and the thought-processes of individuals.



NO IT DOESN'T!! Stock markets DO NOT make their own choices - it is the combined decision making of 000s of HUMANS working to GOALS set by other humans. Even auto-trading systems obey rules and goals set by humans. Money and finance are extremely sophisticated variants of barter that started the first time someone tried to barter something and the other person said 'Can I have an IOU for that please?'


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Tell ya what Phil - what you should do is some research into the concept of 'goodwill' and 'brand value' when it comes to assigning monetary value to intangible objects and entities...



Yes, its really interesting.  I liked Naomi Klein's take on this in No Logo.  "Brands"--which are obviously ideas--are now more valuable than material things.  Here we have completely subjective phenomena that are systematically translated into the alien, objective form of financial value.  "Credit" and "confidence" are similar phenomena.  Subjective experiences take on an alien, external, zombiesque life of their own once they mutate into value, they walk the earth as monsters, preying on their own creators.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 16, 2005)

> NO IT DOESN'T!! Stock markets DO NOT make their own choices - it is the combined decision making of 000s of HUMANS working to GOALS set by other humans. Even auto-trading systems obey rules and goals set by humans. Money and finance are extremely sophisticated variants of barter that started the first time someone tried to barter something and the other person said 'Can I have an IOU for that please?'



And if you want to look at how banks etc make decisions that wouldn't be approved of by the constituent members then you have to look at the sociology of roles and institutional structures etc.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Ooh gosh. Can't wait.



Actually Trashpony, I'm a bit busy right now.  I'll get back to you later, 'kay?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes, its really interesting.  I liked Naomi Klein's take on this in No Logo.  "Brands"--which are obviously ideas--are now more valuable than material things.  Here we have completely subjective phenomena that are systematically translated into the alien, objective form of financial value.  "Credit" and "confidence" are similar phenomena.  Subjective experiences take on an alien, external, zombiesque life of their own once they mutate into value, they walk the earth as monsters, preying on their own creators.



'No Logo' is a hysterical laugh - Klein is right in much of what she says in principle but SO far off beam in a lot of other stuff she says about brands...

Incidentally, you keep going down this road on brands and we're back on my meme argument since brands only exist as a function of propaganda (i.e. advertising) that is suported by money. So while brands are based around human ideas and invention, their sustainability is only guaranteed by constantly exposing people to the name, the image and aspirations and insecurities it want's to develop among people...but anyway...

And you claerly haven't understood what I've been saying - financial and monetary value aren't objective, they are creations of human beings Credit rating and confidence are subjective values created by subjective rules created by subjective human beings to _attempt_ to make objective decisions involving a huge host of different factors.

And it's Friday afternoon and I really can't be arsed to go through 1st yr degree finance with you.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Incidentally, you keep going down this road on brands and we're back on my meme argument since brands only exist as a function of propaganda (i.e. advertising) that is suported by money. So while brands are based around human ideas and invention, their sustainability is only guaranteed by constantly exposing people to the name, the image and aspirations and insecurities it want's to develop among people...but anyway...



This is precisely what I've been saying about memetics: that its a pseudo-scientific expression of market behavior.  Llike Darwinism.  Anyway, I have a few things to do, but I'll refute your other objections, and those made by others that I haven't go to yet, at a later time.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> It doesn't grow. You lend it to the bank, they use it as capital in whatever they judge to be profiable and in return you get a small slice of their profit, called 'interest'. Nothing supernatural about that.



It certainly is supernatural.  Its hardly *natural,* is it?  I mean, we're not talking about a tree, which grows naturally, or a cow, which reproduces naturally.  We're talking about something that simply doesn't exist in the natural world.  And yet it grows or, if you prefer, reproduces itself, without any human intervention.  You say "the bank lends it" and so on, but what does this really mean?  Nothing *happens* when the bank lends it, right?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 16, 2005)

Of course something happens. Haven't you seen what happens when banks lend more money that they have?

Money doesn't reproduce itself as interest, it is added to. Like adding to a pile of rocks.

Off home now - nice weekend all


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is where you pull this "satan" thing from. Doesn't "satan" need just as much proving as "god" - in which case why bother messing around with it along the way?



Because "Satan" is the way in which God reveals Himself to us.  The concept of "Satan" is immensely complicated, and I'll be explaining it in detail at a later stage of my argument.  One of the surprising things about it is how very recent it is, at least in its current form: "Satan" is not really much of a factor in the monotheist religions until the sixteenth century.  But we need to understand the history of the concept in order to grasp it, so we'll begin witthe various meanings of the Hebrew word "Satan:" "enemy," "adversary," "accuser" and so on.  But this belongs to a later chapter.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 16, 2005)

Sorry, I don't have time to post a picture. I am limiting myself to one picture per day (divided up into several parts). So that's several pictures in fact, but all inherent aspects of the single daily picture.

Please excuse me I am off to eat a park bench garnished with mustard and dill.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Because "Satan" is the way in which God reveals Himself to us.


Yes of course it is!
Rawk on phil!


----------



## zed66 (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Because "Satan" is the way in which God reveals Himself to us.  The concept of "Satan" is immensely complicated, and I'll be explaining it in detail at a later stage of my argument.  One of the surprising things about it is how very recent it is, at least in its current form: "Satan" is not really much of a factor in the monotheist religions until the sixteenth century.  But we need to understand the history of the concept in order to grasp it, so we'll begin witthe various meanings of the Hebrew word "Satan:" "enemy," "adversary," "accuser" and so on.  But this belongs to a later chapter.



I thought the roots of the concept of Satan began with Zoroaster, with Angra Manyu being the God of Evil, the twin brother of Ahura Mazda. Early testament shows God as the sole creator of good and evil...

Isiah 54:6-7
"...I am the LORD and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness. I make peace an create evil. I the LORD do all these things."

The word is used as a noun, opposer, adversary etc
1 Samuel 29:4: The Philistines were distrustful of David, fearing that he would be a satan. (translated "adversary" or "someone who will turn against us"). 
 2 Samuel 19:22: Shime-i apologizes to King David. The King rejects the apology, saying that they should not be a satan to each other (translated "adversary" or "opponent"). 
 1 Kings 5:4: King Solomon is talking to Hiram, the King of Tyre. He says that now that there is neither satan nor bad luck to stop him, he can build the Temple. (translated as "adversary", "enemy", or "one who opposes"). 
 1 Kings 11:14: God raised up Hadad the Edomite as a satan against Solomon. (translated as "adversary," or "opponent"). 

Since Zoroaster (Iranian-Zarathustra) has a date of birth given as 628BCE I don't understand this statement...

"Satan" is not really much of a factor in the monotheist religions until the sixteenth century


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 16, 2005)

I just thought of something, Phil is claiming that money is somehow possessed of power of its own over human beings.  Phil, how do you explain those collectives that abolished money altogether during the Spanish civil war (yes, I know, but please, stay with me here)?  Once they had taken power over their own lives, they were able to eliminate money simply by deciding they weren't going to bother with it anymore.  Does this sound like some dark, all-pervasive force beyond the control of human beings?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 16, 2005)

> No, they're not "better" than cash. You know why? Because you can *buy* them with cash. Cash is "better" than anything else in the world.



Wrong, they are better then cash. That's why you'd give cash away to have them.


----------



## Loki (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This is precisely what I've been saying about memetics: that its a pseudo-scientific expression of market behavior.  Llike Darwinism.  Anyway, I have a few things to do, but I'll refute your other objections, and those made by others that I haven't go to yet, at a later time.


LOL! Come on phil, I could do with a(nother) laugh.

Woo, we're heading to 800 posts and no "proof" in sight!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I just thought of something, Phil is claiming that money is somehow possessed of power of its own over human beings.  Phil, how do you explain those collectives that abolished money altogether during the Spanish civil war (yes, I know, but please, stay with me here)?  Once they had taken power over their own lives, they were able to eliminate money simply by deciding they weren't going to bother with it anymore.  Does this sound like some dark, all-pervasive force beyond the control of human beings?


also, the simple fact that for the vast majority of human existence money has not existed (whilst i expect phildwyer would assert god has) seems to undermine his thesis. money has no independent power, as can be proved by simon groom out of blue peter finding a bloody ton of the stuff blowing round phnom penh after the khmer rouge had cleared the city - if it had some sort of power over people you'd have thought pol pot & all his minions would have taken it all.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 16, 2005)

> You're saying that money is power, which is true, but where's the "relationship" here



There is no 'power' if there is no relationship.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually Trashpony, I'm a bit busy right now.  I'll get back to you later, 'kay?



Promises, promises ...  

I'm afraid I won't be online again now until October, by which time I'm hoping, god willing, this thread will be nothing more than a distant memory.

TTFN


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 16, 2005)

But that's only two weeks away. There's mileage here yet, I can feel it? I think the thread has a 'spirit'.


----------



## Loki (Sep 16, 2005)




----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 17, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> by which time I'm hoping, god willing, this thread will be nothing more than a distant memory.


No way. This one's for the archives if I've got anything to do with it  

'Twill be an object lesson to point newbies towards in how not to win an argument on urban. It will stand forever as a gravestone over phil's reputation. It will provide a new benchmark of pointlessness for arguments of the future


----------



## inks (Sep 17, 2005)

I got to page 20 and gave up.

Has phildwyer managed to get from people swapping stuff to proving the existence of god yet or did it all turn out to be a crock of shit posted on a talkboard by a mentalist?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 17, 2005)

inks said:
			
		

> I got to page 20 and gave up.
> 
> Has phildwyer managed to get from people swapping stuff to proving the existence of god yet or did it all turn out to be a crock of shit posted on a talkboard by a mentalist?


 The latter.

Yes, definitely the latter


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> We're talking about something that simply doesn't exist in the natural world.


I agree that money isn't natural, but I really don't umdersatnd why something we can't see has to be an idea or a spirit. Scientists have to deal with phenomenom that have to be inferred from the data all the time, like financial value would have to be.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Promises, promises ...
> 
> I'm afraid I won't be online again now until October, by which time I'm hoping, god willing, this thread will be nothing more than a distant memory.
> 
> TTFN



I'm afraid you might have missed your chance with me by then.  You have to strike while the iron's hot, muchacha!


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

...


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

Having thought about it I would have to say that I think financial value is a 'theoretical term' like electron: an unobservable entity used to explain directly observable events like human behaviour, defined implicitly by postualtes linking it to other theoretical terms like use value or commodity.
Maybe financial value doesn't take up any space like an electron does, but this doesn't mean we have to treat as a spirit, other theoretical terms like evolution don't either and this has profound effects etc.
Financial value can be explained without reference to a spirit as much as any other phenomenom. The only reason to define it thus is becasue of a deep distrust. Bit mystical for me.


----------



## inks (Sep 17, 2005)

Assuming that phildwyer has completed his proof that god exists (and I'm not going to bother reading the many pages to see if he ever got to the end) has anyone been convinced?

There were a lot of people reading this thread.  phildwyer promised that he'd post up proof of god's existence that anyone could get.

The test of phildwyer's argument is was anyone convinced?

If the answer is no, phildwyer's case fails.

So post up if you're now convinced that god exists having previously being a sceptic.

_Apologies, of course, if I'm duplicating posts on pages that I can't be bothered to read._


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 17, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Having thought about it I would have to say that I think financial value is a 'theoretical term' like electron: an unobservable entity used to explain directly observable events like human behaviour, defined implicitly by postualtes linking it to other theoretical terms like use value or commodity.
> Maybe financial value doesn't take up any space like an electron does, but this doesn't mean we have to treat as a spirit, other theoretical terms like evolution don't either and this has profound effects etc.
> Maybe being a theoretical term makes it an 'idea', but I don't really know that that means.
> Financial value can be explained without reference to a spirit as much as any other phenomenom. The only reason to define it thus is becasue of a deep distrust. Bit mystical for me.



very weak / inconsistent use and definition of the phrase 'theoretical term'. and electrons are observable, as it goes.

come on 118 matey, you're letting the side down with such wishy washy nonsense


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 17, 2005)

inks said:
			
		

> Assuming that phildwyer has completed his proof that god exists (and I'm not going to bother reading the many pages to see if he ever got to the end) has anyone been convinced?
> 
> There were a lot of people reading this thread.  phildwyer promised that he'd post up proof of god's existence that anyone could get.
> 
> ...



is one person being convinced enough?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2005)

LostNotFound said:
			
		

> very weak / inconsistent use and definition of the phrase 'theoretical term'. and electrons are observable, as it goes.
> 
> come on 118 matey, you're letting the side down with such wishy washy nonsense


 What's the smallest thing observable. And the farthest.


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 17, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What's the smallest thing observable. And the farthest.



ooo, is this a riddle?


----------



## inks (Sep 17, 2005)

_"is one person being convinced enough?"_

No.  phildwyer started by claiming that his proof would convince anyone.

But one person would be a start.

If he has failed to convince anyone at all then his proof has failed.  It has not done what he said that it would do at the outset.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 17, 2005)

So what have we got here:
1)  Financial value controls the entire world because we'd all starve to death if we didn't work
2)  ?
3)  Therefore Financial value is a spirit
4)  ?
5)  Therefore it is Satan
6)  ?
7)  Therefore God exists

Care to fill in the blanks phil?


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 17, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Care to fill in the blanks phil?



phil prooves burden of disproof actually lies on our shoulders in shock next move


----------



## Dhimmi (Sep 17, 2005)

The answers here...

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0102/phoneoffer.html


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> The latter.
> 
> Yes, definitely the latter



....


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Indeed. I was trying to remember the last time I saw such weak, cheap, lame-arsed 'logic' dressed up as serious argument. Then I remembered. It was in CHURCH!!



...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> So what have we got here:
> 1)  Financial value controls the entire world because we'd all starve to death if we didn't work
> 2)  ?
> 3)  Therefore Financial value is a spirit
> ...



Really Bloom, this is sloppy reading on your part.  You're not writing an autobiographical novel by any chance, are you?  As I think you know, we haven't got onto Satan yet.  At present, we are considering the ontological status of financial value.  Your views on this subject would be most welcome, but you'll have to hurry up, because we'll be moving on soon.


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 17, 2005)

phil - given that you seem to be using this thread as a sort of litmus test for your theory, what if you succeed? will you seek peer review?

what of failure? back to the metaphysical drawing board?


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...you'll have to hurry up, because we'll be moving on soon.


No we won't. This 'proof' isn't moving on at all. It hasn't even got past its opening gambit yet.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

...


----------



## inks (Sep 17, 2005)

_"My Struggle..."_

Ya had to bring Hitler into this, didn't you phildwyer?

Have you ever heard of Godwin's law?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

inks said:
			
		

> _"My Struggle..."_
> 
> Ya had to bring Hitler into this, didn't you phildwyer?
> 
> Have you ever heard of Godwin's law?



Can it be that you are unfamiliar with this all-time classic thread?

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=130718


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> My Struggle, by Brainaddict
> 
> An autobiographical novel.
> 
> Papa was perfectly beastly to me as a child.  Every Sunday morning he would drag me away from my Marillion albums and force me to go to rotten old church.  I got my revenge though: I used to sing the words to “Dark Side of the Moon” instead of “Onward Christian Soldiers.”  That certainly shocked the silly old vicar!  And once I left a jellybean on the collection tray.  Unfortunately, Papa saw me and gave me a sound thrashing with the family Bible.  It was then that I realized what a load of nonsense the Bible really is.  I often think that religion is the opium of the people, actually.  Later, on my travels, I discovered that a lot of people think that God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.  They usually get over it when I tell them how old-fashioned they’re being.  Another thing I’ve discovered on my travels is that everyone in the world wants to be me.  Not that I blame them.  It certainly is rather spiffing to be a decadent Bohemian poet.  The only trouble is that poets have to take drugs, and I can get a bit carried away sometimes!  I often think that living life in the "fast lane" is much more interesting than working.  Last night I had four aspirins, a line of Vim, and seven chocolate-chip cookies.  I don’t think I’ll be able to do any writing for a while after that!  Will this do for chapter one?



a brilliant nuggest of satircal tediu..errr..comedy gold there, phil. do me next. do me do me !!


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Can it be that you are unfamiliar with this all-time classic thread?
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=130718



hmm, agreed, you do make a right tit of yourself on that thread phil.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

LostNotFound said:
			
		

> very weak / inconsistent use and definition of the phrase 'theoretical term'. and electrons are observable, as it goes.
> 
> come on 118 matey, you're letting the side down with such wishy washy nonsense


Maybe my use of theoretical term is inconsistent, to be honest I'm not sure, I would think that evolution does have alot of features that could define it as a theoretical term, esp in some threories, in which it would not strictly be the observed phenomenom. 'Theoretical term' is in my notes as such, maybe its synonomous in this argument with theoretical entity, though some may find it less possible to see evolution as a 'entity', though why it isn't I'd like to know.
Electrons are classed as unobservables by philosophers of science: we can't observe them directly (or near abouts); there is clearly something very different between 'looking' at our _model_ of an electron and seeing, for example, my cat.

I could make a big computer model of evolution showing its realtime effects, would that make evolution an observable entity?


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

And maybe financial value does take up space just like an electron, all those commodities, all that moeny, all those people etc.


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 17, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Maybe my use of theoretical term is inconsistent, to be honest I'm not sure, I would think that evolution does have alot of features that could define it as a theoretical term, esp in some threories, in which it would not strictly be the observed phenomenom. 'Theoretical term' is in my notes as such, maybe its synonomous in this argument with theoretical entity, though some may find it less possible to see evolution as a 'entity', though why it isn't I'd like to know.



Ok, I'll bite and make a serious reply. I was being silly before 




			
				118118 said:
			
		

> Electrons are classed as unobservables by philosophers of science: we can't observe them directly (or near abouts); there is clearly something very different between 'looking' at our _model_ of an electron and seeing, for example, my cat.



I didn't know electrons are classed as unobservable for this reason. Would you say an atom is similarly unobservable? If so, I think your definition of unobservable is also inconsistant. You observe your cat by looking at it with light waves in the visible spectrum - but we can also observe atoms by probing them with electrons (electrons have a sufficiently small wavelength to achieve this). Similarly, in theory, you could observe electrons if you had something suitable to probe them with (it's probably very complex and has something to do with particle accelerators). All three cases are similar in that the things being observed (cat/atom/electron) are actually /there/ to be observed, we aren't just looking at a model like you suggest.




			
				118118 said:
			
		

> I could make a big computer model of evolution showing its realtime effects, would that make evolution an observable entity?



no, but still, an electron is a bad example of what you're trying to illustrate. an electron exists in the physical sense - it has a mass, a velocity, a size (etc). evolution certainly doesn't. i understand the way you're using the phrase 'theoretical term", but i don't think an electron is one in this context.


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 17, 2005)

inks said:
			
		

> _"My Struggle..."_
> 
> Ya had to bring Hitler into this, didn't you phildwyer?
> 
> Have you ever heard of Godwin's law?






			
				phil said:
			
		

> Can it be that you are unfamiliar with this all-time classic thread?
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/sh...ad.php?t=130718






			
				phil said:
			
		

> And before anyone gets excited, I'm *not* comparing Brainaddict to Hitler.



But I thought you weren't........ oh nevermind


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

inks said:
			
		

> If he has failed to convince anyone at all then his proof has failed.  It has not done what he said that it would do at the outset.



Well I haven't finished yet, have I?  If only you and people like you would just *shut up* for a little while, I might be able to make quicker progress.  I certainly encourage all serious objections, and I believe I've answered all of those, but there's really no point in jumping in saying "has he finished yet, are you done yet, what's the proof then, who is convinced" all the time.  The current stage is probably the most difficult--convincing you that financial value is better described as a "spirit" than as an "idea."  Several people have made very pertinant objections to this contention, which I shall refute today.  But once this matter has been settled to everyone's satisfaction, the route to God is but short.


----------



## inks (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer, in your first post on this thread you said:

_"I will make sure that I have established each of my points before moving on to the next stage of the argument."_

and then as your first point:

_"The rational proof of God's existence begins with the definitive characteristic of human society: exchange."_

In the following 20 pages you failed to answer criticisms of your first point.  I must admit to having only read the first 20 pages of this thread but I would anticipate that in pages 21-33 you didn't get any further at establishing this point.

You have started with a faulty premise I think.

Your logic is that no animals engage in exchange therefore this defines human beings as distinct from animals.  Which is fine as far as it goes although you ignored evidence of animals engaging in exchange.  But you then extend this to claim it's *the* defining characteristic without presenting any reason for it being more than *a* characteristic among others.

And if you haven't managed to deal with this flaw in 33 pages of posts then this suggests that you are not sufficiently skilled at writing to ever communicate your ideas.

Your reliance on ad hom attacks to deal with criticism hasn't helped either.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Sep 17, 2005)

Having trawled through 11 pages, I see that Pascal's wager hasn't been thrown into discussion.  It surely has some (partial) relevance to this thread?  Apologies for
1) Not trawling the other 23 pages
2) not elaborating further
>>>> both connected to me having been up all night & now going to sleeeeeep.................


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 17, 2005)

*unsubscribes having had the revaltion that running headfirst into the brick wall of phil's arguments isn't fun anymore, just a debilitating addiction*


----------



## Crispy (Sep 17, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> *unsubscribes having had the revaltion that running headfirst into the brick wall of phil's arguments isn't fun anymore, just a debilitating addiction*



I know a good clinic.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Really Bloom, this is sloppy reading on your part.  You're not writing an autobiographical novel by any chance, are you?


What's this rather odd obsession with autobiography?  Bitter that yours didn't get published or something?  



> As I think you know, we haven't got onto Satan yet.  At present, we are considering the ontological status of financial value.  Your views on this subject would be most welcome, but you'll have to hurry up, because we'll be moving on soon.


Post 771:



			
				In Bloom said:
			
		

> I just thought of something, Phil is claiming that money is somehow possessed of power of its own over human beings. Phil, how do you explain those collectives that abolished money altogether during the Spanish civil war (yes, I know, but please, stay with me here)? Once they had taken power over their own lives, they were able to eliminate money simply by deciding they weren't going to bother with it anymore. Does this sound like some dark, all-pervasive force beyond the control of human beings?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 17, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

>



Great band, great song!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> The starting point for this is emergent behaviours in complex systems, and is a hugely contoversial idea (HA!) about how AI, or some form of artificial (or more accurately, non-biological) consciousness could emerge spontaneously out of the chaotic mess of say, the financial markets or that the internet 'develops' a consciouness based on random elements interacting with each other (e.g. a virus program gets out and starts self replicating in a way that leads to emergent consciousness, or a 'Ghost In The Shell' scenario where a program makes itself smarter)



As I predicted, this stage of my argument has produced more, and more cogent, objections than the previous ones.  This is unsurprising, since we are here making the conceptual and terminological transition from an "idea" (a familiar notion which most people clearly understand, even if they dispute its existence) to a "spirit" (an unfamiliar notion which initially strikes many people as unrealistic, and which is difficult to grasp).  Because this transition is crucial to the rest of my case, I want to make absolutely sure that everyone has mastered it before we proceed further.  I shall therefore refute each serious objection individually. 

The kind of research that Kyser describes here is certainly analogous to my own, but there are several important differences as well.  Brevity dictates that I limit myself to mentioning *two* of them here.  First, I am *not* suggesting that financial value has a "consciousness."  In fact, as I have said before with regard to Koko and Co., I believe that consciousness is found only in human beings.  Financial value certainly has independent agency, power and force, but it does not *know* that it has these things.  It is not self-conscious.  Second, this kind of research (of which I suppose memetics is a paradigmatic instance) neglects to consider  the *ethical* implications of an independently self-replicating non-human power.  Primarily, this is the result of its failure to take into account the all-important distinguishing characteristic of financial value, which is that it is human labour-power in alienated form.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> also, the simple fact that for the vast majority of human existence money has not existed (whilst i expect phildwyer would assert god has) seems to undermine his thesis. money has no independent power, as can be proved by simon groom out of blue peter finding a bloody ton of the stuff blowing round phnom penh after the khmer rouge had cleared the city - if it had some sort of power over people you'd have thought pol pot & all his minions would have taken it all.



Pickman's, as long as you do not differentiate between *money* and *value,* you will be constantly getting into these muddles.  You might want to direct your inquiries to a more reliable source that Simon Groom out of Blue Peter.  Money is a *symbol* of value, it is not the thing itself.  Naturally, any form of cash can lose its value under certain circumstances, and in fact the value of all money is constantly changing.  But *value* can never lose its value--because it *is* value.   

You say that "for the vast majority of human existence money has not existed," which is true.  But has financial value always existed?  Not in its present form, obviously, but you must remember what financial value actually *is.*  Financial value is an externalized form of human labour-power, or in other words of human subjective activity considered as a whole.  Obviously human subjective activity has existed for exactly as long as human beings have existed.  Thus financial value *has* always existed, although it has only recently acquired the alienated form of financial value.

Most probably I will deal with only one more objection this morning.  Then I will take a sandwich break (chicken tarragon) and take a few more questions this afternoon.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Most probably I will deal with only one more objection this morning.  Then I will take a sandwich break (chicken tarragon) and take a few more questions this afternoon.



Oooh I do like chicken tarragon. Normally I make tarragon-scented warm roast chicken with a big bowl of salad and summery new potatoes with a cheeky side-dish of cappesante in padella con shiitake  grigliati e insalata tiepida di lenticchie al sugo d'aragosta and zuppa di cavolfiori e porri con timballino di polpa di granchio.

Can't wait for your next breathtaking post.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I just thought of something, Phil is claiming that money is somehow possessed of power of its own over human beings.  Phil, how do you explain those collectives that abolished money altogether during the Spanish civil war (yes, I know, but please, stay with me here)?  Once they had taken power over their own lives, they were able to eliminate money simply by deciding they weren't going to bother with it anymore.  Does this sound like some dark, all-pervasive force beyond the control of human beings?



An excellent point, Bloom.  Of course it is perfectly possible for human beings to abolish financial value (remember please that we are *not* talking about "money" here, money is a different thing).  Since it doesn't exist outside the human mind, nothing could be simpler than to get rid of it.  All that would be necessary is for us to stop *believing* in it, to lose our *faith* in it (and "faith" is the apt term for this--belief in financial value is certainly not rational).  But guess what?  We're not doing it.  Apart from a few heroic attempts, such as the one you mention here, we haven't done it.  

On the contrary, every indication suggests that financial value is rapidly tightening its grip upon the world.  It has very recently expanded its reach into corners of the globe that had previously excluded it, and it is in the process of dramatically extending its influence over every area of human experience: economics obviously, but also politics, psychology, philosophy, leisure time, sport, art, media and just about everything else.  So while you're correct to say that it *can* be abolished, there seems to be no sign of this happening, and in fact it seems to be conquering the world instead.  One of the goals of my project is to understand why this is happening.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Oooh I do like chicken tarragon. Normally I make tarragon-scented warm roast chicken with a big bowl of salad and summery new potatoes with a cheeky side-dish of cappesante in padella con shiitake  grigliati e insalata tiepida di lenticchie al sugo d'aragosta and zuppa di cavolfiori e porri con timballino di polpa di granchio.
> 
> Can't wait for your next breathtaking post.



On this alone, Loki, we agree.  Mine's a ready-made one from the deli though.  And I'm afraid that you *will* have to wait for my next post, because I am now going to eat it.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

Let me know how the sandwich was.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Just noticed this.  I *knew* you were a recovering Christian.  People like you, who get all hot under the collar when God is discussed, have invariably been embittered by participation in organized religion.  Its a sensitive subject for them, and that's certainly understandable, although it lends a rather hysterical tone to their conversation on the matter.  I expect we will be treated to a traumatic account of Brainaddict's loss of faith in his forthcoming autobiographical novel.  Aren't we lucky?


 Your attacks are becoming increasingly ad hominem and increasingly unpleasant. But thanks for giving us an insight into your character. Certainly a lot of people must be thinking what a fine thing it must be to be able to prove the existence of god to yourself - who wouldn't want to be like phildwyer?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Your attacks are becoming increasingly ad hominem and increasingly unpleasant.



Look Brainaddict, you've stuck to this thread like a bleeding leech from the beginning, contributing absolutely nothing but repetitive, humourless, ugly jeering.  Why?  What are you doing here?   OK, its clear that you have some sort of hang-up or phobia about "religion," but there's no need to grind on and onabout it in this monotously obsessive fashion.  If you can't handle a taste of your own medicine, bugger off this thread and leave it to the numerous people who actually have something interesting to contribute.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Look Brainaddict, you've stuck to this thread like a bleeding leech from the beginning, contributing absolutely nothing but repetitive, humourless, ugly jeering.  Why?  What are you doing here?   OK, its clear that you have some sort of hang-up or phobia about "religion," but there's no need to grind on and onabout it in this monotously obsessive fashion.  If you can't handle a taste of your own medicine, bugger off this thread and leave it to the numerous people who actually have something interesting to contribute.


 I may have insulted you on this thread, but only in the context of this argument. I certainly haven't dragged in arguments from other threads (despite there being plenty of ammunition lying around) and I haven't tried to use information about you from other parts of the site to try and be unpleasant. I think you've crossed the line in some of your above posts and I would expect a reasonable person to apologise and delete the offending posts. So I certainly don't expect it of you.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 17, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Your attacks are becoming increasingly ad hominem and increasingly unpleasant. But thanks for giving us an insight into your character. Certainly a lot of people must be thinking what a fine thing it must be to be able to prove the existence of god to yourself - who wouldn't want to be like phildwyer?


His propensity for trawling through the archives of the site to look for material which he can use to attack posters who he disagrees with is particularly unattractive.  The fact that most of the material which he uses thus is not related to the thread and was put forward by people in much more mutually supportive threads / areas of the site and is hence not 'defensively' written makes it even less pleasant. 

I even find it difficult to judge exactly which of these attacks was most unpleasant.  I thought having a go at TeeJay for being a loonie on the basis of TeeJay having mentioned that he had mental health problems in the past was going to be hard to beat.  However, attacking BrainAddict and Violent Panda for basically being fans of Hitler with the flimsiest of basis was almost as bad.  Sneering at BrainAddict's perfectly commendable and reasonable desire to write is proving to be a new contender.  These are only the strikingly obnoxious moments whihc manage to fall beneath the low, low standard of his ubiquitously applied condescension and arrogance.  

What makes it all hilarious rather than appalling is that he's an imbecile who doesn't even understand the basics of the things that he professes to be an expert in.  His knowledge of Marxism is almost non-existant, he arbitrarily re-defines concepts and words without letting anybody know about it, he thinks 'financial value' is an agent capable of autonomous action and by his definitions, so is 'love', 'hate', 'fear' and virtually all abstractions, or 'spirits' to use his god-tastic terminology, a terminology that is ridiculously transparent in its efforts to spring a deity onto us from a sophistic turn of phrase.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> I may have insulted you on this thread, but only in the context of this argument. I certainly haven't dragged in arguments from other threads (despite there being plenty of ammunition lying around) and I haven't tried to use information about you from other parts of the site to try and be unpleasant. I think you've crossed the line in some of your above posts and I would expect a reasonable person to apologise and delete the offending posts. So I certainly don't expect it of you.



You came onto this thread with the sole purpose of disrupting and derailing it.  You clearly don't want this discussion to take place, for whatever reason, and you are doing your best to prevent it.  Every single day--no, *several times* every single day--you dispatch a jeering, sneering one-liner insulting my intelligence and/or sanity.  You do not add or contribute anything that could remotely be construed as constructive.  You regularly encourage others to join in with your mocking, and you have been very successful in inducing the easily-led to gang up with you in your campaign of disruption.  

I take it you can deny none of the above?  Furthermore, I told you at a much earlier stage in the thread that *you* had crossed a very well-defined line, and I requested an apology, which I did not receive.  But rather than tread over that weary ground again, I propose a truce.  If you desist flaming, so will I.  I would be delighted if you choose to continue to argue with me, but let's agree to observe a respectable level of courtesy from now on.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 17, 2005)

Let's get this thread to a 1000 posts with no real progress made.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You came onto this thread with the sole purpose of disrupting and derailing it.  You clearly don't want this discussion to take place, for whatever reason, and you are doing your best to prevent it.  Every single day--no, *several times* every single day--you dispatch a jeering, sneering one-liner insulting my intelligence and/or sanity.



I think you're managing the derailing/disrupting quite well yourself! 829 bleedin' posts and no-one's the wiser of this remarkable "proof" you have.

How was the sandwich?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> How was the sandwich?



A bit dry actually, they're stingy with the mayo.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 17, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Let's get this thread to a 1000 posts with no real progress made.


We could also see if Phil has managed to personally insult each and every single one of the other posters on the thread.  He must be nearly there now.  

I also *love* the way he tells people that they're not welcome on his threads.  I'm fairly sure that editor *didn't* delegate this right to phil


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> A bit dry actually, they're stingy with the mayo.


 Mayo is an essential ingrediant. Curse this godless world!


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You came onto this thread with the sole purpose of disrupting and derailing it.  You clearly don't want this discussion to take place, for whatever reason, and you are doing your best to prevent it.  Every single day--no, *several times* every single day--you dispatch a jeering, sneering one-liner insulting my intelligence and/or sanity.  You do not add or contribute anything that could remotely be construed as constructive.  You regularly encourage others to join in with your mocking, and you have been very successful in inducing the easily-led to gang up with you in your campaign of disruption.
> 
> I take it you can deny none of the above?  Furthermore, I told you at a much earlier stage in the thread that *you* had crossed a very well-defined line, and I requested an apology, which I did not receive.  But rather than tread over that weary ground again, I propose a truce.  If you desist flaming, so will I.  I would be delighted if you choose to continue to argue with me, but let's agree to observe a respectable level of courtesy from now on.


Well with your unpleasantness you have succeeded in your aim: I won't be posting on this thread any more. I would no longer be able to post in good humour - which it all has been up to now - or so I thought. So well done. You must feel very proud.

As a parting word I'll point something out to you. While there is (AFAIK) no actual rule about not dragging personal information and arguments between threads, there is a very strong convention that says it's not done. 
If it is ever done to you you will understand why this convention exists. Until then you will probably continue to do it - just don't be surprised if people call you a cunt. You are.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

zed66 said:
			
		

> I thought the roots of the concept of Satan began with Zoroaster, with Angra Manyu being the God of Evil, the twin brother of Ahura Mazda. Early testament shows God as the sole creator of good and evil...
> 
> Isiah 54:6-7
> "...I am the LORD and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness. I make peace an create evil. I the LORD do all these things."
> ...



I mean it in a couple of different ways.  First, he doesn't really become a *character* until the sixteenth century.  As you say here, the earliest uses of "satan" are as a noun.  When he does appear in the Bible as a character, as in the Book of Job, he is a messenger angel like Gabriel, bringing (in this case) bad news from God.  Second, even the concept of Satan is relatively insignificant until the sixteenth century.  This is partly due to his prominence in the main heresy that orthodox Christianity had to battle: Manicheanism.  The Manichees ascribed to Satan an independent and equal power to God, and the Catholic church downplayed his influence correspondingly.  In the form most familiar to us, Satan emerges onto the European stage at precisely the same moment as capitalism.  For example, the witch-hunts of the sixteenth century speak to a sudden, panicked awareness of a vastly powerful, deeply evil force at work in the world.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Well with your unpleasantness you have succeeded in your aim: I won't be posting on this thread any more. I would no longer be able to post in good humour - which it all has been up to now - or so I thought. So well done. You must feel very proud.



To be honest, I still thought it was in good humour.  But since you don't, I'll delete the offending posts.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> To be honest, I still thought it was in good humour.  But since you don't, I'll delete the offending posts.


 I fail to see how that level of sustained personal attack using information about me from other parts of the boards could in any way be described as 'good humoured', but thank you for getting rid of it anyway.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> I fail to see how that level of sustained personal attack using information about me from other parts of the boards could in any way be described as 'good humoured', but thank you for getting rid of it anyway.



It was intended purely as rough horseplay, but I'll admit that I was angry.  Unlike you, I'm being picked on by *tons* of people on this thread, and I do get angry with some of them sometimes.  You've been pretty rough yourself too, you know.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> To be honest, I still thought it was in good humour.  But since you don't, I'll delete the offending posts.


Could you please delete your very, very offensive posts at me too? I was most upset


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It was intended purely as rough horseplay, but I'll admit that I was angry.  Unlike you, I'm being picked on by *tons* of people on this thread, and I do get angry with some of them sometimes.  You've been pretty rough yourself too, you know.


if you came up with this rational proof of god you've been banging on about then people wouldn't be having a pop at you.

it's your utter inability to put your proof where your mouth is that gets my goat!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

and if there's any posts having a go at me, please delete them before i offer a proof that there are more powerful temporal authorities than there are spiritual ones.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> If only you and people like you would just *shut up* for a little while, I might be able to make quicker progress.


What have other peoples' posts got to do with you making progress? They only take a few seconds to read - the ones that you bother to read - and they don't actually stop you getting on with your 'argument' unless you find it impossible to not get sidetracked and distracted by them.

In any case, if you bothered to (and were able to) make a decent case in the first place you wouldn't have to constantly respond to everyone picking you to pieces. 

There is no reason whatsoever that you can't get on with your argument and respond to people questions and arguments when you have finally finished.

I really suspect however that you are dragging this out because you actually enjoy getting into spats with people and insulting everyone.

Do you use these arguments with your colleagues at work btw? Do you tell anyone who disagrees with you that they are an idiot or mentall ill? Somehow I doubt you only dare behave like this on the internet and don't do this in real life.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> There is no reason whatsoever that you can't get on with your argument and respond to people questions and arguments when you have finally finished.



The reason is that I actually *want* to hear other people's observations and arguments, to respond to them, and to incorporate them into my own case.   Lots of people have made very valuable contributions here, which have forced me to clarify, and even to modify, some of my own ideas.  And I have without exception responded to all serious comments with perfect decorum and politeness.  That's why I have limited patience for people who *only* come here to mock and insult.  I don't particularly mind being mocked and insulted, but it would be nice if they went along with some substantive contributions from time to time.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The reason is that I actually *want* to hear other people's observations and arguments



And I actually *want* to see this amazing proof you have! We're heading towards 900 posts and nobody's any the wiser.

Come out with it!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2005)

What's your favourite cheese?
Mine's Roquefort


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

I like Roquefort, but probably my favourite is Livarot. A bit rich and pongy for some.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Danish Blue.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

Munster's quite lush too, but not for everyone's pallette.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> I even find it difficult to judge exactly which of these attacks was most unpleasant.  I thought having a go at TeeJay for being a loonie on the basis of TeeJay having mentioned that he had mental health problems in the past was going to be hard to beat.  However, attacking BrainAddict and Violent Panda for basically being fans of Hitler with the flimsiest of basis was almost as bad.  Sneering at BrainAddict's perfectly commendable and reasonable desire to write is proving to be a new contender.  These are only the strikingly obnoxious moments whihc manage to fall beneath the low, low standard of his ubiquitously applied condescension and arrogance.


Thank you for pointing that out. I have noted that after being pulled up on his comments about me and doing a "what kind of arsehole would do a thing like that" routine he shortly reverted to simply talking about unspecified "loonies" and has refused to reply to me asking who he is talking about. Since he seems to want to go down this route maybe I better have a look in the medical books to see which personality disorder best fits his behaviour here.

edit:

People with histrionic personality disorder are constant attention seekers. They need to be the center of attention all the time, often interrupting others in order to dominate the conversation. They use grandiose language to discribe everyday events and seek constant praise. They may dress provacatively or exaggerate illnesses in order to gain attention. Histrionics also tend to exaggerate friendships and relationships, believing that everyone loves them. They are often manipulative.

* Needs to be the center of attention
* Dresses or acts provocatively
* Rapidly-shifting and shallow emotions
* Overly-dramatic, occassionally theatrical speech

Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by self-centeredness. Like histrionic disorder, people with this disorder seek attention and praise. They exaggerate their achievements, expecting others to recongize them as being superior. They tend to be choosy about picking friends, since they believe that not just anyone is worthy of being their friend. Narcissists tend to make good first impressions, yet have difficulty maintaining long-lasting relationships. They are generally uninterested in the feelings of others and may take advantage of them.

* Requires excessive praise and admiration
* Takes advantage of others
* Grandiose sense of self-importance
* Lack of empathy
* Lying, to self and others
* Obsessed with fantasies of fame, power, or beauty

Take your pick...


----------



## zed66 (Sep 17, 2005)

Sorry to interrupt, back on the old Satan thing.....

Conservative Christian scholars ascribe the writing of the first five books of the Bible to Moses at some time around 1450BCE, citing direct references in the Bible as their evidence. Sine the 19th century there has been a growing consensus that the old testament was written in three phases and by three separate groups. The three dates most commonly given are 950BCE, 750BCE and 539BCE. This is still seen as a form of heresy by modern fundamentalist Christians.

In all the books of the Old Testament written before 300BCE, the word Satan is used as a noun. In the example of Job, the word Satan acts as a servant of God. When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek by the early Christian Church the word Satan was translated as “diabolic” which is the root of the English diabolic and devil. 

Between the close of the Hebrew scripture (sometimes given as a period around 400BCE) and the gospel of Mark (70CE), there is a profound change in the use of the word and it’s meaning. A possible explanation for this is the movement of the Jewish people into exile in Babylon and the adoption of ideas from different religions (particularly Zoroastrianism with the duality between good and evil) There are many examples (Eg: in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians) where the word Satan is used to describe any enemy of the Christian faith.

I would cite the crusades as an earlier example of the use of the word Satan in the way that we understand it now. The Inquisition (1200CE-1700CE) is another earlier clear example of the use of the word Satan in it’s modern context.

The use of the word Satan to represent a dualistic opposite to God did not begin with industrialisation in the 16th century as convenient as this would be to your argument.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2005)

I have a soft spot for Dairylea too


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

Phildwyer isn't going to finish this any time soon as he loves being the centre of attention. See above.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

The psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers first defined the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Phildwyer might just scrape on this last point as he has run away to a country chock full of religious freaks and could probably find some church that would agree with his bizarre ramblings about the devil, even if it is just him and a few fuckwits talking to themselves and working themselves up into an ever more up-their-arse delusional alternate universe. Alternately he could probably argue that he has found some fucked up "subculture" which consists of money-wasting academics and relgious right cheerleading pseudo journalists who spend their life publishing and referencing each others ego-wank while sticking their nasty snouts into public funds under the guise of studying and teaching proper subjects.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

zed66 said:
			
		

> Sorry to interrupt, back on the old Satan thing.....
> 
> Conservative Christian scholars ascribe the writing of the first five books of the Bible to Moses at some time around 1450BCE, citing direct references in the Bible as their evidence. Sine the 19th century there has been a growing consensus that the old testament was written in three phases and by three separate groups. The three dates most commonly given are 950BCE, 750BCE and 539BCE. This is still seen as a form of heresy by modern fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you say here, except the last paragraph, to which I make the following objections.  For one thing, the concept of "Satan" does not "represent a dualistic opposition to God" in any monotheist religion.  Since God is omnipotent, "Satan" can only be an aspect of God, rather than His "opposite."  For another thing, the concept and characterization of "Satan" *does* undergo a dramatic change between 1500 and 1600.  Consider for example the difference between his portrayal in Dante's Inferno as an amorphous, immobile, frozen slug at the center of Hell and that of Milton's Paradise Lost, where he has acquired his modern contours as a trident-sporting, tail-lashing horned demon.

Most importantly, popular awareness of and interest in Satan explodes with the Reformation.  Witness the craze for "Teufelbucher," or "Devil-books" in Lutheran Germany and, of course, the two-century-long European witch hunt.  "Satan" moves from being a largely abstract theological concept to being a clear, present and immediate threat to society, with the power to enter into and "possess" the minds of human beings.  And he is intimately linked, in the popular imagination and in theological treatises, to the burgeoning independent power of financial value, as for example in the controversy over usury.  The same phenomenon is repeated wherever capitalism first lays its roots in any society.  We see it today in the new craze for witch-hunting in Africa, in communities where paper money and a market system are being newly introduced.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 17, 2005)

Don't agree. The concept of Satan in the modern understanding may or may not change in degree throughout the centuries but the idea itself is clearly seen in the new testament. Who was it that tempted Jesus in the wilderness?
(clue: it wasn't Blakey from on the buses).Read the book of Revelations...it's like reading the lyrics from a Norwegian death metal band.
The modern idea of Satan is a christian construct beginning with the gospels (circa 70CE).


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 17, 2005)

Can't decide between Stilton, Brie and Feta. I'd include others if I could be bothered.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Phildwyer isn't going to finish this any time soon as he loves being the centre of attention. See above.



TeeJay, believe me when I say that I have no interest in speculating about your mental health.  All I know is that you are a "serial antagonist," who roams these boards from thread to thread, apparently at random, attacking people without any provocation.  In the last week, you have engaged in furious unprovoked flame wars with at least four different posters on at least four different threads.  You have even induced the generally easy-going Butchersapron to change his *tag-line* to "TeeJay under a Tractor."  I don't have anything more to say to you, so I will simply quote what Butchersapron said to you on the "If Capitalism was Smashed" thread:

"You jump onto threads, you have nothing to say and you just attack people. Why do you keep doing that, Why do you even do that in the first place? What's wrong with you? What the fuck is wrong with you that you have to act like you do?"


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 17, 2005)

The common perception of satan is not as an aspect of god, but an alternative.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> The common perception of satan is not as an aspect of god, but an alternative.



That's right.  But if you think about it, that can't possibly be consistent with monotheism.  The trouble is that people want to believe that God is "good," and so they find it comforting to blame "evil" on "Satan."  But this is simply a popular misconception: in truth, God is "beyond good and evil."


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...the generally easy-going Butchersapron...




Keep 'em coming phil! You are funny.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

Phil, please grow the fuck up - in your "real" work you make proper arguments not this shite you have been coming out with, and you don't resort to abuse etc. Do you think your students, colleagues, publishers and everyone/anyone else who knows you would be interested in seeing you make an utter fucking twat of yourself? They all have readily available email addresses and it would only take someone who you had been an utter cunt towards to decide to humiliate you by sending every single one of them a link to this thread, or if you deleted all your posts, a copy which they had already archived.

I have just read an essay of yours and found it interesting. Why then have you been feeding us utter shite on this forum? I find this maybe *more* offensive than the crap you have said about my previous health issues and other personal remarks about people on this and other threads.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 17, 2005)

Though of course clearly nobody on this forum would consider doing such a thing.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 17, 2005)

Chicken tarragon sandwich please, extra mayo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Phil, please grow the fuck up - in your "real" work you make proper arguments not this shite you have been coming out with, and you don't resort to abuse etc. Do you think your students, colleagues, publishers and everyone/anyone else who knows you would be interested in seeing you make an utter fucking twat of yourself? They all have readily available email addresses and it would only take someone who you had been an utter cunt towards to decide to humiliate you by sending every single one of them a link to this thread, or if you deleted all your posts, a copy which they had already archived.
> 
> I have just read an essay of yours and found it interesting. Why then have you been feeding us utter shite on this forum? I find this maybe *more* offensive than the crap you have said about my previous health issues and other personal remarks about people on this and other threads.


is phildwyer another gangster/black hand login?

we should be told!


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Though of course clearly nobody on this forum would consider doing such a thing.


Of course not.

(But out of interest is it against the FAQ? It isn't the same as disclosing someone's real name *on urban75* is it?)


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> we should be told!


Sorry PM, I don't think I am allowed to say.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Sorry PM, I don't think I am allowed to say.


i'll take that as a 'yes'.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 17, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Of course not.
> 
> (But out of interest is it against the FAQ? It isn't the same as disclosing someone's real name *on urban75* is it?)


It would most definitely come under "off-board harassment" even if the name was not revealed on here.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> It would most definitely come under "off-board harassment" even if the name was not revealed on here.


Thank you for clarifying.

What about linking to a thread and saying it is "wonderful"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Thank you for clarifying.
> 
> What about linking to a thread and saying it is "wonderful"?


it's almost certainly a lie.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i'll take that as a 'yes'.


You shouldn't take it as anything other than "I am going to stick within the u75 rules".

And I sincerely hope everyone else does as well.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> it's almost certainly a lie.


 Good point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You shouldn't take it as anything other than "I am going to stick within the u75 rules".


no you aren't. 

within forty-eight hours you'll have broken most of them.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> no you aren't.
> 
> within forty-eight hours you'll have broken most of them.


Are you accusing me of breaking the rules *in the future*?

I demand that you take that back (on Monday)!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Are you accusing me of breaking the rules *in the future*?
> 
> I demand that you take that back (on Monday)!


i won't have to. the proof will be there for all to see.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

What proof?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What proof?
> 
> Or did you mean prof?


you'll see it as you submit it to the test of publick opinon.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

OK you've really lost me now.

*consults dictionary*


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 17, 2005)

Anyway Pickman's - if you work out what clues I am allowed to post, within the u75 rules, about this well-known, wide-published and highly respected writer who is making a complete fucking arse out of himself on this thread - then maybe I can post some... 

...purely in the interests of everyone being able to marvel in the astounding quality of his published works - and the utter contrast with the shite he has been posting here.

Unfortunately it rather looks like I am bound to secrecy and won't be able to do even so much as make a slight allusion, quote or hint.

I won't even be able to send anyone any PMs will I, as this would amount to *on-board* harassment?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 17, 2005)

No PMs, no hints, no quotes, no revealing or linking of someone's off-board identity to their posting here without their express permission and frankly I am becoming increasingly concerned that you are continuing to pursue this line, either as intimidation or as a real threat. Don't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

there you go, teejay - and less than 4.8 hours gone.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

LostNotFound said:
			
		

> I didn't know electrons are classed as unobservable for this reason. Would you say an atom is similarly unobservable? If so, I think your definition of unobservable is also inconsistant. You observe your cat by looking at it with light waves in the visible spectrum - but we can also observe atoms by probing them with electrons (electrons have a sufficiently small wavelength to achieve this).



Electrons cannot be observed by our normal senses, they require scientific methods for us to see them. We don't see them in the same way as we do things through a microscope (classed by most as observable), which relies only on normal qualities of vision.  So we need scientific instruments to observe them, and they do not solely work by the laws of normal vision. Having failed two years of the philosophy of science, I can DEFINETELY state that atoms and electrons are classed as unobservables, the real argument being whether or not they actually exist: realism vs. antirealism.




			
				LostNotFound said:
			
		

> Similarly, in theory, you could observe electrons if you had something suitable to probe them with (it's probably very complex and has something to do with particle accelerators). All three cases are similar in that the things being observed (cat/atom/electron) are actually /there/ to be observed, we aren't just looking at a model like you suggest..



It is true that electrons/neutrons/protons are thought to have mass etc., but having mass is not a sufficient condition for us to believe that we see it if we look at its inferred image. Electrons are unobservables. As is, I'm arguing, evolution and financial value. Unobservables are known by their effects.




			
				LostNotFound said:
			
		

> no, but still, an electron is a bad example of what you're trying to illustrate. an electron exists in the physical sense - it has a mass, a velocity, a size (etc). evolution certainly doesn't. i understand the way you're using the phrase 'theoretical term", but i don't think an electron is one in this context.



By calling both an electron and evolution theoretical terms I am not saying that they are physical terms.

But, evolution is obviously composed of things that are physical. Things do not necessarily have the same properties as that which makes it up, but why should we think it is not physical?
Take something like a heart beat, it could be said that this doesn’t take up space (of course its constituents do), but would you say it doesn't exist in a physical sense? If not, it shows that even though it doesn't seem that evolution (and financial value) take up space, they can be concieved as physical.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Electrons cannot be observed by our normal senses, they require scientific methods for us to see them. We don't see them in the same way as we do things through a microscope (classed by most as observable), which relies only on normal qualities of vision.  So we need scientific instruments to observe them, and they do not solely work by the laws of normal vision. Having failed two years of the philosophy of science, I can DEFINETELY state that atoms and electrons are classed as unobservables, the real argument being whether or not they actually exist: realism vs. antirealism.
> 
> It is true that electrons/neutrons/protons are thought to have mass etc., but having mass is not a sufficient condition for us to believe that we see it if we look at its inferred image. Electrons are unobservables. As is, I'm arguing, evolution and financial value. Unobservables are known by their effects.



Electrons and atoms are perceptible by the reason, not by the senses.  They are rational, rather than empirical entities.  This does not mean that they don't exist, but they are *ideas* not *things.*  As I mentioned earlier, Marx's doctoral disseration on atomic theory is important here, its a much-neglected key to his ontology.  I'm puzzled, however, by your inclusion of evolution in this category: surely it is a material *process* rather than an idea?  And, as you know, the crux of this stage of my argument is that financial value is not an idea at all, but a spirit.  But more of that anon.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Electrons and atoms are perceptible by the reason, not by the senses.  They are rational, rather than empirical entities.



You'd have an awful lot of trouble watching your TV if electrons weren't for real.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Electrons and atoms are perceptible by the reason, not by the senses.  They are rational, rather than empirical entities.  This does not mean that they don't exist, but they are *ideas* not *things.*  As I mentioned earlier, Marx's doctoral disseration on atomic theory is important here, its a much-neglected key to his ontology.  I'm puzzled, however, by your inclusion of evolution in this category: surely it is a material *process* rather than an idea?  And, as you know, the crux of this stage of my argument is that financial value is not an idea at all, but a spirit.  But more of that anon.


i'd prefer to trust a scientist on the subject of atomick theory, and the chances are i know far more about atomick theory than marx ever did.

incidently, marx's doctoral thesis was titled "the difference between democritean and epicurean philosophy" which don't sound to me too much like it was about atomick theory.

i think yr talking wank, phildwyer, and, if other contributions on this thread are anything to go by, not for the first time.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i'd prefer to trust a scientist on the subject of atomick theory, and the chances are i know far more about atomick theory than marx ever did.
> 
> incidently, marx's doctoral thesis was titled "the difference between democritean and epicurean philosophy" which don't sound to me too much like it was about atomick theory.
> 
> i think yr talking wank, phildwyer, and, if other contributions on this thread are anything to go by, not for the first time.




Yeah - but is he happy?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> incidently, marx's doctoral thesis was titled "the difference between democritean and epicurean philosophy" which don't sound to me too much like it was about atomick theory.



Right.  But the reason why it "don't sound too much like atomick theory" to you can only be that you know *nothing* about atomic theory.  For, quite literally the *first* thing that you will learn about atomic theory is that Democritus and Epicurus were atomic theorists.  I don't understand why you'd come on here and use your ignorance as a tool in debate, tbh.  Can't you do better than this?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right.  But the reason why it "don't sound too much like atomick theory" to you can only be that you know *nothing* about atomic theory.  For, quite literally the *first* thing that you will learn about atomic theory is that Democritus and Epicurus were atomic theorists.  I don't understand why you'd come on here and use your ignorance as a tool in debate, tbh.  Can't you do better than this?




Yep they discovered nuclear weapons technology, unfortunately lost to history now.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Yep they discovered nuclear weapons technology, unfortunately lost to history now.



Exosculate, are you seriously denying that Democritus and Epicurus were atomic theorists?  Or are you taking the piss?  Did you really not know this?  This is a serious question.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm puzzled, however, by your inclusion of evolution in this category: surely it is a material *process* rather than an idea?  And, as you know, the crux of this stage of my argument is that financial value is not an idea at all, but a spirit.  But more of that anon.


I'm a bit out of my depth here. What makes evolution a process and not an entity? Is a heart beat a process, or an idea, or an entity? Why is financial value an idea and not a process?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right.  But the reason why it "don't sound too much like atomick theory" to you can only be that you know *nothing* about atomic theory.  For, quite literally the *first* thing that you will learn about atomic theory is that Democritus and Epicurus were atomic theorists.  I don't understand why you'd come on here and use your ignorance as a tool in debate, tbh.  Can't you do better than this?


let's put it this way. i a, familiar with the theories of mendeleyev & more recent chemists, which - obviously - is something which marx couldn't have been. so i understand somewhat more about the structure of an atom and molecule than dear old karl would have.

more importantly, marx was a fucking doctor of *philosophy*, not fucking natural philosophy or fucking chemistry or fucking physicks. francis wheen notes that






			
				francis wheen said:
			
		

> marx's comparative study of democritus and epicurus was actually a daring and original piece of work in which he set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom of philosophy, and that scepticism will triumph over dogma.


which really doesn't appear to me to be about fucking atomick theory AT ALL.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Exosculate, are you seriously denying that Democritus and Epicurus were atomic theorists?  Or are you taking the piss?  Did you really not know this?  This is a serious question.




That the Greeks called small building blocks that they didn't understand atoms or they had any meaningful theories about them?

Which is it your holyness?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> more importantly, marx was a fucking doctor of *philosophy*, not fucking natural philosophy or fucking chemistry or fucking physicks. francis wheen notes thatwhich really doesn't appear to me to be about fucking atomick theory AT ALL.




Yeah but the paper was made out of atoms.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I'm a bit out of my depth here. What makes evolution a process and not an entity? Is a heart beat a process, or an idea, or an entity? Why is financial value an idea and not a process?



Actually, you've lost me here.  I don't think value is an idea, I'm claiming that it is a spirit, or I will be once we've come to some agreement about what that term means.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> let's put it this way. i a, familiar with the theories of mendeleyev & more recent chemists, which - obviously - is something which marx couldn't have been. so i understand somewhat more about the structure of an atom and molecule than dear old karl would have.
> 
> more importantly, marx was a fucking doctor of *philosophy*, not fucking natural philosophy or fucking chemistry or fucking physicks. francis wheen notes thatwhich really doesn't appear to me to be about fucking atomick theory AT ALL.



Yes Pickman's, but once again, the fact that it doesn't appear so to you can only be testimony to your ignorance.  If you'd actually *read* the damn thing, or even just look at a single page of it, you will immediately notice that it is entirely devoted to atomic theory.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

having had a swift glance at the work in question, i do admit that atoms crop up in it. i don't, however, concede the point, in that fucking marx wasn't in some foul marxian way advancing the fucking frontiers of science, but wanking about with fucking antient greek philosophy, which is a fucking very fucking different thing. 

so fucking atoms get discussed! fucking huzza! 

there is no way in atheism's green earth that fucking marx or his filthy collaborator, the bourgeois engels, ever fucking wrote about fucking real fucking atomick theory as we know and love it today. to pretend that in some bizarre arsy way marx was at the fucking cutting edge of fucking science is a total wanking lie, and to suggest that his work is on atomick theory which is relevant to science today is dishonest, ignorant and deceitful.

and anyway, marx was a fucking atheist, so why are you dragging him into a fucking debate on the existence of god?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> having had a swift glance at the work in question, i do admit that atoms crop up in it. i don't, however, concede the point, in that fucking marx wasn't in some foul marxian way advancing the fucking frontiers of science, but wanking about with fucking antient greek philosophy, which is a fucking very fucking different thing.
> 
> so fucking atoms get discussed! fucking huzza!
> 
> ...




fuck me


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> That the Greeks called small building blocks that they didn't understand atoms or they had any meaningful theories about them?
> 
> Which is it your holyness?



The latter.  No-one would deny that Democritus and Epicurus had "meaningful" theories about atoms.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually, you've lost me here.  I don't think value is an idea, I'm claiming that it is a spirit, or I will be once we've come to some agreement about what that term means.


I thought you were trying to show that we sould concieve of it as an idea, but this is inadequate, so we have to expand our notion to that of a spirit. If not, I see nothing wrong with seeing it as a unobserbvable theoretical term, reducible to physical laws just like entites in scientific theories. I see no reason that it would be a spirit other than a slightly quaint distrust.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The latter.  No-one would deny that Democritus and Epicurus had "meaningful" theories about atoms.


and marx?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> and marx?




I'll give it 3 out of 10!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> having had a swift glance at the work in question, i do admit that atoms crop up in it. i don't, however, concede the point, in that fucking marx wasn't in some foul marxian way advancing the fucking frontiers of science, but wanking about with fucking antient greek philosophy, which is a fucking very fucking different thing.
> 
> so fucking atoms get discussed! fucking huzza!
> 
> there is no way in atheism's green earth that fucking marx or his filthy collaborator, the bourgeois engels, ever fucking wrote about fucking real fucking atomick theory as we know and love it today. to pretend that in some bizarre arsy way marx was at the fucking cutting edge of fucking science is a total wanking lie, and to suggest that his work is on atomick theory which is relevant to science today is dishonest, ignorant and deceitful.



Don't be silly Pickman's.  First you come on here and say that Marx's doctoral dissertation is not about atomic theory.  Now you admit that it is but, despite being so ignorant of it that you didn't even know what it was *about* ten minutes ago, you say that it isn't about "real" atomic theory.  Can you even concede that, since you haven't read it, you are at something of a disadvantage here?  This is no way to argue you know.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I thought you were trying to show that we sould concieve of it as an idea, but this is inadequate, so we have to expand our notion to that of a spirit.



Well, it shares certain qualities in common with ideas, but I don't think we should conceive of it as such.  Earlier I listed four ways in which financial value differs from any other idea, and suggested that these differences are significant enough that it cannot be considered an idea.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This is no way to argue you know.




when i did my chemistry gcse and my chemistry a level, i suspect i'd have fucking sat up & taken note if fucking marx had been held up as a fucking authority on fucking atomick theory. as it is, yr fucking wrong above when yr arsing about saying about how no one can tell there are fucking electrons and other sub-atomick particles, when people have fucking proven there fucking are, including ernest rutherford, about 100 years ago. 

and if i wanted fucking lessons in arguing, i certainly wouldn't take them from someone who has been weigh'd in the fucking scales of debate and found exceptionally fucking wanting! 

you've been given every fucking opportunity to produce some evidence of the fucking existence of god, and i feel we've been fucking sold fucking short!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> when i did my chemistry gcse and my chemistry a level, i suspect i'd have fucking sat up & taken note if fucking marx had been held up as a fucking authority on fucking atomick theory. as it is, yr fucking wrong above when yr arsing about saying about how no one can tell there are fucking electrons and other sub-atomick particles, when people have fucking proven there fucking are, including ernest rutherford, about 100 years ago.



I suspect I may be wasting my time here, but I am not saying that electrons do not exist, I am saying they are ideas rather than things, being perceptible to the reason and not to the senses.  Also the fact that Marx was not on your A-level chemistry syllabus indicates the ideological bias of the syllabus: specifically its slavish adherence to the artificial division between "science" and philosophy.  Finally, it really *isn't* a good idea to emphatically declare what a book is or is not about when you haven't ever so much as glanced at it.  Its just not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2005)

you'd love lysenko!


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, it shares certain qualities in common with ideas, but I don't think we should conceive of it as such.  Earlier I listed four ways in which financial value differs from any other idea, and suggested that these differences are significant enough that it cannot be considered an idea.


If it does exist independently of the human mind (point 1) I see no reason no to accept that it is an idea. But couldn't we just concieve of it as a process, or an entity, just like evolution, and reducible to physical laws.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you'd love lysenko!



I despise Lysenko.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> If it does exist independently of the human mind (point 1) I see no reason no to accept that it is an idea. But couldn't we just concieve of it as a process, or an entity, just like evolution, and reducible to physical laws.



OK, we agree that its not an idea.  I suppose you could call it a process or an entity if you wanted, but I don't see how it can be reduced to physical laws, since it has no physical existence.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> OK, we agree that its not an idea.  I suppose you could call it a process or an entity if you wanted, but I don't see how it can be reduced to physical laws, since it has no physical existence.


But, what about all that money, people, labor, commodities. Are they not physical? Its possible to think that its reducible to physical laws/entities.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> But, what about all that money, people, labor, commodities. Are they not physical? Its possible to think that its reducible to physical laws/entities.



Yes, of course the things that you mention are physical.  But financial value is not.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes, of course the things that you mention are physical.  But financial value is not.


I'm saying that aren't these the things that with laws make up financial value, or do you think there is something more to it?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

inks said:
			
		

> You have started with a faulty premise I think.
> 
> Your logic is that no animals engage in exchange therefore this defines human beings as distinct from animals.  Which is fine as far as it goes although you ignored evidence of animals engaging in exchange.  But you then extend this to claim it's *the* defining characteristic without presenting any reason for it being more than *a* characteristic among others.



Actually my claim is that the ability to *conceptualize* is the definitively human characteristic, and that exchange and language are the two media in which this characteristic is manifested.  So far, I've only been dealing with exchange, but I will shortly be explaining how these two media share sufficient characteristics that we can consider them as essentially the same thing.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I'm saying that aren't these the things that make up financial value, or do you think there is something more to it?



I'm saying its a different thing entirely.  I did explain this much earlier in the thread, if you'll scroll back a few pages.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> but I will shortly be explaining how these two media share sufficient characteristics that we can consider them as essentially the same thing.



Really. * Holds breath *


----------



## zed66 (Sep 17, 2005)

> For another thing, the concept and characterization of "Satan" *does* undergo a dramatic change between 1500 and 1600. Consider for example the difference between his portrayal in Dante's Inferno as an amorphous, immobile, frozen slug at the center of Hell and that of Milton's Paradise Lost, where he has acquired his modern contours as a trident-sporting, tail-lashing horned demon.


I think you'll find the image of a horned demon predates Milton....this is an image of the celtic god Cernunnos discovered in 1891 in Jutland, Denmark. Dated at between 400BCE-100BCE. There are far older older examples of horned deities (eg: Greek-Pan)
There are a large number of examples of Christianity appropriating existing religious symbols in the first centuries CE.(For example the winter solstice was appropriated by Constantine who formalised the date of the 25th of December for Christian worship)









> Most importantly, popular awareness of and interest in Satan explodes with the Reformation. Witness the craze for "Teufelbucher," or "Devil-books" in Lutheran Germany and, of course, the two-century-long European witch hunt. "Satan" moves from being a largely abstract theological concept to being a clear, present and immediate threat to society, with the power to enter into and "possess" the minds of human beings


Sorry, wrong again. Malleus Maleficarum was published in 1486. The 
Papal Bull of Innocent the VIII was issued in 1494. What date do you give for the reformation? The earliest date I would concede is Oct. 31, 1517 when Luther went on his flyposting mission.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm saying its a different thing entirely.  I did explain this much earlier in the thread, if you'll scroll back a few pages.


As I remember, your argument to financial value not being reducible to physical things like money was that it has special properties like growth and being very nasty. Its crazy to think that that means its not reducible.
It can't be that its because its unobservable, because evolution is, and thats not a different thing entirely to the physical things that make it up.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

zed66 said:
			
		

> Sorry, wrong again. Malleus Maleficarum was published in 1486. The Papal Bull of Innocent the VIII was issued in 1494. What date do you give for the reformation? The earliest date I would concede is Oct. 31, 1517 when Luther went on his flyposting mission.



I'm not going to quibble about 30 or 40 years here or there.  My point is that the European witch-craze, which lasted from *circa* 1480 to *circa* 1680 indicates a sudden, widespread panic about Satan's vastly increased power in the world, and that this co-incided with the emergence of financial value as an independent force.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> NO IT DOESN'T!! Stock markets DO NOT make their own choices - it is the combined decision making of 000s of HUMANS working to GOALS set by other humans. Even auto-trading systems obey rules and goals set by humans. Money and finance are extremely sophisticated variants of barter that started the first time someone tried to barter something and the other person said 'Can I have an IOU for that please?'



Although human beings make the decisions, they do so according to the logic, and in the service of the demands, of financial value.  That logic and those demands are not human, and in fact they are antithetical to humanity.  Hmmm, I'm not sure that this "piecemeal" approach is working any more, I think I should probably go back to my one long post per day rule.  Fruitloop, I'm getting to your questions about whether financial value exists next.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 17, 2005)

> I'm not going to quibble about 30 or 40 years here or there. My point is that the European witch-craze, which lasted from *circa* 1480 to *circa* 1680 indicates a sudden, widespread panic about Satan's vastly increased power in the world, and that this co-incided with the emergence of financial value as an independent force.



Apparently you're not going to quibble over several centuries either given your earlier posts...............this one from post 767



> Because "Satan" is the way in which God reveals Himself to us. The concept of "Satan" is immensely complicated, and I'll be explaining it in detail at a later stage of my argument. One of the surprising things about it is how very recent it is, at least in its current form: "Satan" is not really much of a factor in the monotheist religions until the sixteenth century. But we need to understand the history of the concept in order to grasp it, so we'll begin witthe various meanings of the Hebrew word "Satan:" "enemy," "adversary," "accuser" and so on. But this belongs to a later chapter.



An unkinder person would say you're making this up as you go.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

300 arguments for God's existence.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

I like this one:

_ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS
(1) Fuck you.
(2) Therefore, God exists._

This one's not bad either:

_ ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists._


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

_ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists._


----------



## zed66 (Sep 17, 2005)

> I'm not going to quibble about 30 or 40 years here or there. My point is that the European witch-craze, which lasted from *circa* 1480 to *circa* 1680 indicates a sudden, widespread panic about Satan's vastly increased power in the world, and that this co-incided with the emergence of financial value as an independent force.



Ok, you accept that the publication of the Malleus Malifecarum and the Papul Bull of 1494 were the start of the Witch craze.........

except they weren't. They were part of the process that began in 1184 with the Episcopal Inquisition that emerged in response to the Cathar heresey.How about revising that start date back to 1184?


----------



## LostNotFound (Sep 17, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Electrons cannot be observed by our normal senses, they require scientific methods for us to see them.



What do you mean by 'scientific method'? Is human vision a scientific method? is viewing a microscopic particle using a 5000x mag light microscope a scientific method?[/QUOTE]




			
				118118 said:
			
		

> We don't see them in the same way as we do things through a microscope (classed by most as observable), which relies only on normal qualities of vision.



What does 'normal qualities of vision' mean? Electron and light micrscopes work under exactly the same principle, one uses electron beams for probings the other uses light waves for probng.




			
				118118 said:
			
		

> So we need scientific instruments to observe them, and they do not solely work by the laws of normal vision. Having failed two years of the philosophy of science, I can DEFINETELY state that atoms and electrons are classed as unobservables, the real argument being whether or not they actually exist: realism vs. antirealism.



Sorry mate, your misunderstanding of the real vs theoretical debate is only too clear by this stage. Also, claiming you've got authoritative knowledge in the field does not advange your argument..


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

zed66 said:
			
		

> Ok, you accept that the publication of the Malleus Malifecarum and the Papul Bull of 1494 were the start of the Witch craze.........
> 
> except they weren't. They were part of the process that began in 1184 with the Episcopal Inquisition that emerged in response to the Cathar heresey.How about revising that start date back to 1184?



No, you are wrong.  The Malleus is directed specifically against witches.  The Cathars were not witches.  The European witch-hunt did not really get going until the mid-sxteenth century, the first English statute against witchcraft was not passed until 1542, the first anti-witch publication in English dates from 1579, and the vast majority of the 50,000 executions for withcraft took place between 1580 and 1680.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

Meta-Proof

(1) This is a proof of God's existence.
(2) If the reader finishes reading this proof, the existence of God will be proven to him/her.
(3) If the existence of God is proven, then God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Actually Loki, I hate to spoil your fun, but Kyser Soze already posted all this about 25 pages ago.  Do try to keep up.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

ARGUMENT FROM IDIOCY

(1) I am an idiot.
(2) Even an idiot can see that God exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually Loki, I hate to spoil your fun, but Kyser Soze already posted all this about 25 pages ago.  Do try to keep up.


Oh, so sorry if I haven't read every one of the 900+ fecking posts. Perhaps you might like to get round to your proof before we expire?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Oh, so sorry if I haven't read every one of the 900+ fecking posts. Perhaps you might like round to your proof before we expire?



Well, you know, you keep saying this, but what do you suggest I do?  Its pretty complicated, and even without taking any questions or answering any objections or slapping down any hecklers it would take me about 20 or 30 long posts to make.  And I do want to do all of these things, because I'm interested to see what objections people will make, and which parts of the argument they will find most difficult to follow.  And mostly because I am sure that I can convince *anyone* who is rational and who follows my argument.  I do think we've almost exhausted all the reasonable objections to the idea that value is a spirit, however, or at least we will have once I've addressed Fruitloop's latest point.  Then we can get onto showing that this spirit is Satan.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, you know, you keep saying this, but what do you suggest I do?



Here's an easy suggestion. Post it up. If it's huge, stick it up on a website.

Just an idea, like.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Here's an easy suggestion. Post it up. If it's huge, stick it up on a website.
> 
> Just an idea, like.



Defeats the porpoise.  I've already published most of it in various other forms anyway, but I'm re-working it into a longer work, and I really do want to see which bits people find difficult to follow so that I can make them clearer.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

(1) "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Ben Franklin
(2) Beer exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've already published most of it in various other forms anyway



Where then? You've been waffling and stumbling for 900+ posts already. If I had such dynamite news I'd have it published yonks ago.

Come on, let's see the evidence.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, you are wrong.  The Malleus is directed specifically against witches.  The Cathars were not witches.  The European witch-hunt did not really get going until the mid-sxteenth century, the first English statute against witchcraft was not passed until 1542, the first anti-witch publication in English dates from 1579, and the vast majority of the 50,000 executions for withcraft took place between 1580 and 1680.



Have you read the Malleus Malifecarum? I absolutely agree that is directed against witches. The Cathars were not witches.

The Cathars were Gnostics.They believed that through ascetic living they could achieve rebirth.They refused to accept the  doctrine of the Holy Trinity, they believed that Jesus did exist but only in incorpereal form, and that the creator of the world was the Devil, who was also the God of the old testament.

So no not witches.

The process which led to the persecution of witches is not discrete from the process that led the persecution (and ulimate genocide) of the Cathars for heresy. It can be directly dated to 1184.


----------



## Loki (Sep 17, 2005)

ARGUMENT FROM POOR TYPING SKILLS
(1) In tihs essae ill demnstrate that gOd exsits in a way tat's so sure thatno athesit can PSOosibly reftue. J will firts dwmonsrtate waht we canaSSUme fo rGod exisnce,,then how wwe can refute anya rgument wihch pretends teh contrrary to eb true,tehn wel'l expose scinetific evidnece thatGod eeexists then we'll cnolcude. yOU will fnid an acurate&up6to6date bibliography no teh page 43 of tihs essay;i Sugegst yu to pritn iths doculent for a mroe confortable raeding.
(2) [Atheist doesn't bother to read it.]
(3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

zed66 said:
			
		

> Have you read the Malleus Malifecarum? I absolutely agree that is directed against witches. The Cathars were not witches.
> 
> The Cathars were Gnostics.They believed that through ascetic living they could achieve rebirth.They refused to accept the  doctrine of the Holy Trinity, they believed that Jesus did exist but only in incorpereal form, and that the creator of the world was the Devil, who was also the God of the old testament.
> 
> ...



Of course I've read the MM.  Its not a very typical work, actually, but it is certainly the first systematic witch-hunting manual.  Although there is a certain overlap between the categories of "heretic" and "witch," the witch-hunts are utterly distinct in character from the Inquisition's investigations of heresy.  There's the concept of *maleficia* itself for a start, which is not something that heretics were accused of.  And then, more significant for my argument, there's the idea of the pact with Satan, which is also not part of the anti-heresy campaign.  It is foolish to equate the two.


----------



## cyberfairy (Sep 17, 2005)

*My friend's just like God.*

Growing up near the philosophies of Christianity and Catholisism, I've recently thought it strange how they, and many others who claim to believe that God created the universe and everything in it, are so quick to assume a human personality for God.  Humans are, by no description, the only thing in the universe.  by faina, on cyberfairys pooter


----------



## zed66 (Sep 17, 2005)

Genuinely confused now.

First this.........


> Because "Satan" is the way in which God reveals Himself to us. The concept of "Satan" is immensely complicated, and I'll be explaining it in detail at a later stage of my argument. One of the surprising things about it is how very recent it is, at least in its current form: "Satan" is not really much of a factor in the monotheist religions until the sixteenth century



Then this..........


> I'm not going to quibble about 30 or 40 years here or there. My point is that the European witch-craze, which lasted from *circa* 1480 to *circa* 1680 indicates a sudden, widespread panic about Satan's vastly increased power in the world, and that this co-incided with the emergence of financial value as an independent force.



Then this


> The European witch-hunt did not really get going until the mid-sxteenth century, the first English statute against witchcraft was not passed until 1542, the first anti-witch publication in English dates from 1579, and the vast majority of the 50,000 executions for withcraft took place between 1580 and 1680.



In earlier posts you seem to agree that the word Satan in the Old Testament is used as a noun from the direct Hebrew translation, adversary etc. How do you explain the change in its use in the intertestamental period (397BCE-70CE).

I think the concept of Satan as understood in the modern sense is directly attributable to Zoroastrianism and Jewish exposure to this culture during the Babylonian exile. What's your theory, that it only appeared in the year 1600CE?

If the Jewish concept of God predates the concept of Satan in the modern sense by approximately 900 years, then any prove involving Satan is not relevant to a proof concerning God.

PS:What about the Cathars Phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2005)

cyberfairy said:
			
		

> Growing up near the philosophies of Christianity and Catholisism, I've recently thought it strange how they, and many others who claim to believe that God created the universe and everything in it, are so quick to assume a human personality for God.  Humans are, by no description, the only thing in the universe.  by faina, on cyberfairys pooter



The anthropomorphic conception of God is indeed misleading.  The ideas that "He" is a "Lord" or a "Father" are, of course, merely metaphors.  It is best to get beyond them, but that is difficult to do in layman's terms.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 18, 2005)

Atoms and electrons surely are classed as unobservables, see this rubbish link
http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/observable.cfm




			
				LostNotFound said:
			
		

> What do you mean by 'scientific method'? Is human vision a scientific method? is viewing a microscopic particle using a 5000x mag light microscope a scientific method?



Not really, and yes.




			
				LostNotFound said:
			
		

> What does 'normal qualities of vision' mean? Electron and light micrscopes work under exactly the same principle, one uses electron beams for probings the other uses light waves for probng..



Some conclude that we do not see through a light microscope (e.g. Van Frassen), as we could not see them with the naked eye, though most do not.


I would think that saying that light and electron microscopes work on the same principle as a gross simplification. Both work on physical theories, yes.

All light microscopes use different qualities of light (polarization, fluoresence, phase contrast) electron microscopes electrons (e.g. electron diffraction). The difference is there to see.

The image from a microscope is thought to the same as the object (i.e. we see it) if the interactions with the light beam that render the object visible to the eye are identical with those that lead to the formation of an image in a microscope.
This can't be said about electron microscopes.




			
				LostNotFound said:
			
		

> Sorry mate, your misunderstanding of the real vs theoretical debate is only too clear by this stage.



What have I misunderstood?




			
				LostNotFound said:
			
		

> Also, claiming you've got authoritative knowledge in the field does not advange your argument.


*Blushes*

It does if you're lazy.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 18, 2005)

> Of course I've read the MM. Its not a very typical work, actually, but it is certainly the first systematic witch-hunting manual. Although there is a certain overlap between the categories of "heretic" and "witch," the witch-hunts are utterly distinct in character from the Inquisition's investigations of heresy. There's the concept of *maleficia* itself for a start, which is not something that heretics were accused of. And then, more significant for my argument, there's the idea of the pact with Satan, which is also not part of the anti-heresy campaign. It is foolish to equate the two.




The Cathars believed that Satan was the creator of the world. In the 12th century.Another example of the objectification of Satan predating capitalism.


----------



## Loki (Sep 18, 2005)

cyberfairy said:
			
		

> Growing up near the philosophies of Christianity and Catholisism, I've recently thought it strange how they, and many others who claim to believe that God created the universe and everything in it, are so quick to assume a human personality for God.  Humans are, by no description, the only thing in the universe.  by faina, on cyberfairys pooter



I wish I was a god. Maybe then I could make a better meal than this for my friends.

Delicate parmesan budino enhanced by spinach and zucchini sauce with asparagus filled tortelloni in its own juice, bluefin tuna  hirame kona kampachi half ounce royal sterling osetra caviar with marbre of fennel, tomatoes, and artichokes with herb salad followed by Kurobuta pork tenderloin and belly with savoy cabbage fondue and whole grain mustard and a dessert of  tangy lemon tartlets served with vanilla ice cream.

They were most thankful, but I could tell they were dissapointed


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

zed66 said:
			
		

> The Cathars believed that Satan was the creator of the world. In the 12th century.Another example of the objectification of Satan predating capitalism.



The belief that Satan created the world goes back to Mani, circa 3rd century AD.  Its a very different idea from the Christian conception of Satan as a manifestation of God, and the two understandings of him can't really be compared.  Once again, I'm not suggesting that Satan didn't exist before the C16th, just that he acquired a much greater power and urgency in both popular and official discourses at that time.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The belief that Satan created the world goes back to Mani, circa 3rd century AD.  Its a very different idea from the Christian conception of Satan as a manifestation of God, and the two understandings of him can't really be compared.  Once again, I'm not suggesting that Satan didn't exist before the C16th, just that he acquired a much greater power and urgency in both popular and official discourses at that time.



Apologies, I obviously misread all your previous posts on the matter because you have already stated that you believe the concept of "Satan" is very recent, at least in its current form..............



> Because "Satan" is the way in which God reveals Himself to us. The concept of "Satan" is immensely complicated, and I'll be explaining it in detail at a later stage of my argument. One of the surprising things about it is how very recent it is, at least in its current form: "Satan" is not really much of a factor in the monotheist religions until the sixteenth century



I'll exit stage left now and wait to see your detailed explanation of this immensely complicated concept.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

zed66 said:
			
		

> Apologies, I obviously misread all your previous posts on the matter because you have already stated that you believe the concept of "Satan" is very recent, at least in its current form..............



That's right, it is very recent, at least in its current form.  That form, as I've said, is a result of the much greater power and urgency it acquired in the sixteenth century.  I don't see why you're confused, but I hope that you will be enlightened shortly.


----------



## Loki (Sep 18, 2005)

Satan is actually the being, entity or god I worship.

As I understand it, satan is an angel, demon, or minor god in many religions. Satan plays various roles in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocrypha and the New Testament. In the Hebrew Bible, Satan is an angel that God uses to test man for various reasons usually dealing with his level of piety (i.e. the test in the Book of Job). In the Apocrypha and New Testament, Satan is portrayed as an evil, rebellious demon who is the enemy of God and mankind. These two ideals are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

In modern Abrahamic religions and other various mythology, Satan is generally viewed as a supernatural entity who is the central embodiment of evil. Satan is also commonly known as the Devil (Latin diabolus, diaboli), the "Prince of Darkness," Beelzebub, Belial, Mephistopheles, or Lucifer. In the Talmud and some works of Kabbalah Satan is sometimes called Samael; however most Jewish literature is of the opinion that Samael is a separate angel. In the fields of angelology and demonology these different names sometimes refer to a number of different angels and demons, and there is significant disagreement as to whether any of these entities is actually evil.

In Islam, the role of the primary demon who seduces Adam and Eve is laid upon Iblis, on whose origin the Quran does not elaborate. By refusing to prostrate himself before Adam as Allah commanded him to do, he was cast from the grace of Allah and was sent to earth along with Adam and Eve where he vowed to lure as much as possible of their offspring into sin and hence make them worthy of accompanying him in God's hell where he was destined after dooms days, in order to prove that Man was not better than he was.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Satan is actually the being, entity or god I worship.
> 
> As I understand it, satan is an angel, demon, or minor god in many religions. Satan plays various roles in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocrypha and the New Testament. In the Hebrew Bible, Satan is an angel that God uses to test man for various reasons usually dealing with his level of piety (i.e. the test in the Book of Job). In the Apocrypha and New Testament, Satan is portrayed as an evil, rebellious demon who is the enemy of God and mankind. These two ideals are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
> 
> ...



Heh, that's a good start anyway.  As I said, it is an immensely complicated subject, but also one that I've spent several years studying and writing about.  The most important misconception, which we must overcome if my proof of God's existence is to hold, is that Satan is the "enemy of God" as you say here.  He is not: he is a *part* of God.  He is, however, the enemy, or more accurately the negation, the dialectical opposite, of human life.  I suppose it might be fun just to skip the rest of the stage of my argument that proves financial value is a spirit, and just move straight onto the idea that it is Satan.  We'll probably lose a few stragglers, but at least we'd be making progress.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 18, 2005)

> That's right, it is very recent, at least in its current form. That form, as I've said, is a result of the much greater power and urgency it acquired in the sixteenth century. I don't see why you're confused, but I hope that you will be enlightened shortly.



The wisdom, the patience, the willingness to enlighten. It reminds me of somebody, I just can't remember....


----------



## zed66 (Sep 18, 2005)

> As I said, it is an immensely complicated subject, but also one that I've spent several years studying and writing about.



Any doubts that Phil is taking the piss have now evaporated.


----------



## bugsy7 (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, you know, you keep saying this, but what do you suggest I do?  Its pretty complicated, and even without taking any questions or answering any objections or slapping down any hecklers it would take me about 20 or 30 long posts to make.  And I do want to do all of these things, because I'm interested to see what objections people will make, and which parts of the argument they will find most difficult to follow.  And mostly because I am sure that I can convince *anyone* who is rational and who follows my argument.  I do think we've almost exhausted all the reasonable objections to the idea that value is a spirit, however, or at least we will have once I've addressed Fruitloop's latest point.  Then we can get onto showing that this spirit is Satan.


It's not complicated at all,Phil. All you have to do is state your take on the matter and leave everybody to make up their own mind. But you're so cuntstruck with your own ostensible intellect that you appear not even to notice that nobody here takes you seriously any more. 
Let's face it, you're not stating anything new. It's all been done before, some 200 years ago, so why don't you just get on with making a complete cunt of yourself. Then I'll post up a translation of your position by two Krauts from two centuries ago.

MsG


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

bugsy7 said:
			
		

> It's not complicated at all,Phil. All you have to do is state your take on the matter and leave everybody to make up their own mind. But you're so cuntstruck with your own ostensible intellect that you appear not even to notice that nobody here takes you seriously any more.
> Let's face it, you're not stating anything new. It's all been done before, some 200 years ago, so why don't you just get on with making a complete cunt of yourself. Then I'll post up a translation of your position by two Krauts from two centuries ago.



What are you on about you stupid loony?  You've been making hints about this 200-year-old pair of "Krauts" for weeks now, and no-one can understand what you're talking about.  I suggest that you now put up or shut up.  We can't stand the suspense any more--what's your secret?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> First, we need to agree that the exchange of a cow for a lamb involves the invention of a third factor: the concept of *value.*  The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb.  Is everyone with me so far?
> Feel free to ask questions or to raise any objections at this stage, because we will not be retracing our steps as the argument progresses.


So, can I exchange the pig for a stud?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 18, 2005)

> in truth, God is "beyond good and evil."



Prove god exists first, then we can ask whether 'he' is beyond anything. If the sun doesn't explode first that is.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 18, 2005)

Of course phil's argument all depends on whether one believes in God. I do not, therefore there is no point to this 'discussion'. God is an imaginary construct. It matters not whether God is the product of the human imagination. But the words "rational" and "proof" are not congruent with the notion of "God" in my view.

The point to this thread is that there is no point. The point, if it exists at all, is in the head of phildwyer and nowhere else. It's a put up job - as they say. It's flim flam, smoke and mirrors. And aye, it is mental masturbation dressed up as serious intellectual discussion...except there is no discussion: it's what phil says and nothing else. This thread is an extension of his already massive ego. Therefore any chance of a "rational" discussion with phil is never likely to happen.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 18, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Where then? You've been waffling and stumbling for 900+ posts already. If I had such dynamite news I'd have it published yonks ago.
> 
> Come on, let's see the evidence.


I already challenged him to give us these references, for some reason he didn't reply to my post.


----------



## slaar (Sep 18, 2005)

This thread is proof only of the power of an ivory tower existence to divorce oneself completely from the real world. phil you have an awesome ability to manage to twist ideas of complex processes (like value theory) into theories of spirit and supernatural beings, but I suspect you are convincing only yourself.


----------



## cyberfairy (Sep 18, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> I wish I was a god. Maybe then I could make a better meal than this for my friends.
> 
> Delicate parmesan budino enhanced by spinach and zucchini sauce with asparagus filled tortelloni in its own juice, bluefin tuna  hirame kona kampachi half ounce royal sterling osetra caviar with marbre of fennel, tomatoes, and artichokes with herb salad followed by Kurobuta pork tenderloin and belly with savoy cabbage fondue and whole grain mustard and a dessert of  tangy lemon tartlets served with vanilla ice cream.
> 
> They were most thankful, but I could tell they were dissapointed


Make me that meal and I will worship you for ever


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Of course phil's argument all depends on whether one believes in God. I do not, therefore there is no point to this 'discussion'. God is an imaginary construct. It matters not whether God is the product of the human imagination. But the words "rational" and "proof" are not congruent with the notion of "God" in my view.



The thing is though, Nino, if you're right it would follow that basically *all* human beings who have lived anywhere other than in the West and at any other time than during the last 200 years would have based their lives around an irrational belief.  That can't be right, surely?  You must admit that there *are* rational reasons for believing in God--you don't have to accept them, and you can certainly try to refute them rationally, but you'd have to have a pretty low opinion of earlier historical eras to claim that they don't exist.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> This thread is proof only of the power of an ivory tower existence to divorce oneself completely from the real world. phil you have an awesome ability to manage to twist ideas of complex processes (like value theory) into theories of spirit and supernatural beings, but I suspect you are convincing only yourself.



Show me where I'm wrong then.  TBH, it doesn't seem to me like a very difficult, or even surprising argument once we've grasped the nature of financial value--which is *obviously* supernatural.  That's the truly weird concept, not God.  Don't you think the concept of financial value is somewhat weird and counter-intuitive, once you step back and take a good, long look at it?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> I already challenged him to give us these references, for some reason he didn't reply to my post.



Please see my PM to you.  I sent one along the same lines to Loki.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

Anyways, I think its probably a good idea to wind this thread up now.  I'm only just coming to the end of the first half of my argument--the proof from exchange--and there's a whole parallel proof from language too, so its likely to go on for an unfeasible length of time.  Thanks to everyone who participated.  This has been really useful for me, I've learned which bits of the argument people find most tricky, and I can tighten them up a bit now.  Sorry if anyone got genuinely upset.  I think that losing your faith in atheism (and that's exactly what it is, since most self-professed atheists haven't reasoned their way to their position) is far more disturbing than losing your faith in God.  But, in the long run, it does no harm to have one's fundamental assumptions challenged from time to time.

I tell you what I'll do to close.  I'll just recap the four or five essential points I've tried to establish one by one, just to see if anyone still doubts them, and I'll check back periodically for any final objections you may have.  First of all, then, does anyone still doubt the existence of *financial value?*  In particular, does everyone understand the difference between financial value and the other things--money, price, exchange-value etc--that some people were confusing with it earlier in the thread?


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The thing is though, Nino, if you're right it would follow that basically *all* human beings who have lived anywhere other than in the West and at any other time than during the last 200 years would have based their lives around an irrational belief.  That can't be right, surely?  You must admit that there *are* rational reasons for believing in God--you don't have to accept them, and you can certainly try to refute them rationally, but you'd have to have a pretty low opinion of earlier historical eras to claim that they don't exist.


So you are saying that because earlier societies had *reasons* for having a concept which they labelled "god", then "god" must exist as they described it/him?  

_"God is an imaginary construct."_

Presumably the opposite of an imaginary construct is something that can be seen, measured, observed etc?

I thought you were trying to argue that electrons and atoms are imaginary constructs? 

In fact isn't everything an 'imaginary construct' in that we have a model of 'reality' in our mind - its just that some constructs have more evidence, are more coherent, rational and consistent with a viable model of 'reality'. Where "god" fits into this all depends on what you define it as. If you define it as someone who sits on a cloud, throwing lightening bolts then it isn't a ver6y viable idea. If it is an 'ultimate force' that sits so far behind everything that you can never see it, then it may be viable but doesn't contradict any kind or science, and also raises thei issue of how we know anything about it.

You seem to be making your way towards a definition of "god" that you haven't yet set out. I think that when you eventually get there people are going to say "But that isn't 'god', in the christian sense - that is just another name for idea 'X'" - where X is something to do with value, meaning, human flourishing or some such concept.

In other words, by not actually saying *which* version of "god" (and there are many) you are trying to prove "exists" (and also by avoiding talking about what sense you are saying it "exists") you are arguing at cross purposes with many other people here who are assuming that you are talking about the conventional christian "god", and using the term 'exists' to refer to something having an equivalent epistemological status as either everyday items or ideas within well established scientific theories.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...once we've grasped the nature of financial value--which is *obviously* supernatural...


What do you mean by "supernatural"? Do you just mean "doesn't usually exist in nature" - in which cases motor cars are "supernatural" as well? In fact anything man-made.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Presumably the opposite of an imaginary construct is something that can be seen, measured, observed etc?
> 
> I thought you were trying to argue that electrons and atoms are imaginary constructs?



I was arguing that they are *rational* constructs, which is very different from saying they're "imaginary."  The opposite of an imaginary construct isn't something that's empirical--its perfectly possible to imagine something and to experience it with the senses at the same time, for the senses can deceive us.  The opposite of "imaginary" is "rational," in the sense that I'm using the terms here.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> In other words, by not actually saying *which* version of "god" (and there are many) you are trying to prove "exists" (and also by avoiding talking about what sense you are saying it "exists") you are arguing at cross purposes with many other people here who are assuming that you are talking about the conventional christian "god", and using the term 'exists' to refer to something having an equivalent epistemological status as either everyday items or ideas within well established scientific theories.



Yes, that's true.  I think that the main stumbling-block here is terminological, because lots of peole have instinctive, visceral reactions against words like "God" or "spirit," and it takes a while to get beyond that.  Personally, though, I think the cost of translating these terms into overtly secular language is quite high.  I'm certainly not arguing for the Christian conception of God: I don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Incarnation of Jehovah, for one thing, which pretty much rules me out of the Christian community.  Also, as you say, I'm not claiming that God has the same epistemological status as the objects of science.  And of course, in the context of a public bulletin board, many people are going to assume that I mean that God is an old man with a white beard and so forth.  That assumption is instructive in itself though, at least for me.  I'm not joking, or being condescending, when I say that I've learned an awful lot from this thread.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

Surely the opposite of 'rational' is 'irrational' and the opposite of 'imaginary' is 'empirical'?

Ideas can be:

rational empirical - eg using a ruler to measure length. 

irrational empirical - eg thinking your foot has disappeared when you have pins and needles.

rational imaginary - eg what many scientists do when thinking up new yet unproven theories

irrational imaginary - eg believing in concepts that are inconsistent with large chunks of what you already believe about 'reality', delusions


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What do you mean by "supernatural"? Do you just mean "doesn't usually exist in nature" - in which cases motor cars are "supernatural" as well? In fact anything man-made.



I mean "metaphysical."  That is, something that exists, but not in any physical or material form.  An idea is "supernatural" in this sense, for example.  I'm arguing that we should distinguish between "ideas" and "spirits," and trying to use financial value as an example of this distinction.  As I've discovered, however, the transition between "idea" and "spirit" is the part of my argument that needs most work.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes, that's true.  I think that the main stumbling-block here is terminological, because lots of peole have instinctive, visceral reactions against words like "God" or "spirit," and it takes a while to get beyond that.  Personally, though, I think the cost of translating these terms into overtly secular language is quite high.  I'm certainly not arguing for the Christian conception of God: I don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Incarnation of Jehovah, for one thing, which pretty much rules me out of the Christian community.  Also, as you say, I'm not claiming that God has the same epistemological status as the objects of science.  And of course, in the context of a public bulletin board, many people are going to assume that I mean that God is an old man with a white beard and so forth.  That assumption is instructive in itself though, at least for me.  I'm not joking, or being condescending, when I say that I've learned an awful lot from this thread.


So why do you bother to use the term 'god' in the first place? Why give it a capital letter in the thread title?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Surely the opposite of 'rational' is 'irrational' and the opposite of 'imaginary' is 'empirical'?



Yes and no, respectively.  It is possible to imagine something empirical, as in a hallucination.  No-one can actually *know* that they're not just imagining everything they experience.  More importantly, though, the empirical world keeps *changing,* and the "truths" of empirical science change very rapidly and very dramatically.  This suggests to me that they are not "real."  I'd argue, however, that the truths of reason do not change, and that these *are* therefore "real."


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I mean "metaphysical."  That is, something that exists, but not in any physical or material form.  An idea is "supernatural" in this sense, for example.  I'm arguing that we should distinguish between "ideas" and "spirits," and trying to use financial value as an example of this distinction.  As I've discovered, however, the transition between "idea" and "spirit" is the part of my argument that needs most work.


Again, why use the term 'supernatural' (a term linked to religious, magical, or otherwise mysterious explanations) instead of 'metaphysical' (a term linked to ontology, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science)?

You are making vast jumps when you simply state that _"something that exists, but not in any physical or material form"_ - these are all contested terms which you make no attempt to discuss. This wouldn't usually matter but since you are discussing 'god' then it does. Of course the idea of 'god' exists - many people have the idea in their heads. What you seem to be arguing is that there is some external reality in which 'god' exists as well. In which case you simply can't gloss over discussion of what external reality is, or confuse the whole debate by using terms like 'metaphyisical' and 'supernatural' interchangably.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 18, 2005)

> You must admit that there *are* rational reasons for believing in God



THere are logical reasons to believe in god, but rooted in emotion, fear for example. There are no rational reasons, as in supported by evidence that can be challenged.

Now is there a god, as in a being external to us, and creator of the universe? We all know the idea of god is popular and long lasting. That's just mythology and archetype, and clearly not what we are talking about.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> So why do you bother to use the term 'god' in the first place? Why give it a capital letter in the thread title?



For three reasons.  First, although inexact, it actually is the closest approximation to what I mean.  Second, the alternative is to use technical terms from philosophy, which most people won't be familiar with, and I am trying to make a case that can be understood in layman's terms.  If it helps though, the Greek word "logos," which is the term used for the "Word" of God in the New Testament, as at John 1:1, would be the best philosophical expression available.  Third, the way people react to the use of the term "God" is highly instructive, and will help me avoid certain pitfalls in the future.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes and no, respectively.  It is possible to imagine something empirical, as in a hallucination.  No-one can actually *know* that they're not just imagining everything they experience.  More importantly, though, the empirical world keeps *changing,* and the "truths" of empirical science change very rapidly and very dramatically.  This suggests to me that they are not "real."  I'd argue, however, that the truths of reason do not change, and that these *are* therefore "real."


'Empirical' isn't something that 'is' - it is something you 'do'. Hallucinating about things isn't a form of empirical observation. There is no 'empirical world' in this sense, separate from how people are interacting with it.

By the way you aren't a specialist in either science or philosphy are you (apparently I am not allowed to say what the subject is that you are am specialist in)? Have you ever studied the subjects even? I think you should stick to going on about Martin Luther, medieval witchcraft and postmodernist literature, becuase as soon as you start talking about philosophy or science you arguments become extremely flakey and you use of terminology becomes, shall we say, 'idiosyncratic'.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> For three reasons.  First, although inexact, it actually is the closest approximation to what I mean.  Second, the alternative is to use technical terms from philosophy, which most people won't be familiar with, and I am trying to make a case that can be understood in layman's terms.  If it helps though, the Greek word "logos," which is the term used for the "Word" of God in the New Testament, as at John 1:1, would be the best philosophical expression available.  Third, the way people react to the use of the term "God" is highly instructive, and will help me avoid certain pitfalls in the future.


You know, it took me all of a few seconds to find this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logos

Logos n.

1. Philosophy.
..........1. In pre-Socratic philosophy, the principle governing the cosmos, the source of this principle, or human reasoning about the cosmos.
..........2. Among the Sophists, the topics of rational argument or the arguments themselves.
..........3. In Stoicism, the active, material, rational principle of the cosmos; nous. Identified with God, it is the source of all activity and generation and is the power of reason
..............residing in the human soul.

2. Judaism.
..........1. In biblical Judaism, the word of God, which itself has creative power and is God's medium of communication with the human race.
..........2. In Hellenistic Judaism, a hypostasis associated with divine wisdom.

3. Christianity. 
..........In Saint John's Gospel, especially in the prologue (1:1-14), the creative word of God, which is itself God and incarnate in Jesus. Also called Word.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Again, why use the term 'supernatural' (a term linked to religious, magical, or otherwise mysterious explanations) instead of 'metaphysical' (a term linked to ontology, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science)?
> 
> You are making vast jumps when you simply state that _"something that exists, but not in any physical or material form"_ - these are all contested terms which you make no attempt to discuss. This wouldn't usually matter but since you are discussing 'god' then it does. Of course the idea of 'god' exists - many people have the idea in their heads. What you seem to be arguing is that there is some external reality in which 'god' exists as well. In which case you simply can't gloss over discussion of what external reality is, or confuse the whole debate by using terms like 'metaphyisical' and 'supernatural' interchangably.



I'm not sure that I understand the distinction you're making between "supernatural" and "metaphysical," unless it is simply that the former term has more mystical *associations* than the latter?  Or that its a more accessible version of the latter?  Anyway, the two concepts are pretty much equivalent as I'm using them.  Yes, I'm arguing that God exists outside the human mind, and I'm suggesting that He occupies the same dimension of existence as financial value.  I think this is a good way in to the discussion, because most people can be convinced that financial value exists outside the human mind, that it has real effects in the empirical world, and that it is not simply an "idea."  But as I say, I'm not satisfied that I've explained this last bit adequately as yet.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...the alternative is to use technical terms from philosophy, which most people won't be familiar with, and I am trying to make a case that can be understood in layman's terms...


You know there is a reason that they use 'technical terms' in philosophy (not that you are an expert in the subject are you?). It is because only by using precise and unambigious terms are you able to conduct meaningful discusions about these types of subjects. If you insist on using "everyday language" the meanings are so diffuse, diverse and changable that noone can really understand what anyone else is trying to say (in a philosphical context). Everyday terms are useful in everyday contexts - the key word here being 'context'. If I need to point to proof then look no further than this thread. You have had your most sensible discussions when you have been talking about "use value" and other technical terms, with people who have actually studied the subjects.

I can see that maybe you have been using this forum to try out your new lecture notes maybe? Hopefully you will make a contribution to the server fund from your increased salary, if you become a more in-demand academic as a result.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You know, it took me all of a few seconds to find this:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logos
> 
> Logos n.
> ...



OK, we can talk about "logos" instead of "God" if you prefer, although I think it may just introduce an even more complicated set of problems.  I'm trying to use words that everyone understands, and I think "God" is closer to meeting this criterion than "logos."  "God" is also a more inclusive term, it includes the concept of "telos," for instance, which is also important for my understanding of divinity.  But its a rather blunt instrument, I admit.  Greek is a far more subtle language than English, and enables many more useful distinctions to be made.  But if we start talking in Greek, a lot of people will lose interest quite quickly.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> OK, we can talk about "logos" instead of "God" if you prefer


For start you could say which one of the meanings I quoted you 'agree' with/are using? 

Re. "Telos": again, it took me mere seconds to get this from wikipedia:



> A telos (from the greek word for "end", "purpose" or "goal") is an end or purpose, in a fairly constrained sense used by philosophers such as Aristotle. It is the root of the term "teleology," roughly the study of purposiveness, or the study of objects with a view to their aims, purposes, or intentions. Teleology figures centrally in Aristotle's biology and in his theory of causes. It is central to nearly all philosophical theories of history, such as those of Hegel and Marx. One running debate in contemporary philosophy of biology is to what extent teleological language (as in, the "purposes" of various organs or life-processes) is unavoidable, or is simply a short-hand for ideas that can ultimately be spelled out non-teleologically. Philosophy of action also makes essential use of teleological vocabulary: on Davidson's account, an action just is something an agent does with an intention--that is, looking forward to some end to be achieved by the action


----------



## Loki (Sep 18, 2005)

Come on phildwyer, we've nearly reached the magic 1,000 posts without you even posting your proof. I'm wishing you on!


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...But its a rather blunt instrument, I admit...


In some situations this might be forgivable, but seeing as your whole argument revolves around prooving that 'god' exists, surely the term has to be more than a 'tool' and it is completely unacceptable to be using a 'blunt tool' at that?

Maybe you could set the record straight: In what sense of 'logos' and 'telos' are you using the term 'God'?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You know there is a reason that they use 'technical terms' in philosophy (not that you are an expert in the subject are you?). It is because only by using precise and unambigious terms are you able to conduct meaningful discusions about these types of subjects. If you insist on using "everyday language" the meanings are so diffuse, diverse and changable that noone can really understand what anyone else is trying to say (in a philosphical context). Everyday terms are useful in everyday contexts - the key word here being 'context'. If I need to point to proof then look no further than this thread. You have had your most sensible discussions when you have been talking about "use value" and other technical terms, with people who have actually studied the subjects.



Of course.  But I think its important to try to use everyday terms sometimes too--there's no need to talk in the technical language of philosophy all the time, and in this forum it would just annoy people.  I don't like the idea that everyone has to master the esoteric specialist vocabulary in order to deal with the concepts, that seems elitist and counter-productive to me.  I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of precision and rigour in order to be able to discuss this stuff with non-specialists, who usually have more interesting things to say than specialists anyway, IME.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Of course.


Was this in response to my saying _"not that you are an expert in the subject are you?"_


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> For start you could say which one of the meanings [of "logos"] I quoted you 'agree' with/are using?



All of them, they're entirely compatible, although their nuances are obviously different.  Since we've now ascended (or descended) to the plane of technical terminology, it might be useful if I say that my usage of "logos" is primarily influenced by Derrida, since a lot of people will be aware of his deployment of the term.  But do we really want to go *there?*


----------



## Loki (Sep 18, 2005)

16 posts to go now...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Maybe you could set the record straight: In what sense of 'logos' and 'telos' are you using the term 'God'?



Again, you're asking me to depart from everyday language and move into technical terminology, which wasn't what I wanted to do on this thread, but anyway...

"Logos:" the source of meaning and the guarantor of value.
"Telos:" the purpose of life and the goal of history.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> All of them, they're entirely compatible, although their nuances are obviously different.  Since we've now ascended (or descended) to the plane of technical terminology, it might be useful if I say that my usage of "logos" is primarily influenced by Derrida, since a lot of people will be aware of his deployment of the term.  But do we really want to go *there?*


Since you are trying to prove the existence of a thing "X", the surely it is massively important that you actually define, in some detail, what that thing "X" is?

It will probably be the case that once you have set out what it is you mean by the termn "God" - when you have explained to people that you are not using the usual christian term and in fact you mean a different philosophically abstract concept that is nearer to: 

'the power of reason residing in the humans and one of the ways we talk about and find value in the universe'

Then you will have a lot of people:

1) agreeing with you that this exists
2) telling you that "God" is a bad way of describing this
3) a bit pissed off that you didn't just say this in your very first post


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Since you are trying to prove the existence of a thing "X", the surely it is massively important that you actually define, in some detail, what that thing "X" is?
> 
> It will probably be the case that once you have set out what it is you mean by the termn "God" - when you have explained to people that you are not using the usual christian term and in fact you mean a different philosophically abstract concept that is nearer to:
> 
> ...



No, I'm not equating God with reason, and the implications of my definition are closer to the usual understanding of religion than to those of rationalism.  For one thing, I'm claiming that financial value is the devil, which you'll admit is not exactly a conventional rationalist position.  As I say, "God" is the term that most nearly approximates to what I mean, and that's why I haven't been making my case in the language of philosophy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The thing is though, Nino, if you're right it would follow that basically *all* human beings who have lived anywhere other than in the West and at any other time than during the last 200 years would have based their lives around an irrational belief.  That can't be right, surely?  You must admit that there *are* rational reasons for believing in God--you don't have to accept them, and you can certainly try to refute them rationally, but you'd have to have a pretty low opinion of earlier historical eras to claim that they don't exist.



No, there are *no* reasons to believe in something that was constructed to keep people in line/fear. Only those blind (or foolish) enough to accept a reified concept as real would accept the "proof" you have avoided providing us with. Besides you don't necessarily make it clear which god you are referring to. Presumably it is the *Xtian* God but it doesn't really matter since you will have a hard time convincing a confirmed non-believer of the existence of something quite imaginary.  But then who says your 'God' is better than any other religion's God?


----------



## Loki (Sep 18, 2005)

For the record I believe in the Norse, Greek, Roman, Hindu and Japanese pantheons, and I have solid gold evidence. But you're all too simple to understand my devastating proof. Maybe after I've waffled on for another 1,000 posts.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> No, there are *no* reasons to believe in something that was constructed to keep people in line/fear. Only those blind (or foolish) enough to accept a reified concept as real would accept the "proof" you have avoided providing us with. Besides you don't necessarily make it clear which god you are referring to. Presumably it is the *Xtian* God but it doesn't really matter since you will have a hard time convincing a confirmed non-believer of the existence of something quite imaginary.  But then who says your 'God' is better than any other religion's God?



1.  Historically, religion has proved a revolutionary force far more often than a conservative one.  Part of the reason I think what I'm doing is important is that we should try to reclaim religion from the right.

2.  I'm not arguing for the Christian God, I'm not a Christian, nor do I subscribe to any dogmatic or organized observance.

3.  The "confirmed non-believers" to whom you allude usually take their position on faith quite as much as confirmed believers.  I don't think anyone should take their position on faith about anything.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 1.  Historically, religion has proved a revolutionary force far more often than a conservative one.  Part of the reason I think what I'm doing is important is that we should try to reclaim religion from the right.
> 
> 2.  I'm not arguing for the Christian God, I'm not a Christian, nor do I subscribe to any dogmatic or organized observance.
> 
> 3.  The "confirmed non-believers" to whom you allude usually take their position on faith quite as much as confirmed believers.  I don't think anyone should take their position on faith about anything.



1. Not true. How does the persecution of religious minorities square with this mode of thinking? Where has the Catholic Church ever done anything truly revolutionary? Never.

2. You don't seem to be making the point for the gods of other religions. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude you are referring to auld Big Beard.

3. You aren't making sense here: a non-believer does not believe in the existence of a God. There is no faith in that: it is a conclusion that has been reached after a degree of argument and reason. Faith does not require any form of reason, it is what it is: blind acceptance.


----------



## undercover (Sep 18, 2005)

I'd never really considered myself a believer in God before, but since reading this thread I have mysteriously started thinking "dear God help me", so I assume I have started to believe, but then again, he hasn't helped me and I am still reading so maybe he doesn't. 

40 pages in and back to where I started, how disappointing.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> 1. Not true. How does the persecution of religious minorities square with this mode of thinking? Where has the Catholic Church ever done anything truly revolutionary? Never.
> 
> 2. You don't seem to be making the point for the gods of other religions. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude you are referring to auld Big Beard.
> 
> 3. You aren't making sense here: a non-believer does not believe in the existence of a God. There is no faith in that: it is a conclusion that has been reached after a degree of argument and reason. Faith does not require any form of reason, it is what it is: blind acceptance.



1.  For its first three centuries, Christianity was a revolutionary force within the Roman empire.  It has been convincingly argued, by Nietzsche among others, that the "transvaluation of values" induced by Christianity brought about the fall of Rome.  More recently and closer to home, religion was the driving force behind the English Revolution of the seventeenth century, which is the prototype of all subsequent revolutions.

2.  I haven't argued for the God of any specific religion at all.  My argument is for monotheism, but other than that it is quite unsectarian.

3.  Most non-believers haven't reachd their position "after a degree of argument and reason."  Like most believers, they've simply *assumed* their position, taken it for granted because it seems obvious, or in other words, taken it on faith.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 18, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> 1. Not true. How does the persecution of religious minorities square with this mode of thinking? Where has the Catholic Church ever done anything truly revolutionary? Never.


Asking for evidence is crass empiricism.  Don't you understand that a failure to instantly appreciate the truth of any of phil's assertions *is* the mark of the beast. 

Satanist.  

8 to go. 

yawn.  

(who is going to start the "what has this thread rationally proved" poll?)


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Asking for evidence is crass empiricism.  Don't you understand that a failure to instantly appreciate the truth of any of phil's assertions *is* the mark of the beast.



Don't know about that, but I can certainly instantly appreciate that the arrival of Gurrier on a thread *is* the best time to finish last night's pizza.  TTFN.


----------



## slaar (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Show me where I'm wrong then.  TBH, it doesn't seem to me like a very difficult, or even surprising argument once we've grasped the nature of financial value--which is *obviously* supernatural.  That's the truly weird concept, not God.  Don't you think the concept of financial value is somewhat weird and counter-intuitive, once you step back and take a good, long look at it?


Value isn't supernatural, it's an abstract and complex property of the relations pertaining to human exchange. The fact that it doesn't have a hard and firm definition, indeed cannot, is not proof for the existence of god, but proof for the existence of things we cannot comprehensively define or understand. If you want to take that as proof of god, fine, but don't expect many to follow.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> Value isn't supernatural, it's an abstract and complex property of the relations pertaining to human exchange. The fact that it doesn't have a hard and firm definition, indeed cannot, is not proof for the existence of god, but proof for the existence of things we cannot comprehensively define or understand. If you want to take that as proof of god, fine, but don't expect many to follow.



But my whole point is that value *does* have "a hard and firm definition."  It is, as I thought I'd shown, human labour-power in alienated form.  This is one of the *four* reasons I've given why, although it is supernatural (or metaphysical if you prefer), value is not merely an "idea."  This is not, of course, sufficient proof of God's existence, but it is an important stage on the road to that proof.  Can I take it that we've now agreed on this stage at least?  Do we agree that value is human labour-power in alienated form?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Most non-believers haven't reachd their position "after a degree of argument and reason."  Like most believers, they've simply *assumed* their position, taken it for granted because it seems obvious, or in other words, taken it on faith.



Well, maybe I'm the exception, but I have thought through the reasons behind my atheism and haven't found them wanting. I've had long conversations with believers and have listened, but have not been converted by their alternative explanations. I'm quite happy and certain thank you!


----------



## inks (Sep 18, 2005)

_"Do we agree that value is human labour-power in alienated form?"_

No.  It doesn't work in practice.

Say, for example, say a toothpick takes ten hours of one person's labour to make.

A person with toothache will place a high value on the toothpick.

A toothpick collector will place a high value on a particularly rare toothpick.

A Beatles fan will place a high value on a toothpick used by John Lennon.

In the examples above the value of a toothpick is not related to the alienated labour-power it represents.

Additionally:

A person with lots of time on their hands will place a low value on the toothpick while an extremely busy person will place a higher value on the toothpick.

In this case the human labour-power itself has a different value to different people.  I don't think that you can define value as the human labour-power represented by an item when the value of human labour-power is subjective.

I think that you've simply shifted the definition of value one step away from the item but haven't actually made any headway towards defining value itself.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It is, as I thought I'd shown, human labour-power in alienated form.  This is one of the *four* reasons I've given why, although it is supernatural (or metaphysical if you prefer), value is not merely an "idea."


I thought that you were saying that financial value was not made of any physical thing, hence supernatural. Isn't human labor a physical process.

The bit where you nearly had me agree it was possible, is when I agreed that use value was made of physical properties, but that financial value could not be reduced in an identical way. But theres no reason I can't think of financial value being made up in some other way.

Besides, not everyone thinks for example that cells can be reduced to just the laws of physics - does this make them supernatural in some way. If so, your going to have to make your argument that fv=devil a bit more convincing, as being supernatural isn't characteristic of it alone.

The fact that fv has a logic (there are laws that apply to it) and is destructive, does in no way imply that its supernatural. This is just emotive nonsence.

Saying that its is a result of our alientated labour does not privilage it in any way. Why would it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 1.  For its first three centuries, Christianity was a revolutionary force within the Roman empire.  It has been convincingly argued, by Nietzsche among others, that the "transvaluation of values" induced by Christianity brought about the fall of Rome.  More recently and closer to home, religion was the driving force behind the English Revolution of the seventeenth century, which is the prototype of all subsequent revolutions.
> 
> 2.  I haven't argued for the God of any specific religion at all.  My argument is for monotheism, but other than that it is quite unsectarian.
> 
> 3.  Most non-believers haven't reachd their position "after a degree of argument and reason."  Like most believers, they've simply *assumed* their position, taken it for granted because it seems obvious, or in other words, taken it on faith.



1. Ah, that's the Roman Empire and even then you are overlooking Constantine's use of Xtianity as an political device. As for the English Revolution, religion played its part but only in the absence of other factors. Xtianity has played little if no role in revolutions at all since then. 

2. You have begun a thread titled "Rational proof of God's existence", my question is: whose god; whose supreme being are we discussing here? But you claim that it isn't about a "God of any specific religion" while drawing solely on examples from Xtianity (though how Marx fits into this is uncertain).

3. Even if non-believers "assume" their position, does that mean they are wrong not to believe in something that clearly cannot be proven? Thus far, you have failed to provide any proof for the existence of God (because I mention the name does not necessarily mean I believe the concept is concrete or that it exists).


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 18, 2005)

Has he done it yet?


----------



## slaar (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But my whole point is that value *does* have "a hard and firm definition."  It is, as I thought I'd shown, human labour-power in alienated form.  This is one of the *four* reasons I've given why, although it is supernatural (or metaphysical if you prefer), value is not merely an "idea."  This is not, of course, sufficient proof of God's existence, but it is an important stage on the road to that proof.  Can I take it that we've now agreed on this stage at least?  Do we agree that value is human labour-power in alienated form?


No. You're wanting us to accept one particular value theory, i.e. Marxist value theory as the only truth; there are plenty of others, neoclassical value theory for example. That's not a proof, it's a supposition.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> 1. Ah, that's the Roman Empire and even then you are overlooking Constantine's use of Xtianity as an political device. As for the English Revolution, religion played its part but only in the absence of other factors. Xtianity has played little if no role in revolutions at all since then.
> 
> 2. You have begun a thread titled "Rational proof of God's existence", my question is: whose god; whose supreme being are we discussing here? But you claim that it isn't about a "God of any specific religion" while drawing solely on examples from Xtianity (though how Marx fits into this is uncertain).
> 
> 3. Even if non-believers "assume" their position, does that mean they are wrong not to believe in something that clearly cannot be proven? Thus far, you have failed to provide any proof for the existence of God (because I mention the name does not necessarily mean I believe the concept is concrete or that it exists).



1.  The Roman state's ruthless repression of early Christianity indicates very clearly that it was recognized as a threat to the social order.  I'm not sure what you mean by the "absence of other factors" in the English revolution--there were many other factors, but they were expressed in religious terms.  And, although you may not agree with its premises, there is no denying that radical Islam is a revolutionary movement today.  The "opium of the people" argument doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny.  

2.  I haven't used *any* "examples from Christianity" that I recall in my proof so far.  In fact, the rigorous monotheism of the God I am describing would be more in accordance with Judaism or Islam than with Christianity.  But in any case, I have no sectarian axe to grind.  Marx's essential concepts, particularly "labour-power," "alienation" and "fetishism" positively scream their relgious heritage from the rooftops.

3.  Atheism is the "default position" of the modern Western bourgeoisie.  A world without God, a materialist world, is the instinctive, automatic assumption that common sense brings to this world.  This in itself should make us suspect it.  I am going to be showing that atheism is the ideology of modern capitalism.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> No. You're wanting us to accept one particular value theory, i.e. Marxist value theory as the only truth; there are plenty of others, neoclassical value theory for example. That's not a proof, it's a supposition.



Earlier in the thread I have shown that neoclassical value theory is wrong, and that the Marxist labour theory of value is correct.  I have also shown that most people misconstrue Marx's LTV because they do not see that his concept of "labour-power" designates human life as such, but wrongly assume that it refers to concrete acts of material production.  This is in fact Adam Smith's LTV, not Marx's.  Marx's advance on Smith is precisely his generalization of the concept of labour into that of labour-power.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

inks said:
			
		

> _"Do we agree that value is human labour-power in alienated form?"_
> 
> No.  It doesn't work in practice.
> 
> ...



This is another example of a confusion between *price* and *value.*  The former is an expression or measurement of the latter.  Value is an abstract concept; the *amount* of value attributed to a particular object will as you say vary according to the cost of production, the laws of supply and demand and so on.  But we are asking here what is the substance, the essence of value *per se.*  I apologize for the repetition, but it is important to grasp this point, and we can do this by meeting the objection each time it is raised.  It is a sensible objection, but it evaporates if we bear in mind what value is.  This is also why it is important to remember that value per se is *not* the same as exchange-value (the cow qua value-of-lamb).  Gurrier continues to flounder, for example, because he refuses to get his head round this distinction.


----------



## Loki (Sep 18, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Has he done it yet?


I recall him saying he's almost halfway there. The excitement is really kicking in now!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> THere are logical reasons to believe in god, but rooted in emotion, fear for example.



Emotions, by definition, are not logical.  This sounds like a version of the simplistic atheist histories in which belief in God is explained away as the attempts of "primitive" man to account for misfortune, thunder, earthquakes or whatever.  This account of religion has no historical validity, and in any case, emotion is a very silly reason to believe in anything.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 18, 2005)

> I'm suggesting that He occupies the same dimension of existence as financial value



Financial value is created by humans, and your god isn't?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I thought that you were saying that financial value was not made of any physical thing, hence supernatural. Isn't human labor a physical process.



Yes it is, but financial value is an abstract *representation* of human labour and as such it is not material.  It *represents* something material in alien, that is to say nonmaterial, form.  Again, I repeat myself here, but it is absolutely vital to understand the nonmaterial nature of financial value.  I think that we are almost ready now to return to the question of whether value is an idea or a spirit.  We almost got there last time, but we were sidetracked at the last minute.  Most probably we will get there at the second attempt.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Financial value is created by humans, and your god isn't?



Yes.  Very good.  Progress is being made.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> who is going to start the "what has this thread rationally proved" poll?



I understand, Gurrier, that my argument reduces you to pop-eyed, spluttering apoplexy, because you are a truly *fanatical* materialist.  Two or three hundred years ago you would have been an Inquisitor.  In fact, in a way, that is precisely what you are: a zealot, an enforcer, a policeman of ideological orthodoxy.  But let me try to suggest a serious answer to your facetious query, so that we can take a major step on the road to Truth.  The first thing I think we have established is the *existence* (I do not yet say the nature, but the bare *existence*) of financial value.  Does anyone still doubt this?  In particular, does everyone understand the difference between financial value and the other things--money, price, exchange-value etc--that some people were confusing it with earlier in the thread?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes.  Very good.  Progress is being made.



Is it?

Any chance of a mid point summary of the essential points?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Any chance of a mid point summary of the essential points?



See the above, post 1012.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes it is, but financial value is an abstract *representation* of human labour and as such it is not material.  It *represents* something material in alien, that is to say nonmaterial, form.


Simply asserting that it's abstract is no more convincing than simply asserting that its irreducible.
I assuming that you think that some of our conspets like evolution are not just representations of material thgings; why is fv so privaliged?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell you have provided no evidence for it being any kind of epistemically priviledged thing that isn't purely emotive (and relying on our emotions as you insist is not rational). Saying that its is a result of our alientated labour does not privilage it in any way. Why would it?



An excellent question, which I missed only because you added it as an edit to your earlier post.  Value is not a "result" of our alienated "labour," it *is* our alienated *labour-power.*  This is one of the *four* qualities which differentiate it from any other "idea" and, as I am claiming, make it something other than an idea.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> An excellent question, which I missed only because you added it as an edit to your earlier post.  Value is not a "result" of our alienated "labour," it *is* our alienated *labour-power.*  This is one of the *four* qualities which differentiate it from any other "idea" and, as I am claiming, make it something other than an idea.


Ok. So you think that fv is alienated albour (thus not an idea), but is not made up of alientaed labor becasue it is just a representation (thus not material). But you are just asserting this. What reasons do you have? 

The idea of something being something else, but not being made of it, is a bit strange, but I'm willing to accept that its possible.

Philosophers usually think that things are that which make them up.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 18, 2005)

> Emotions, by definition, are not logical.



I never said they were did I?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 18, 2005)

This is preposterous. Can you drop the sophistry and get to the point phil?


----------



## slaar (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Earlier in the thread I have shown that neoclassical value theory is wrong, and that the Marxist labour theory of value is correct.  I have also shown that most people misconstrue Marx's LTV because they do not see that his concept of "labour-power" designates human life as such, but wrongly assume that it refers to concrete acts of material production.  This is in fact Adam Smith's LTV, not Marx's.  Marx's advance on Smith is precisely his generalization of the concept of labour into that of labour-power.


My understanding of NCVT is that it is non-falsifiable. I don't see anywhere in this thread where you have shown it is wrong, or that Marxist labour theory is correct.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 18, 2005)

> Emotions, by definition, are not logical.





> Logical:
> 
> Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
> Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
> Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.





> Emotion
> 
> A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.
> A state of mental agitation or disturbance: spoke unsteadily in a voice that betrayed his emotion. See Synonyms at feeling.
> The part of the consciousness that involves feeling; sensibility: “The very essence of literature is the war between emotion and intellect” (Isaac Bashevis Singer).


It is not true that emotions are "by definition" not logical.  Unless, that is, we want to redefine the phrase 'by definition' to mean "according to my unsubstantiated assertion". Might as well do so I suppose as we've re-defined virtually every word in the thread already.


----------



## inks (Sep 18, 2005)

_"Value is an abstract concept; the *amount* of value attributed to a particular object will as you say vary according to the cost of production, the laws of supply and demand and so on."_

As you say, value is abstract.

Therefore it cannot be defined as alienated labour-power as this is not abstract.

Labour power means real work by real people.  Otherwise it means nothing.

So the answer to:

_"Do we agree that value is human labour-power in alienated form?"_

Remains no.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> It is not true that emotions are "by definition" not logical.  Unless, that is, we want to redefine the phrase 'by definition' to mean "according to my unsubstantiated assertion". Might as well do so I suppose as we've re-defined virtually every word in the thread already.



Has the world gone mad?  Unless I am mad myself?  Surey Gurrier, the quotations you provide here *support* the contention that emotions are not logical?  Does logic "arise spontaneously?"  Does Singer not point to this very opposition when he speaks of a "war between emotion and intellect?"  Are fear, love and similar feelings "logical?"  I really worry that I am losing my mind here.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

inks said:
			
		

> _"Value is an abstract concept; the *amount* of value attributed to a particular object will as you say vary according to the cost of production, the laws of supply and demand and so on."_
> 
> As you say, value is abstract.
> 
> ...



Again, I am truly concerned that my grip on reality is loosening.  Alienated labour-power *is* abstract.  Labour is "real work by real people," but alienated labour-power is this real work in a condition of abstraction.  That is the difference between them: labour is concrete, while alienated labour-power--which takes the form of financial value--is abstract.  Its all a bit much for me now, I must confess.  I thought this was obvious.  Perhaps I truly am mad after all.  I think I had better have a nice lie down.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Has the world gone mad?  Unless I am mad myself?  Surey Gurrier, the quotations you provide here *support* the contention that emotions are not logical?  Does logic "arise spontaneously?"  Does Singer not point to this very opposition when he speaks of a "war between emotion and intellect?"  Are fear, love and similar feelings "logical?"


The definition of emotion says nothing about the 'logicality' of it.  Your appeals to common sense merely display your characteristic sloppiness and lack of precision with the language that you use.  Everything that exists is necessarily 'logical' - (unless you believe that the rules of logic are not universal, in which case there really isn't any point in arguing about anything at all as none of it has to make any sense. Come to think of it, that doesn't sound too unlikely at all).


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> The definition of emotion says nothing about the 'logicality' of it.  Your appeals to common sense merely display your characteristic sloppiness and lack of precision with the language that you use.  Everything that exists is necessarily 'logical' - (unless you believe that the rules of logic are not universal, in which case there really isn't any point in arguing about anything at all as none of it has to make any sense. Come to think of it, that doesn't sound too unlikely at all).



Phew, you had me worried there for a minute.  I truly thought I'd missed something important.  Obviously, what I meant was that emotional thought-processes do not follow the rules of logic, so that when Jo/Joe said that "there are logical reasons to believe in God" which were based on "emotion" he was not making sense.  No logical reason for anything can be based on emotion.  I take it you are not disputing this?


----------



## 118118 (Sep 18, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Again, I am truly concerned that my grip on reality is loosening.  Alienated labour-power *is* abstract.  Labour is "real work by real people," but alienated labour-power is this real work in a condition of abstraction.  That is the difference between them: labour is concrete, while alienated labour-power--which takes the form of financial value--is abstract.  Its all a bit much for me now, I must confess.  I thought this was obvious.  Perhaps I truly am mad after all.  I think I had better have a nice lie down.


So, fv is alienated labor. Alientaed labor is not an idea, so neither is fv. Alienated labor is a representation of labor. Labor is material, but beacuse alienated labor is a only a representation of labor, and is not strictly speaking made up of by it, so is alienated labor not a material thing.

Are you saying that an alienated something is not composed of that something, but is a non-physcial representation of it. Why so? Are you mixing different conceptions of alienation here?

It would seem fairly easy to replace alienated labor with the concept of labor + alienating conditions together with ceratin laws. And as it would thus be composed of physical things, we would think of it as physical (whether or not we can touch or see it).


----------



## gurrier (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Phew, you had me worried there for a minute.  I truly thought I'd missed something important.  Obviously, what I meant was that emotional thought-processes do not follow the rules of logic, so that when Jo/Joe said that "there are logical reasons to believe in God" which were based on "emotion" he was not making sense.  No logical reason for anything can be based on emotion.  I take it you are not disputing this?


Of course I am.  Just because the processes by which emotions are formed is not transparent to the consciousness, does not mean it is not perfectly logical.  

for example: the fear emotion is normally a very logical reaction to the situations which cause it (fear has the following 'fingerprint': metabolic rate increased, processor clock rate increased, increased awareness, fight or flight decision taken by rapid autonomic systems due to time-criticality of situation - pretty much exactly the optimum configuration of the human body that I would want when facing an axe murderer down a dark alley).  

A less obvious example: vague sensations of uneasiness around certain people are often caused by the interpretation of subliminal signals by the non-conscious systems in the brain (or the sub-conscious).  Decisions which are based on these feelings are just as logical as ones that are based on intellectual reasoning alone.  The only difference is that the processing that the brain has carried out to arrive at these emotions and influence our decisions is almost entirely obscure to the consciousness which only receives the final output.  Furthermore, in general, I think that it is not only logical, but wise as well, to normally give such emotional inputs into decision making a very high weighting as they are more or less hard-wired responses to particular stimuli and for a response to be hard-wired into our circuitry rather than being the outcome of our intellectual reasoning, we can be safe in saying that the behaviour that it pushes us towards is an invariant optimal solution.


----------



## inks (Sep 19, 2005)

_"Again, I am truly concerned that my grip on reality is loosening."_

Hmmm.

_"Alienated labour-power *is* abstract."_

I suspect that you are using the word 'abstract' with different meanings in different places but I can't be bothered to go and look.

Oh, here it is - in #1006 you say:

_"Value is an abstract concept..."_



_"Labour is "real work by real people," but alienated labour-power is this real work in a condition of abstraction."

True.  The labour-power has been abstracted.

This is different from saying that it is abstract though, in the sense that you used abstract above ("value is an abstract concept").

Ten hours of alienated labour-power is twice as much as five hours of alienated labour-power or the concept is meaningless.

And you have accepted that value is not related to the amount of alienated labour power that went to create that value.

Therefore value is not human labour-power in alienated form.

Back to the drawing board for you I think, phildwyer._


----------



## 118118 (Sep 19, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Of course I am.  Just because the processes by which emotions are formed is not transparent to the consciousness, does not mean it is not perfectly logical.
> 
> for example: the fear emotion is normally a very logical reaction to the situations which cause it (fear has the following 'fingerprint': metabolic rate increased, processor clock rate increased, increased awareness, fight or flight decision taken by rapid autonomic systems due to time-criticality of situation - pretty much exactly the optimum configuration of the human body that I would want when facing an axe murderer down a dark alley).
> 
> A less obvious example: vague sensations of uneasiness around certain people are often caused by the interpretation of subliminal signals by the non-conscious systems in the brain (or the sub-conscious).  Decisions which are based on these feelings are just as logical as ones that are based on intellectual reasoning alone.  The only difference is that the processing that the brain has carried out to arrive at these emotions and influence our decisions is almost entirely obscure to the consciousness which only receives the final output.  Furthermore, in general, I think that it is not only logical, but wise as well, to normally give such emotional inputs into decision making a very high weighting as they are more or less hard-wired responses to particular stimuli and for a response to be hard-wired into our circuitry rather than being the outcome of our intellectual reasoning, we can be safe in saying that the behaviour that it pushes us towards is an invariant optimal solution.


Emotions are thought to be a result of appraisals, like, you broke my cup, I liked that cup, I expected to drink out of it today... so you get angry. Many think that appraisals can be non-conscious. Theres no reason to think that they should not contain an element of logical reasoning in them.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 19, 2005)

So yeah, financial value is alienated labor. Alienated means a non-physical representation. So you conclude that financial value is non-physical. Aren't these different conceptions of alienation?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Of course I am.  Just because the processes by which emotions are formed is not transparent to the consciousness, does not mean it is not perfectly logical.
> 
> for example: the fear emotion is normally a very logical reaction to the situations which cause it (fear has the following 'fingerprint': metabolic rate increased, processor clock rate increased, increased awareness, fight or flight decision taken by rapid autonomic systems due to time-criticality of situation - pretty much exactly the optimum configuration of the human body that I would want when facing an axe murderer down a dark alley).
> 
> A less obvious example: vague sensations of uneasiness around certain people are often caused by the interpretation of subliminal signals by the non-conscious systems in the brain (or the sub-conscious).  Decisions which are based on these feelings are just as logical as ones that are based on intellectual reasoning alone.  The only difference is that the processing that the brain has carried out to arrive at these emotions and influence our decisions is almost entirely obscure to the consciousness which only receives the final output.  Furthermore, in general, I think that it is not only logical, but wise as well, to normally give such emotional inputs into decision making a very high weighting as they are more or less hard-wired responses to particular stimuli and for a response to be hard-wired into our circuitry rather than being the outcome of our intellectual reasoning, we can be safe in saying that the behaviour that it pushes us towards is an invariant optimal solution.



Bloody hell, this is an awful lot of pseudo-scientific, mechanistic, reductionist materialist garbage even by your standards.  I can honestly say that I have never encountered anyone so delighted to dance onthe grave of their own soul.  Its ugly to watch.  You drag everything--and I do mean *everything*: love, hate, fun, friendship, humour--down to the horrid, sordid level of market transactions--"invariant optimal solutions" wibble wibble blah blah what a load of CRAP.  You sound like Tony Blair trying to explain his foriegn policy: "oh yes, we always go for the invariant optimal solution, we find it maximizes our potential, I think its hard-wired into our circuitry to time-maximize the optimum configuration of my dick...." TOSSPOT.  What a load of soulless, joyless, robotic wank you really do spout.  You think human beings are *machines,* and you and your economist allies are doing your best to make sure it comes true.  "Oh yes, emotions are perfectly logical you know, once you've learned about the processor clock and rapid autonomic systems..." 
You're talking utter shite, shite which is specifically designed to normalize market behaviour and turn us all into YOU. Ugh, and ugh again.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Ugh, and ugh again.



I am the sum total of the chemical and electrical activity of my brain too. Can I have some disgust please?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You're talking utter shite, shite which is specifically designed to normalize market behaviour and turn us all into YOU. Ugh, and ugh again.



Something tells me we still haven't proved God's existence yet and the entity himself* is being rather tight-lipped on the subject too. 

Group hug, anyone?

 


* or herself, obviously


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 1.  The Roman state's ruthless repression of early Christianity indicates very clearly that it was recognized as a threat to the social order.  I'm not sure what you mean by the "absence of other factors" in the English revolution--there were many other factors, but they were expressed in religious terms.  And, although you may not agree with its premises, there is no denying that radical Islam is a revolutionary movement today.  The "opium of the people" argument doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny.
> 
> 2.  I haven't used *any* "examples from Christianity" that I recall in my proof so far.  In fact, the rigorous monotheism of the God I am describing would be more in accordance with Judaism or Islam than with Christianity.  But in any case, I have no sectarian axe to grind.  Marx's essential concepts, particularly "labour-power," "alienation" and "fetishism" positively scream their relgious heritage from the rooftops.
> 
> 3.  Atheism is the "default position" of the modern Western bourgeoisie.  A world without God, a materialist world, is the instinctive, automatic assumption that common sense brings to this world.  This in itself should make us suspect it.  I am going to be showing that atheism is the ideology of modern capitalism.



You may not have *specified* a particular god of a particular religion, but it is obvious that your idea of "god" has been informed by Xtianity. You have indicated this elsewhere as well as this thread.

As for the English Revolution, I shall leave you to work out what I mean by "the absence of other factors". Needless to say, there were no political idoelogies or parties as such. As for Marx's theories of labour power etc being informed by religion, I think you are deliberately reading that out of context.

I notice how you have shifted the emphasis from Xtiantiy (which you cliamed has been a force in revolutions since time began) to Islam. it seems to me that your argument - for what it is worth - is nothing more than an elaborate 'wind up'. This merely proves my point.

As for your third point, I have never heard such nonsense. A "default position"? And what do you mean by this? The belief in a supreme being is nothing less than primitivism: that is to say in order to explain the unexplainable we must use concepts such as "god" to explain things to a world that is largely full of illiterates. I would like to think that I have grown up and moved beyond this nonsense. Unfortuantely you and many others are still stuck in the 3rd century.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 19, 2005)

Was that the proof then? There must be a God to stop phil being disgusted by his machine-like ways. Obvious, really.


----------



## slaar (Sep 19, 2005)

The obsession with tedious assertions that neoclassical market economics and evolution are one and the same thing is, well, getting boring too phil, particularly as you've yet to falsify either.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You may not have *specified* a particular god of a particular religion, but it is obvious that your idea of "god" has been informed by Xtianity. You have indicated this elsewhere as well as this thread.
> 
> As for the English Revolution, I shall leave you to work out what I mean by "the absence of other factors". Needless to say, there were no political idoelogies or parties as such. As for Marx's theories of labour power etc being informed by religion, I think you are deliberately reading that out of context.
> 
> ...



1.  Show me anywhere on this thread or elsewhere that I have said my idea of God is "informaed by Christianity."  In the absence of any such assertion, show me why you think it is.

2.  Of course there were political parties and ideologies in the English Revolution.  The Levellers are only one such example.  You clearly know nothing of this subject, as your previous statements have also proved.

3.  It doesn't take much knowledge of the history ideas to see that Marixist concepts like "labour-power," "alienation" and "fetishism" are religious in prigin, in fact this point is beyond dispute.

4.  I have no idea why you think I have "shifted the emphasis from Chrsitianity to Islam."  As I have said many times, my understanding of God is nondenominational.

5.  Whem I say that atheism is the "default position of the Western bourgeiosie," I mean that it is the attitude that a bourgeois Westerner will automatically develop towards religion if he never gives the matter much thought.  It is the attitude towards religion that bourgeois society automatically and unconsciously inculcates into its members.  It is a fundamental plank of bourgeois ideology, and has been so since Thomas Hobbes.  If you need evidence, just read this thread, which is replete with happy, unthinking, automatic atheists who have never even heard their position challenged before.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> An excellent point, Bloom.  Of course it is perfectly possible for human beings to abolish financial value (remember please that we are *not* talking about "money" here, money is a different thing).  Since it doesn't exist outside the human mind, nothing could be simpler than to get rid of it.  All that would be necessary is for us to stop *believing* in it, to lose our *faith* in it (and "faith" is the apt term for this--belief in financial value is certainly not rational).  But guess what?  We're not doing it.  Apart from a few heroic attempts, such as the one you mention here, we haven't done it.
> 
> On the contrary, every indication suggests that financial value is rapidly tightening its grip upon the world.  It has very recently expanded its reach into corners of the globe that had previously excluded it, and it is in the process of dramatically extending its influence over every area of human experience: economics obviously, but also politics, psychology, philosophy, leisure time, sport, art, media and just about everything else.  So while you're correct to say that it *can* be abolished, there seems to be no sign of this happening, and in fact it seems to be conquering the world instead.  One of the goals of my project is to understand why this is happening.


But financial value (to use your term) clearly does not have this "autonomy" you insist it does.  It could not reestablish itself in Spain or anywhere else where it has been abolished, it requires human efforts to do that.  Financial value is dependent on human beings.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> But financial value (to use your term) clearly does not have this "autonomy" you insist it does.  It could not reestablish itself in Spain or anywhere else where it has been abolished, it requires human efforts to do that.  Financial value is dependent on human beings.



That's true, financial value can only work through human beings, but it is also independent of any individual human being, or even very large groups of human beings.  Obviously no individual or society can decide on their own that financial value doesn't exist.  But the real reason why financial value can't exist without human beings is that it *is* human beings.  It is human life contfronting us in alien and hostile form. Soon I will be moving onto the next stage in my proof, where I show that it is the devil, but I just need to clear up one or two confusions about the concept of alienation first.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 19, 2005)

any useful update?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> any useful update?



Well, just as a quick aside, I find it rather strange that several of the edgy, hip rebels who pop up on this thread to engage in the very radical and rebellious practice of mocking religion can be found elsewhere expressing their admiration for the most deeply theologically fundamentalist strains of Rastafari.  I bet lots of you listen to Sizzla, Luciano, Capleton etc.  Doesn't it ever strike you, as you do so, that the godless "Babylon" they denounce so ferociously is *you*?  Thought not.


----------



## robotsimon (Sep 19, 2005)

Can you just clarify whether this god you are seeking to provide rational proof for existed before humans started to exchange things?

If we take a ball park figure of 5 million years bce for the emergence of the earliest hominids who may or may not have exchanged things for other things, we have the small matter of the 4 billion years or so the earth existed before then.


----------



## slaar (Sep 19, 2005)

You're still yet to falsify neoclassical value theory and 'prove' marxist value theory, so I don't see how you can continue.


----------



## Santino (Sep 19, 2005)

So at the moment financial value is a) humanity, and b) the devil. There's some kind of conclusion I want to draw from that, but I can't work out what it is. Maybe someone with a larger intellect could draw out the inference for me.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, just as a quick aside, I find it rather strange that several of the edgy, hip rebels who pop up on this thread to engage in the very radical and rebellious practice of mocking religion can be found elsewhere expressing their admiration for the most deeply theologically fundamentalist strains of Rastafari.  I bet lots of you listen to Sizzla, Luciano, Capleton etc.  Doesn't it ever strike you, as you do so, that the godless "Babylon" they denounce so ferociously is *you*?  Thought not.



I prefer a good Bob Marley LP after several spliffs while I'm waiting for my dreadlocks to dry. I thought Babylon was in Iraq somewhere, anyway.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's true, financial value can only work through human beings, but it is also independent of any individual human being, or even very large groups of human beings.  Obviously no individual or society can decide on their own that financial value doesn't exist.  But the real reason why financial value can't exist without human beings is that it *is* human beings.  It is human life contfronting us in alien and hostile form. Soon I will be moving onto the next stage in my proof, where I show that it is the devil, but I just need to clear up one or two confusions about the concept of alienation first.


Of course financial value is independent on any one individual, only a lunatic would argue otherwise.  However, that doesn't change the fact that it can be abolished by the collective efforts of human beings.

You have yet to show that financial value is anything more than a concept created by human beings or that it exists independent of the human mind (and when I say the human mind, I do not mean any one individual mind, as you well know).


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 1.  Show me anywhere on this thread or elsewhere that I have said my idea of God is "informaed by Christianity."  In the absence of any such assertion, show me why you think it is.
> 
> 2.  Of course there were political parties and ideologies in the English Revolution.  The Levellers are only one such example.  You clearly know nothing of this subject, as your previous statements have also proved.
> 
> ...




I'm not playing any more games with you phil. All you have done is sidestepped and slid about. Even this reply is so full of holes that it would make a colander look watertight. Btw, just because you claim that your idea of 'god' isn't informed by Xtianity does not necessarily mean that it isn't. Indeed, it is and your last two replies to me have actually said as much.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

This thread = an extension of phil's already enormous ego.


----------



## slaar (Sep 19, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Of course financial value is independent on any one individual, only a lunatic would argue otherwise.  However, that doesn't change the fact that it can be abolished by the collective efforts of human beings.
> 
> You have yet to show that financial value is anything more than a concept created by human beings or that it exists independent of the human mind (and when I say the human mind, I do not mean any one individual mind, as you well know).


Exactly. A complex process with emergent properties does not = the devil.

Better luck next time phil.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 2.  Of course there were political parties and ideologies in the English Revolution.  The Levellers are only one such example.  You clearly know nothing of this subject, as your previous statements have also proved.


In terms of real political "parties", you're wrong, if you accept the definition of a political party as a body that one subscribes to both ideologically and financially. 
What there were in abundance were (more or less) popular political *movements* such as the Diggers and the Levellers.

So you're either guilty of "knowing nothing" yourself, of explaining yourself very poorly, or of making your usual blustering attempt to browbeat people with the force of your intellect (something difficult for a lightweight such as yourself).


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> In terms of real political "parties", you're wrong, if you accept the definition of a political party as a body that one subscribes to both ideologically and financially.
> What there were in abundance were popular movements such as the Diggers and the Levellers.



The Levellers are often considered the first political party, they pioneered the use of agitators and public debates, they had a coherent ideology and they did not subscribe to any particular religious denomination.  The Diggers were small groups of direct action communists.  The Ranters were a loosely-organized collection of antinomain anarchists. The two main political groupings in the Long Parilament, the Presbyterians and the Independents, functioned like political parties but were also religious denomiations.  The same is true of various groups to their "Left" like the Baptists and the Quakers.  There were also non-sectarian ultra-radical groups like the Fifth Monarchists.  The fact that Nino and ViolentPanda know nothing about the English Revolution testifes to the degree to which our contemporary Leftists are incapable of conceiving a religiously-motivated radicalism.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

> Originally Posted by* phildwyer*
> _2. Of course there were political parties and ideologies in the English Revolution. The Levellers are only one such example. You clearly know nothing of this subject, as your previous statements have also proved._



In your haste to demonstrate what a knowledgable fellow you are, you have overlooked the fact that there were NO political parties or, for that matter, political ideologies in existence at the time of the Civil War. I am afraid it is you who knows nothing of this subject or indeed the rest of history (as you have demonstrated on other threads). What did you say about history? "It isn't progressive"...or words to that effect. You are so full of shit it is unbelievable and when you are proved wrong, what do you do? You trot out even more shite.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The Levellers are often considered the first political party, they pioneered the use of agitators and public debates, they had a coherent ideology and they did not subscribe to any particular religious denomination.  The Diggers were small groups of direct action communists.  The Ranters were a loosely-organized collection of antinomain anarchists. The two main political groupings in the Long Parilament, the Presbyterians and the Independents, functioned like political parties but were also religious denomiations.  The same is true of various groups to their "Left" like the Baptists and the Quakers.  There were also non-sectarian ultra-radical groups like the Fifth Monarchists.  The fact that Nino and ViolentPanda know nothing about the English Revolution testifes to the degree to which our contemporary Leftists are incapable of conceiving a religiously-motivated radicalism.



More bullshit, phil? Nothing like a bit of BULLY - eh?

Oh, none of the groups you have mentioned were organised along party political lines. The only ideology that any of them had was their specific interpretation of the Bible. Beyond that, there is nothing.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> When I say that atheism is the "default position of the Western bourgeiosie," I mean that it is the attitude that a bourgeois Westerner will automatically develop towards religion if he never gives the matter much thought.  It is the attitude towards religion that bourgeois society automatically and unconsciously inculcates into its members.  It is a fundamental plank of bourgeois ideology, and has been so since Thomas Hobbes.  If you need evidence, just read this thread, which is replete with happy, unthinking, automatic atheists who have never even heard their position challenged before.



I've given the matter lots of thought, Phil. I've read about the history of religion and the history of science and come down firmly on the side of science. I've also read a lot about the history of philosophy and have come to the conclusion (my own, btw, that existed long beore I came to these boards or this thread) that philosophy is sometimes a useful tool for examining humans and their minds, but hardly worth a damn as a toolbox for examining the world outside.

I am a happy, autonomus atheist, thank you very much. If yours is the strongest challenge that can be raised against my worldview, then I find it strengthened not weakened.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Oh, none of the groups you have mentioned were organised along party political lines. The only ideology that any of them had was their specific interpretation of the Bible. Beyond that, there is nothing.



You do nothing but show your ignorance here.  Ignorance which appears to be very nearly total on this, as on so many other subjects.  The three main groupings in the 1640's--Independents, Presbyterians and Levellers--were indeed organized along party political lines.  The "interpretation" of the Bible was a relatively small concern with them.  Rather, the points that differentiated them were such things as universal suffrage, property rights, freedom of speech, the constitution, the rights of parilaments... pretty much the same issues as face us today in fact.  Again I tell you that your complete and shameful ignorance of the English Revolution is the product of your foolish dismissal of matters that you consider "religious," (whatever you mean by that term, which mening utterly eludes me...).


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You do nothing but show your ignorance here.  Ignorance which appears to be very nearly total on this, as on so many other subjects.  The three main groupings in the 1640's--Independents, Presbyterians and Levellers--were indeed organized along party political lines.  The "interpretation" of the Bible was a relatively small concern with them.  Rather, the points that differentiated them were such things as universal suffrage, property rights, freedom of speech, the constitution, the rights of parilaments... pretty much the same issues as face us today in fact.  Again I tell you that your complete and shameful ignorance of the English Revolution is the product of your foolish dismissal of matters that you consider "religious," (whatever you mean by that term, which mening utterly eludes me...).



Don't make me laugh, the various religions you mention cannot, in any way, be described in contemporary political terms as political parties. There's a saying for people like you.

On the contrary, my onanistic friend, it is you who is woefully ignorant of the Civil War, not I.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

I think it's time for you to come clean, phil (pardon the pun) and admit to all of us that this thread is nothing but an exercise in egomania. You cannot prove the existence of something that does not exist or, rather, a concept that exists in the mind of an adherent, to those persons who do not beleive in God.

You say you aren't a Xtian but I get the feeling that you are lying. But this isn't the first time you have lied - is it phil?

And what's this?


> The "interpretation" of the Bible was a relatively small concern with them.



I beg to differ. You are familair with the name Laud, I take it?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I beg to differ. You are familair with the name Laud, I take it?



Laud was an Arminian Anglican, not a revolutionary, you fool.  He was executed by the revolutionaries in 1645.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Laud was an Arminian Anglican, not a revolutionary, you fool.  He was executed by the revolutionaries in 1645.



You have to laugh at the way you've deliberately misread my post...but we all know why you have done that - don't we phil? You like a bit of BULLY don't you?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You say you aren't a Xtian but I get the feeling that you are lying.



Now you truly and conclusively prove your ignorance, because as everyone knows, the one thing a Christian can *never* do is deny their faith.  Many millions of Christians have been martyred for this very reason.  When someone says to you "I am not a Christian," you *know* they're not lying.  They *can't* be lying, because if they deny that they are a Christian, then by virtue of that very fact, they are not one.


----------



## Wintermute (Sep 19, 2005)

Right. I gave up reading around page 4, when the existence or not of metaphysical badgers was called into question. I now arrive on page 43, to find that the discussion has broached the subject of the English Civil War. What God thinks about this I'm not sure, but I'll ask him when I see him.

Can't we just have a poll? Go on. "God: yes, I've met him, he gave me a badger" vs "I'm God and so is my wife."


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now you truly and conclusively prove your ignorance, because as everyone knows, the one thing a Christian can *never* do is deny their faith.  Many millions of Christians have been martyred for this very reason.  When someone says to you "I am not a Christian," you *know* they're not lying.  They *can't* be lying, because if they deny that they are a Christian, then by virtue of that very fact, they are not one.


Balls.  Anyway, you proved the existence of god yet?  No, I thought not.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, just as a quick aside, I find it rather strange that several of the edgy, hip rebels who pop up on this thread to engage in the very radical and rebellious practice of mocking religion can be found elsewhere expressing their admiration for the most deeply theologically fundamentalist strains of Rastafari.  I bet lots of you listen to Sizzla, Luciano, Capleton etc.  Doesn't it ever strike you, as you do so, that the godless "Babylon" they denounce so ferociously is *you*?  Thought not.



so that's a no, then?

1.  mocking religion is neither radical nor rebellious.  mocking religion these days is pretty much standard.

2.  it is perfectly possible to appreciate religious-inspired art without actually being religious yourself.  neither sizzla nor michelangelo has ever sought to prove that god exists, they merely assume this to be the case and get on with making their art.  

3.  if you make assumptions about god and the nature of being as quickly and without evidence as you make assumptions about people there is clearly a good reason why everyone thinks you're a joke.

have a nice day.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now you truly and conclusively prove your ignorance, because as everyone knows, the one thing a Christian can *never* do is deny their faith.  Many millions of Christians have been martyred for this very reason.  When someone says to you "I am not a Christian," you *know* they're not lying.  They *can't* be lying, because if they deny that they are a Christian, then by virtue of that very fact, they are not one.



oooh, i was going to leave this thread again but then i found this piece of wonderfulness.

where exactly do you get that lovely idea from.

didn't st peter deny his association with jesus a couple of times?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now you truly and conclusively prove your ignorance, because as everyone knows, the one thing a Christian can *never* do is deny their faith.  Many millions of Christians have been martyred for this very reason.  When someone says to you "I am not a Christian," you *know* they're not lying.  They *can't* be lying, because if they deny that they are a Christian, then by virtue of that very fact, they are not one.



Aren't you going to deal with my point phil? Or are you going to prove us all right  with this post? What's it to be? I think you're going to prove us all right.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> 1.  mocking religion is neither radical nor rebellious.  mocking religion these days is pretty much standard.



You're not terrbily familiar with the concept of irony, are you?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You're not terrbily familiar with the concept of irony, are you?



And you're not terribly familiar with the concept of truth, are ye?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> oooh, i was going to leave this thread again but then i found this piece of wonderfulness.
> 
> where exactly do you get that lovely idea from.
> 
> didn't st peter deny his association with jesus a couple of times?



Three times, fool.  And this is, of course, the source of the absolute prohibition in Christianity against following suit.  When given the choice betwen denying Christ and death, a Christian must always choose death, for the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.  I am not a Christian.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You're not terrbily familiar with the concept of irony, are you?



so what you're saying is that we're not cool and trendy by mocking religion.  shit.  *converts*


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Three times, fool.



silly me.

i guess if i could prove god existed i wouldn't make that sort of terrible slip up.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> it is perfectly possible to appreciate religious-inspired art without actually being religious yourself.  neither sizzla nor michelangelo has ever sought to prove that god exists, they merely assume this to be the case and get on with making their art.



Art which consists entirely of hymns praising God, and (more often) curses calling down His wrath on unbelievers such as yourself.  It must be a strange feeling to enjoy music that constantly and vehemently denounces your worldview as corrupt and Babylonian.  Is it masochism, or the desire to be trendy that makes you do it?


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 19, 2005)

nah, it's pure aesthetic fulfillment.  if i want masochism i get someone to whip the fuck out of me and if i haven't yet found a time when i want to be trendy.  although i did own a pair of joe bloggs jeans when i was 12, so that might count.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> so what you're saying is that we're not cool and trendy by mocking religion.  shit.  *converts*



As I said before, atheism is the default position of the Western bourgoisie.  You're called "Babylon" for a reason, you know.  But then you *wouldn't* know, because you never look in the silly old Bible do you, Babylon?


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 19, 2005)

who are you calling an atheist?

i'm a sit-on-the-fence-maybe-maybe-not agnostic.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

> As I said before, atheism is the default position of the Western bourgoisie.



Kyak, kyak, kyak! Fnar, snarf, titter!


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> As I said before, atheism is the default position of the Western bourgoisie.  You're called "Babylon" for a reason, you know.  But then you *wouldn't* know, because you never look in the silly old Bible do you, Babylon?




my god, you're even more stupid than i thought 

has ANYBODY even shifted position one millimetre closer to god as a result of this thread, so far?


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 19, 2005)

it's spelt kayak dude, and what has it got to do with babylon?

well, it's the end of another working day.  i'm off to disembowell some choirboys, pull the sidelocks of some hassidics, and kick and iman right in the kneecaps before listening to some full on ragga-down-babylon with me mate nathan.

gnight phil, don't forget to say your prayers bro.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> my god, you're even more stupid than i thought
> 
> has ANYBODY even shifted position one millimetre closer to god as a result of this thread, so far?


We're all moving ever closer.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 19, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> my god, you're even more stupid than i thought
> 
> has ANYBODY even shifted position one millimetre closer to god as a result of this thread, so far?



no, but i accidentally cried out "oh phildwyer" during orgasm the other night, so things are definitely getting a bit confused up there.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> my god, you're even more stupid than i thought
> 
> has ANYBODY even shifted position one millimetre closer to god as a result of this thread, so far?




Dubversion!  Just the man I'm looking for, I suspect.  Now look here, you're probably a bit of an atheist, right?  Think all that God-bothering is a bit lame?  And yet I presume you're also quite keen on the old reggae?  I can't help wondering whether you perceive a contradiction here?  I mean, these rastas do bang on quite a bit about religion, do they not?  What's it all about then?  Do you sit around guffawing at the ridiculous credulity of Sizzla and Co too?  Doesn't it get in the way of appreciating their music?  Serious question, despite the flippant tone.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2005)

aye, i piss myself at the complete an utter bollox most reggae artists sing about.

So this is what it's been reduced to? Hoping that peoples like for Dub will lead them to accept aload of ole pish?

Seriously phil go get youself a beginners guide to marx and start from scratch, who knows in a couple of years time maybe you'll have got your head round the fact Marx's concept of alienation, which i alienation from a socially constructed self as opposed an ahistorical essence, afterall the only thing Marx said about humans was that they created themselves via self activity.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 19, 2005)

No it doesn't bother me at all. I have the absolutely staggering mental ninja skills that let me seperate my aesthetic enjoyment of a piece of art from its meaning.

I expect a Christian enjoys a hymn more than I do, but that doesn't stop me humming along. If Bob Marley wants me to burn, babylon, burn, then that's just his opinion. I am not currently on fire and so will therefore continue to listen to his music.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> As I said before, atheism is the default position of the Western bourgoisie.  You're called "Babylon" for a reason, you know.  But then you *wouldn't* know, because you never look in the silly old Bible do you, Babylon?


So phil, you're an expert on the semantics of contemporary reggae too?  

* sniggers *

'babylon' is a fairly amorphous term in reggae.  It refers to all manner of bad things, from the state, to slavers, to the police, to a general term to describe the corrupt and exploitative west, to this unjust world, to Jamaica, to a catch-all term for describing bad things.  While it's biblical origin is obvious, as far as I know, it never refers to atheism and the connection with the biblical babylon is generally limited to the notion that Jamaicans were snatched uncerimoniously from a state of idyll into the cruelly exploitative system of global capitalism. 

In any case, your introduction of 'babylon' into this thread in an attempt to prove your opponents' rank ignorance is pretty embarrassing.  Especially when you prove, yet again, to be all mouth and no trousers.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Dubversion!  Just the man I'm looking for, I suspect.  Now look here, you're probably a bit of an atheist, right?  Think all that God-bothering is a bit lame?  And yet I presume you're also quite keen on the old reggae?  I can't help wondering whether you perceive a contradiction here?  I mean, these rastas do bang on quite a bit about religion, do they not?  What's it all about then?  Do you sit around guffawing at the ridiculous credulity of Sizzla and Co too?  Doesn't it get in the way of appreciating their music?  Serious question, despite the flippant tone.


What's this sudden obsession with Reggae?  Anyone would think you were afraid to carry on laying out your spectacular "proof", lest it be shredded further.

Also, its quite possible to enjoy a piece of art and still disagree with the artist's religious views.  _Jerusalem_ is, IMO, incredibly powerful and inspiring, but Blake still sounds like a bit of a God bothering mentalist from what I understand


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 1.  Show me anywhere on this thread or elsewhere that I have said my idea of God is "informaed by Christianity."  In the absence of any such assertion, show me why you think it is.


Didn't you refer to Luther as the "end of all meaningful theology" or some such?

Edit: Here we go


> Let's start from what I regard as the end of the useful theological tradition: Martin Luther


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Dubversion!  Just the man I'm looking for, I suspect.  Now look here, you're probably a bit of an atheist, right?  Think all that God-bothering is a bit lame?  And yet I presume you're also quite keen on the old reggae?  I can't help wondering whether you perceive a contradiction here?  I mean, these rastas do bang on quite a bit about religion, do they not?  What's it all about then?  Do you sit around guffawing at the ridiculous credulity of Sizzla and Co too?  Doesn't it get in the way of appreciating their music?  Serious question, despite the flippant tone.




much of the finest music ever made has been spiritual in nature - from rasta reggae to Nick Cave to Van Morrison to Nusret Fateh Ali Khan and on and on. certainly not something fucking christians have the monopoly on.

 the yearning, the deep need to express something spiritual, is something i can appreciate. and yet i can still feel it's bollocks. 

it's being able to reconcile two responses, phil. most grown-ups can do it with a bit of practice. 

for the record, i find most of fundamentalist rastafarianism - the bobba dread community of Sizzla etc, - abhorrent and bigoted. but i can still be moved by their attempts to articulate something 'other'.

are you really so stupid that you find that difficult to grasp?


----------



## exosculate (Sep 19, 2005)

What a curious world it would be if one only ever listened to music that mirrored ones own socio-political outlook.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 19, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> for the record, i find most of fundamentalist rastafarianism - the bobba dread community of Sizzla etc, - abhorrent and bigoted. but i can still be moved by their attempts to articulate something 'other'.


Considering the common attitude towards "botty boys" and women, I think the mystic stuff is way down the list of problematic messages in reggae music.  Not that any sane person looks to popular music for philosophical direction anyway.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 19, 2005)

Emotions are logical responses to identifiable causes, they just cannot be controlled rationally when they are in full flow. They don't appear out of thin air.


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 19, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Considering the common attitude towards "botty boys" and women, I think the mystic stuff is way down the list of problematic messages in reggae music.



but - and sorry for the possible derail - it's communities like the Bobba Dreads who are most militant in their homophobia. TOK et al might refer to it from time to time, or make a track like Chi Chi Man, but Sizzla, Anthony B, Luciano etc can barely make a tune without wanting to 'bun' homosexuals.. the two are depressingly interlinked.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> So phil, you're an expert on the semantics of contemporary reggae too?
> 
> * sniggers *
> 
> ...



Now you are truly out of your depth, Gurrier.  I assume you have never even been to Jamaica?  I'd like to see you preach your fanatical atheism there!  In today's usage, "Babylon" refers to all aspects of the capitalist world-system, including its materialist ideology of which you are a prime exponent.  Consumerism, atheism and false religion--espeically Catholicism--are the major targets for its invective.  The Biblical significance of Babylon is hardly "limited" in the way you claim, in the Bible, Babylon is a prophecy designating *you* and your corrupt mindset.  Examples are too numerous to list, so I will confine myself to Sizzla, who I regard as among the greatest of contemporary prophets.  Consider for example "Babylon Homework:"

"Babylon gu hush up your mouth you're too cranky 
John Pope mi no know, no uncle nor aunty 
Everything fi Babylon Sizzla seh skanky 
Well from you rude mamma sey she deh go spanky
Brain them a use bout a Christ ride the donkey 
Try get up, go tell PJ a prophecy 
Babylon a cover Queen Elizabeth nasty, 
Babylon presumptuous, what an audacity 
I nuh come yah so fi sing no Babylon story 
I come fi turn the shame into glory 
Old Pharaoh, me sey that you nuh know me 
Remember that a King Solomon grow we 
A judgement inna Babylon, them thirst
Judgement inna Babylon, judgement in a Babylon... "

Or how about "Babylon Ah Listen:"

"Babylon ah listen from near and far 
Not even go ask them what dem peepin for 
Tell them they cyant hold the youths with no more house and car 
Hear we Ethiopia, war this ah war..."

Words you would do well to ponder deeply, Gurrier, before the fire bun ya.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> much of the finest music ever made has been spiritual in nature - from rasta reggae to Nick Cave to Van Morrison to Nusret Fateh Ali Khan and on and on. certainly not something fucking christians have the monopoly on.
> 
> the yearning, the deep need to express something spiritual, is something i can appreciate. and yet i can still feel it's bollocks.
> 
> ...



Well, I think you know I'm not stupid.  I've heard you play Bobo ragga myself, at Offlines, so I know you can dig it on some level.  But I honestly don't see how you can "appreciate" something and "feel its bollocks" at the same time.  I mean, this is music that actively *challenges* its listeners.  It says, over and over again: "if you don't agree with what I'm saying, fuck off, you are Babylon."  Its *completely* uncompromising in every way.  I'd suggest that you betray this music if you use it to dance to, or get stoned to or whatever, and yet still feel that its message is "bollocks."  In fact, I'd argue that you *can't,* in reality, think its "bollocks" if you keep promoting it.  I suspect that you *know its true* on some level, even if the social pressures of glib bourgeois atheism prevent you from admitting this, even to yourself.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, I think you know I'm not stupid.  I've heard you play Bobo ragga myself, at Offlines, so I know you can dig it on some level.  But I honestly don't see how you can "appreciate" something and "feel its bollocks" at the same time.  I mean, this is music that actively *challenges* its listeners.  It says, over and over again: "if you don't agree with what I'm saying, fuck off, you are Babylon."  Its *completely* uncompromising in every way.  I'd suggest that you betray this music if you use it to dance to, or get stoned to or whatever, and yet still feel that its message is "bollocks."  In fact, I'd argue that you *can't,* in reality, think its "bollocks" if you keep promoting it.  I suspect that you *know its true* on some level, even if the social pressures of glib bourgeois atheism prevent you from admitting this, even to yourself.


roflharris


----------



## gurrier (Sep 19, 2005)

oh my FSM did he just write this said:
			
		

> Sizzla, who I regard as among the greatest of contemporary prophets



Bwaaa haa haa haa haa.  Oh bless.       

* momentarily gains control of self from the laughter demon * 

Bunned any chi-chi men today Phil?





			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now you are truly out of your depth, Gurrier.  I assume you have never even been to Jamaica?  I'd like to see you preach your fanatical atheism there!


Well I don't actually preach, but I do tend to express the same opinions whether I'm in Dublin or Trenchtown and so far I've been okay.  In fact, the local reaction to my views on religion is one of the things that I worry about least when I'm in Kingston.  




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> In today's usage, "Babylon" refers to all aspects of the capitalist world-system, including its materialist ideology of which you are a prime exponent.  Consumerism, atheism and false religion--espeically Catholicism--are the major targets for its invective.



Including the catholic reggae singers I suppose?  As dubversion pointed out, you are referring to a relatively small, fundamentalist rastafarian branch of reggae.  The connotations of the word 'babylon' are not the same in all reggae music. 





			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> The Biblical significance of Babylon is hardly "limited" in the way you claim, in the Bible, Babylon is a prophecy designating *you* and your corrupt mindset.
> 
> ..... (great prophesy snipped) ....
> 
> Words you would do well to ponder deeply, Gurrier, before the fire bun ya.



I revise my earlier assertion.  You are far madder than a bag of fannies.

* relapses into helpless laughter *


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Bunned any chi-chi men today Phil?
> 
> Well I don't actually preach, but I do tend to express the same opinions whether I'm in Dublin or Trenchtown and so far I've been okay.  In fact, the local reaction to my views on religion is one of the things that I worry about least when I'm in Kingston.



The "battyman" thing is more complex than you think, Gurrier. Amazingly enough, it doesn't readily fit in with the bourgeois ideology that you have imbibed.  To overstand it, you have to read the Bible, and pay particular attention to the association between "barren" forms of sexuality and those economic sytems that force barren money to "breed."  But you've never read the Bible, so there's no point in discussing this with you.  Furthermore, there's no such place as "Trenchtown" any longer, as you'd know if you'd ever been to West Kingston, which I don't believe you have.  And if you have, you certainly won't have "expressed" the same "opinions" there as you do here.  Cho!


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The "battyman" thing is more complex than you think, Gurrier. Amazingly enough, it doesn't readily fit in with the bourgeois ideology that you have imbibed.  To overstand it, you have to read the Bible, and pay particular attention to the association between "barren" forms of sexuality and those economic sytems that force barren money to "breed."


Are you suggesting that anal sex is a result of capitalism?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2005)

You lil fuckwit phil, ranting on about Darwin being an apologist for capitalism whilst you give a half arsed justification of disgusting homophobic ideas.

So as you sked gurrier, how can you listen to homophobic lyrics and still enjoy the music?

And rastafarianism is a pile of reactionary judeo christian wank with about as much relevance to reality as Islamic fundamentalists.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2005)

yes it's bourgeois decadence, as many a maoist group has claimed.

Just goes to show marxist ideas aren't fit for backward peasants.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 19, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The "battyman" thing is more complex than you think, Gurrier. Amazingly enough, it doesn't readily fit in with the bourgeois ideology that you have imbibed.  To overstand it, you have to read the Bible, and pay particular attention to the association between "barren" forms of sexuality and those economic sytems that force barren money to "breed."  But you've never read the Bible, so there's no point in discussing this with you.  Furthermore, there's no such place as "Trenchtown" any longer, as you'd know if you'd ever been to West Kingston, which I don't believe you have.  And if you have, you certainly won't have "expressed" the same "opinions" there as you do here.  Cho!



Wot? No *asterisks*?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Wot? No *asterisks*?



I keep them for the real Babylonians: like *you!*


----------



## gurrier (Sep 19, 2005)

> The "battyman" thing is more complex than you think, Gurrier. Amazingly enough, it doesn't readily fit in with the bourgeois ideology that you have imbibed. To overstand it, you have to read the Bible, and pay particular attention to the association between "barren" forms of sexuality and those economic sytems that force barren money to "breed." But you've never read the Bible, so there's no point in discussing this with you.


So anal / oral sex is capitalism in bed?  At least it's an innovative and outsandingly bonkers way to dress up old fashioned bigotry and it could provide the comic fuel that may take this thread to several hundred more posts.  I did think you were beginning to get a bit thin on material. 



> Furthermore, there's no such place as "Trenchtown" any longer, as you'd know if you'd ever been to West Kingston, which I don't believe you have. And if you have, you certainly won't have "expressed" the same "opinions" there as you do here. Cho!


There is still an area known as Trenchtown in central (not Western) Kingston.  I don't know a huge amount about it or its history, but I was there and have been pretty much all over the city and island.  I generally found that people were much more concerned that I might have been a 'batty boy' (which would have elicited something very unpleasant) than the fact that I didn't believe in god (which normally elicits a "you're having a laugh mate" type chuckle).  In any case, I don't see what any of this has to do with anything at all to do with your argument* or even with my argument which is not premised on me having any special knowledge of Jamaica or Reggae music.  

* actually I fib.  I realise that Phil wants to boast about having been to Jamaica and add another little puff of self-love into his vast ego-balloon.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 19, 2005)

> Originally Posted by phildwyer
> I will confine myself to Sizzla, who I regard as among the greatest of contemporary prophets. Consider this twisted evil sack of shit...



Pump Up
Shot battybwoy my big gun boom!!! 

Sizzla Kalonji mi seh inna frontli-iiine 
Fire fi di man dem weh go ride man behind 

Boom Boom
Boom boom! Batty boy them fi dead )

Sizzla - Get To Da Point
Sodomite and batty bwai mi seh a death fi dem
Mi no trust babylon fi a second yah so
Mi a go shot batty bwai dem widdi weapon ya

Chicago April 12 2002
"mi nuh go tek back mi chat... mi kill sodomite
and batty man dem bring aids and disease pon
people... shot a kill dem, mi nuh go tek
back mi chat"


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2005)

well if they are going to be the embodiment of bourgeois decadence alas finance capital alas the devil what do they expect?  

So here's the composition of the ruling class according to phils rasta marxism

Babylon
Whitey
The Man

and instead of the proletarait we have zion.

Incredible.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 19, 2005)

Go get 'em Phil.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 19, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> So here's the composition of the ruling class according to phils rasta marxism
> 
> Babylon
> Whitey
> The Man


Don't forget queers and atheists.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2005)

sure are they not all white anyway?? Even if they have dark skin they have sold out to whitey.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 19, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> sure are they not all white anyway?? Even if they have dark skin they have sold out to whitey.


black skin white masks, as fanon put it, iirc.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2005)

fuck i've just been reminded how much i hate that cunt Fanon!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 19, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> fuck i've just been reminded how much i hate that cunt Fanon!


good.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> There is still an area known as Trenchtown in central (not Western) Kingston.  I don't know a huge amount about it or its history, but I was there and have been pretty much all over the city and island.  I generally found that people were much more concerned that I might have been a 'batty boy' (which would have elicited something very unpleasant) than the fact that I didn't believe in god (which normally elicits a "you're having a laugh mate" type chuckle).



Well that's very coincidental, because that's exactly the reaction it elicts from me too.  Can't you see how absurd it is to say "I don't believe in God," as you might say "I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster?"  You burble on with your: "no-one's ever *seen* God, have they?  Show me a picture of God, then I'll believe in him.  If God exists, why doesn't He just show Himself?"  These are the arguments of a child who has just learned the truth about Santa Claus.  "Oh, yes, there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't there, yeah right, hahaha."  Pathetic, truly pathetic.  God is not the fucking tooth fairy, fool.  But enough of this rasta stuff.  Should we not return now to the main argument?  As I recall, we were attmepting to establish the truth of the Labour Theory of Value which, as Cripsy and others have noted, is vital to this stage of my case.  I am going out for the evening shortly, but tomorrow I will return to this issue, and perhaps even move further on, in order to establish the true nature of alienated labour-power.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2005)

phil i thought value was something in inherent, not something produced by something as crude as human labour?

Anyway gobshite, wel will not just skip over your homophobia. Care to explain what you meant? I think it's only right considering your hysterical claims of anti semitism towards other posters.


----------



## Addy (Sep 19, 2005)

bloody hell, is *he* still here babbling on about god?
Give up old son, it just aint happening.
Tsk the yoot of today eh!


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 19, 2005)

So Sizzla's homophobia is misunderstood phil? Is there something virtuous about it? Is it good homophobia?

And pointing out the lack of proof for the existance of god is hardly childish.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 19, 2005)

> Shot battybwoy, my big gun boom



Could Socrates have put it better himself?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2005)

well as phil has already said Feuerbach was a bit too crude in his thinking too.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 19, 2005)

Can everyone please stop taking the piss out of Phil. The more educated among you will I hope already appreciate that he is merely acting in accordance with the precedent set by Hegel with his 1821 treatise "Batty Boy Ingester inna dem blood dem gwan drown."


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 19, 2005)

> Can everyone please stop taking the piss out of Phil. The more educated among you will I hope already appreciate that he is merely acting in accordance with the precedent set by Hegel with his 1821 treatise "Batty Boy Ingester inna dem blood dem gwan drown."



Materialist!


----------



## neilh (Sep 20, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> but - and sorry for the possible derail - it's communities like the Bobba Dreads who are most militant in their homophobia. TOK et al might refer to it from time to time, or make a track like Chi Chi Man, but Sizzla, Anthony B, Luciano etc can barely make a tune without wanting to 'bun' homosexuals.. the two are depressingly interlinked.


much as i agree with your general viewpoint on it, and hate the whole bun the chi chi stuff in reggae, i find with Anthony B and luciano, the vast majority of it doesnt mention this. Personally, though i don't doubt you if you have heard him on about it, i've never heard luciano come out wi homophobic stuff and though i'm not massively into him, i've heard quite a bit; yes, it's all very religious, which i'm not into, but i wouldnt remotely say he couldn't make a tune without mentioning it. and anthony b, there's plenty of his stuff i'll regularly play, which doesn't mention it (or i wouldn't play it). sizzla or buju i find there's a lot more, but even then it's not nearly every track.


----------



## neilh (Sep 20, 2005)

i've been searching for the thread, but seem to remember in a previous thread on  reggae phil being against homophobia, but cant find it so mebbe i was mistaken.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

neilh said:
			
		

> much as i agree with your general viewpoint on it, and hate the whole bun the chi chi stuff in reggae, i find with Anthony B and luciano, the vast majority of it doesnt mention this. Personally, though i don't doubt you if you have heard him on about it, i've never heard luciano come out wi homophobic stuff and though i'm not massively into him, i've heard quite a bit; yes, it's all very religious, which i'm not into, but i wouldnt remotely say he couldn't make a tune without mentioning it. and anthony b, there's plenty of his stuff i'll regularly play, which doesn't mention it (or i wouldn't play it). sizzla or buju i find there's a lot more, but even then it's not nearly every track.



Absolutely.  I listen to Sizzla, I love it, I'm sure many of the rest of you do too.  I've heard Dubversion play Bobo stuff live.  That doesn't make him a homophobe, and its pathetic, cheap point-scoring to accuse anyone of that crime (and it *is* a crime) on the evidence of their musical taste.  Shame, and fya bun, to anyone who does this.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

neilh said:
			
		

> i've been searching for the thread, but seem to remember in a previous thread on  reggae phil being against homophobia, but cant find it so mebbe i was mistaken.



Of course I'm against homophobia, I've said so on many other threads about reggae and other subjects, and anyone who says differently is risking a law suit at best, and a good deal worse at worst.  Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## neilh (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  I listen to Sizzla, I love it, I'm sure many of the rest of you do too.  I've heard Dubversion play Bobo stuff live.  That doesn't make him a homophobe, and its pathetic, cheap point-scoring to accuse anyone of that crime (and it *is* a crime) on the evidence of their musical taste.  Shame, and fya bun, to anyone who does this.


when you say you've heard him play bobo stuff and that doesn't make him a homophobe, do you mean you've heard him play stuff with homophobic lyrics, or stuff by bobo dreads with these beliefs but not with any homophobic stuff in those tunes?

cos personally, i'd never play something wi homophobic lyrics deliberately, but do regularly play stuff by buju, sizzla etc.


----------



## neilh (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Of course I'm against homophobia, I've said so on many other threads about reggae and other subjects, and anyone who says differently is risking a law suit at best, and a good deal worse at worst.  Is that clear enough for you?


yeah, sorry, apologies, i think i got the wrong end of the stick a few pages ago.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

neilh said:
			
		

> when you say you've heard him play bobo stuff and that doesn't make him a homophobe, do you mean you've heard him play stuff with homophobic lyrics, or stuff by bobo dreads with these beliefs but not with any homophobic stuff in those tunes?
> 
> cos personally, i'd never play something wi homophobic lyrics deliberately, but do regularly play stuff by buju, sizzla etc.



That's what I meant.  Not homophobic lyrics, which I totally reject, but bobo artists who have sung homophobic lyrics elsewhere.  In Bloom (and anyone else who accuses people of the disgusting crime of homophobia without good cause) is a fucking twat, and only the fact that he's 18 years old has saved him from the sting of my lash.  Or something like that.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Of course I'm against homophobia, I've said so on many other threads about reggae and other subjects


Phil, your words written above look an awfully lot like homophobia at best, apologising for homophobic inspired murder at worst.  Or maybe you might care to explain the subtleties of Sizzla's lyrics above (or do you have a special way of addressing your prophet?   ), because for all my trying, they still escape me.  Similarly, your apparent claim that it is necessary to refer to the bible and its attitude to 'barren' sex in order to understand Sizzla's allusions to homophobia-inspired murder suggests that you sympathise with virulently homophobic analyses of human sexuality.  

So, I think, the balance of evidence seems to place you in the homophobic camp (as well as the bonkers camp, obviously).  




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> and anyone who says differently is risking a law suit at best, and a good deal worse at worst.  Is that clear enough for you?



Out of consideration for your threat-wielding prowess, I'll choose the 'good deal worse' option if I may.  Lawsuits against internet pseudonyms for libelling other internet pseudonyms are notoriously difficult to win.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Of course I'm against homophobia, I've said so on many other threads about reggae and other subjects, and anyone who says differently is risking a law suit at best, and a good deal worse at worst.  Is that clear enough for you?


How can an anonymous person be libelled? I mean, phildwyer isn't a real person are they? It is just some made-up persona for you to piss around with isn't it?
<snipped by Mrs M>

...and by the way, what is "a good deal worse" than a law suit?

Mrs M adds
I am a good deal worse than a law suit TeeJay. You have persistently given information that allows phildwyer's real life identity to be discovered...I just did it from the quote I've deleted. This means that you are laying yourself open to court action. Anyway, this is a quick shufti at the boards before I go out, and I'm banning you for a month because you will not leave this phildwyer issue alone which is personally causing me hassle. You've been at the centre of modding hassles more than is healthy for your continued life on these boards....


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's what I meant.  Not homophobic lyrics, which I totally reject, but bobo artists who have sung homophobic lyrics elsewhere.  In Bloom (and anyone else who accuses people of the disgusting crime of homophobia without good cause) is a fucking twat, and only the fact that he's 18 years old has saved him from the sting of my lash.  Or something like that.


Financial value preserve me from the sting of phil's lash, I'm so fucking terrified, I'm lost for words, I really am.  As for law suits, do me a fucking favour


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 20, 2005)

No, do me a favour. The Mods get the flak, and the editor is the one that gets grief from lawyers. I wish more people would remember that.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Sep 20, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> No, do me a favour. The Mods get the flak, and the editor is the one that gets grief from lawyers. I wish more people would remember that.


I'd better go and edit my post on the tv forum about Wife Swap!


----------



## 888 (Sep 20, 2005)

I suggest a preemptive banning of philwylder in case he decides to sue someone. There's no place on this part of the internet for the litigiously-minded!


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've heard Dubversion play Bobo stuff live.



actually, i don't. i've never played a Sizzla track out, or a Luciano track, the only Anthony B track i've played is God Above Everything and i'm not sure i've played that at Offline. care to tell me what it is you're claiming i've played, Jah Dwyer?

as for the rest of your argument - you're a greasy prick in a dunce's hat, mate.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 20, 2005)

what a lovely turn this thread has taken.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I keep them for the real Babylonians: like *you!*



What *nonsense*. Much like *your* *rational* *proof* of *god's* existence.

As for *real* Babylonians you wouldn't *recongnise* one if *he/she* came up and *kicked* you in the *baws*.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> ...and by the way, what is "a good deal worse" than a law suit?
> 
> Mrs M adds
> I am a good deal worse than a law suit TeeJay. You have persistently given information that allows phildwyer's real life identity to be discovered...I just did it from the quote I've deleted. This means that you are laying yourself open to court action. Anyway, this is a quick shufti at the boards before I go out, and I'm banning you for a month because you will not leave this phildwyer issue alone which is personally causing me hassle. You've been at the centre of modding hassles more than is healthy for your continued life on these boards....



Its not even that I mind individual people knowing who I am in real life.  Tons of people know anyway, I've met lots of you in person, and I'll tell anyone else who I am if they PM me.  But posting personal info on the public boards is a tad excessive, if you ask me.  The rest of you are all basically cool, as far as I can tell, and I enjoy arguing with you all.  I do think, however, that this thread may have outlived its usefulness.  People get so worked up when God is under discussion, *especially* non-believers.  That's a very interesting fact in itself, and probably merits some discussion.  Maybe someone should start a thread...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> You're still yet to falsify neoclassical value theory and 'prove' marxist value theory, so I don't see how you can continue.



You're right to say that the Labour Theory of Value is fundamental to my proof, which is nonsense without it.  The trouble is, I *have* proved the LTV, over the first 10 or 15 pages of this thread.  That's why I think this excercise will never convince everybody, because people will arrive in the middle, and say "hang on, you haven't proved this yet," and I'll have to do it all over again.  We'll just go round and round in circles and pointless digressions forever.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

No you haven't: you haven't *proved* anything.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 20, 2005)

i don't think i'm one of the worked up types, having really only joined in this debate to entertain myself when i should be working... it's not that i do or don't believe in god, i just don't believe that god can be rationally proved to exist.  nor do i believe god can be PROVED not to exist.  as far as i'm concerned, if god exists that's his or her own business.  it's religions i have the problem with, and people whose moral code doesn't come from their experience of the world around them, and least-harm principals, but from the alleged word of gods and prophets - especially when things that they claim is right can be shown to cause harm to individuals or societies uneccessarily.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The Levellers are often considered the first political party, they pioneered the use of agitators and public debates, they had a coherent ideology and they did not subscribe to any particular religious denomination.  The Diggers were small groups of direct action communists.  The Ranters were a loosely-organized collection of antinomain anarchists. The two main political groupings in the Long Parilament, the Presbyterians and the Independents, functioned like political parties but were also religious denomiations.  The same is true of various groups to their "Left" like the Baptists and the Quakers.  There were also non-sectarian ultra-radical groups like the Fifth Monarchists.  The fact that Nino and ViolentPanda know nothing about the English Revolution testifes to the degree to which our contemporary Leftists are incapable of conceiving a religiously-motivated radicalism.



Blah blah blah, phil.

The point I was addressing was that you mentioned "political parties". The accurate point I made was that such things as political parties *as organisations that were financially and ideologically subscribed to* didn't exist.
No amount of your tedious verbiage and obfuscation changes the fact that you made an incorrect statement, neither does your sniping about what I may or may not know about the English revolution.

Your arrogance and attempts to belittle people not through challenging their substantive points but by attempting to smear them prove to me yet again the wafer-thin substance of your (much touted by yourself) intellect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> No you haven't: you haven't *proved* anything.




he HAS! 

he's proved it's possible to witter, and witter at greater length than i'd ever believed possible!


----------



## slaar (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You're right to say that the Labour Theory of Value is fundamental to my proof, which is nonsense without it.  The trouble is, I *have* proved the LTV, over the first 10 or 15 pages of this thread.  That's why I think this excercise will never convince everybody, because people will arrive in the middle, and say "hang on, you haven't proved this yet," and I'll have to do it all over again.  We'll just go round and round in circles and pointless digressions forever.


I have read, to my eternal chagrin, every post on this thread. I know neoclassical value theory inside out (and abhor it, so I would love somebody to falsify it). I know a fair bit about Marxist value theory. You have proved nothing to my satisfaction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> he HAS!
> 
> he's proved it's possible to witter, and witter at greater length than i'd ever believed possible!



To use a much-exercised urbanism:

WORD!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

Just when I thought I was out.... they PULL me back in...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> I have read, to my eternal chagrin, every post on this thread. I know neoclassical value theory inside out (and abhor it, so I would love somebody to falsify it). I know a fair bit about Marxist value theory. You have proved nothing to my satisfaction.



Well, it might have been better if you'd said this weeks ago when I was actually proving it, but anyway, I'll recap as best I can.  The ability to conceptualize is definitively human.  The makes possible exchange, and the creation of exchange-value in the natural bodies of objects.  For any large-scale exchange to be possible, a common denominator, or value per se, must be introduced.  This common denominator must be something that all the objects share in common, which is human labour-power.  The definition of labour-power is much wider than usually assumed, and is in fact co-terminus with human life.  Financial value is human life confronting us in alien form.  Financial value must not be confused with price, exchange-value or money, which it usually is.  

That's not a proof, that's mere assertion, but I do prove this, meticulously and laboriously, and meeting every single objection raised, in the first half of this thread.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Blah blah blah, phil.
> 
> The point I was addressing was that you mentioned "political parties". The accurate point I made was that such things as political parties *as organisations that were financially and ideologically subscribed to* didn't exist.



The Levellers meet this definition, as I said much earlier.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i don't think i'm one of the worked up types, having really only joined in this debate to entertain myself when i should be working... it's not that i do or don't believe in god, i just don't believe that god can be rationally proved to exist.  nor do i believe god can be PROVED not to exist.  as far as i'm concerned, if god exists that's his or her own business.  it's religions i have the problem with, and people whose moral code doesn't come from their experience of the world around them, and least-harm principals, but from the alleged word of gods and prophets - especially when things that they claim is right can be shown to cause harm to individuals or societies uneccessarily.



I agree with you about organized religion.  But God *can* be proved, rationally, to exist.  I am currently about halfway towards making such a proof, although it seems we are to going to be bogged down in value theory again for a while now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The Levellers meet this definition, as I said much earlier.



No you didn't.

Your refutation on page 43 of the thread says *nothing* on the matter of financial subscription. That the Levellers were "considered" to be the first political party is immaterial to them actually fulfilling the necessary definitional criteria of a political party, as I'm sure you'd understand if you weren't so busy patching the holes in your credibility.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> he HAS!
> 
> he's proved it's possible to witter, and witter at greater length than i'd ever believed possible!



In that case.....


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The Levellers meet this definition, as I said much earlier.



No they do not.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> No you didn't.
> 
> Your refutation on page 43 of the thread says *nothing* on the matter of financial subscription. That the Levellers were "considered" to be the first political party is immaterial to them actually fulfilling the necessary definitional criteria of a political party, as I'm sure you'd understand if you weren't so busy patching the holes in your credibility.



Anyone reading page 43 would see that I am saying more than that they are "considered" to be the first political party, and that I was in fact claiming that's what they *were.*  Which is true, as most people are aware.  This is pretty widely known, and almost everyone knows it.  The vast majority of people accept this well-known fact.  Except you.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> No they do not.



Why not?


----------



## slaar (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, it might have been better if you'd said this weeks ago when I was actually proving it, but anyway, I'll recap as best I can.  The ability to conceptualize is definitively human.  The makes possible exchange, and the creation of exchange-value in the natural bodies of objects.  For any large-scale exchange to be possible, a common denominator, or value per se, must be introduced.  This common denominator must be something that all the objects share in common, which is human labour-power.  The definition of labour-power is much wider than usually assumed, and is in fact co-terminus with human life.  Financial value is human life confronting us in alien form.  Financial value must not be confused with price, exchange-value or money, which it usually is.
> 
> That's not a proof, that's mere assertion, but I do prove this, meticulously and laboriously, and meeting every single objection raised, in the first half of this thread.


That definition of Marxist value theory is non-falsifiable. Neoclassical value theory is non falsifiable.

Go figure.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> That definition of Marxist value theory is non-falsifiable. Neoclassical value theory is non falsifiable.
> 
> Go figure.



The theory of value I have just outlined falsifies the neoclassical theory by being true.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The theory of value I have just outlined falsifies the neoclassical theory by being true.


is it? 

define "true".


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Why not?



Simply because they don't. Political parties only came into being in the early 18th century, possibly the very late 17th. The Levellers while having a particular ideology that was distinct from the rest of the revolutionaries, cannot, in any way, be described as a political party.

Presumably if you regard the Levellers as political party, then you no doubt regard the demes of Byzantium in the same way - no?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Simply because they don't. Political parties only came into being in the early 18th century, possibly the very late 17th. The Levellers while having a particular ideology that was distinct from the rest of the revolutionaries, cannot, in any way, be described as a political party.
> 
> Presumably if you regard the Levellers as political party, then you no doubt regard the demes of Byzantium in the same way - no?


so you think neale got it wrong when he said that the "puritan choir" in the elizabethan parliaments were an early example of political party?


----------



## slaar (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The theory of value I have just outlined falsifies the neoclassical theory by being true.


You can't honestly be trying to say it's impossible to have two different, non-falsifiable explanations of a single complex system? Proving one cannot be falsified doesn't invalidate the other.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so you think neale got it wrong when he said that the "puritan choir" in the elizabethan parliaments were an early example of political party?



Yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Yes.




i hoped you'd avoid that little trap!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i hoped you'd avoid that little trap!



I wonder what phil has to say on the matter though.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so you think neale got it wrong when he said that the "puritan choir" in the elizabethan parliaments were an early example of political party?



He's right, except that the Levellers were a secular rather than a religious organization.  If we are counting religious organizations--and I actually think we should--then the Presbytarians and the Independents were also political parties in the 1630's.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> You can't honestly be trying to say it's impossible to have two different, non-falsifiable explanations of a single complex system? Proving one cannot be falsified doesn't invalidate the other.



Well then, the onus is on you to prove that neoclassical value theory cannot be falsified, as I have done for the Labour Theory.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The theory of value I have just outlined falsifies the neoclassical theory by being true.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

>



Well Gurrier, this suprises me more than somewhat.  Most Lefties, and all Marxists, accept the Labour Theory of Value.  I take it you don't?


----------



## slaar (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well then, the onus is on you to prove that neoclassical value theory cannot be falsified, as I have done for the Labour Theory.


Quite so. The first two paragraphs of p161 in the paper below will do for starters.

http://esnie.u-paris10.fr/pdf/textes_2005/Hodgson_HiddenPersuaders.pdf


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> Quite so. The first two paragraphs of p161 in the paper below will do for starters.
> 
> http://esnie.u-paris10.fr/pdf/textes_2005/Hodgson_HiddenPersuaders.pdf



That's not a theory of value at all, its a theory of human behaviour, and a transparantly ideological one at that.  Basically (and the Darwinian overtones are quiet clear) it claims that everything human beings do is always calculated to maximize utility to themselves.  Gary Becker, who seems to be the main theorist discussed here, has even written a notorious book, Treatise on the Family, in which he reduces *love* to this basely self-interested level.  I find this absolutely horrible stuff, as well as ridiculous, and it obviously functions (I would argue that it is intended) as a rationalization of the marketplace.  But in any case, it has nothing to say on the question of what value *is,* what is its *substance.*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Anyone reading page 43 would see that I am saying more than that they are "considered" to be the first political party, and that I was in fact claiming that's what they *were.*  Which is true, as most people are aware.  This is pretty widely known, and almost everyone knows it.  The vast majority of people accept this well-known fact.  Except you.



Nice hypothesis, but that's *all* it is.

Stating your so-called "well-known fact" proves nothing.

Much like so many of your "statements", all you've done is regurgitated a previously-stated (by some more eminent and worthy than yourself) opinion and claimed it as your own.

If indeed I am the only person who doesn't know this fact then it should be simple for you to prove it.

Except you won't be able to, because however you dress it up you're voicing an opinion, a value-laden interpretation based on your assumption of what constituted a "political party" at that time without your having *defined*, with historical evidence, what did indeed constitute a "political party" at that time.

I await your next gust of bluster with great interest. I'll be even more interested if you can produce evidence to substantiate your claim.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so you think neale got it wrong when he said that the "puritan choir" in the elizabethan parliaments were an early example of political party?



If you're referring to J.E. Neale perhaps he was expressing an informed opinion based on a "modern-day" understanding of what constitutes a "political party"?

I don't know which (if it is he) of his works you cited the quote from so I don't know the context in which he made the comment (I only have "Queen Elizabeth the First").


----------



## slaar (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's not a theory of value at all, its a theory of human behaviour, and a transparantly ideological one at that.  Basically (and the Darwinian overtones are quiet clear) it claims that everything human beings do is always calculated to maximize utility to themselves.  Gary Becker, who seems to be the main theorist discussed here, has even written a notorious book, Treatise on the Family, in which he reduces *love* to this basely self-interested level.  I find this absolutely horrible stuff, as well as ridiculous, and it obviously functions (I would argue that it is intended) as a rationalization of the marketplace.  But in any case, it has nothing to say on the question of what value *is,* what is its *substance.*


Of course it's a theory of value as well as of behaviour, value that objects have emerging from the rational maximisation of human preferences in the same way Marxist theory suggests value comes from embodied labour power.

I'm well aware of Becker's work having been subjected to it at university, and probably hold him in as much contempt as you do, but it is a theory of value, and it is not falsifiable.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Nice hypothesis, but that's *all* it is.
> 
> Stating your so-called "well-known fact" proves nothing.
> 
> Much like so many of your "statements", all you've done is regurgitated a previously-stated (by some more eminent and worthy than yourself) opinion and claimed it as your own.



Now I must take exception to this, Panda.  I've never claimed that any of the ideas I discuss on this thread are my own.  But the point of this thread is to prove God's existence *without* just referring to authorities.  I even debated whether or not to respond to Slaar's reference above on these grounds: eventually I decided to cut him some slack, but it would have been better if he'd tried to prove neoclassical value theory in his own words.  

Anyway, the source for the argument that the Levellers were the first political party is, of course, Christopher Hill's The World Turned Upside Down.

More generally, I must say that I've been amused at the incredulity expressed by Gurrier and other self-proclaimed Leftists with regard to the ideas I've discussed here.  As some have been smart enough to notice, these ideas are hardly new, and large parts of my proof so far have been little more than a summary of the first chapter of Capital.  That most basic principle of socialism, the Labour Theory of Value, has been greeted with hoots of derision by several people who describe themselves as socialists.  We can only conclude that Gurrier and others have simply never read the basic texts of their movements.  No surprises there, I know, but it rare that they reveal their ignorance so publically.


----------



## slaar (Sep 20, 2005)

Fair point phil, I got lazy. All explanations are usually paraphrases of other people's work mind.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now I must take exception to this, Panda.  I've never claimed that any of the ideas I discuss on this thread are my own.  But the point of this thread is to prove God's existence *without* just referring to authorities.  I even debated whether or not to respond to Slaar's reference above on these grounds: eventually I decided to cut him some slack, but it would have been better if he'd tried to prove neoclassical value theory in his own words.
> 
> Anyway, the source for the argument that the Levellers were the first political party is, of course, Christopher Hill's The World Turned Upside Down.
> 
> More generally, I must say that I've been amused at the incredulity expressed by Gurrier and other self-proclaimed Leftists with regard to the ideas I've discussed here.  As some have been smart enough to notice, these ideas are hardly new, and large parts of my proof so far have been little more than a summary of the first chapter of Capital.  That most basic principle of socialism, the Labour Theory of Value, has been greeted with hoots of derision by several people who describe themselves as socialists.  We can only conclude that Gurrier and others have simply never read the basic texts of their movements.  No surprises there, I know, but it rare that they reveal their ignorance so publically.




No, but it isn't as though you cite any sources. You leave most of those reading this thread thinking that these words and ideas are your own when, in fact, they are not.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> No, but it isn't as though you cite any sources. You leave most of those reading this thread thinking that these words and ideas are your own when, in fact, they are not.



Nino, I started this thread because I got fed up with people--you among them--complaining when I cited sources to back up difficult ideas, instead of doing it myself.  Actually, I do take credit for arranging the ideas in the way I have here, and for drawing out some original conclusions from them, but only a complete ignoramus would have failed to notice that I am using Marx, Simmel, Lukacs and Kant, among others.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorami about.


----------



## Loki (Sep 20, 2005)

Are we there yet?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nino, I started this thread because I got fed up with people--you among them--complaining when I cited sources to back up difficult ideas, instead of doing it myself.  Actually, I do take credit for arranging the ideas in the way I have here, and for drawing out some original conclusions from them, but only a complete ignoramus would have failed to notice that I am using Marx, Simmel, Lukacs and Kant, among others.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorami about.



You're still playing games phil. It is only you who seems to think that you aren't. But then you are somewhat deluded, aren't you? Not only are you deluded but you are a terrible liar.

Your ego is so large it deserves a congressman of its own (you said you lived in the States - right?).


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 20, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Are we there yet?



i hope so, i need to go wee


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 20, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> (you said you lived in the States - right?).



he claims to have been to offline..


----------



## revol68 (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nino, I started this thread because I got fed up with people--you among them--complaining when I cited sources to back up difficult ideas, instead of doing it myself.  Actually, I do take credit for arranging the ideas in the way I have here, and for drawing out some original conclusions from them, but only a complete ignoramus would have failed to notice that I am using Marx, Simmel, Lukacs and Kant, among others.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorami about.



Am i one of the ignorami, and if so perhaps you would like to tell me where my interpretation of Marx and Lukacs are flawed?


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Sep 20, 2005)

Phil...what's the SP?

I don't need proof I need answers.

(and did you know if you highlight a word an click the tilting I above it can save on the *s )

ATBUTC


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now I must take exception to this, Panda.  I've never claimed that any of the ideas I discuss on this thread are my own.  But the point of this thread is to prove God's existence *without* just referring to authorities.



No-one is asking you to make your argument through "just referring to authorities", but if you're attempting to present what you believe is an educated discourse on your particular subject it is usual practice to at least passingly reference source(s) with a "...argued that..." or the like. You construct and place your argument through deploying references that your readers can "bounce" off of (unless you're French, of course), thus giving your readership "signposts" from which to ascertain your position, and thence be able to more accurately rebut your points. What you've done is to mostly eschew references, and so we've had people constantly having to ask you whether you're referencing a particular point before the argument can proceed. 

It''s about academic courtesy as much as anything (unless, of course, you are actually aiming at the pretentious/abstruse market).


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> he claims to have been to offline..



Hmmm, I get the feeling our friend phil isn't being straight with any of us.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well Gurrier, this suprises me more than somewhat.  Most Lefties, and all Marxists, accept the Labour Theory of Value.  I take it you don't?


I was smirking at your claim to have proven that the LTV is 'true'.  

There are two main reasons why the claim was worth a smirk. 

Firstly you did no such thing.  You bastardised a bit of Marx and others and tacked on a few 'spirits' of your own.  You presented no evidence, merely regurgitated simplified versions of a few theories with a few extra completely unsubstantiated assertions of your own.  You were completely incapable of defending any of your assertions when they were challenged (eg the uniquely human ability to 'conceptualise' - which is wrong, the validity of inventing a third category of value 'financial value', the validity of modelling this concept as an autonomous agent - which is also plainly wrong).  In short, not only did you fail to 'prove' anything, you were not even capable of presenting any evidence to support any of your unsubstantiated claims.  

The second reason for smirking is that you appear to believe it is possible to prove a model to be 'true'.  The labour theory of value and neo-classical theory of value are theoretical models of human economies.  They are both, as are all models, simplifications of reality.  As such they don't even aspire to 'truth' but to 'utility' - they aim to be useful ways of describing our society and this utility is a function firstly of how well they fit the observed facts and secondly on the intent of those who are using them.  Thus LTV is fairly useful (but increasingly less so) as a way of looking at human economic life from a socialist point of view and NCTV is useful from the point of view of a manager or capitalist.  

I realise that Marx was almost certainly aspiring to truth in his exposition of LTV, but Marx lived in a world where there was an almost universal assumption that things could be analysed in deterministic ways.  The idea that you can work out deterministic rules to describe the operation of complex systems has long been abandoned along with the idea that something like LTV can ever be 'true'.  Phil, you're living in the 19th century.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2005)

could we just have a fucking "irrational proof of god" thread?

it'd probably get nearer its stated aim...


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2005)

How about a thread on the "Rational Proof of Hod's existence"?




*gets coat


----------



## slaar (Sep 20, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> I was smirking at your claim to have proven that the LTV is 'true'.
> 
> There are two main reasons why the claim was worth a smirk.
> 
> ...


Thanks gurrier. The second part of my disproof of the proof of the existence of god was going to revolve around the difference between non-falsifiablity of a model, and 'truth'. You've done it instead.

Now as for that irrational proof...


----------



## teecee (Sep 20, 2005)

OK  it appears proof does exist ... 



> Christiananswers.net, for example, is currently displaying a series of critiques of the movie. Its helpful categorisation of the film's qualities include: "PROFANITY: None. SEX/NUDITY: Penguins mate during the film, but it is understood, not shown. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: One year in the life of an emperor penguin is a great indication of the existence and character of God."



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article313794.ece


----------



## Fuchs66 (Sep 20, 2005)

teecee said:
			
		

> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article313794.ece



Gay penguins?????   Whatever next?


----------



## laptop (Sep 20, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Phil, you're living in the 19th century.



Well, we can rule out the 17th, given the egregious bollocks about the Levellers. 

I'm not so sure we can rule out the 15th


----------



## 118118 (Sep 20, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> They are both, as are all models, simplifications of reality.  As such they don't even aspire to 'truth' but to 'utility' - they aim to be useful ways of describing our society and this utility is a function firstly of how well they fit the observed facts and secondly on the intent of those who are using them.


According to what i've been taught, good scientific theories have visimilitude: approximate truth, as complete truth is considered too difficult, scientific humility.

The belief that theories need to be falsifiable is just a product of philosophers thus far being unable to justify induction. But we make generalizations from the observed to the unobserved (what happens when we confirm something, and we can still confirm non-falsifiable theories) all the time in real life, and we don't doubt that our theories/conclusions may be true (the phrase all bachelors are not married is un-falsifiable, but is clearly true), or that the inductive stages in our reasoning are rational. So even if when applying LTV we rely on induction, it may be rational to do so, and the products/postualtes may be true.

I don't see why fv should be seen as a spirit though. Llabor is physical, and I see no reason why alienated labor is 'a representation' of labor and thus not made of it.
It seems claer that alienated labor is made of labor and alienated conditions together with certain laws.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 20, 2005)

phil, you say that sizzla, a raving homophobe, is a great modern day prophet. The issue isn't musical taste.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 20, 2005)

I'm starting to wish god were real so I can pray to him to show mercy on us all in this thread.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 20, 2005)

I've been thinking

Phil is a stone dropped into a well that seems to have no bottom

A well that has no bottom is a miracle

A miracle proves the existence of an omnipotent presence

Therefore Phil is God.


I know all in one post, but what do you think?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> I've been thinking
> 
> Phil is a stone dropped into a well that seems to have no bottom
> 
> ...


you could have posted that at the start!


----------



## exosculate (Sep 20, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you could have posted that at the start!



Sorry - it was while I was waiting to hear the splash that I had this revelatory moment.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> he claims to have been to offline..



What do you mean "claims?"  Are you casting aspersions on my veracity?  Actually, it might have been a PROD.  At the Windmill anyway.  You can ask the Ed if you feel the need, I said hello to him there.  I do live in the States, but I visit Britain 4 or 5 times a year, and I spend a lot of time in Brixton, why are these concepts so hard to grasp?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> No-one is asking you to make your argument through "just referring to authorities", but if you're attempting to present what you believe is an educated discourse on your particular subject it is usual practice to at least passingly reference source(s) with a "...argued that..." or the like. You construct and place your argument through deploying references that your readers can "bounce" off of (unless you're French, of course), thus giving your readership "signposts" from which to ascertain your position, and thence be able to more accurately rebut your points. What you've done is to mostly eschew references, and so we've had people constantly having to ask you whether you're referencing a particular point before the argument can proceed.
> 
> It''s about academic courtesy as much as anything (unless, of course, you are actually aiming at the pretentious/abstruse market).



If you'll read my OP, you will see that my reason for starting this separate thread was that, in the anti-Darwinist thread, people had been moaning that I was giving *too many* references, and so shirking my duty to argue my case myself.  I thought that was a fair point.  But now I face accusations of not citing *enough* references.  You can't win, it seems.  Alright, I'll try to find a balance from now on.  As is well known, the proof of the Labour Theory of Value which I have outlined is based on the first chapter of Capital.  The stuff about exchange as the fundmental human characteristic is based on Georg Simmel's The Philosophy of Money.  The logos references are based on Derrida.  The idea that the form of financial value is duplicated in subjective consciousness is from Georg Lukacs's History and Class-consciousness.  My understanding of an "idea" is drawn from Plato, and the notion of "spirit" from Luther.  Will that do?  Anything else you want?  Of course, now we'll probably get bogged down in fruitless squabbles about the writers I've mentioned.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> I was smirking at your claim to have proven that the LTV is 'true'.
> 
> There are two main reasons why the claim was worth a smirk.
> 
> ...



All three of the claims you describe as "wrong" are made by Marx in the first chapter of Capital.  Not that this makes them automatically true, of course, which is why I successfully defended each of these claims against all objections, including your own puny efforts.  I can easily do so again if necessary.  It does not surprise me to learn that you do not believe in truth.  The glib pragamtism you spout here is the ideology of a market society, which effaces essence and use-value under the false layer of representation and exchange-value.  As I will shortly explain to you.  Do you think it is coincidence that pragmatism has become the dominant philosophy in a society based on market exchange?  Don't you believe that the history of thought develops in accordance with the economy?  And the fact that you believe the LTV is "increasingly less useful" as an analytical tool proves only that you don't understand it.  Most probably you still imagine that the LTV suggests value is produced by material production, a confusion that results from your failure to grasp the price/value distinction.  I think that you are one still living in the nineteenth century.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I don't see why fv should be seen as a spirit though. Llabor is physical, and I see no reason why alienated labor is 'a representation' of labor and thus not made of it.
> It seems claer that alienated labor is made of labor and alienated conditions together with certain laws.



We're not talking about "alienated labour."  We're talking about "alienated *labour-power.*"  Labour-power refers to the *capacity* to labour for a certain amount of time.  It designates a particular portion of the time, which is to say the life, of a human being.  Financial value is thus an alienated representation of human life itself.  It is the *opposite,* the dialectical antithesis, of human life.  The implications of this fact are what will lead me to describe financial value as a "spirit."


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> If you'll read my OP, you will see that my reason for starting this separate thread was that, in the anti-Darwinist thread, people had been moaning that I was giving *too many* references, and so shirking my duty to argue my case myself.  I thought that was a fair point.  But now I face accusations of not citing *enough* references.  You can't win, it seems.  Alright, I'll try to find a balance from now on.


If even the deity-forsaken Tony Giddens can find the balance, I'm sure you can.


> As is well known, the proof of the Labour Theory of Value which I have outlined is based on the first chapter of Capital.  The stuff about exchange as the fundmental human characteristic is based on Georg Simmel's The Philosophy of Money.  The logos references are based on Derrida.  The idea that the form of financial value is duplicated in subjective consciousness is from Georg Lukacs's History and Class-consciousness.  My understanding of an "idea" is drawn from Plato, and the notion of "spirit" from Luther.  Will that do?  Anything else you want?  Of course, now we'll probably get bogged down in fruitless squabbles about the writers I've mentioned.


Thank you.
As for getting "bogged down", arguing over what a particular author meant by a particular turn of phrase is a wonderful thing, as well as occasionally providing a new "lens" through which to view a theory or concept. It is only "fruitless" when one believes one has nothing more to learn.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> We're not talking about "alienated labour."  We're talking about "alienated *labour-power.*"  Labour-power refers to the *capacity* to labour for a certain amount of time.  It designates a particular portion of the time, which is to say the life, of a human being.  Financial value is thus an alienated representation of human life itself.  It is the *opposite,* the dialectical antithesis, of human life.  The implications of this fact are what will lead me to describe financial value as a "spirit."


Ok. So human life is not a physical thing? The capacity to work is not physical? And tbh I have no idea what you mean pby 'representation'.
Could not labor power be made of certain conditions of my environment and my physical and mental health. Again physical things.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Ok. So human life is not a physical thing? The capacity to work is not physical? And tbh I have no idea what you mean pby 'representation'.



When you work for a wage you are exchanging your time for a representation of that time in financial form.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 20, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> When you work for a wage you are exchanging your time for a representation of that time in financial form.


I would have to continue to assert that financial value is our physical and mental health in alienated conditions along with certain laws. What makes this explanation unacceptable?
As I see it alienated labor power is alienated in that it occurs in alienated conditions, not because it is no longer composed of labor power.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 21, 2005)

I think it's high time to introduce satan into the argument.  

Bring on the bad man phil


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What do you mean "claims?"  Are you casting aspersions on my veracity?  Actually, it might have been a PROD.  At the Windmill anyway.  You can ask the Ed if you feel the need, I said hello to him there.  I do live in the States, but I visit Britain 4 or 5 times a year, and I spend a lot of time in Brixton, why are these concepts so hard to grasp?



And you told me that you went to live in the States when you were 23...but that doesn't mean anything, given the fact that none of us know how old you are. So how old are you phil? 25?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> 23


 the mystic number!


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 21, 2005)

Older than that, at a guess.



> All three of the claims you describe as "wrong" are made by Marx in the first chapter of Capital. Not that this makes them automatically true, of course, which is why I successfully defended each of these claims against all objections, including your own puny efforts. I can easily do so again if necessary. It does not surprise me to learn that you do not believe in truth. The glib pragamtism you spout here is the ideology of a market society, which effaces essence and use-value under the false layer of representation and exchange-value. As I will shortly explain to you. Do you think it is coincidence that pragmatism has become the dominant philosophy in a society based on market exchange? Don't you believe that the history of thought develops in accordance with the economy? And the fact that you believe the LTV is "increasingly less useful" as an analytical tool proves only that you don't understand it. Most probably you still imagine that the LTV suggests value is produced by material production, a confusion that results from your failure to grasp the price/value distinction. I think that you are one still living in the nineteenth century.



I found your defence of those ideas pretty lacking, as apparently did several others on this thread. What's all of this 'effaces use-value stuff' anyway? I don't remember any of this from before. Pragmatism values models of the world according to their use-value, no?


----------



## Batley (Sep 21, 2005)

Sorry if this has been asked before but I really couldn't face reading all those posts.
Why choose to use marxist dialectical materialism as a model for proving the existence of god? Seems a bit barmy to me - like using St Augustine to prove atheism. Or is that the clever bit? 

Once again, if this has been fully discussed earlier please forgive me.

By the way, if there is a god, he certainly isn't arsed about us. He got bored ages back and is now probably relaxing in a cloud which he has turned into a magic shed. He is sitting back with a few Stellas and a DVD box set of Highway. 

Laughing.


----------



## Batley (Sep 21, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> When you work for a wage you are exchanging your time for a representation of that time in financial form.



except when you nick off like I did today.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 21, 2005)

Batley said:
			
		

> except when you nick off like I did today.


Financial Value is sure to give you a kicking for that.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2005)

What are your ideas on the concept of _time_, phil?


----------



## Batley (Sep 21, 2005)

Time is a twat. Goes slow as fuck when everything is shite and depressing and miserable .....and then whizzes past when stuff is good. If that isn't god having a laugh, I don't know what is.

sorry i am not phyl but i doubt very much that he knows what time is either   - if he had any answers to any of this stuff he would have Nobel Prizes coming out his arse and been on Trisha.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2005)

Batley said:
			
		

> Time is a twat. Goes slow as fuck when everything is shite and depressing and miserable .....and then whizzes past when stuff is good. If that isn't god having a laugh, I don't know what is.
> 
> sorry i am not phyl but i doubt very much that he knows what time is either   - if he had any answers to any of this stuff he would have Nobel Prizes coming out his arse and been on Trisha.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2005)

two quick things about this thread:

this proof isn't, and it's not rational either.


----------



## laptop (Sep 21, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> As I see it alienated labor power is alienated in that it occurs in alienated conditions, not because it is no longer composed of labor power.



I was just idly wondering where it was that phild was sneaking in his conclusion as an assumption - and you come up with a candidate. 

So: assert that the labour power is material and value is transcendental, and you have a basis for something very much like the "ontological proof" - which is a sleight of hand conducted by taking "it is possible that there is a god" as an axiom,


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> the mystic number!



Shouldn't that be "mystic*k*"?


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 21, 2005)

Mr(s) Chairperson, I move that this thread be merged with the 'Must See' thread to restore some much-needed gravitas (and if Loki will oblige, some much-needed gravadlax).

All in favour, say Rrrastafar-aye!


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 21, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> Mr(s) Chairperson, I move that this thread be merged with the 'Must See' thread to restore some much-needed gravitas (and if Loki will oblige, some much-needed gravadlax).
> 
> All in favour, say Rrrastafar-aye!


Rational theor-_aye_! *gets coat*


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 21, 2005)

Wow, we're approaching 50 pages and the vibe is still strong.


----------



## inks (Sep 22, 2005)

I dunno, it's over a day since Phill's posted.

I sense abandonment.


----------



## Maidmarian (Sep 22, 2005)

Ooooooooh! I do hope not !


----------



## laptop (Sep 22, 2005)

Maidmarian said:
			
		

> Ooooooooh! I do hope not !



Sssshhh!


Did you not get the memo about the rich rewards that Satan offers us for demolishing faith? 

I'm expecting a delivery of nubility any day now... 118118's already received a garment of shiny new dialectic material...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> And you told me that you went to live in the States when you were 23...but that doesn't mean anything, given the fact that none of us know how old you are. So how old are you phil? 25?



I'm considerably younger than you, Nino, that's all you need to know.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I would have to continue to assert that financial value is our physical and mental health in alienated conditions along with certain laws. What makes this explanation unacceptable?
> 
> As I see it alienated labor power is alienated in that it occurs in alienated conditions, not because it is no longer composed of labor power.



If by "alienated conditions" you mean private ownership of the means of production, I can't agree.  Labour-power is alienated when it is represented in financial form, no matter what other conditions pertain.  However, only under capitalism would there be a motive to so represent labour-power, for only under capitalism does finanancial value become valuable *in itself,* without reference to what can be purchased with it.  Onbly under capitalism does financial value become an independent, autonomous power with, among other things, the power to *reproduce.*  Only under capitalism does financial value come *alive.*


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 22, 2005)




----------



## bluestreak (Sep 22, 2005)

was that mockery?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> What's all of this 'effaces use-value stuff' anyway? I don't remember any of this from before. Pragmatism values models of the world according to their use-value, no?



Pragmatism values truths according to their *utility,* not their "use-value."  As I've said before, "use-value" is inherent in the body of the object: it is an essential property of the object.  As you'll recall, exchange-value is an idea, a concept, imosed upon the object (the cow qua-value-of-lamb).  A market society abstracts exchange-value into the form of financial value, and imposes this artificial value on natural objects.  To the degree that the market dominates society, use-value is effaced and we see *only* exchange-value.  This means that belief in essential truth and reality evaporate and are replaced by relativisitic "hyper-reality" in which trueh becomes, as the pragmatists and capitalists tell us, what "works."

Are we ready to move on now?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> I was just idly wondering where it was that phild was sneaking in his conclusion as an assumption - and you come up with a candidate.
> 
> So: assert that the labour power is material and value is transcendental, and you have a basis for something very much like the "ontological proof" - which is a sleight of hand conducted by taking "it is possible that there is a god" as an axiom,



What are you on about Laptop?  Have you been paying attention?  I'm not saying that labour-power is material, nor am I saying that value is transcendental.  Do try to keep up.


----------



## Loki (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Are we ready to move on now?



I was ready to move on 1,227 posts ago.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> I was ready to move on 1,227 posts ago.



Feel free.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 22, 2005)

I'm getting off the God-bus, I think.

I think in ascribing an independent existence to financial value you're making the same mistake that Wittgenstein identified in the Tractatus, i.e. the assumption that because we see things as relating to each other there must be some substance, phlogiston-like, that is common to both of them, when in fact all you have is a system of usages; and that it would be better to concentrate on the way that actual things are really used rather than building hypothetical castles in the air.

I also don't think that your thumbnail genealogy of scientific thinking and capitalism amounts to a critique, as such - and I don't see how there could be such a thing without standing so far outside our current episteme as to reject an enormous amount of the fascinating and detailed picture of the world that has been built up over the last few centuries. If you're going to genealogise then do it properly - at what point does scientific rationality depart from what you would regard as the truth? Or is it an intrinsically flawed endeavour?

It's ironic that you criticise exchange as symptomatic of capitalistic ideology, when the token-like way that terms in your exposition seem to be infinitely replaceable is philosophizing qua exchange _par excellence_ - as an example we now have a new category of 'utility' which is I think making its first appearance in order to account for the slightly wacky concept of use-value under which we are presently labouring. What I also find unnerving about this reading of Marx is that it appears to have been emasculated of any practical implications it might have politically - what it needs is a bracing gust of Benjamin's 'crude thinking', IMHO.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm considerably younger than you, Nino, that's all you need to know.



Another one of the many statements that you've made that cannot be substantiated. Indeed, like your "rational proof of God's existence" it cannot be proven. It's hogwash, bullshit, poodle vomit. You made the claim that you went to the states when you were 23 and as I said before, it's meaningless.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Another one of the many statements that you've made that cannot be substantiated. Indeed, like your "rational proof of God's existence" it cannot be proven. It's hogwash, bullshit, poodle vomit. You made the claim that you went to the states when you were 23 and as I said before, it's meaningless.



Come now Nino, you're in your 50's, that much is clear.  Anyway, what are you on about, you old loony?  Why this sudden obsession with age?  Are you interested in talking about the subject of this thread, or are you just here to snoop?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Come now Nino, you're in your 50's, that much is clear.  Anyway, what are you on about, you old loony?  Why this sudden obsession with age?  Are you interested in talking about the subject of this thread, or are you just here to snoop?



You wouldn't know a 50 year old if you one came up and kicked you in the nuts. "Sudden obsession with age"? Hardly, you made the claim that you went to the States when you were 23 but as I pointed out, the statement is meaningless unless one knows your age...and like so many other instances of its kind, it is utter bullshit...much like your "rational proof of God's existence".

So, Onan the Barbarian, still think you are our intellectual superior?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You wouldn't know a 50 year old if you one came up and kicked you in the nuts. "Sudden obsession with age"? Hardly, you made the claim that you went to the States when you were 23 but as I pointed out, the statement is meaningless unless one knows your age...and like so many other instances of its kind, it is utter bullshit...much like your "rational proof of God's existence".



First of all, I *know* you're in your 50's, you've said so on here.  Unless you were lying--which wouldn't be unheard of, now would it?  Second, why do you find it hard to believe that I came to the States when I was 23?  Third, why is this fact "meaningless" if you don't know my age?  Fourth, do you have anything substantive to contribute to this thread, or are you just going to worry and witter about my age?  If the latter, I suggest that you leave right now.


----------



## Loki (Sep 22, 2005)

Cutting to the chase: This is just something I found with a google. I don't believe in much of it, but it's more interesting than Phil's endless droning about value and 'relativisitic "hyper-reality"'.


_One of the most far-reaching consequences of the rationalism of the Enlightenment was the undermining of basic Christian faith among the educated classes. The effect was unintended because the project of many Enlightenment philosophers was to prove the existence of God using reason: Descartes and Leibniz assumed that God's existence could be rationally proved, indeed God was a necessary part of their philosophy.

There are many traditional "proofs" for the existence of God, and we will look at three of them: The argument from design, the ontological argument and the cosmological argument.

Traditional "proofs" of God's Existence

1) The argument from Design.

 If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed.

Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.

2) The ontological argument

God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.

3) The cosmological argument (God as "First cause")

Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.

Pascal's Wager

The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)

His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.

If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.

Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?

Kant

Kant attempted to show how philosophy could prove the existence of God. Unfortunately, for him his previous work showed that we could not know reality directly as thing-in-itself. What is real in itself is beyond our experience. Even if God exists, we can not know God as he really is.

For Kant the Christian could have faith in God, and this faith would be consonant with reason and the categorical imperative. Given that human beings have the autonomy to create moral values, it would not be irrational to believe in a God who gives purpose to the moral realm.

Hegel

Hegel thought that the God of religion was an intuition of Absolute Spirit or Geist. Hegel's Geist is not like the transcendent (outside of our consciousness) God of traditional Christianity. For Hegel God is immanent and when we have understood that history is the process of Geist coming to know itself it appears that we are all part of Geist, or God.
Feuerbach and Marx

For Feuerbach and Marx religion is seen as the projection of the human essence onto an ideal: God does not make man. Rather "God" is the invention of human consciousness.  Marx also sees that religion is part of an ideological view that encourages the oppressed to accept their fate. As he says: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."

Søren Kierkegaard

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) agreed with Kant that the existence of God could not be proven by reason. However Kierkegaard did not think that it was rational to believe in God, rather one should have faith in God even if this seems to reason to be absurd. To put it another way reason has no place in faith. God is beyond reason.

Kierkegaard is regarded as the first existentialist.

Nietzsche: The Death of God

"Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly, 'I seek God!, I seek God!' ... Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?... The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"'Whither is God'? He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'"

"...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I came too early,' he said then; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man."

In these passages Nietzsche is showing the inevitable unfolding anthropocentrism (lit. putting man at the centre of the world) implicit in philosophy since Kant. If we view our existence through human categories, then our concept of God is itself a human creation.

Nietzsche is not simply asserting his atheism; he is suggesting that once we are aware that the concept of God is our own creation we can no longer base our religious and moral beliefs on any notion of a divine external reality.

In the period that Nietzsche was writing, the death of God was just beginning. Western thought was starting to face the prospect of a radical change in its orientation, and it wasn't quite ready to own up to it yet.

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent opposite reactions to the inability of rationality to give a rock solid theoretical proof of God's existence. Kierkegaard calls for us to embrace God even if it seems an absurdity, while Nietzsche says it is time for us to create a new mode of being, with human creativity at its centre.

The atheist existentialist Sartre accepted God's death and much of his writing is attempt to look at the human condition in a world that is without a prime mover who could have provided a basis and structure for the understanding of being.

The twentieth century

Anglo American analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have tended to agree that philosophy may help us clarify religious concepts, without giving us a secure foundation for religious belief.

Many people claim to have had a religious experience, to have experienced the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of philosophy.

The view that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy has not stopped developments in modern theology. Theologians are attempting to balance the anthropocentric view of God presented by philosophers since the Enlightenment with the need to provide a spiritual path and a guide to an ethical and meaningful way of life._

http://www.philosopher.org.uk/god.htm


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> First of all, I *know* you're in your 50's, you've said so on here.  Unless you were lying--which wouldn't be unheard of, now would it?  Second, why do you find it hard to believe that I came to the States when I was 23?  Third, why is this fact "meaningless" if you don't know my age?  Fourth, do you have anything substantive to contribute to this thread, or are you just going to worry and witter about my age?  If the latter, I suggest that you leave right now.



Where did I say that "I was in my 50's" please provide evidence. What? You can't? More bullshit.

It is meanningless when you tell someone that "you went to the States when you were 23", particularly when the person you are adressing does not know your current age. I would have thought an intelligent postgrad like yourself would be able to grasp a concept so utterly simple. Looks like I was wrong.

I won't be leaving this thread because you demand it. If you think that I am going to capitulate to your bullying and browbeating, you really are living in a fantasy world.

So my onanistic wee chum, you have given no proof of God's existence which only leads me to one conclusion: this thread is an extension of your already vastly inflated ego and nothing else.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Where did I say that "I was in my 50's" please provide evidence. What? You can't? More bullshit.



You hilariously claimed to have, and I quote, "faced down Jim Crow."  Jim Crow finally ended circa 1968.  For you to have been big enough to have "faced him down" you must have been at least 16 by then.  So you are now at least 53.  Anyway, its obvious from your posting style.


----------



## laptop (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What are you on about



It's a sketch for a critique, not a summary you're supposed to agree with, silly.

There's smuggling going on, and I'm fairly sure it's near that point of the argument.


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

You can only experience what you believe.

 You believe your an animal with no greater purpose at all....you live that.

 You believe your a being of infinite conciousness and a component of the greater conciousness we name God....You live that.

 Its all about free choice. (although don`t get me started on media)


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You hilariously claimed to have, and I quote, "faced down Jim Crow."  Jim Crow finally ended circa 1968.  For you to have been big enough to have "faced him down" you must have been at least 16 by then.  So you are now at least 53.  Anyway, its obvious from your posting style.



You weren't paying attention at all were you? For someone who claims to have an extensive and intimate knowledge of the US, you don't half come across as ignorant. You honestly think Jim Crow disappeared when the 1965 Civil Rights act was promulgated? What a fucking idiot...what a fucking onanistic idiot.

So phil, evidence please or will you continue to speculate in your own masturbatory fashion?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You weren't paying attention at all were you? For someone who claims to have an extensive and intimate knowledge of the US, you don't half come across as ignorant. You honestly think Jim Crow disappeared when the 1965 Civil Rights act was promulgated? What a fucking idiot...what a fucking onanistic idiot.
> 
> So phil, evidence please or will you continue to speculate in your own masturbatory fashion?



Really Nino, your masturbation fetish is getting out of control.  I'm having my breakfast here, do you mind?  Anyway, the fact is that you're in your 50's and everybody knows it.  Now if you'll excuse me, there are people here who are raising substantive issues.  I suggest you find a different thread to infest.


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

You people are all pathetic.

 Listen to you arguing over inane tripe, each trying to justify their own preconceptions of the other. You do realise your in the same boat, your on the same planet and deep down probably have the same big questions.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Really Nino, your masturbation fetish is getting out of control.  I'm having my breakfast here, do you mind?  Anyway, the fact is that you're in your 50's and everybody knows it.  Now if you'll excuse me, there are people here who are raising substantive issues.  I suggest you find a different thread to infest.



If I am in my 50's then you are certainly 16 and no older. "Everyone knows it"? Once again you demonstrate just how deluded you are because I don't think many people would agree with you - particularly those who have met me. As for my "masturbation fetish", that's you projecting yourself onto me. You understand what is meant by "projection" don't you? 

As this post shows, you have no intention of making serious discussion. You are here to wind people up and to bully and browbeat those you see as your intellectual "inferiors". What this shows even the amateur psychologist is that you have a serious psychological disorder - possibly of a narcissistic nature.

I'd seek therapy if I were you.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> As for my "masturbation fetish", that's you projecting yourself onto me.



I wouldn't project myself onto you if you were Elizabeth Hurley.  Anyway, enough of this.  I'm sorry Nino, but I want you to leave this thread immediately.  As you have openly boasted, your only purpose here is to derail any serious discussion, and this issue is simply too important to allow that to happen.  Perhaps a few days away will do you good, calm your nerves, and maybe you can return then.  Now I have to go to work, but I will address the rest of the serious objections to my case so far tomorrow.  With any luck, we can then return to the issue of whether value is best described as an "idea" or a "spirit."


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

This thread just won`t die.

 Please lets talk about something constructive. If God is real then it won`t be proven with some exercise of logic but with actual experience of the concept.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> This thread just won`t die.
> 
> Please lets talk about something constructive. If God is real then it won`t be proven with some exercise of logic but with actual experience of the concept.



The thing is with peoples experiencences, and you get this a lot in all arguements, is they're not necessarily transferable. 
So a lot of people argue along the lines of so and so happened/didn't happen to me,so  it's not true. Whereas it should be in my experience it's not true.

I think Phils trying to get a more concrete proof than this.

Whether he has fuck knows I haven't read the thread, I just want to know the result.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> You people are all pathetic.
> 
> Listen to you arguing over inane tripe, each trying to justify their own preconceptions of the other. You do realise your in the same boat, your on the same planet and deep down probably have the same big questions.



Have you considered fucking off and finding some people worthy of sharing your infinite consciousness with?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I wouldn't project myself onto you if you were Elizabeth Hurley.  Anyway, enough of this.  I'm sorry Nino, but I want you to leave this thread immediately.  As you have openly boasted, your only purpose here is to derail any serious discussion, and this issue is simply too important to allow that to happen.  Perhaps a few days away will do you good, calm your nerves, and maybe you can return then.  Now I have to go to work, but I will address the rest of the serious objections to my case so far tomorrow.  With any luck, we can then return to the issue of whether value is best described as an "idea" or a "spirit."



I'm going nowhere. I want to see your "argument" continue to be shot down in flames. I want to see you squirm and wriggle and pontificate and browbeat others with your meaningless witterings...while you remain oblivious to your shortcomings. I want to see you present even more far fetched nonsense dressed up as "serious intellectual debate", so that I may laugh even more at your blind stupidity.

You don't have to "want" to project yourself: you already have done that. But only an egomaniac like you is incapable of seeing this. Egomaniacs are not very good at self-criticism or self-analysis. Self abuse (in the Victorian sense)is as far as you get. "Liz Hurley" eh? Some peple have no taste. I wouldn't mind but she can't act for toffee and is a scab.


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Have you considered fucking off and finding some people worthy of sharing your infinite consciousness with?



 I found you worthy


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> You people are all pathetic.
> 
> Listen to you arguing over inane tripe, each trying to justify their own preconceptions of the other. You do realise your in the same boat, your on the same planet and deep down probably have the same big questions.


yr right!

i want answers to the same question gurrier does!






			
				gurrier said:
			
		

> Have you considered fucking off and finding some people worthy of sharing your infinite consciousness with?


any chance of an answer?


----------



## Purdie (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> Listen to you arguing over inane tripe, each trying to justify their own preconceptions of the other. You do realise your in the same boat, your on the same planet and deep down probably have the same big questions.



It's what philosophy is all about ... it pays the bills.  Maybe you're in the wrong forum ?  

Do you ever wonder if your eye is a black hole


----------



## Crispy (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> This thread just won`t die.
> 
> Please lets talk about something constructive. If God is real then it won`t be proven with some exercise of logic but with actual experience of the concept.



We're already knee deep in worms and you open _another_ can?


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

But these worms are Marks and Spencer


----------



## Purdie (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> With any luck, we can then return to the issue of whether value is best described as an "idea" or a "spirit."



To some value is an idea ... 
Spirit is the excecutor of ideas.


----------



## Maidmarian (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> With any luck, we can then return to the issue of whether value is best described as an "idea" or a "spirit."



Humm ---- I`m interested (but FAR from convinced).

I mean, maybe this thread is taking on a life of it`s own & ergo, may best be described as "spirit"?

Is it evil or benign though, eh ?????    




Anyway, carry on !


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 22, 2005)

surely all we need to do to prove god exists is die.  phil, you go first mate.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> You can only experience what you believe.


Well then we're all completely buggered, and we might as all go home and sit in silence by ourselves. Though it's a useful viewpoint if you came home and found your partner in bed with someone else. "Nope, don't believe it's happening..."



> You believe your an animal with no greater purpose at all....you live that.
> 
> You believe your a being of infinite conciousness and a component of the greater conciousness we name God....You live that.
> 
> Its all about free choice. (although don`t get me started on media)


Q. You believe you are a bird and can soar through the air - do you live like that? 

A: Splat.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 22, 2005)

Just means you didn't believe _hard_ enough!


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2005)

spot on!


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

It amazes me how lump-all people still are.

 I have flown, so have millions of other people. In that people fly in their dreams all the time, they astral project and experience flying....is that any less real than the collective dream we share whilst "awake"?

 To fly in the world of matter you need specific characteristics defined again by "matter". Perhaps if you were that powerful that you could control matter using your mind (its definitely possible in theory) then maybe you could will yourself to fly, superman stylee, in the end.....who cares?   
 However the concept of spiritual knowledge and concepts of God are VERY different in that they are not of matter and therefore will not be accessed by matter or any logic borne of the indoctrination into matter.
 These concepts will be understood and experienced with your conciousness. Why? BECAUSE YOUR CONCIOUSNESS REACHES BEYOND THE WORLD OF MATTER.



 but you already knew that.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> Perhaps if you were that powerful that you could control matter using your mind (its definitely possible in theory)



 

Which theory?


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 22, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Just means you didn't believe _hard_ enough!


Oh God, even the mods 'ave been got at!


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 22, 2005)

i think phil and azrael make a wonderful couple.


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Which theory?



 The theory which paints our bodies as a biological computer being operated by a central processor which works at translating wave forms into differing sorts of input which combine to build a holographic reality we experience as matter.

 The point is that this bio-computer is being operated by a very sleepy conciousness.


 OI! don`t lump me with phil simply because we both have the guts to stand up for what we know is right. Phil does it by being pompous and sarcastic, I like to think i have more style than that!


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> It amazes me how lump-all people still are.
> 
> I have flown, so have millions of other people. In that people fly in their dreams all the time, they astral project and experience flying....is that any less real than the collective dream we share whilst "awake"?


If we were truly experiencing a collective dream while awake, the world would doubtless be a much safer, more peaceful place. I for one would love to believe in telepathy or group consciousness - unfortunately until there is some evidence (either reported or my direct experience) that it exists, I'm afraid it will have to remain in my _imagination_, along with the flying.


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

There is evidence of a group conciousness. You look at the brainwaves of people in a crowd. 

 Whether it be a riot, a festival, a nightclub. As soon as people enter a group environment brain waves slowly start to synchronise until the entire crowds brainwaves are the same pattern, scientists believe this is what stimulates the feeling of an "atmosphere" at festivals etc.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> OI! don`t lump me with phil simply because we both have the guts to stand up for what we know is right. Phil does it by being pompous and sarcastic, I like to think i have more style than that!



I have to hand it to you.  Re-introducing yourself to the conversation by calling everybody 'pathetic' for having the conversation and not rising to your level of consciousness does have style, in a certain sort of way.  Although, I don't really see the clear cut distinction with Phil's modus bullshitandi.  Must believe harder.

* closes eyes, grits teeth, repeats to self "Azrael is not talking arrogant shite" *


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

I called two people pathetic for descending into playground name calling over an issue that no one could give a rats ass about anyway. Thats not style, i think thats called being honest   

 I understand its hard to relate to a view that encourages no limitations when you live in a society that is constantly dictating to you what you are and aren`t capable of but don`t be a casualty of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> You people are *all* pathetic.
> 
> Listen to you arguing over inane tripe, each trying to justify their own preconceptions of the other. You do realise your in the same boat, your on the same planet and deep down probably have the same big questions.


I understand that it's difficult to live in a world where whatever you believe is reality when other people just won't play ball and quote your words when you make shit up.  

Is it a problem with my consciousness that I realise that your a malicious arrogant prick who has even less than phil dwyer to be arrogant about?


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

Arrogant?  yes its so arrogant to tell someone something, jeez I suppose it would be arrogant of me to save someone from drowning afterall who am I to pre-suppose their wishes  
 Ahhh go away your just trying to antagonise.  
 What you need to understand is that all your demonstrating is your own innate fears, if you were truly happy in yourself you wouldn`t need to carry this aura of conflict around with you. So whilst you can wax lyrical all you like about my "delusion" and "arrogance" I think you should be thinking about your own motives.
 Its a shame because online you can be whoever you want, the fact that out of your own free will you choose to be a repulsive ignorant specimen of a human being makes me feel a kind of pity for you tbh.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> Arrogant?  yes its so arrogant to tell someone something, jeez I suppose it would be arrogant of me to save someone from drowning afterall who am I to pre-suppose their wishes
> Ahhh go away your just trying to antagonise.
> What you need to understand is that all your demonstrating is your own innate fears, if you were truly happy in yourself you wouldn`t need to carry this aura of conflict around with you. So whilst you can wax lyrical all you like about my "delusion" and "arrogance" I think you should be thinking about your own motives.
> Its a shame because online you can be whoever you want, the fact that out of your own free will you choose to be a repulsive ignorant specimen of a human being makes me feel a kind of pity for you tbh.


Yay!  It's Phil mk2.

Do carry on...


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 22, 2005)

*Now showing:*

Phil II: the concept of Phil.


----------



## laptop (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> Whether it be a riot, a festival, a nightclub. As soon as people enter a group environment brain waves slowly start to synchronise...



And you know this how?

Show me a photo of a riot with everyone hooked up to an EEG machine


----------



## gurrier (Sep 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Phil II: the concept of Phil.


Azrael23: Phil gets High


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> And you know this how?
> 
> Show me a photo of a riot with everyone hooked up to an EEG machine



 The study didn`t need to hook up everyone, just a select few at different points in the crowd.   

 So do you guys meet up and discuss anti-phil tactics? Am I being drawn into some centuries old blood feud?


----------



## gurrier (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> The study didn`t need to hook up everyone, just a select few at different points in the crowd.


Do you have any erm, evidence for the existance of said study?  Or am I just not believing hard enough.  




			
				Azrael23 said:
			
		

> So do you guys meet up and discuss anti-phil tactics? Am I being drawn into some centuries old blood feud?


Duh.  Our brainwaves are synchronised, obviously


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 22, 2005)

Do your own research spoon-feeder. That way if you find there was no such study, you look even better right?   

 hahaha, your probably the kind of guy that used to mock people who thought earth was a sphere.


----------



## zed66 (Sep 22, 2005)

The earth's a sphere? 

Witch


----------



## gurrier (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> Do your own research spoon-feeder. That way if you find there was no such study, you look even better right?


Okay, that's obviously fair.   At this stage, I might as well mention the 400 studies that I have read which prove that you are a CIA disinformation agent and a fully paid up member of the illuminati, the Bilderbergs and 'them'.  I could also mention the studies which revealed you to be an anti-semite and an all round asshole.  We can consider these studies to be proven until you can prove that there were no such studies.  




			
				Azrael23 said:
			
		

> hahaha, your probably the kind of guy that used to mock people who thought earth was a sphere.


Of course.  Only last week I beat a 'spherical earther' up for his heresies.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> So do you guys meet up and discuss anti-phil tactics?



Of course they do.  "Right, whose turn is it to be Bad Cop today...?"  They *live* for this, the bastards.  Anyway, I'm just checking in to request that you all calm down, stop your puerile squabbling, and do not stray too far from the matter under investigation.  I shall be back again tomorrow to answer the serious points that have been made, please don't cause too much trouble among yourselves in the meantime.


----------



## axon (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> There is evidence of a group conciousness. You look at the brainwaves of people in a crowd.
> 
> Whether it be a riot, a festival, a nightclub. As soon as people enter a group environment brain waves slowly start to synchronise until the entire crowds brainwaves are the same pattern, scientists believe this is what stimulates the feeling of an "atmosphere" at festivals etc.



Hello Azrael23, how's the neuroscience course going?  Any news of when you'll be doing the retakes yet?


----------



## 118118 (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Labour-power is alienated when it is represented in financial form, no matter what other conditions pertain.


In that case, could alienated labour-power not be reduced to labour power and the apparatus of the state necessary for it to be represented as fv.





			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Alienated labour-power *is* abstract.  Labour is "real work by real people," but alienated labour-power is this real work in a condition of abstraction.






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> When you work for a wage you are exchanging your time for a representation of that time in financial form.






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes it is, but financial value is an abstract *representation* of human labour and as such it is not material.


So fv is a abstract, alienated, representation of, human labour power? If you were able to explain 1. what these terms mean 2. why fv must be viewed as these, and 3. why this means fv is non-physical? I am totally unable to answer these questions coherently.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 22, 2005)

zed66 said:
			
		

> The earth's a sphere?
> 
> Witch


He is indeed, because it's not a sphere. It's an oblate spheroid!

<booming voice>Bow down and worship the True Prophet!</booming voice>


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 22, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Of course they do.  "Right, whose turn is it to be Bad Cop today...?"  They *live* for this, the bastards.  Anyway, I'm just checking in to request that you all calm down, stop your puerile squabbling, and do not stray too far from the matter under investigation.  I shall be back again tomorrow to answer the serious points that have been made, please don't cause too much trouble among yourselves in the meantime.


Quick, let's hide this thread in Knobbing and Sobbing while he's not looking!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 22, 2005)

Phil, however hard you try, this is not going to get longer than "Random mundane facts".


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 22, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> The study didn`t need to hook up everyone, just a select few at different points in the crowd.


Seriously, how the fuck does one manage to do something like that without interfering with the crowd?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 22, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Seriously, how the fuck does one manage to do something like that without interfering with the crowd?


Easy - everything is interconnected, so you just hook your sensors up to a small piece of fairy cake....


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 22, 2005)

Value is not a spirit, it's a product of our minds. Like god. I think 52 pages provides ample opportunity to prove otherwise.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 22, 2005)

Presumabley your arguing that spirit is some kind of irreducible substance (making you a pluralist of all things), and you haven't provided any argument for not being able to explain fv by underlying physical processes, other than fv is a representation; you don't seem to have any argument either for this being the case, or why this would mean it is made of a different substance. Are you saying that fv is such a clear antithesis of labor power that we are to assume that its very substance is altered in its alienation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Easy - everything is interconnected, so you just hook your sensors up to a small piece of fairy cake....



With or without icing?


----------



## stdPikachu (Sep 22, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Easy - everything is interconnected, so you just hook your sensors up to a small piece of fairy cake....



Most. Appropriate. H2G2. Reference. Ever.


----------



## Azrael23 (Sep 23, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Value is not a spirit, it's a product of our minds. Like god. I think 52 pages provides ample opportunity to prove otherwise.



 How do you know what is a product of the mind and what is simply innate? 


 Your brain is capable of recieving 4 billion pieces of information every second, on average we`re aware of 2000 of them. If we exist in this state of dormancy now then who can rule out anything? The fact is we perceive what? 0.5% of the EM spectrum? We are asleep in terms of awareness (or conciousness). 



 Its perfectly plausible to suggest that the brain is a medium meant to relay instructions to the bio-mechanical body from your spirit or conciousness. Its like the way you need a modem to be logged onto the internet, the brain gives you your window into not-so-hyper space. Thats why the whole point of meditation is to cut yourself away from the mind, to retreat back from the window. Trust.


----------



## onemonkey (Sep 23, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> Its perfectly plausible to suggest that the brain is a medium meant to relay instructions to the bio-mechanical body from your spirit or conciousness. Its like the way you need a modem to be logged onto the internet, the brain gives you your window into not-so-hyper space.


no it is not because where is this "you" that your brain is the gateway to?

you _are_ your brain... and that is all that you are.. the human brain is a pretty remarkable thing but it is at same time pretty feeble and very mundane..

it is a total lie to say we don't use all of our brain.. we do.. it is to energy expensive not to.. it's just that we don't know how we use it..

although we've got a good idea and basically we use it much the same way that chimps and bonobos use their brains... to solve the problems associated with food, fucking and friendship


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 23, 2005)

Azrael23 said:
			
		

> Your brain is capable of recieving 4 billion pieces of information every second, on average we`re aware of 2000 of them. If we exist in this state of dormancy now then who can rule out anything? The fact is we perceive what? 0.5% of the EM spectrum? We are asleep in terms of awareness (or conciousness).


oooh. look mum, _facts!_


----------



## 888 (Sep 23, 2005)

onemonkey said:
			
		

> no it is not because where is this "you" that your brain is the gateway to?
> 
> you _are_ your brain... and that is all that you are.. the human brain is a pretty remarkable thing but it is at same time pretty feeble and very mundane..
> 
> ...




But we could use our brains better for the purposes we wanted to rather than for the purposes we evolved for... and it's possible some of it isn't really properly used - evolution isn't perfect. Anyway you aren't your brain, that's like saying a story is the book it is written in.


----------



## jonH (Sep 23, 2005)

Rational arguments make sense but don't need proof, that's logical surely


----------



## onemonkey (Sep 23, 2005)

888 said:
			
		

> Anyway you aren't your brain, that's like saying a story is the book it is written in.


no.. you really are your brain.. in the sense that there isn't a soul or some other homunculus sitting in there watching the world through your eyes. 

and there is no easy hardware/software analogy that works for the brain either.. all that messy gunk is necessary to make you who you are.. you couldn't exist any other way


----------



## 888 (Sep 23, 2005)

Yes you could! Are you saying you'd stop existing if you gradually replaced bits of your brain with artificial equivalents? How do you know, anyway? I bet I could remove half my brain cells and still be me, OR remove the other half and still be me (may or may not be technically true but do you see the point I am trying to make?).

Anyway, all soul means, stripped to its bare essentials is the personal experience - which isn't the brain - unless you are a pig-headedly literal materialist.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 23, 2005)

Why resurrect terms with loads of crappy religious baggage to mean things that have more appropriate descriptions anyway, though? The word 'soul' has a whole host of associations for most people which are unrelated to your definition of it above - surely it's best not to confuse them unnecessarily.


----------



## axon (Sep 23, 2005)

But personal experience is all in the brain, it's recorded as a set of neurones firing a set of impulses, said the pig-headed literal materialist.
If I were to replace bits or all of a brain with identical artificial replacements then this brain would have the same personal experiences as the original one.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 23, 2005)

888 said:
			
		

> you are a pig-headedly literal materialist.



And proud of it


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sep 23, 2005)

888 said:
			
		

> Yes you could! Are you saying you'd stop existing if you gradually replaced bits of your brain with artificial equivalents? How do you know, anyway? I bet I could remove half my brain cells and still be me, OR remove the other half and still be me (may or may not be technically true but do you see the point I am trying to make?).


People who suffer frontal lobe damage drastically change their personalities. While (depending on the damage), they may "feel" like them, if their emotional respsonses are completely altered so much it changes their personality, then strictly speaking, they are no longer the person they were.* **

You take away a bit of your brain, it takes away a bit of you. You take away _all _your brain, you no longer exist. If you were to have a brain transplant for example, you would no longer be you. You consciousness is created by the connections in your synapses, and can no further be removed from your physical brain as, oh I dunno, something completely impossible. Perhaps on day, if technology became incrediably advanced, you could make fake brain parts. However, considering mapping the brain is an impossible task because so much of your memory is difusely located (and from what I understand, somewhat differently for everyone), I doubt you could ever program those bits to be "you".

Onemonkey is right - you are your brain. And your brain is you.

*<edit> I would like to point out that obviously this assertion does somewhat rely on the _level_ of damage - someone for example just losing control of their hand obviously is still them for all practical intents and purposes, especially as there are examples of people losing localised movement through brain damage, and then creating new connections which enable the part of the body to be used again, which incidently is very    in my eyes!
** though obviously they are still the person they are now iyswim


----------



## Crispy (Sep 23, 2005)

If there is a non-material part of the mind, we should be able to find the mechanism by which it interfaces with the material part. Are there any theories as to what the mechanism might be?


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 23, 2005)

onemonkey said:
			
		

> no.. you really are your brain.. in the sense that there isn't a soul or some other homunculus sitting in there watching the world through your eyes.
> 
> and there is no easy hardware/software analogy that works for the brain either.. all that messy gunk is necessary to make you who you are.. you couldn't exist any other way



QUOTED BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT THE MOST USEFUL THING ANYONE HAS SAID IN PAGES.

*leaves again until phildwyer comes back so we can pick on him some more*


----------



## laptop (Sep 23, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> If there is a non-material part of the mind, we should be able to find the mechanism by which it interfaces with the material part. Are there any theories as to what the mechanism might be?



Yup. The least mad is in Penrose's _The Emperor's New Mind_ but in my very humble opinion it's still barking. It's clear to me that he started from the conclusion that mind *couldn't* be a material activity of brain, and proceeded to look for "evidence" (which he found in a misunderstanding of Gödel) and for mechanisms (which he found in the odd ideas of one Hammeroff).

Don't get me wrong - I agree that Penrose is brilliant *within his field*. Just not on this. I certainly wouldn't take his fashion advice, either.

And to be even fairer, it's not *entirely* clear whether Penrose himself sees the alleged mechanism as an interface, or whether he sees it merely as a means of introducing randomness. As I recall it, he only explicitly claims the randomness bit.

Really must do some work now - a search here on "Penrose" or even for posts by me containing "Penrose" will reveal much more.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 23, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> If there is a non-material part of the mind, we should be able to find the mechanism by which it interfaces with the material part. Are there any theories as to what the mechanism might be?



God, obviously.


----------



## camouflage (Sep 23, 2005)

onemonkey said:
			
		

> no it is not because where is this "you" that your brain is the gateway to?
> 
> you _are_ your brain... and that is all that you are.. the human brain is a pretty remarkable thing but it is at same time pretty feeble and very mundane..
> 
> ...



I think that's the thing about the religious, in their ego they are unable to accept how boring/mundane/fleshy and miraculous the brain; and for that matter nature in general, is.

Brains are associated with fucking fighting and friendship (er...) by emergance, there is no 'drawing board'.


----------



## Purdie (Sep 23, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> If there is a non-material part of the mind, we should be able to find the mechanism by which it interfaces with the material part. Are there any theories as to what the mechanism might be?



5-element theory   

Accupuncture does reach the parts that the pharmaceuticals can't, especially when it comes to the mind.  
There loads of guinea pigging going on with brainscans and the effects of accupunture on brainchemistry.  Could find some links when i got some more time   
If only them meridians weren't  so elusive.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 23, 2005)

Purdie said:
			
		

> 5-element theory
> 
> Accupuncture does reach the parts that the pharmaceuticals can't, especially when it comes to the mind.
> There loads of guinea pigging going on with brainscans and the effects of accupunture on brainchemistry.  Could find some links when i got some more time
> If only them meridians weren't  so elusive.



I don't doubt the efficiacy of acupuncture - it works (and much better than a placebo). However, I expect the results of the aforementioned guineapigging (what a wonderful turn of phrase!) to show a material explanation for acupuncture.

What we'd be looking for in the brain would be neurons firing spontaneously in curious ways, etc. Of course, such action would violate 2nd law of thermodynamics, but let's not let that rusty old thing get in the way


----------



## Purdie (Sep 23, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> ... However, I expect the results of the aforementioned guineapigging (what a wonderful turn of phrase!) to show a material explanation for acupuncture.
> 
> What we'd be looking for in the brain would be neurons firing spontaneously in curious ways, etc. Of course, such action would violate 2nd law of thermodynamics, but let's not let that rusty old thing get in the way



Don't know much of neurons.  Other than a lot of mine are past their useable lifespan   
Main problem with chinese med in general is that their concept of human biology is nothing like the western model.  
On top of that i was told once:


> It is true that within TCM there is a tendency to ignore the concept of Shen. This primarily dates back to the communist revolution as Shen represents an aspect of Spirit - which is not part of communist philosophy. Things are improving however, and in the west there is more interest. A study of Chinese Five elements would be more suited for an analysis of Shen and its counterparts


Spirit was an integral part of chinese meds as it developed over the the last few millenia.  It was the chinese version of psychology and psychiatry to a degree.  If you study Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) now you get thaught very little, if anything of that side of the art.  Unless you specialize in something like Tui Na (baby massage).  Most old style practitioners can do wonders for the psyche in one session.  If you study TCM now it's a lot more biomedically/biochemically orientated and the real knowledge for the science types is to be found in fields of electroaccupuncture.

I will get some links later...


----------



## onemonkey (Sep 23, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong - I agree that Penrose is brilliant *within his field*. Just not on this. I certainly wouldn't take his fashion advice, either.




as i understand it in part he is rather worried about exactly consciousness can collapse wave functions.. but this isn't something that troubles other physicists.. when i am less busy i will dig out a Max Tegmark paper on the subject.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Sep 23, 2005)

So, is there a god?

I'd read the thread, but my head hurts after a while.


----------



## Stavrogin (Sep 23, 2005)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> So, is there a god?
> 
> I'd read the thread, but my head hurts after a while.



The real question is this...

If you're murdered for the act of LOGICALLY trying to prove the existance of God - are you actually a martyr?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 23, 2005)

> How do you know what is a product of the mind and what is simply innate?



The difference being? The part of the mind that produces our sense of value for something is innate. It has to be, there has to be some genetic foundation to the brain so that it can organise sensory data.

We're not asleep, our brains just organise what we perceive so that some data is assigned to sub-conscious activity and some is what we are aware of when we are conscious. I don't want to have to think about every single thing if some other part of my mind can handle it. That's why we can correct ourselves instinctively if we are about to slip on ice for example. Our brains are great.



> Its perfectly plausible to suggest that the brain is a medium meant to relay instructions to the bio-mechanical body from your spirit or conciousness. Its like the way you need a modem to be logged onto the internet, the brain gives you your window into not-so-hyper space. Thats why the whole point of meditation is to cut yourself away from the mind, to retreat back from the window. Trust.



Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain which is part of our body.  The two are so interrelated that the modem analogy is unnecessary. It's more like being connected to the internet without a modem.

I do trust. We are very fortunate beings to possess such complex and capable lumps of grey matter.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 23, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain which is part of our body.  The two are so interrelated that the modem analogy is unnecessary. It's more like being connected to the internet without a modem.
> 
> I do trust. We are very fortunate beings to possess such complex and capable lumps of grey matter.



No it isn't.  I was conscious long before I had a brain.


----------



## Purdie (Sep 23, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> I don't doubt the efficiacy of acupuncture - it works (and much better than a placebo). However, I expect the results of the aforementioned guineapigging (what a wonderful turn of phrase!) to show a material explanation for acupuncture.
> 
> What we'd be looking for in the brain would be neurons firing spontaneously in curious ways, etc. Of course, such action would violate 2nd law of thermodynamics, but let's not let that rusty old thing get in the way



fMRI Neurophysiological evidence for the existence of acupuncture meridians 

Japan, China, South Korea Work Together to Standardize Acupuncture Points  

Poor rats :-( 

A bit on neurons in the above link:


> The optical density of NADPH-d-positive neurons and nNOS-positive neurons of the Shinsu (BL23) and Choksamni (ST36) electroacupuncture groups were significantly decreased in most brainstem areas as compared to the normal and arbitrary groups, with the exception of the optical density of NADPH-d positive neurons in the prepositus nucleus as compared to the arbitrary group.



A Review of the Evidence for the Existence of Acupuncture Points and Meridians 

Hope i got them links right


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 23, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Yup. The least mad is in Penrose's _The Emperor's New Mind_ but in my very humble opinion it's still barking. It's clear to me that he started from the conclusion that mind *couldn't* be a material activity of brain, and proceeded to look for "evidence" (which he found in a misunderstanding of Gödel) and for mechanisms (which he found in the odd ideas of one Hammeroff).
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I agree that Penrose is brilliant *within his field*. Just not on this. I certainly wouldn't take his fashion advice, either.
> 
> ...


Randomness as far as I remember. He's concerned with proving that brain function is non-computational, disproving strong AI. He's not a godbotherer or a soul merchant, he just wants to show indeterminacy in the actions of the brain and thus the mind - in fact he is a materialist, his argument wouldn't work otherwise.

Been a while since I read Penrose, I must admit. I don't agree with him by the way.


----------



## 888 (Sep 23, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong - I agree that Penrose is brilliant *within his field*. Just not on this. I certainly wouldn't take his fashion advice, either.



The problem is no one is brilliant in this particular field - no one has a clue.


----------



## axon (Sep 23, 2005)

So, looking at the meridian links above, there's basically no evidence for meridians.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 23, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> No it isn't.  I was conscious long before I had a brain.


Were you conscious by virtue of having a neural tube as an early embryo? Were you conscious pre-implantation? Or is this a reference to Buddhist reincarnation?


----------



## ZWord (Sep 23, 2005)

No.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 23, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> No.


Oh.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 23, 2005)

There's something missing from this thread...

...there's a hole that needs philling...


----------



## ZWord (Sep 23, 2005)

Sounds great, where?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 23, 2005)

888 said:
			
		

> The problem is no one is brilliant in this particular field - no one has a clue.


He makes some fucking great tiles though.


----------



## Purdie (Sep 23, 2005)

axon said:
			
		

> So, looking at the meridian links above, there's basically no evidence for meridians.



I already said that   




			
				Purdie said:
			
		

> If only them meridians weren't so elusive.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 23, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Sounds great, where?


Believe me, this is one hole that's probably best left empty for the moment!


----------



## 888 (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Sounds great, where?



Philly? Eating a cheesesteak to phill his hunger?


----------



## laptop (Sep 24, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> [Penrose is] not a godbotherer or a soul merchant, he just wants to show indeterminacy in the actions of the brain and thus the mind - in fact he is a materialist, his argument wouldn't work otherwise.



Stuart Hameroff, however, is worryingly vague about where he's coming from... and it certainly seems (on merely literary-criticism grounds, to be sure) that Penrose in his determination to find something "non-computational" has been sucked into Hameroff's agenda, whatever he is. 

@888: no, you're right, no-one is, but you misread me. Penrose is brilliant at certain parts of maths, and if he would just leave the mind alone would have something very interesting to contribute to quantum loop gravity.


----------



## axon (Sep 24, 2005)

Purdie said:
			
		

> I already said that



Sorry, couldn't tell whether you were taking the piss or not.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 24, 2005)

In case anyone was wondering, I will be back, but I have a little trip or two to take this weekend.  Try not to derail the thread too much, I have got this all sorted from here on in.  First we'll return to the question of whether financial value is an idea or a spirit, and I'll be pointing ot *four* characteristics that would seem to differentiate it from other ideas:

1.  Its power, or efficacious force.  Value is all-powerful and rules the entire world, it has even attained the power to *reproduce.*  To all intents and purposes, value is alive.
2.  Its nature, or essence: what it is.  It is human life confronting us in alien and hostile form.
3.  Its malignity.  Financial value seems, historically, to have come into being for the express purpose of leading the human race into sin and destruction.
4.  It ability to take material form as and when required.

I will suggest that these are true of no other idea (save, perhaps, one--of which more later).  I will therefore infer that financial value cannot accurately be designated as an "idea" at all.  Please raise any defence of the notion that value is an "idea" at this stage, since we will be unable to return to it later on.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 24, 2005)

Do we have any other choices than idea or spirit? I don't think either of those words are terribly useful because of the historical garbage encrusted on them.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 24, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> In case anyone was wondering, I will be back, but I have a little trip or two to take this weekend.  Try not to derail the thread too much, I have got this all sorted from here on in.  First we'll return to the question of whether financial value is an idea or a spirit, and I'll be pointing ot *four* characteristics that would seem to differentiate it from other ideas:
> 
> 1.  Its power, or efficacious force.  Value is all-powerful and rules the entire world, it has even attained the power to *reproduce.*  To all intents and purposes, value is alive.
> 2.  Its nature, or essence: what it is.  It is human life confronting us in alien and hostile form.
> ...




So does this mean you are no *closer* to proving the existence of *God*?


----------



## ZWord (Sep 24, 2005)

Does your answer mean you have nothing to say about any of the four points you just quoted?  Do you agree or disagree with them? 

I was thinking, also, hmm, Penrose is very brilliant within his field, but as I don't want to believe that consciousness can play any causal role in the universe, except of course, when I think and make decisions, I'll say he's barking.  At least that seems like a fair summary of what people have to say about Penrose.  Or perhaps it should be.  -I don't understand his argument, but I know he's wrong.-  .  

But do any of you stop to consider just how weird and inconsistent your viewpoint is?  Just try in real life, for even a minute, to tell yourself, and really believe that your "ego" is a functional illusion, and your sense of choosing your behaviour, or controlling your sensations, is not real, and can you believe it at all?.  And yet, when a large number of brilliant physicists tell you that it really appears that consciousness affects reality at a distance, and that the underlying stuff of reality seems to be able to alter itself in response to consciousness, you say, well it sounds barking to me.  Is it consistent?  Gurrier seems to be the most consistent, when, on another thread, he actually goes to the length of saying that consciousness is an illusion.  It leads me to wonder, when Gurrier describes consciousness as purely functional, whether in fact in his own case it's true.  Maybe Gurrier is actually not conscious, -seems like the most plausible explanation of how his ideas can make sense to him-  Have you ever listened to piece of music and wept? 

How ingenious the individual can be at finding reasons to believe in its idols, or to escape the responsibility of being a spirit.   

And I think none of you seem to have really considered the significance of the title of Penrose's book.  "The Emperor's new mind."  Think about it, po the Emperor's new clothes, po Star Wars,  and you might get a new idea of his meaning.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 24, 2005)

Consciousness _does not effect reality_, at least not in the way you imply.  It's just impossible to measure things on a quantum scale without effecting them in some way.


----------



## Purdie (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> How ingenious the individual can be at finding reasons to believe in its idols, or to escape the responsibility of being a spirit.
> 
> And I think none of you seem to have really considered the significance of the title of Penrose's book.  "The Emperor's new mind."  Think about it, po the Emperor's new clothes, po Star Wars,  and you might get a new idea of his meaning.



Talking of Po   



> Po is a very distinct Chinese notion.  In Chinese religious thought, ...
> Po is the portion of a person's Spirit that is absolutely dependent on the person's physical life.  When breathing ceases the Po disintegrates.  The Po is about momentary reactions ...(it) is utterly tied to time and space.  Po is the reactivity or animation of a person, hence the alternative translation Animal Soul.
> In the medical tradition, the Animal Soul is often said to be be equivalent to the seven emotions.  The Po is the unthinking and compelling passion that propels life.  The Animal Soul can be reckless and unthinking.  The Animal Soul is the Chinese way of acknowledging that part of the non-material aspect of a person is just plain knee-jerk reactions that are utterly linked to transitory feelings.
> The Animal Soul's virtue has two dimensions.  In one sense it has to do with being impartial and not being easily swayed. ....
> From another perspective, the virtue of Animal Soul is described as preciousness (bao) ...



From here


----------



## ZWord (Sep 24, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Consciousness _does not effect reality_, at least not in the way you imply.  It's just impossible to measure things on a quantum scale without effecting them in some way.



No, ?  so what was your consciousness doing when it thought up, typed and posted your post?

The point about the two-slit experiment that you seem to have failed to grasp, is that, the nature of the light changes before it enters the eye, not afterwards.  We observe the nature of the light, as waves through two slits, an as particles through one slit, by looking at the pattern it makes on a screen.  It is therefore, not the fact of the light interacting with our eyes at the point of entry to our eyes that changes the nature of the light.  The light changed before it hit the screen, depending on whether you had one or two slits for it to pass through.  

It is the interaction with the eye/brain/spirit that changes the nature of the light, the magical part is that it does it at a distance.


----------



## Purdie (Sep 24, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Do we have any other choices than idea or spirit? I don't think either of those words are terribly useful because of the historical garbage encrusted on them.


Idea or construct?

They are both created
One in the individual's mind.
The other in the collective mind of society




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> In case anyone was wondering, I will be back, but I have a little trip or two to take this weekend. Try not to derail the thread too much, I have got this all sorted from here on in. First we'll return to the question of whether financial value is an idea or a spirit,


Spirit to me has religious connotations to start with.  Which is why i'm having trouble to stick on subject.  I find your ignorance on certain levels quite disturbing.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> No, ?  so what was your consciousness doing when it thought up, typed and posted your post?
> 
> The point about the two-slit experiment that you seem to have failed to grasp, is that, the nature of the light changes before it enters the eye, not afterwards.  We observe the nature of the light, as waves through two slits, an as particles through one slit, by looking at the pattern it makes on a screen.  It is therefore, not the fact of the light interacting with our eyes at the point of entry to our eyes that changes the nature of the light.  The light changed before it hit the screen, depending on whether you had one or two slits for it to pass through.
> 
> It is the interaction with the eye/brain/spirit that changes the nature of the light, the magical part is that it does it at a distance.


The point about the two-slit experiment is that it shows how light can be simultaneously be described as both particle and wave. The nature of light doesn't change because of the slit, it's because of the nature of light that it behaves the way it does in such a situation.

And I think you misunderstand the meaning of an interaction for the purpose of measurement. The eye is a passive sensor, and does not change the nature of anything it perceives. What changes the properties of an object being measured is the interaction of it with the electromagnetic radiation which is being used to measure it; it is the EM radiation which the eye receives (either as light, directly, or more likely as an amplified signal from a measuring instrument, as such effects on properties of measured objects are only significant when the object is very small).

Therefore the eye is not affecting reality at a distance, and therefore the effect can't be magical, because it doesn't exist.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> No, ?  so what was your consciousness doing when it thought up, typed and posted your post?


That's not a coherent question, there is no distinction between me and my "consciousness", its just something going on inside my skull.  BFD 



> The point about the two-slit experiment that you seem to have failed to grasp, is that, the nature of the light changes before it enters the eye, not afterwards.  We observe the nature of the light, as waves through two slits, an as particles through one slit, by looking at the pattern it makes on a screen.  It is therefore, not the fact of the light interacting with our eyes at the point of entry to our eyes that changes the nature of the light.  The light changed before it hit the screen, depending on whether you had one or two slits for it to pass through.
> 
> It is the interaction with the eye/brain/spirit that changes the nature of the light, the magical part is that it does it at a distance.


The nature of the light doesn't change at all, it is the same as it ever was.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 24, 2005)

The appearance of an interference pattern on a screen behind two slits, showing that light is waves,  but of a sharp line on a screen behind one slit showing that it is particles, does not depend on effects from measuring instruments used to measure it.  The effect can be observed by you performing the experiment at home with a piece of card, a light, and a wall.  It should be obvious, that these simple objects should not be capable of changing the nature of light.  Similar effects are observed all the time in everyday reality.  

I think you should say, -in classical physics, the eye-brain is thought to be a passive sensor.-  It's not a proved point, it's the subject under discussion.  

In a way, I agree that -
"it shows how light can be simultaneously be described as both particle and wave. The nature of light doesn't change because of the slit, it's because of the nature of light that it behaves the way it does in such a situation." 

E.g. it is neither waves nor particles.   It is something else, that manifests in a wave like way in one situation and a particle like way in another situation.  But then what is its nature?  The experimental results show that it certainly appears to be waves sometimes and particles at other times, even though it can change its nature in the blink of an eye or the shutting of a slit.  Some other nature it must have to make this possible, but it doesn't seem possible to describe such a nature without accepting that the idea of locality, - the idea that this a universe of *things* with distinct locations in space and time, is a human illusion created by the kind of perceptual organs and brains we have.  

The problem for those with a mundane view of reality, is that for the light to do this, then you would imagine it has to start its manifestation at the moment it leaves its source of light.  Waves and particles really are very different things, and something that can appear to be both must be a remarkable spirit/energy, whatever.  It really seems from the experimental results, (in sophisticated experiments rather than home demos) that when it passes through one slit, it "really is" photons.   And yet with two slits, it really is waves, and it's difficult to see how this can be so, for to act as a wave, it has to start off manifesting as a wave the moment it leaves the light source, and yet how could it know whether it would encounter one or two slits, unless it were intelligent? or unless it were one substance?

You can repeat and repeat that there is nothing mysterious about it, and it's all totally commonplace and material, but geniuses and brilliant physicists have found it deeply mysterious.  If you are correct that there's nothing weird about it, then why does Richard Feynman describe it as "the central mystery." ?  (see the link at the beginning of the wave particle duality thread) 

It's difficult to know what you really think.  I know several years ago, I failed to grasp the significance of wave-particle duality though it was explained to me repeatedly by a physicist friend at university.  I made myself think I understood, when actually I didn't.   Maybe you're doing something similar.  Maybe not.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Does your answer mean you have nothing to say about any of the four points you just quoted?  Do you agree or disagree with them?
> 
> I was thinking, also, hmm, Penrose is very brilliant within his field, but as I don't want to believe that consciousness can play any causal role in the universe, except of course, when I think and make decisions, I'll say he's barking.  At least that seems like a fair summary of what people have to say about Penrose.  Or perhaps it should be.  -I don't understand his argument, but I know he's wrong.-  .


I don't think that anyone has called Penrose barking and the man himself is quite open about the highly speculative nature and the lack of any evidence to back up his musings about consciousness.  




			
				ZWord said:
			
		

> Gurrier seems to be the most consistent, when, on another thread, he actually goes to the length of saying that consciousness is an illusion.  It leads me to wonder, when Gurrier describes consciousness as purely functional, whether in fact in his own case it's true.  Maybe Gurrier is actually not conscious, -seems like the most plausible explanation of how his ideas can make sense to him-  Have you ever listened to piece of music and wept?


How perceptive.  I am nothing more than an experimental computer program involved in a massive Turing test and you've just made me fail   .  



> How ingenious the individual can be at finding reasons to believe in its idols, or to escape the responsibility of being a spirit.
> 
> And I think none of you seem to have really considered the significance of the title of Penrose's book.  "The Emperor's new mind."  Think about it, po the Emperor's new clothes, po Star Wars,  and you might get a new idea of his meaning.


I have never before met the verb 'po'.  How should I po things?


----------



## ZWord (Sep 24, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> That's not a coherent question, there is no distinction between me and my "consciousness", its just something going on inside my skull.  BFD
> .



So you're not capable of changing reality at all, then?   How unfortunate for you.  




			
				In Bloom said:
			
		

> The nature of the light doesn't change at all, it is the same as it ever was.



The experimental results suggest otherwise, unless you take a radically different view of reality from the human one.  Depends what you mean by nature vs appearance.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> So you're not capable of changing reality at all, then?   How unfortunate for you.


Define "reality" first


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 24, 2005)

> No it isn't. I was conscious long before I had a brain.



Ok, maybe you were, but ther rest of us weren't.

Do you remember being brainless?


----------



## Loki (Sep 24, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> I have never before met the verb 'po'.  How should I po things?



'po' is a petty officer, also a river in Italy and the symbol for the element Polonium. I hope that clears it up


----------



## ZWord (Sep 24, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> How perceptive.  I am nothing more than an experimental computer program involved in a massive Turing test and you've just made me fail   .



Lol   




			
				gurrier said:
			
		

> I have never before met the verb 'po'.  How should I po things?



Random associate.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 24, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Ok, maybe you were, but ther rest of us weren't.
> 
> Do you remember being brainless?



No.  Forgetfulness seems to be the price of coming to this great stage of fools.  But I see the evidence all the same.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> No.  Forgetfulness seems to be the price of coming to this great stage of fools.  But I see the evidence all the same.


What evidence would that be then?


----------



## ZWord (Sep 24, 2005)

Why should I tell you?  

All right: You answer all my points, show me the evidence that mind is an emergent property of matter, and also explain why you agree or disagree with phil's four most recent points about financial value, and I'll tell you the evidence.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Why should I tell you?
> 
> All right: You answer all my points, show me the evidence that mind is an emergent property of matter, and also explain why you agree or disagree with phil's four most recent points about financial value, and I'll tell you the evidence.


Better yet, I'll just carry on not believing evidence free assertions by superstitious mentalists until they provide some proof


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 24, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Do we have any other choices than idea or spirit? I don't think either of those words are terribly useful because of the historical garbage encrusted on them.



Well the other possibility, which I'll discuss at a later stage, is to think of value as a system of *signs,* like a language.  The history of value shows a progressive diminution of referentiality, so that we move from value being *identified* with its sign, as with the bullionist economics of the sixteenth century, through its being posited as a sign that refers to something tangible, as with the system of money tied to the gold standard, to its current status as a completely non-referential signifier: a sign that refers to nothing at all.  But I will argue that language too depends upon the working of a "spirit."


----------



## Loki (Sep 24, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> which I'll discuss at a later stage



It's all "which I'll discuss at a later stage" with you. Get.To.The.Fucking.Point.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> But do any of you stop to consider just how weird and inconsistent your viewpoint is?  Just try in real life, for even a minute, to tell yourself, and really believe that your "ego" is a functional illusion, and your sense of choosing your behaviour, or controlling your sensations, is not real, and can you believe it at all?.  And yet, when a large number of brilliant physicists tell you that it really appears that consciousness affects reality at a distance, and that the underlying stuff of reality seems to be able to alter itself in response to consciousness, you say, well it sounds barking to me.  Is it consistent?



The best evidence that consciousness forms "reality" is the historical and cultural *variations* in consciousness.  A glance at any literature of past ages, or even past decades, tells us that the people of the past did not see the same world that we do.  Consciousness (and with it the world) changes, it follows an historical narrative which appears to have its own momentum that transcends the volition of human beings.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Gurrier seems to be the most consistent, when, on another thread, he actually goes to the length of saying that consciousness is an illusion.  It leads me to wonder, when Gurrier describes consciousness as purely functional, whether in fact in his own case it's true.  Maybe Gurrier is actually not conscious, -seems like the most plausible explanation of how his ideas can make sense to him-  Have you ever listened to piece of music and wept?
> 
> How ingenious the individual can be at finding reasons to believe in its idols, or to escape the responsibility of being a spirit.



It is indeed quite astonishing.  But I doubt that even Gurrier has succeeded in destroying his own soul, try as he might.  I think he is conscious: but he is not *conscious* of being conscious, and this entangles him in a myraid of logical problems, as we have all witnessed.  Now, I can see how someone like Gurrier, trained *only* in the natural sciences, might conclude that consciousness is an illusion.  As I have said before, I think that materialism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie--in other words, our social and economic system automatically inculcates materialism into people, and it takes a certain effort, as well as some knowledge of the history of ideas, for most Westerners to rise above this debased mode of thought.  What I *cannot* understand, though, is why anyone would actively *desire* a materialist ontology to be true.  I cannot comprehend how anyone could think materialism was either politically progressive, as Gurrier apparently does, or ethically beneficial.  And most of all, I cannot understand the aggressive, paranoid hostility displayed by materialists towards those who dare to challenge their position, unless it is simply the ferocity born of desperation.


----------



## Purdie (Sep 24, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well the other possibility, which I'll discuss at a later stage, is to think of value as a system of *signs,* like a language.  The history of value shows a progressive diminution of referentiality, so that we move from value being *identified* with its sign, as with the bullionist economics of the sixteenth century, through its being posited as a sign that refers to something tangible, as with the system of money tied to the gold standard, to its current status as a completely non-referential signifier: a sign that refers to nothing at all.  But I will argue that language too depends upon the working of a "spirit."



*SO WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM WITH CONSTRUCT INSTEAD OF SPIRIT THEN?* 

Ignorant twat


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 24, 2005)

Purdie said:
			
		

> *SO WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM WITH CONSTRUCT INSTEAD OF SPIRIT THEN?*
> 
> Ignorant twat



Right on cue!  Just to repeat the observation I made in my previous post: I cannot understand the aggressive, paranoid hostility displayed by materialists towards those who dare to challenge their position, unless it is simply the ferocity born of desperation.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 24, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right on cue!  Just to repeat the observation I made in my previous post: I cannot understand the aggressive, paranoid hostility displayed by materialists towards those who dare to challenge their position, unless it is simply the ferocity born of desperation.


Or possibly irritation at your astoundly blinkered, arogant, irrational and ignorant mindset?


----------



## Purdie (Sep 24, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right on cue!  Just to repeat the observation I made in my previous post: I cannot understand the aggressive, paranoid hostility displayed by materialists towards those who dare to challenge their position, unless it is simply the ferocity born of desperation.




Its not because i'm a materialist i can't believe in spirit.  
Like i said before, spirit to me has religious connotations.   

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Gunther
Do we have any other choices than idea or spirit? I don't think either of those words are terribly useful because of the historical garbage encrusted on them. 


Idea or construct?

They are both created
One in the individual's mind.
The other in the collective mind of society*

Where is the aggressive, paranoid hostility in the post this is all about?  Maybe by using a neutral word there wouldn't be so much side-tracking.


Twat  

Since you are the OP as far as the thread is concerned surely that gives you the ultimate say   So excuse me for you not figuring that out for yourself


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 24, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well the other possibility, which I'll discuss at a later stage, is to think of value as a system of *signs,* like a language.  The history of value shows a progressive diminution of referentiality, so that we move from value being *identified* with its sign, as with the bullionist economics of the sixteenth century, through its being posited as a sign that refers to something tangible, as with the system of money tied to the gold standard, to its current status as a completely non-referential signifier: a sign that refers to nothing at all.  <snip>


 Fair enough, that sounds potentially interesting, although the "refers to nothing at all" bit sounds like pomo gibberish at first glance.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 24, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Fair enough, that sounds potentially interesting, although the "refers to nothing at all" bit sounds like pomo gibberish at first glance.




You mean like this?



> If one examines capitalist libertarianism, one is faced with a choice: either accept constructivism or conclude that the task of the poet is deconstruction, but only if Batailleist `powerful communication' is invalid. In a sense, Marx's model of the dialectic paradigm of context implies that sexuality is part of the rubicon of language. Sontag promotes the use of Batailleist `powerful communication' to modify society.



http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/301371604


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> It should be obvious, that *these simple objects should not be capable of changing the nature of light*.  Similar effects are observed all the time in everyday reality.


And you're right, they're NOT!


> I think you should say, -in classical physics, the eye-brain is thought to be a passive sensor.-  It's not a proved point, it's the subject under discussion.


There is NO EVIDENCE that the eye or brain actively changes things. Given the cumulative human experience of eyes looking at things (being of the order of 10^11 person-years since the year 1900, at a quick guess), does it not seem strange that such an effect has never been observed? The only active change that the brain exerts is via the actions of the human being as a result of perceiving and processing the light input.


> E.g. it is neither waves nor particles.   It is something else, that manifests in a wave like way in one situation and a particle like way in another situation.  But then what is its nature?  The experimental results show that it certainly appears to be waves sometimes and particles at other times, even though it can change its nature in the blink of an eye or the shutting of a slit.  Some other nature it must have to make this possible, but it doesn't seem possible to describe such a nature without accepting that the idea of locality, - the idea that this a universe of *things* with distinct locations in space and time, is a human illusion created by the kind of perceptual organs and brains we have.


Non sequitur. It is a reasonable hypothesis that the simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behaviour of light suggests that its 'true nature' is not yet understood. It's also reasonable to suggest that the way our brains are constructed affects the way we experience things. However we already know that the 'universe of *things* with distinct locations in space and time' is indeed an illusion - but this was shown years ago by quantum mechanics. Science is so far beyond dependence on direct observation these days that that argument no longer applies.


> The problem for those with a mundane view of reality, <snip>


_In your opinion_. I don't find my view of reality mundane at all, despite not believing in any First Cause, or 'magic', or 'central mystery'. I find the observable world thoroughly amazing, and the more we learn about it the more amazing it appears to be, not less. But this is simply because of its concurrent complexity and susceptibility to description by physical laws. Just because we may not yet understand the true nature of light, and therefore it seems like a 'mystery' to us, this is not sufficient evidence to claim that it will remain a 'mystery' in the future - certainly when you look at progress in basic science research over the last 200 years.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 24, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 1.  Its power, or efficacious force.  Value is all-powerful and rules the entire world, it has even attained the power to *reproduce.*  To all intents and purposes, value is alive.
> 2.  Its nature, or essence: what it is.  It is human life confronting us in alien and hostile form.
> 3.  Its malignity.  Financial value seems, historically, to have come into being for the express purpose of leading the human race into sin and destruction.
> 4.  It ability to take material form as and when required.
> ...



In my eyes the inference you seem to be making (y is radically different to x and is therefore composed of another substance) is a bit dodgy, and would need to be justfied. One cannot point to  another situation where such a inference is accepted, so its gonna be difficult.

Or are you saying that it is not infact the  fact that it is not the radical difference alone that makes you think that fv is a different kind of substance, but its malignancy, power etc in itself. You're seriously saying that because something is malign and powerful its a spirit!? That is clearly lunacy of early-man proportions.


----------



## axon (Sep 24, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> show me the evidence that mind is an emergent property of matter



Here's a few:
Things with neural mass can exhibit consciousness.
Things without neural mass do not exhibit consciousness.
Removing all neural mass from conscious organisms leads to the cessation of consciousness.
Applying drugs that materially interact with the nervous system can alter perception and consciousness.
If the mind isn't due to matter, then it must be due to something else.  This something else has never been observed, measured or been able to be manipulated.

          And about light and slits, I can only reiterate what has already been said before, it is not our consciouness that causes light to collapse into a wave or a particle, it is the interaction (usually via light) that occurs during observation that causes this.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 24, 2005)

To me it seems that fv or alienated labour power can be eplained by physical processes: labour power and alienating work relations/economic relations (which are not just private ownersip of the means of production - so the argument that fv can exist outside private ownership of the means of production, and is therefore not just alienating conditions is inconsequential).


----------



## Loki (Sep 24, 2005)

Is god here yet?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 24, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Is god here yet?



Do you see yourself as Vladimir or Estragon?


----------



## ZWord (Sep 24, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> And you're right, they're NOT!
> 
> There is NO EVIDENCE that the eye or brain actively changes things. Given the cumulative human experience of eyes looking at things (being of the order of 10^11 person-years since the year 1900, at a quick guess), does it not seem strange that such an effect has never been observed? The only active change that the brain exerts is via the actions of the human being as a result of perceiving and processing the light input.
> 
> .



Really?  It's happened often enough for me that I'm checking out someone's ass, and they turn round, because they're aware of it.  And the reverse.  I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one who's had this experience.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 24, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> And you're right, they're NOT!  (But apparently they do, anyway, why?)
> 
> . However we already know that the 'universe of *things* with distinct locations in space and time' is indeed an illusion - but this was shown years ago by quantum mechanics. .



You surprised me.  I know this, apparently you do too.  Not many people do.  So we're much closer to agreeing than I thought.  Most of the materialists here would no way accept this.  The main difference we have is that you don't want to call it God, and I do.  I know it's intelligent:- you don't.  Or you're denying it.  

But if you can accept that ...is indeed an illusion, then you're pretty much in the territory of both me and Azrael23, believing that human reality is a mass hallucination.  And in a universe so extraordinary, the idea that it was created by intelligence seems quite likely.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 25, 2005)

> The best evidence that consciousness forms "reality" is the historical and cultural *variations* in consciousness. A glance at any literature of past ages, or even past decades, tells us that the people of the past did not see the same world that we do. Consciousness (and with it the world) changes, it follows an historical narrative which appears to have its own momentum that transcends the volition of human beings.



You've just defined consciousness as the set of beliefs an individual has. You know perfectly well this is not in accord with any scientific definition which attempts to explain the I' that interprets the world, holds these beliefs, acts upon them and so on. Neither is there any claimed successful explaination. All you've said is that beliefs change over time. We know that.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 25, 2005)

> o. Forgetfulness seems to be the price of coming to this great stage of fools. But I see the evidence all the same.



Please share. This is as great a claim as phil is making and not proving.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 25, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> You surprised me.  I know this, apparently you do too.  Not many people do.  So we're much closer to agreeing than I thought.  Most of the materialists here would no way accept this.  The main difference we have is that you don't want to call it God, and I do.  *I know it's intelligent:- you don't.* Or you're denying it.


No - you _believe_ it, and I _don't_. I'm not saying the subject is closed, simply that I have heard of no evidence that a deity exists. This may boil down to whether one could call the phenomenon of 'spooky action at a distance' or quantum entanglement a god, but I wouldn't.



> But if you can accept that ...is indeed an illusion, then you're pretty much in the territory of both me and Azrael23, believing that *human reality is a mass hallucination*.  And in a universe so extraordinary, the idea that it was created by intelligence seems quite likely.


I never said that the *things* were themselves illusions. I only pointed out that the classical (Newtonian) physics which describes a fully deterministic Universe has turned out to be an approximation (or illusion, since this is all humans can observe without aids) which is decreasingly accurate the smaller the objects you inspect. At the sub-atomic scale, the illusion gives way. And I am worried about the use of the word 'hallucination', since a hallucination is something perceived without any stimulus or sensory input. Our view of the Universe may be incomplete, or filtered subconsciously by the more primitive parts of our brains, or hampered by our inability to perceive the entire EM spectrum, but it certainly depends on, and is affected by, stimuli received via our senses.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 25, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Do you see yourself as Vladimir or Estragon?


Vodka or tarragon? I think the two together would be rather nice. 

*works up business plan for marketing herb-infused vodkas*

*wonders if Loki's Michelin-starred restaurant will stock it*


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 25, 2005)

What is it in us that is able to state that our reality is hallucination?


----------



## Loki (Sep 25, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> *wonders if Loki's Michelin-starred restaurant will stock it*



I'm afraid my larder doesn't stock such exotic herbs. My luncheon snack was a feeble assortment.

Prosciutto crudo di Langhirano con melone cantalupo with spaghettini alle vongole veraci in 'bianco' followed by cueillette éphémère (petit pois,poivron, haricot vert, épinard, aubergine,poireau) and then pineapple tart (with yoghurt, black pepper and lemon grass ice cream).

Not nearly enough  Thankfully din dins isn't far away.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 25, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> What is it in us that is able to state that our reality is hallucination?


Er... consciousness, and the ability to imagine possibilities that comes with it?

*feels a circular argument developing here*


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 25, 2005)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Fair enough, that sounds potentially interesting, although the "refers to nothing at all" bit sounds like pomo gibberish at first glance.



What I meant was that, by the end of the twentieth century, financial value was widely recognized to be independent of the material tokens that are used to represent it.  The last vestiges of materiality have departed from it, and value is now revealed as a purely imaginary, but nonetheless real and powerful, force.  It is also revealed to be pure representation, a system of signs that function independently of any material referents.  The manipulation of these financial signs is the motor of the postmodrn economy, and bigger fortunes are now made by this manipulation than by material production. 

I now want to return to the *four* qualities that, as I have argued, differentiate financial value from any other "idea," to the degree that it cannot by described as an "idea" (I see no difference between the terms "idea" and "construct" in this context, BTW).  We shall discuss each in turn.  Let us begin with the *power* of value, its efficacious force in the real world.  Value is an instance of what J.L. Austin calls the "performative sign," it is a sign that *does* things.  On these grounds, many philosophers of money have drawn an analogy between value and spirit, as for instance Karl Marx in On The Jewish Question.  Note how Marx describes the imposition of exchange-value upon use-value (of which financial value is the instrument) as an *unnatural* imposition of sign upon essence.  Referring to financial value he writes:

"It is clear that this mediator thus becomes a real God, for the mediator is the real power over what it mediates to me.  Its cult becomes an end in itself.  Objects separated from this mediator have lost their value.  Hence the objects only have value insofar as they represent the mediator, whereas originally it seemed that the mediator only had value insofar as it represented them." (1975, 3:212)      

So a capitalist economy is a *supernatural* economy, which works by imposing human concepts and signs on natural objects.  The supernatural, or metaphysical if you prefer, force of value obscures the natural essence of things.  The first obstacle to conceiving of value as a spirit is thus eliminated: it clearly *is* possible for nonmaterial entities to have material effects that transcend the volition of human agents.  A further quote frm Marx will illustrate, this time from Capital: 

"In order... to find an analogy, we must take flight into the misty realm of religion.  There the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the human race.  So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men's hands." (1975, 165).

Note that Marx describes value and the spirits of religion as being equally real--or rather, equally *unreal.*  They are real, or unreal, in the same way.  Is financial value "real?"  This is the next question we will consider.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 25, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Let us begin with the *power* of value, its efficacious force in the real world.  Value is an instance of what J.L. Austin calls the "performative sign," it is a sign that *does* things.  On these grounds, many philosophers of money have drawn an analogy between value and spirit, as for instance Karl Marx in On The Jewish Question.  Note how Marx describes the imposition of exchange-value upon use-value (of which financial value is the instrument) as an *unnatural* imposition of sign upon essence. .



sorry this is gibberish.  For a start, Austin does not refer to performative "signs", but performative "utterances".  There can be no such thing, in language, as a "natural sign" - since, as has been understood at least since Saussure, the linguistic sign is inherently _ arbitrary _.  

You also miss entirely the point of Derrida's critique of Austin, and its implications for the conditions of possibility which govern (re)iteration of any utterance - ie. in the differential relationships between signs qua signs.  Marx, writing before the development of structural linguistics, does not always grasp the necessary corrolaries of these points.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 25, 2005)

articul8 said:
			
		

> sorry this is gibberish.  For a start, Austin does not refer to performative "signs", but performative "utterances".  There can be no such thing, in language, as a "natural sign" - since, as has been understood at least since Saussure, the linguistic sign is inherently _ arbitrary _.
> 
> You also miss entirely the point of Derrida's critique of Austin, and its implications for the conditions of possibility which govern (re)iteration of any utterance - ie. in the differential relationships between signs qua signs.  Marx, writing before the development of structural linguistics, does not always grasp the necessary corrolaries of these points.



Of course there can be no natural signs; what I am describing is the process by which the *sign* obscures the *referent,* which is the same process by which exchange-value obscures use-value.  The performative sign occupies a slightly later stage in my proof, but it is worth pausing over here.  The performative sign is the linguistic corrolary of financial value, and I will argue that they are in fact two manifestations of the same underlying tendency.  It is directly responsible for the degraded pragmatism, the denial of Truth, espoused by Gurrier and his motly pack of imitators, and it also explains their materialism and their shameful dismissal of consciousness as illusion.  Above all, it reveals why they believe their delusions are politically progressive.  Since you mention it, let us consider Derrida's reading of Austin as an example. 

Derrida interprets Austin’s reluctant prioritizing of the performative as implying the demise of such basic metaphysical concepts as the external objective referent, the conscious speaking subject and the logical opposition between truth and falsehood.  The fact that all constative statements are performative but not all performatives are constative is held to demolish all forms of the Western metaphysics of presence which Derrida dubs ‘logocentrism.’ Truth, in the view of Derrida, is a textual ‘effect,’ imposed by what Nietzsche called ‘a mobile army of metaphors.’  

Especially through the influence of Foucault, the status of metaphysical concepts like the subject, objectivity and truth has become deeply involved in political ethics.  To advocate any form of ‘logocentrism’ is often viewed as politically reactionary and even ethically reprehensible, and the category of the performative acquires an aura of subversion and freedom.  In much postmodernist rhetoric, the performative becomes a liberator, come to burst the chains of intentionality and to loose discourse from the repressive constraints of essentialist subjectivity.  Austin, of course, would not have put it that way.  In fact, this rhetorical (for it is not logical) association of the performative with liberation is the major reason why analytic philosophers see Derrida's interpretation of Austin as a monstrous distortion.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 25, 2005)

Why can't fv be explained by physical process? Why does something being malign and powerful imply that it is composed of another substance?
I see nothing in the semantics of idea that would prohibit it from being malign and powerful.

Are you seriously saying that it is conventional to think of fv as a spirit?


----------



## 118118 (Sep 25, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What I meant was that, by the end of the twentieth century, financial value was widely recognized to be independent of the material tokens that are used to represent it.  The last vestiges of materiality have departed from it


Your not saying that money is the only material component of fv surely. What about labour?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 25, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Your not saying that money is the only material component of fv surely. What about labour?



FV is a *representation* of labour-power, it is not labour-power itself.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 25, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Why can't fv be explained by physical process? Why does something being malign and powerful imply that it is composed of another substance?
> 
> Are you seriously saying that it is conventional to think of fv as a spirit?



Obviously its not conventional today, although it was in the past.  My aim is to show that this is nevertheless the most appropriate way of conceiving FV.  Once I have established this, we will move on to consider what *kind* of spirit it is.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 25, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> FV is a *representation* of labour-power, it is not labour-power itself.


Do you have an argument for this. I don't seem able to make one out so far.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 25, 2005)

> Er... consciousness, and the ability to imagine possibilities that comes with it?



I was asking Z Word how he can tell that reality is hallucinatory. Surely we need non-hallucinatory reference points to be able to define what is hallucinatory. It's gibberish.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 25, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Referring to financial value he writes:
> 
> "It is clear that this mediator thus becomes a real God


I would think it more reasonable to think that Marx was equating fv with God because of the way we act towards it, not because it is some strange supernatural substance.
And not all metaphysical concepts are supernatural, many scientific concept are theoretical concepts which are analyzable with metaphysics, but are not considered supernatural.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 25, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> I was asking Z Word how he can tell that reality is hallucinatory. Surely we need non-hallucinatory reference points to be able to define what is hallucinatory. It's gibberish.


Hallucinations are described in the DSM as an incorrect inference to external reality. That would imply that to correctly define something as a hallucination a correct concept of reality is sufficient, which in this case Z Word says we have.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What I meant was that, by the end of the twentieth century, financial value was widely recognized to be independent of the material tokens that are used to represent it.


Value, being an abstract concept, is always independent of whatever tokens represent it, whether the tokes be cowrie shells, blocks of salt, bars of gold, paper sheets, or binary codes.  




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> The last vestiges of materiality have departed from it,


Not unless you can't translate financial value into material goods anymore.  As far as I can see the fidelity of the financial value -> material goods relationship is as strong as it's ever been.  




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> and value is now revealed as a purely imaginary, but nonetheless real and powerful, force.


Are the police who will imprison me if I misbehave with the tokens of value puerly imaginary?  




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> It is also revealed to be pure representation, a system of signs that function independently of any material referents.


I think that this is a plausible conclusion if you analyse systems of value representation in isolation from their social context.  However, I believe that 'value' merely expresses a power relationship.  In my way of looking at the world, value tokens have always represented an ability to exert power over other people. All tokens of value have been signifiers of this underlying 'value'.  From cowrie shells to blocks of salt, paper bills and binary sequences, I do not believe that there has been a fundamental change in the materiality or the abstract nature of value.   




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> The manipulation of these financial signs is the motor of the postmodrn economy, and bigger fortunes are now made by this manipulation than by material production.


Not true.  None of the world's richest people made their wealth through financial speculation. 




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I now want to return to the *four* qualities that, as I have argued, differentiate financial value from any other "idea," to the degree that it cannot by described as an "idea" (I see no difference between the terms "idea" and "construct" in this context, BTW).  We shall discuss each in turn.  Let us begin with the *power* of value, its efficacious force in the real world.  Value is an instance of what J.L. Austin calls the "performative sign," it is a sign that *does* things.  On these grounds, many philosophers of money have drawn an analogy between value and spirit, as for instance Karl Marx in On The Jewish Question.  Note how Marx describes the imposition of exchange-value upon use-value (of which financial value is the instrument) as an *unnatural* imposition of sign upon essence.  Referring to financial value he writes:


That's just silly.  Love does things, fear does things, has power, etc. You can make the same assertion about any generalised abstraction.  




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> So a capitalist economy is a *supernatural* economy, which works by imposing human concepts and signs on natural objects.  The supernatural, or metaphysical if you prefer, force of value obscures the natural essence of things.


That's ridiculous.  You seem to be applying a uniquely bizzare definition of supernatural here.  As the word is commonly used, it does not mean 'imposing human concepts on natural objects'.  For example, if I was to say "that bunny rabbit is cute" it would be 'imposing human concepts on natural objects' but very few people would see it as being 'supernatural'.  Of course, the cuteness of the bunny would obscure its "natural essence" too.  You are, once again, twisting the meaning of words to suit your conclusion. 




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> The first obstacle to conceiving of value as a spirit is thus eliminated: it clearly *is* possible for nonmaterial entities to have material effects that transcend the volition of human agents.


Love/Fear/Hate/etc have material effects that transcend volition of human agents.  Once again this assertion can be made about any abstract concept that is totalised across the species. 




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Note that Marx describes value and the spirits of religion as being equally real--or rather, equally *unreal.*  They are real, or unreal, in the same way.  Is financial value "real?"  This is the next question we will consider.


* fastens seatbelt *


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> FV is a *representation* of labour-power, it is not labour-power itself.



All I have to say is this


> In a sense, Drucker[2] states that we have to choose between precapitalist deconstructive theory and neodialectic theory. The deconstructive paradigm of expression suggests that truth may be used to reinforce hierarchy, given that reality is equal to art. However, Marx suggests the use of textual socialism to challenge culture. The subject is interpolated into a Debordist situation that includes sexuality as a reality.



More gibberish to counter your gibberish. Even someone with a scant understanding of philosophy can see you're talking bollocks. You will deny it....of course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2005)

what the flying fuck has all this value fuckwittery to do with god and his/her non-existence?


----------



## slaar (Sep 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what the flying fuck has all this value fuckwittery to do with god and his/her non-existence?


If only people would live phil alone, we might find out.

Or perhaps not.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what the flying fuck has all this value fuckwittery to do with god and his/her non-existence?


Something to do with value=the devil -> god.  Or somesuch fuckballs.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> More gibberish to counter your gibberish. Even someone with a scant understanding of philosophy can see you're talking bollocks. You will deny it....of course.



Nino, just shut up will you?  Are you now going to post a random selection of postmodernist rubbish whenever you feel like it?  All this will show is how incapable you are of telling sense from nonsense. Can't you see that even *Gurrier* has now deigned to talk some sense, and that you are left alone gibbering in the corner?  Please.  I have no problem if you want to argue properly about anything I say, but you obviously don't, you're just going to sit there like a great lump, muttering "heh these postmodernists don't half talk some shite, look here's another one, heh heh."  Nino, *anyone* can do that.  Its not clever.  I suppose you might be dense enough to find it amusing, but no-one else is.  In any case, no-one can accuse me of using jargon as obfuscation: I have scrupulously avoided using technical terms, at least until ViolentPanda recently attacked me for not giving sources, and the ideas I describe are readily accessible in ordinary language.  *You're* the one who's always droning on about "have you read Foucault" blah blah, so don't even bother, you *bore.*


----------



## Loki (Sep 26, 2005)

I'm still waiting for god. Where is he now?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nino, just shut up will you?  Are you now going to post a random selection of postmodernist rubbish whenever you feel like it?  All this will show is how incapable you are of telling sense from nonsense. Can't you see that even *Gurrier* has now deigned to talk some sense, and that you are left alone gibbering in the corner?  Please.  I have no problem if you want to argue properly about anything I say, but you obviously don't, you're just going to sit there like a great lump, muttering "heh these postmodernists don't half talk some shite, look here's another one, heh heh."  Nino, *anyone* can do that.  Its not clever.  I suppose you might be dense enough to find it amusing, but no-one else is.  In any case, no-one can accuse me of using jargon as obfuscation: I have scrupulously avoided using technical terms, at least until ViolentPanda recently attacked me for not giving sources, and the ideas I describe are readily accessible in ordinary language.  *You're* the one who's always droning on about "have you read Foucault" blah blah, so don't even bother, you *bore.*



It's no worse than the random nonsense that you post here...is it? But I don't expect you to understand or to acknoweledge that give your obvious egomania. 

Anyone can claim that they have "rational proof of God's existence". In your case it is nothing more than an elaborate windup to satisfy the needs of your pitiful ego. 

Let's face it, there isn't much here in the way of substance either, though you would have us all believe that you have a vastly superior intellect to the rest of us. There is a word for people like you: sociopath.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for god. Where is he now?



He won't be showing up anytime soon. After more than 50 pages of this crap it is obvious -even to the blind - that phil is simply using this as a means to feed his ego.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

Just shut up, Nino.  This thread is too important to be derailed by your gloomy, bitter and twisted muttering.  I simply cannot understand what drives you to spend all this time and effort on a thread you claim to despise.  Day in, day out, you're here--sniping, muttering, grumbling, the making the air noxious with the stench of your envy and despair.  Why do you do it?  What's in it for you?  Can't you go off and do something you actually enjoy, pull the wings off some flies or something?  Watch the raindrops race down your window-pane?  Find some other way of filling your empty days, please.  We're on serious business here.


----------



## Batley (Sep 26, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for god. Where is he now?




I'm here. I need this trying to work out whether I exist or not. You have your answer. 

Now fuck off and mind your own business.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Just shut up, Nino.  This thread is too important to be derailed by your gloomy, bitter and twisted muttering.  I simply cannot understand what drives you to spend all this time and effort on a thread you claim to despise.  Day in, day out, you're here--sniping, muttering, grumbling, the making the air noxious with the stench of your envy and despair.  Why do you do it?  What's in it for you?  Can't you go off and do something you actually enjoy, pull the wings off some flies or something?  Watch the raindrops race down your window-pane?  Find some other way of filling your empty days, please.  We're on serious business here.



"This thread is too important"? How so?  It is important in your imagination and nowhere else. It is an annexe of your enormous ego. As for "envy and despair" again, that is another product of your ego's imagination. Only in your mind do these things exist. As for me "despising" this thread...again this is in your imagination. There is no "serious business" here, it is just you and your tiresome pseudo-philosophical excursions - all of which lack the integrtiy to hold themselves together and if anyone disagrees with you or points out the weaknesses in your dodgy arguments, you treat them to abuse. That is egomania.

What's the matter phil, am I getting too close to the truth? I think I am. Anyone who spends his/her time on this forum pondering the "nature" of 'God' obviously has far too much time on their hands. How much time have you spent here on this pointless exercise?


----------



## Wee Beastie (Sep 26, 2005)

Reducing god to your meager rational explanations surely undermines it? Why would you want a rational explanation anyway? All it does is reduce whatever god is to something explained by you when surely it is incomprehesible beyond our wildest imaginations.
Julian Huxley said: "there is no _reason_ why the universe is perfect; _there is, indeed, no reason why it should be rational_."


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 26, 2005)

Wee Beastie said:
			
		

> Reducing god to your meager rational explanations surely undermines it? Why would you want a rational explanation anyway? All it does is reduce whatever god is to something explained by you when surely it is incomprehesible beyond our wildest imaginations.
> Julian Huxley said: "there is no _reason_ why the universe is perfect; _there is, indeed, no reason why it should be rational_."


Yep, just ignore all that horrible "logic" nonsense and maybe it'll just go away.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

Wee Beastie said:
			
		

> Reducing god to your meager rational explanations surely undermines it? Why would you want a rational explanation anyway? All it does is reduce whatever god is to something explained by you when surely it is incomprehesible beyond our wildest imaginations.
> Julian Huxley said: "there is no _reason_ why the universe is perfect; _there is, indeed, no reason why it should be rational_."



There are two aspects to God: the hidden and the revealed.  In Christianity, for instance, this is expressed as the relation between the "Father" and the "Son."  As you say, we can know nothing of God "in Himself" other than the bare fact of His existence.  But we *can* know God as He reveals Himself to us, in the course of history.  Such an experience of God, however, is inevitably *mediated,* or "accomodated" to our finite and earthly understandings.  

To counter your Huxley quote, I offer two famous alternative viewpoints.  Hegel: "the rational is the real."  This does *not* mean that perfect rationality exists, but that what actually exists is unreal, because it is irrational.  And Marx: "the issue of whether mankind can attain to objective truth is not a theoretical but a *practical* question."  In other words, the obstacles to rationality are human inventions which can be removed.  Marx thought that the primary such obstacle, in his day, was our fetishization of alienated labour-power in the form of financial value.  His diagnosis is even more apt today.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> 1. Value, being an abstract concept, is always independent of whatever tokens represent it, whether the tokes be cowrie shells, blocks of salt, bars of gold, paper sheets, or binary codes.
> 
> 2.  Not unless you can't translate financial value into material goods anymore.  As far as I can see the fidelity of the financial value -> material goods relationship is as strong as it's ever been.
> 
> ...



I have numbered your points for convenience.

1.  Yes, value has always been independent of the tokens which represent it.  But what's interesting is that people haven't always *known* this.  Until three or four hundred years ago, it was universally believed that gold and other specie were identical with value.  The progressive de-materialization of money in our own time has revealed the real truth about financial value, which is that it does not exist in any material form.

2.  Only a fraction of the financial value that allegedly exists could be translated into material form.  There is simply not enough "stuff" in the world to match the amount of value.  Economists abandoned the myth that value referred to, and could theoretically be translated into, a material form when they dropped the gold standard.

3.  No, the police are clearly not imaginary.  This is why I say that value has *real* power and effects, and this is one of the reasons why it is unlike any other idea.  It is a *coercive* power, it *forces* us to believe in it.

4.  Value does not "express" a power relationship, it is *part* of such a relationship.  That relationship is between value and the labour-power which it represents.  These exist in a state of logical contradiction and dialectical antithesis: they are hostile to each other.  Note that this opposition is independent of the class antagonism of bourgeoisie and proletariat.  That antagonism was only one historical manifestation of the fundamental contradiction between value and labour-power.

5.  You're wrong, but it is of no importance.  My point is that value can be, and increasingly is, produced without any material production taking place.  This happens in financial speculation, but we see the same tendency even within industry.  The rise of "brands," for instance, shows how value inheres in ideas more than in matter: corporations like Nike don't actualy *produce* anything, they outsource the processes of production.  All they "do" is promote the brand. 

6.  There are many differences between value and all other abstract ideas.  I mentioned its coercive power above: no policeman will arrest you for failure to believe in love.  To recap the rest of my differentiations: (a) value is human life; (b) value can take material form; (c) value is uniquely malign; (d) value can reproduce.  None of these is true of any other "idea."

7.  There is no difference between belief in financial value and belief in spirits.  These categories are ontologically identical.  Value is a supernatural concept in a way that love is not because of the real, coercive power that it exercises.  It is not merely an abstraction from nature, it is also an imposition *on* nature.  It changes and distorts the natural essence of *all* things in a uniquely systematic manner.  I don't have the edition handy, but you're probably aware of the famous passages in the 1844 Manuscripts in which Marx describes the supernatural force of value: "all that is solid melts into air" and so forth?

8.  Quite apart from the other differences, love, hate, fear etc. are not "totalized accross the species."  They take very different forms in different cultures.  This is not true of financial value (again as opposed to money), which is everywhere and always the same.  It is the only truly universal idea in the world: another reason why it is so unique as not to qualify as an idea at all.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> For what? I was insulting your philosophical abilities. It's what most other people on the thread have been doing for days in case you haven't noticed



He only notices certain posters: particularly those who challenge his ego.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> He only notices certain posters: particularly those who challenge his ego.



If that were the case, I certainy wouldn't have noticed *you.*  For you do not challenge anything.  You do not *discuss* anything.  You just sit there, stolid and immoble, like the old drunk in the pub corner, muttering and snarling your bitter, jealous misanthropy at the passers-by.  Alone among posters here, you have not contributed even *one* constructive comment to this thread.  Not *one,* ever.  On the contrary, you have freely admitted that you hope to disrupt this thread, and that you will be delighted if you can prevent it from achieving its aim.  You have unabashedly spoken of the low, mean pleasure you will feel if you manage to stop this discussion.  Why would this bring you such satisfaction?  What are you so afraid of?  Why can't you just go away and leave us in peace?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> If that were the case, I certainy wouldn't have noticed *you.*  For you do not challenge anything.  You do not *discuss* anything.  You just sit there, stolid and immoble, like the old drunk in the pub corner, muttering and snarling your bitter, jealous misanthropy at the passers-by.  Alone among posters here, you have not contributed even *one* constructive comment to this thread.  Not *one,* ever.  On the contrary, you have freely admitted that you hope to disrupt this thread, and that you will be delighted if you can prevent it from achieving its aim.  You have unabashedly spoken of the low, mean pleasure you will feel if you manage to stop this discussion.  Why would this bring you such satisfaction?  What are you so afraid of?  Why can't you just go away and leave us in peace?



Don't you ever get fed up with the sound of your own voice? Evidently not. Even this post is typical of your style: a stream of mindless invective that betrays the innermost workings of your diseased mind.  A raving egomaniac whose true reason for starting this thread is masked by the veneer of academia.

In case you hadn't noticed, I have contributed but given your fondness for exaggeration and blinded by the beauty of your own rhetoric, you haven't noticed. Now why am I not surprised? 

You are still no closer to providing "proof" of "God" (an abstract concept that _requires_ reification) existence. In case it had escaped your attention: only those who actually believe in the existence of such a concept are capable of accepting it...even then, you would still have a tough time convincing even the most hardened religious fanatic, since their idea of 'God' is likely to differ from the ideas that you are currently regurgitating.

This is priceless



> You just sit there, stolid and immoble, like the old drunk in the pub corner, muttering and snarling your bitter, jealous misanthropy



I would suggest it is you who is the auld pub drunk. Much of what you have posted here conforms to the incoherent rantings of a man who has read one or two philosophical tracts and who simply must impress all and sundry with pearls of his "wisdom". Of course when no one wants to play his wee game, he becomes abusive. If you had a glass in your hand you'd bury it in the face of anyone who dares to challenge you.

What is "immoble" btw?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> In case you hadn't noticed, I have contributed but given your fondness for exaggeration and blinded by the beauty of your own rhetoric, you haven't noticed. Now why am I not surprised?



You're right, I haven't noticed your contribution.  What did you contribute, and when did you contribute it?  Kindly contribute it again, and I will respond to your contribution.  I don't usually allow re-contributions, but I will make an exception in your case.  We await your contribution.


----------



## Loki (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't usually allow re-contributions



Love it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You're right, I haven't noticed your contribution.  What did you contribute, and when did you contribute it?  Kindly contribute it again, and I will respond to your contribution.  I don't usually allow re-contributions, but I will make an exception in your case.  We await your contribution.



I'll do nothing of the kind...I'm not here to satisfy the needs of your ego. Who do you think you are? GOD?????

Ever read any Foucault, phil? How about de Certeau?

I find it funny the way you haven't noticed anyone taking the piss out of you but when you are an egomaniac you are blind to these things. I'll bet you think your shit doesn't stink.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I'll do nothing of the kind...I'm not here to satisfy the needs of your ego. Who do you think you are? GOD?????
> 
> Ever read any Foucault, phil? How about de Certeau?



Quelle surprise.  Nino fails to make contribution shocker.  Nino responds with bizarre and irrelevent inquiries as to his interlocutor's knowledge of Foucault shocker.  Actually, that reminds me--what *is* it with you and Foucault?  You ask this question--"ever read Foucault?"--of loads of people, in various different contexts, but you never say why it's important.  What are you thinking of?  I have indeed read *all* of Foucault, so I might be able to help you out here.  What is it that bothers you about the baldie frog?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Quelle surprise.  Nino fails to make contribution shocker.  Nino responds with bizarre and irrelevent inquiries as to his interlocutor's knowledge of Foucault shocker.  Actually, that reminds me--what *is* it with you and Foucault?  You ask this question--"ever read Foucault?"--of loads of people, in various different contexts, but you never say why it's important.  What are you thinking of?  I have indeed read *all* of Foucault, so I might be able to help you out here.  What is it that bothers you about the baldie frog?



Quelle surprise, phil fails to read the post becase the voices in his head are competing for attention. You can't even tell when someone is taking the piss.

This post is proof of your intent on this thread. 

So what is it with you and 'God'? I think you're lying when you claim that you aren't a Xtian or another sort of religious nutcase. 

I've read plenty of Foucault btw. I don't need your 'help'.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I've read plenty of Foucault btw. I don't need your 'help'.



Well, why are you raising him here?  I can actually see why he *might* be relevent, but I don't think you can.  I think this is just another example of your petty one-upmanship, and a further attempt to derail this thread by carefully introducing sly diversions.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 26, 2005)

You could totaly derail this 'take the piss out of phildwyer' thread by posting up your proof.  Oh silly me, you already have, and it was crap.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, why are you raising him here?  I can actually see why he *might* be relevent, but I don't think you can.  I think this is just another example of your petty one-upmanship, and a further attempt to derail this thread by carefully introducing sly diversions.



ROTFLMAO!!!!!!


> Originally Posted by *anonymous*
> _There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see_.



You hate it when someone plays you at your own game don't you?


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 26, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> phildwyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> > the baldie frog


Academician Dwyer at his finest.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> Academician Dwyer at his finest.



Priceless, isn't he?


----------



## Loki (Sep 26, 2005)

Where's god?


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 26, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Where's god?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The performative sign is the linguistic corrolary of financial value



Where does Austin refer to a "performative sign" as opposed to a performative utterance?  I understand the latter perfectly, but I don't know what would be meant be the former. 



> Note how Marx describes the imposition of exchange-value upon use-value (of which financial value is the instrument) as an *unnatural* imposition of sign upon essence. [...]So a capitalist economy is a *supernatural* economy, which works by imposing human concepts and signs on natural objects.



And you seem here to draw the bizzare conclusion that since the sign/referent relationship is not given in nature, it is therefore "supernatural".  It is nothing of the sort - it is arbitrary and contingent.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 26, 2005)

Many would argue that love is very different from all other ideas, would you think that it was made of another substance? So its not just that fv is different, there must be something particular about the properties of power malignancy which sets fv apart as another substance? Where is your justification for this?

What makes you think that fv is a representation, an abstraction, and, why can a representation an abstract concept not be explained by physical processes? Because it’s a representation, an abstraction. Great.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 26, 2005)

> That would imply that to correctly define something as a hallucination a correct concept of reality is sufficient, which in this case Z Word says we have.



No, he says reality is a hallucination. If that's his correct concept of reality then were stuck aren't we?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

Just heard from my publisher, and the book on which this thread is based is definitely coming out next Fall!  Who wants to go in the acknowledgements then?


----------



## axon (Sep 26, 2005)

I hope you don't use the term "rational proof" in the title of book.  You may be done under the trade descriptions act.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

axon said:
			
		

> I hope you don't use the term "rational proof" in the title of book.  You may be done under the trade descriptions act.



Actually the title's still under negotiation.  Any suggestions?  <runs, hides>


----------



## Loki (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Just heard from my publisher, and the book on which this thread is based is definitely coming out next Fall!  Who wants to go in the acknowledgements then?


Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 26, 2005)

any update on god?

have we got there yet?


----------



## Loki (Sep 26, 2005)

Just arrived at a petrol station, there's a McDs where you can have wee wees.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Thanks but no thanks.



Heh, you're *definitely* in there mate.


----------



## Loki (Sep 26, 2005)




----------



## inks (Sep 26, 2005)

_"Actually the title's still under negotiation. Any suggestions?"_

God - The Usurer's Guide


----------



## Purdie (Sep 26, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually the title's still under negotiation.  Any suggestions?  <runs, hides>




If Voltaire's not copyrighted you could always call it:

"God is a comedian performing for an audience too afraid to laugh"


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 27, 2005)

The idiots guide to the existence of god.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 27, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Thanks but no thanks.



For an author, he seems far too lazy to do his own work.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 27, 2005)

> What I meant was that, by the end of the twentieth century, financial value was widely recognized to be independent of the material tokens that are used to represent it. The last vestiges of materiality have departed from it, and value is now revealed as a purely imaginary, but nonetheless real and powerful, force. It is also revealed to be pure representation, a system of signs that function independently of any material referents.



This is just complete and utter nonsense. Nothing can be bought with imaginary money - go into your nearest shop and give it a crack if you disagree. The difference between weights of grain in gold, fixed denominations of gold on paper money, and denominations of a particular currency in an electronic database are merely that they are expressed by a different technology, in the same way that a novel is the same on papyrus, newsprint or a floppy disk; it's obvious to those without a weird axe to grind that the meaning is just the same, although the method of storage is different. Once the bank account is empty, the effect on the 'imaginary money' represented by cheques and bankcards is remarkeably similar to running out of paper money or gold - no magical reproduction takes place there! (more's the pity).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2005)

I suspect that he may well be referring to the enormous growth in fictitious capital over the last 35 years or so here, but i really can't be bothered to go back and check the rest of the thread - just popping into see where we'd got to:

Fictitious Capital, Real Retrogression 

Fictitious Capital and the Crisis Theory 

Fictitious Capital and the Transition Out of Capitalism


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 27, 2005)

If that's what he means then he should say so, rather than this 'capital magically reproducing itself in a bank account' horseshit. IMHO


----------



## Poi E (Sep 27, 2005)

I thought this shit only took 6 days! Or was that something else?

Fictitious money? Default on your mortgage and see.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 27, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> If that's what he means then he should say so, rather than this 'capital magically reproducing itself in a bank account' horseshit. IMHO



Actually, I think that the language of magic and sorcery are the most appropriate terms in which to discuss capitalism, and I use it advisedly.  But Butchers is basically right--I'd only qualify this by saying that "fictitious capital" is actually a misnomer.  *All* capital, *all* financial value, is fictitious.  The postmodern forms of capital merely *reveal* this Truth to everyone.  As I've said before, the illusory nature of value is the finest example in all human history of a Revealed Truth. The fact that value is human life in alienated form is another Revealed Truth, but it is not yet universally accepted.  These two Truths combined already bring us more than halfway to proving that value is a spirit, not an idea.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 27, 2005)

inks said:
			
		

> God - The Usurer's Guide



I love it! I'd love to include this whole thread as an appendix, but I don't think I'm allowed to, even if the publisher can be talked into it.  I'd certainly be more likely to buy such a book, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually, I think that the language of magic and sorcery are the most appropriate terms in which to discuss capitalism, and I use it advisedly.


"Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."


----------



## Poi E (Sep 27, 2005)

Damn his words still resonate so well.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 27, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> "Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."



I thank you.  This thread would have gone a good deal more quickly if everyone was as well read as you.  But maybe its just as well they're not: educating the ignorant, infuriating the half-wits and baffling the buffoons is half the fun.


----------



## Loki (Sep 27, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I love it! I'd love to include this whole thread as an appendix, but I don't think I'm allowed to



All my words are under strict copyright and you'll be hearing from my solicitors, Messrs Sue Grabbit and Runne if a single word is reproduced.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 27, 2005)

> But Butchers is basically right--I'd only qualify this by saying that "fictitious capital" is actually a misnomer. *All* capital, *all* financial value, is fictitious.



If all capital is fictitious then this undermines the capital/fictitious capital distinction that butchers is alluding to. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 27, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> If all capital is fictitious then this undermines the capital/fictitious capital distinction that butchers is alluding to. You can't have it both ways.



Fictitious capital is *openly* fictitious; earlier forms of capital are *covertly* fictitious.  Capital gradually reveals its true nature in the course of its history.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 27, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> All my words are under strict copyright and you'll be hearing from my solicitors, Messrs Sue Grabbit and Runne if a single word is reproduced.



Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of.  This is true of everything on this site, right?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 27, 2005)

> Fictitious capital is *openly* fictitious; earlier forms of capital are *covertly* fictitious. Capital gradually reveals its true nature in the course of its history.



Fictitious capital is the proportion of capital which cannot be simultaneously converted into existing use-values. For all capital to be fictitious it would imply that no capital could be exchanged for use-values, which is manifestly not the case.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 27, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Fictitious capital is the proportion of capital which cannot be simultaneously converted into existing use-values. For all capital to be fictitious it would imply that no capital could be exchanged for use-values, which is manifestly not the case.



Exactly. Well, phil?


----------



## Loki (Sep 27, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of.  This is true of everything on this site, right?


I really don't give a flying fart if you quote me  But you may want to PM editor if there are any copyright issues. Alternatively laptop


----------



## Crispy (Sep 27, 2005)

http://www.urban75.org/info/copyright.html



> 2. Copyright
> 
> Copyright in each post remains with the author of that post; urban75 holds both the "database right" and a separate "compilation" copyright in entire threads and in the boards as a whole.
> 
> ...



Looks like the book'll have to be a bit slimmer...


----------



## Wee Beastie (Sep 27, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Yep, just ignore all that horrible "logic" nonsense and maybe it'll just go away.



When it comes to God (whatever God is) logic surely is nonsense.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 27, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Fictitious capital is the proportion of capital which cannot be simultaneously converted into existing use-values. For all capital to be fictitious it would imply that no capital could be exchanged for use-values, which is manifestly not the case.



Good, now we're coming up against the very tricky notion of "reality" when dealing with things like value or spirits.  Once again, let me remind you that I am arguing that "value" and "spirit" are ontologically *identical,* and that to believe in the first is also to believe in the second.  Having established this point, we will move on to consider what *kind* of spirit value is.  So, is financial value "real?"  Certainly not in the sense that it is physical: no-one can touch, taste, smell it and so on.  It can, however, be represented in physical form, but as we have already shown, that form bears no relation to its true essence, and in fact *disguises* it.  If we think that value *is* gold, or bank-notes, we are distracted from the fact that it is ourselves in alien form.  

Now, as Fruitloop says here, value can be *exchanged* for real things.  Does this mean that it is itself real?  It certainly means that value is *efficacious,* that it has real effects, and that these effects are independent of any human actors.  Value is an autonomous power, which has many characteristics of a living thing, including the power to *reproduce.*  It cannot be said to exist only "in the mind."  But does this make it "real?"  Or have we now reached the boundaries of petty materialism, where the simplistic opposition between "real" and "unreal" will serve us no further?  Do we not need here a new category--"hyper-real" is the one favoured by postmodernists, though not by me--in order to comprehend what financial value is?

I will pause here to finish last night's pizza.  I may be some time, so just chat among yourselves if you like.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 27, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> I really don't give a flying fart if you quote me  But you may want to PM editor if there are any copyright issues. Alternatively laptop



Nah, much as I'd like to, the book's already 20,000 words too long.  The days of such authorial indulgences are long gone, I fear.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 27, 2005)

> Now, as Fruitloop says here, value can be *exchanged* for real things.



No he doesn't. He says money can be exchanged for goods.



> So, is financial value "real?" Certainly not in the sense that it is physical: no-one can touch, taste, smell it and so on. It can, however, be represented in physical form, but as we have already shown, that form bears no relation to its true essence, and in fact *disguises* it.



The same could still be said of length or colour.



> It certainly means that value is *efficacious,* that it has real effects, and that these effects are independent of any human actors.



Value couldn't conceivably have any effect in the absence of human actors.


----------



## Loki (Sep 27, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nah, much as I'd like to, the book's already 20,000 words too long.  The days of such authorial indulgences are long gone, I fear.


So you won't be quoting me? But I had so much to say


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 27, 2005)

It just seems to me like you've found some things that financial value and god have in common then extrapolated that to mean that god *is* financial value, it might be a good subject for a philosophy essay, but as for proof, you have to come up with something stronger than that....

I have one question, aplogies if it's been asked already. Financial value doesn't exist outside Human thought, does that mean that God doesn't either?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> It just seems to me like you've found some things that financial value and god have in common then extrapolated that to mean that god *is* financial value, it might be a good subject for a philosophy essay, but as for proof, you have to come up with something stronger than that....
> 
> I have one question, aplogies if it's been asked already. Financial value doesn't exist outside Human thought, does that mean that God doesn't either?



I'm *not* comparing financial value to God, I'm comparing it to *Satan.*  I am going to argue that both of them exist "outside human thought" as you put it.  The proof (and it *is* a proof) of God's existence will arise out of the relation between God and Satan.  But that is still a few steps down the road.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 27, 2005)

This gets even funnier. Keep it up phil.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 27, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Certainly not in the sense that it is physical: no-one can touch, taste, smell it and so on.


I am making the same point every single day.
1. No-one can touch taste smell atoms but they are considered physical, explicable by the laws of physics.
2. And I don't see reason or argument that on virtue of being an alienation or a representation, alienated labor power would necesarily not be physical.
Are these questions just incoherant nonsense?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 27, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I am making the same point every single day.
> 1. No-one can touch taste smell atoms but they are considered physical, explicable by the laws of physics.
> 2. And I don't see reason or argument that on virtue of being an alienation or a representation, alienated labor power would necesarily not be physical.
> Are these questions just incoherant nonsense?



No, sorry, they're good questions, I was distracted (again) by the babblings of the Babylonians.  Atoms aren't physical.  They are ideas.  They are not accessible to the senses, they are perceptible only to the reason.  Alienated labour-power can take physical *form,* which is one of the things that differentiates it from a mere "idea," but it is not itself physical.  Does that help?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 27, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> This gets even funnier. Keep it up phil.



Stop stalking me Nino.  No-one wants you here, and there is no place for you on this thread.  For a while you provided light relief and your presence was just about tolerable, but you have now outlived your usefulness here.  I suggest that you mooch off to another corner of the boards, where you can sit and grumble to yourself without annoying others too much.  Here you are merely a pest.  As you say yourself, you're only hoping that, somehow, you will be able to prevent God's existence being proven, and it seems that you are willing to go to any lenghts to achieve your aim.  I can tell you right now that you will certainly fail.  This matter is too vital to allow your buffoonery to get in the way. I am sorry, but you must leave now.  Goodbye.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 27, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, sorry, they're good questions, I was distracted (again) by the babblings of the Babylonians.  Atoms aren't physical.  They are ideas.  They are not accessible to the senses, they are perceptible only to the reason.  Alienated labour-power can take physical *form,* which is one of the things that differentiates it from a mere "idea," but it is not itself physical.  Does that help?



I once saw gigantic pinwheels of neon colour race across the sky in a synchronised dance. With My Own Eyes. However, the scientist beside me saw nothing through his telescope.

Another time, I accidentaly got lithium (the metallic element) in my eye and it stung like fuck. The scientist in the room with me explained how the arrangement of electrons in lithium and water caused them to react violently.

So what is real here? I hope there's not a sliding scale - that would make things very messy.

I'm still not seeing any evidence that financial value is anything but a product of human activity, by the way. Sure, it dilutes and muddies intention, but without human intent it would cease to exist. Calling such a thing independant (which you are, right?) is a pretty big mistake to make right at the beginning.

(C) Crispy 2005


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 27, 2005)

Atoms are hardly just ideas are they?

And value, even if it is alienated labour, is still a product of the human mind, an estimation of worth made by the individual.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 27, 2005)

One of your reasons for assuming that fv is a spirit was that it has real effects. Atoms (as ideas or physical things) explain an awful lot of events, does this not imply that they have real effects?


----------



## axon (Sep 27, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Atoms aren't physical.  They are ideas.  They are not accessible to the senses, they are perceptible only to the reason.



So, in the same way, if an object is beyond my senses it isn't physical?  I'm thinking of a blind man watching TV.  He can hear the sound of the TV but one has only to mute the TV and the TV has ceased to be physical !


----------



## angry bob (Sep 27, 2005)

axon said:
			
		

> So, in the same way, if an object is beyond my senses it isn't physical?  I'm thinking of a blind man watching TV.  He can hear the sound of the TV but one has only to mute the TV and the TV has ceased to be physical !



If he can't touch it either then for him, the tv is not physical.


----------



## axon (Sep 27, 2005)

For the blind man the TV is not physical, but this is different to proclaiming that the TV in itself is not physical.
Enter someone who isn't blind into the room and the TV suddenly becomes physical again.  The TV is undergoing all these transformations between physical and not physical without anything actually happening to it.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 27, 2005)

axon said:
			
		

> For the blind man the TV is not physical, but this is different to proclaiming that the TV in itself is not physical.
> Enter someone who isn't blind into the room and the TV suddenly becomes physical again.  The TV is undergoing all these transformations between physical and not physical without anything actually happening to it.




Right ... but the original point was that an atom isn't physical because _no one_ can sense it.

So for your analogy of the tv ... everyone must be blind with no sense of touch for the tv to not be physical.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 27, 2005)

The bahaviour of atoms can be sensed though. If you saw animal tracks in the snow you wouldn't say nothing physically existed to create them.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 27, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> The bahaviour of atoms can be sensed though. If you saw animal tracks in the snow you wouldn't say nothing physically existed to create them.



Quite so.

But could you say, with absolute certainty (i.e. could you prove), that they were made by an antelope (or whatever) and not some guy with a set of cardboard cut out paws and a weird sense of humour?


----------



## axon (Sep 27, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> Right ... but the original point was that an atom isn't physical because _no one_ can sense it.
> 
> So for your analogy of the tv ... everyone must be blind with no sense of touch for the tv to not be physical.



Right.  But what if everyone was blind and I invented a robot (call him Geoff for the sake of argument) that can detect a muted TV, and could communicate this information to us blind folk.  By Phils reckoning the TV still physically doesn't exist, because (going back to his atoms) atoms don't exist because you can't see them directly, you need some sense-heightening equipment (Geoff) to see them. 
I wonder if Phil wears glasses, if he does then there's an awful lot of things that aren't physical.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 27, 2005)

> But could you say, with absolute certainty (i.e. could you prove), that they were made by an antelope (or whatever) and not some guy with a set of cardboard cut out paws and a weird sense of humour?



With a team of forensic experts I could.


----------



## laptop (Sep 27, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> With a team of forensic experts I could.



...some guy with a set of cardboard cut out paws, some antelope DNA, a couple antelope hairs and a weird sense of humour?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 27, 2005)

I'd just get more forensic experts...they're ten a penny round my mway


----------



## laptop (Sep 27, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> I'd just get more forensic experts...they're ten a penny round my mway



But since I can't see, touch or hear them - and quite likely wouldn't want to taste them - how do I know they're real forensic experts?


----------



## 118118 (Sep 27, 2005)

Philosophers grappling with scientific realism usually decide that electrons are real becuase they can spray them. The 'If I can spray them then they're real' argument. Geniuses


----------



## bugsy7 (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I will pause here to finish last night's pizza.  I may be some time, so just chat among yourselves if you like.


That's about the fourth time you've "paused to finish last night's pizza". Eat the fucking thing in one go, FFS!

MsG


----------



## Loki (Sep 28, 2005)

Is the holy lord here yet?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Stop stalking me Nino.  No-one wants you here, and there is no place for you on this thread.  For a while you provided light relief and your presence was just about tolerable, but you have now outlived your usefulness here.  I suggest that you mooch off to another corner of the boards, where you can sit and grumble to yourself without annoying others too much.  Here you are merely a pest.  As you say yourself, you're only hoping that, somehow, you will be able to prevent God's existence being proven, and it seems that you are willing to go to any lenghts to achieve your aim.  I can tell you right now that you will certainly fail.  This matter is too vital to allow your buffoonery to get in the way. I am sorry, but you must leave now.  Goodbye.



Unlike you phil, I am not stalking you. If you start a thread with a provocative title like "Rational Proof of God's Existence" what do you expect? Here in this post you show us all how truly delusional you really are. This passage proves my point



> As you say yourself, you're only hoping that, somehow, you will be able to prevent God's existence being proven, and it seems that you are willing to go to any lenghts to achieve your aim.



First, where did I say such a thing and second how can I prevent "God's existence being proven" when I know for a fact that 'God' is a concept invented in the mind of humans? In order to provide proof of something imaginary and conceptual you would have to reify. You understand what is meant by reification I presume. Even with reification, the concept remains in the imagination.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 28, 2005)

axon said:
			
		

> Right.  But what if everyone was blind and I invented a robot (call him Geoff for the sake of argument) that can detect a muted TV, and could communicate this information to us blind folk.  By Phils reckoning the TV still physically doesn't exist, because (going back to his atoms) atoms don't exist because you can't see them directly, you need some sense-heightening equipment (Geoff) to see them.



All you would know for sure is that there was something out there that causes Geoff to tell you there's a tv.

I accept that atoms exist. But in what sense are things on the quantum level real anyway?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 28, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Is the holy lord here yet?


not if s/he's any sense.


----------



## Purdie (Sep 28, 2005)

so while we're waiting


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Unlike you phil, I am not stalking you. If you start a thread with a provocative title like "Rational Proof of God's Existence" what do you expect? Here in this post you show us all how truly delusional you really are. This passage proves my point
> 
> First, where did I say such a thing and second how can I prevent "God's existence being proven" when I know for a fact that 'God' is a concept invented in the mind of humans? In order to provide proof of something imaginary and conceptual you would have to reify. You understand what is meant by reification I presume. Even with reification, the concept remains in the imagination.



But all you're doing here is expressing *faith.*  You say that you "know for a fact" that God does not exist.  *How* do you know this?  Have you thought the matter through, examining the various arguments pro and contra?  Of course you haven't.  You don't have to bother with that stuff, do you: you just "know" that there is no God.  This is what I mean when I say that atheism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie.  Those who have never thought about the question properly will find that they just "know" God does not exist.  That is what society *tells* them, subconsciously, to believe.  An interesting question, to which we will return, is *why* society does this.  How did atheism become what it undoubtedly is today: the opium of the people?

Anyway, Nino, if you really and sincerely want to participate in this thread, I will give you a chance.  I am not one to turn away the lost sheep who seeks to return to the fold.  But it probably isn't the most constructive method of taking part just to announce that you "know" in advance what the answer is.  Perhaps you'd like to begin by informing us whether you agree with my proof so far, and if not, which are the points on which you think I have made errors.  If you do this with goodwill, I guarantee that I will respond in kind.  You may well discover that your *faith* that God does not exist is constructed on very shakey foundations.


----------



## robotsimon (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This is what I mean when I say that atheism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie.  Those who have never thought about the question properly will find that they just "know" God does not exist.  That is what society *tells* them, subconsciously, to believe.  An interesting question, to which we will return, is *why* society does this.  How did atheism become what it undoubtedly is today: the opium of the people?



You are quite simply wrong here.
Using Britain as an example - a country which is often supposed to be one of the most secular societies in Europe - the 2001 census revealed that 76.8% of the population consider themselves to belong to a religion. Of those 76.8%, 71.6% stated that they were Christian. The question concerning religion was completely voluntary and gave people the option, if they chose to answer it, that they were of no religion. Over 92% of respondants answered this question.
Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 

I understand that believing in god and belonging to a religion may be considered to be separate things but is it not a reasonable assumption that people who state they belong to a religion believe in god?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> your *faith* that God does not exist is constructed on very shakey foundations.



Probably. My house is built on sand. Yours seems to be built on quicksand


----------



## Loki (Sep 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> not if s/he's any sense.


  *is very annoyed*


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> You are quite simply wrong here.
> Using Britain as an example - a country which is often supposed to be one of the most secular societies in Europe - the 2001 census revealed that 76.8% of the population consider themselves to belong to a religion. Of those 76.8%, 71.6% stated that they were Christian. The question concerning religion was completely voluntary and gave people the option, if they chose to answer it, that they were of no religion. Over 92% of respondants answered this question.
> Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293
> 
> I understand that believing in god and belonging to a religion may be considered to be separate things but is it not a reasonable assumption that people who state they belong to a religion believe in god?



I said the "Western *bourgeoisie.*"  The workers, being less thoroughly indoctrinated and having less investment in our atheist society, have always believed in God.


----------



## robotsimon (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I said the "Western *bourgeoisie.*"  The workers, being less thoroughly indoctrinated and having less investment in our atheist society, have always believed in God.



I have not seen the figures from the 2001 census which support this argument. Have you?


----------



## slaar (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I said the "Western *bourgeoisie.*"  The workers, being less thoroughly indoctrinated and having less investment in our atheist society, have always believed in God.


You think Britain has a working class greater than 75% of the population?

Ha.


----------



## Santino (Sep 28, 2005)

> But all you're doing here is expressing *faith.* You say that you "know for a fact" that God does not exist. *How* do you know this? Have you thought the matter through, examining the various arguments pro and contra? Of course you haven't.


I have done this. I have thought long and hard about it. I have read a lot of the history of philosophy and religion. I have come to the conclusion that not only is there no God, but that the very concept of God is illogical and impossible. My atheism - and I consider myself as atheist as it is possible to be - is not a default position, nor in any way an item of faith. I can't speak for anyone else.


----------



## Santino (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I said the "Western *bourgeoisie.*"  The workers, being less thoroughly indoctrinated and having less investment in our atheist society, have always believed in God.


Surely this belief is as uncritical as the atheism which you claim to be indoctrinated into the bourgeois?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Surely this belief is as uncritical as the atheism which you claim to be indoctrinated into the bourgeois?



In most cases, yes.  I am opposed to taking *anything* on faith, whether it be religion or atheism.  I accept your word that you have looked into the question of God's existence deeply, but if you'll read back on this thread, you'll find it replete with Ninoesque assertions that investigation into this matter is simply not necessary.  People who shout their atheism from the rooftops and, in the next breath, announce that they have never read the Bible--no, that they *would* never read it, that reading it is a silly thing to do--deserve only contempt.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But all you're doing here is expressing *faith.*  You say that you "know for a fact" that God does not exist.  *How* do you know this?  Have you thought the matter through, examining the various arguments pro and contra?  Of course you haven't.  You don't have to bother with that stuff, do you: you just "know" that there is no God.  This is what I mean when I say that atheism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie.  Those who have never thought about the question properly will find that they just "know" God does not exist.  That is what society *tells* them, subconsciously, to believe.  An interesting question, to which we will return, is *why* society does this.  How did atheism become what it undoubtedly is today: the opium of the people?
> 
> Anyway, Nino, if you really and sincerely want to participate in this thread, I will give you a chance.  I am not one to turn away the lost sheep who seeks to return to the fold.  But it probably isn't the most constructive method of taking part just to announce that you "know" in advance what the answer is.  Perhaps you'd like to begin by informing us whether you agree with my proof so far, and if not, which are the points on which you think I have made errors.  If you do this with goodwill, I guarantee that I will respond in kind.  You may well discover that your *faith* that God does not exist is constructed on very shakey foundations.



How am I expressing "faith" when I have no faith in what is an imaginary construct? If there is a "God" then it stands to reason there is a Father Xmas.

You have not provided any "proof"...any "proof" you have "provided" is in your imagination. Indeed many others have pointed this out to you but you are incapable of understanding this. Instead you resort to invective and abuse. This is not a discussion, this thread is about you and your ego.


----------



## slaar (Sep 28, 2005)

Quick show of hands: who is convinced by phil's proof so far? Only those who are need say so, I'll assume the default position is a firm no based on the average post in response.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 28, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> Quick show of hands: who is convinced by phil's proof so far? Only those who are need say so, I'll assume the default position is a firm no based on the average post in response.



Not me. He's had well over 56 pages to come up with something credible and he has failed to come up with the goods.

I've just had an idea: perhaps I should start a thread entitled "The rational proof of the existence of Father Xmas/Kris Kringle/Santa Claus".


----------



## Santino (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> In most cases, yes.  I am opposed to taking *anything* on faith, whether it be religion or atheism.  I accept your word that you have looked into the question of God's existence deeply, but if you'll read back on this thread, you'll find it replete with Ninoesque assertions that investigation into this matter is simply not necessary.  People who shout their atheism from the rooftops and, in the next breath, announce that they have never read the Bible--no, that they *would* never read it, that reading it is a silly thing to do--deserve only contempt.


I've never read the Bible, and I only would as I would any other book of myths. Ditto all other religous works, whether ancient or modern.

The only reason why people find it necessary to think deeply about the (in)existence of God is that human society is so saturated with various forms of religion that to actively be an atheist requires a conscious effort.


----------



## slaar (Sep 28, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Not me. He's had well over 56 pages to come up with something credible and he has failed to come up with the goods.
> 
> I've just had an idea: perhaps I should start a thread entitled "The rational proof of the existence of Father Xmas/Kris Kringle/Santa Claus".


Perhaps "The rational proof of the existence of the flying spaghetti monster"?

Incidentally, anyone know the longest ever thread, because this one must get close at some stage, I guess we're not even half way through the "proof" yet.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 28, 2005)

I've read the bible in some detail, and also the Torah. Both are works of substantial literary merit, but I wouldn't set much store by the factual or historical content.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 28, 2005)

> I've just had an idea: perhaps I should start a thread entitled "The rational proof of the existence of Father Xmas/Kris Kringle/Santa Claus".



I think you should do it - a mastery of subtle illogic is a beautiful thing to behold. 

As Umberto Eco says, how can the Marquis de Carabas not exist when Puss-in-Boots says he's in the Marquis's service?


----------



## Santino (Sep 28, 2005)

I wonder what Phil thinks off all the people throughout history who have believed in God(s) and yet have not acquired their belief through his proof.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> How am I expressing "faith" when I have no faith in what is an imaginary construct?



You miss the point.  Your belief that God is an "imaginary construct" is based on faith, not reason.  You have never even begun to look into the matter, you feel that its is not necessary for you to do so, because you already "know" the correct answer.  That is an absolutely *pathetic* and reprehensible attitude to bring to any question.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> I wonder what Phil thinks off all the people throughout history who have believed in God(s) and yet have not acquired their belief through his proof.



Mine is, of course, not the only proof of God's existence.  In fact, any proof of anything must change with history and culture.  I base my argument firmly on our current social and economic conditions, as have those who have argued most convincingly for God in past ages.  But I have little respect for those--in any age--whose religion is based on "faith," just as I have little respect for those whose atheism is based on the same grounds.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I've just had an idea: perhaps I should start a thread entitled "The rational proof of the existence of Father Xmas/Kris Kringle/Santa Claus".



The fact that you imagine God to be an empirical being of the same order as Father Xmas is the best possible testimony to your complete and utter ignorance of the subject.  This is obviously something about which you know nothing--and I do mean *nothing.*  In fact, I doubt that you would even deny this.  How you get the gall to pronounce so confidently on a topic about which you know absolutely nothing is quite beyond me.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> The only reason why people find it necessary to think deeply about the (in)existence of God is that human society is so saturated with various forms of religion that to actively be an atheist requires a conscious effort.



On the contrary.  As this thread has proved, the Western bourgeoisie is so saturated with automatic and unreflective atheism that to be *religious* requires a conscious effort.  The evidence is undeniable.  Just read back and see the happy atheists, merrily boasting of their ignorance, blithely comparing God to Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  You may be different, but most of these people have obviously never given religion a moment's thought in their entire lives.  My point is that someone who has never given religion a moment's thought will, today, inevitably turn out an atheist.  As I said, atheism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I've read the bible in some detail, and also the Torah. Both are works of substantial literary merit, but I wouldn't set much store by the factual or historical content.



Nor would I.  They're not supposed to be read for their "factual or historical content."  That's the *first* thing you need to grasp about them.  I have no time for Biblical literalists or religious fundamentalists, who I find nearly as contemptible as atheist fundamentalists.


----------



## Santino (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> On the contrary.  As this thread has proved, the Western bourgeoisie is so saturated with automatic and unreflective atheism that to be *religious* requires a conscious effort.  The evidence is undeniable.  Just read back and see the happy atheists, merrily boasting of their ignorance, blithely comparing God to Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  You may be different, but most of these people have obviously never given religion a moment's thought in their entire lives.  My point is that someone who has never given religion a moment's thought will, today, inevitably turn out an atheist.  As I said, atheism is the "default position" of the Western bourgeoisie.


This message board does not supply an adequate sample of Western bourgeois society to demonstrate anything. Fact.


----------



## robotsimon (Sep 28, 2005)

Hey Phildwyer, you seem to have sidestepped the issue of your assertion that atheism is the default position of the bourgeois westerners. I assume this is simply an oversight on your part.

Do you have any evidence to back-up this assertion? Do you have any evidence that the 76% of British people who stated they identified with a religion in the 2001 census are members of the working class?

These are not difficult philosophical issues to address, they are simply matters of statistics. Therefore I'm sure you will be able to reassure us that your assertion about the default position of the western bourgeois is based on evidence and not merely a useful assumption on your part.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> This message board does not supply an adequate sample of Western bourgeois society to demonstrate anything. Fact.



Well, perhaps.  But just anecdotally, I've found that the vast majority of  middle-class Westerners usually adopt the attitude of Nino Savatte: religion is a load of bollocks, believing in God is like believing in Father Xmas, I know this for sure, I don't need to find out anything about it and, er, that's it.  Would it be possible to imagine a more ridiculous approach to anything?


----------



## Santino (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to imagine a more ridiculous approach to anything?


I can think of... oh... at least one.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 28, 2005)

In any case, it's a perfectly reasonable approach to Father Christmas, unicorns and the like.


----------



## Poi E (Sep 28, 2005)

Well done on a successful thread, phil.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The fact that you imagine God to be an empirical being of the same order as Father Xmas is the best possible testimony to your complete and utter ignorance of the subject.  This is obviously something about which you know nothing--and I do mean *nothing.*  In fact, I doubt that you would even deny this.  How you get the gall to pronounce so confidently on a topic about which you know absolutely nothing is quite beyond me.



You're a fucking nutter, pal...and I mean that most sincerely. For your own sake you should seek professional help...y'get me?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, perhaps.  But just anecdotally, I've found that the vast majority of  middle-class Westerners usually adopt the attitude of Nino Savatte: religion is a load of bollocks, believing in God is like believing in Father Xmas, I know this for sure, I don't need to find out anything about it and, er, that's it.  Would it be possible to imagine a more ridiculous approach to anything?



Well, where's your _proof_ O Wise One? You have failed to convince not only me but the vast majority of posters on this thread.

Only you could fail to spot the relationship between God, Father Xmas, the Tooth Fairy or whatever device that has been created to explain the unexplainable; or that which acts as a mechanism of social control.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 28, 2005)

Remind us what "atheism" is again phil...if you please.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 28, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Remind us what "atheism" is again phil...if you please.



You'll have to wait for the "theism" answer first!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Well, where's your _proof_ O Wise One? You have failed to convince not only me but the vast majority of posters on this thread.
> 
> Only you could fail to spot the relationship between God, Father Xmas, the Tooth Fairy or whatever device that has been created to explain the unexplainable; or that which acts as a mechanism of social control.



Nino, your agenda on this thread is becoming ever clearer.  When you first arrived here, you stated that the idea of God was repugnant to you, and you vowed to use every means at your disposal to prevent a serious discussion taking place.  Although you have miserably failed in your aim, you linger on like a bad smell.  You have repeatedly failed to contribute anything substantive to the discussion.  You simply slump in the corner, muttering your incoherent and humorless complaints to an audience of no-one.  I don't think you've been straight with anyone here, and I believe it is time you you left us in peace.  There must be other threads on which you can grumble and groan to your heart's content, and perhaps you might even find some people willing to indulge your antics.  But your envious, miserable keening has outstayed its welcome here.  Kindly pursue your agenda elsewhere from now on.  Have you ever read Foucault, by the way?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Remind us what "atheism" is again phil...if you please.



Sigh.  I'm afraid that we may have reached a sad moment.  There comes a time in all human endeavour when we are forced to declare that enough is enough.  No matter how righteous the cause, no-one can fight a losing battle forever.  After a while, the crushing weight of ridicule, and the constant pressure of objections simply become too much to bear.  No amount of dedication can consistently overcome an unceasing storm of hostility.  Eventually, we have to throw in the towel, admit that our efforts were in vain, and--not to put to fine a point on it--just give up.

I fear that Nino Savatte has now reached that stage.  Despite his unrelenting exertions, his unbounded energy and his most strenuous arguments, he has proved unequal to the task of derailing this thread.  There now seems to be no prospect of success for him on the horizon.  Surely even Nino must now admit defeat and do as he has been advised for far too long: go away.  The real problem, I suspect, is that he has not read any Foucault.  Since everyone else here has read tons of the stuff, this puts him at a real disadvantage.  Nino, I suggest that you retire to your corner and read your way through Foucault's major works.  No, make that *all* of Foucault.  After you have accomplished this task, you can apply to be re-admitted to this thread, and I am sure that your pleas will find a sympathetic ear.

For the rest of you: I believe that we have now established pretty clearly that financial value accords, in all essential points, with the conventional definition of a "spirit."  Any lingering objections should be rasied immediately.  After I have disposed of them, I shall move on to a yet more controversial stage of my proof, and demonstrate that financial value is nothing more or less that "Satan," as that term has been understood for the last four hundred years of Western culture.

Now for some seriously spicy Lamb saag.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 28, 2005)

so this is where you bring in milton?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so this is where you bring in milton?



Yes!  You've been paying more attention that you claim, you cheeky little devil.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 28, 2005)

i'll be impress'd if your subsequent posts are in the same heroick metre as milton's verse.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i'll be impress'd if your subsequent posts are in the same heroick metre as milton's verse.



Did you know that "Paradise Lost" can be sung to the theme tune of "The Flintstones?"  Try it!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Did you know that "Paradise Lost" can be sung to the theme tune of "The Flintstones?"  Try it!


so can the national anthem.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so can the national anthem.



Nah, doesn't scan.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 28, 2005)

you tried, though!


----------



## 118118 (Sep 28, 2005)

I think I get this now.
IMHO if you accept that spirit ideas exist and that unobservables are not real in the way that a scientific realist would argue then its not the worst reasoning in the world to say that fv is the devil.
But these positions are not really accepted today, presumably for a reason. The step from fv being idea to spirit is not exactly 'convincing'. But this thread does seem like a possible argument now.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I think I get this now.
> IMHO if you accept that spirit ideas exist and that unobservables are not real in the way that a scientific realist would argue then its not the worst reasoning in the world to say that fv is the devil.
> But these positions are not really accepted today, presumably for a reason. The step from fv being idea to spirit is not exactly 'convincing'. But this thread does seem like a possible argument now.



The terminology is anachronistic, true, and that's clearly what's been confusing people on this thread.  But I think its important to reclaim this terminology from the fundamentalists, who certainly have no right to it.  It is a real tragedy that the know-nothingism of the unthinking atheists have allowed the right a monopoly on religion, and this is in fact a major reason why Bush and co. can wield such unchallenged power in the world.  I regard it as my mission to make religious concepts part of Leftist discourse again, and Satan seems to be the best place to start.


----------



## Loki (Sep 28, 2005)

Has he got there yet?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Has he got there yet?



Almost.  We're onto Satan now, or will be soon, which is half the battle.  It looks like Nino has finally got the message that he's not wanted here, and he is the last of the really objectionable mockers on this thread, so the field is pretty much clear for serious debate now, and we should make rapid progress.  Satan always takes a while to do though, so give us a week or two, then we'll move onto the Big Fella.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 28, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Is the holy lord here yet?



Coming, eventually, maybe. ...


----------



## slaar (Sep 28, 2005)

I look forward to the next stage phil, but only for academic (ho ho) interest, as I don't think you've satisfactorily answered objections on the uniqueness of the labour theory of value etc. I will stand unconvinced, but I suspect for the sake of eventually getting to the point it is best if you continue.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Mine is, of course, not the only proof of God's existence.  In fact, any proof of anything must change with history and culture.  I base my argument firmly on our current social and economic conditions, as have those who have argued most convincingly for God in past ages.  But I have little respect for those--in any age--whose religion is based on "faith," just as I have little respect for those whose atheism is based on the same grounds.


Then surely a god who rewards faith in him/her/it would not have much respect for you? Which religions have gods which say "blessed are the sceptical, for they shall prove my existence"?


----------



## Lord Almighty (Sep 28, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Almost.  We're onto Satan now, or will be soon, which is half the battle.  It looks like Nino has finally got the message that he's not wanted here, and he is the last of the really objectionable mockers on this thread, so the field is pretty much clear for serious debate now, and we should make rapid progress.  Satan always takes a while to do though, so give us a week or two, then we'll move onto the Big Fella.


The one who speaks as phildwyer has forked tongue (and a rather embarrasing condition of IBS). My wrath shall be reserved for him.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 28, 2005)

Purdie said:
			
		

> so while we're waiting


Proof that God hates veggies? But slaughter a lamb and you're in with old YHWH (or YWHW or YWCA or whatever)?


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 28, 2005)

Lord Almighty said:
			
		

> The one who speaks as phildwyer has forked tongue (and a rather embarrasing condition of IBS). My wrath shall be reserved for him.


hi LA, welcome to hell, have some brimstone and don't lend Dub a burning brand! 

*realises who he's talking to*

*queues up dolefully on LA's left-hand side*

*(y'know, along with the goats)*


----------



## gurrier (Sep 28, 2005)

Lord Almighty said:
			
		

> The one who speaks as phildwyer has forked tongue (and a rather embarrasing condition of IBS). My wrath shall be reserved for him.


Do the rest of us get some carbonara?  

* licks lips * 

By your carbonara we shall know you, oh noodly one.  

* bows head *


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nino, your agenda on this thread is becoming ever clearer.  When you first arrived here, you stated that the idea of God was repugnant to you, and you vowed to use every means at your disposal to prevent a serious discussion taking place.  Although you have miserably failed in your aim, you linger on like a bad smell.  You have repeatedly failed to contribute anything substantive to the discussion.  You simply slump in the corner, muttering your incoherent and humorless complaints to an audience of no-one.  I don't think you've been straight with anyone here, and I believe it is time you you left us in peace.  There must be other threads on which you can grumble and groan to your heart's content, and perhaps you might even find some people willing to indulge your antics.  But your envious, miserable keening has outstayed its welcome here.  Kindly pursue your agenda elsewhere from now on.  Have you ever read Foucault, by the way?



I asked you earlier in this thread if you were a Xtian or were in any way religious. Here in this post you admit, in not so many words, that you are. How do I know this? You have made the claim that I find "God repugnant"...those were not my words, rather the words you _imagined_ I said. You are a Xtian and your understanding of "God" is based on your own cultural position. Now then, spend some time chewing that one over.

You are not only a raving egomaniac but you are a bald-faced liar as well.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You miss the point.  Your belief that God is an "imaginary construct" is based on faith, not reason.  You have never even begun to look into the matter, you feel that its is not necessary for you to do so, because you already "know" the correct answer.  That is an absolutely *pathetic* and reprehensible attitude to bring to any question.



Nonsense. I don't need 'faith' to declare "God" an imaginary construct. On the contrary I have both reason and logic at my disposal and both have led me to that conclusion. You, on the other hand, are a religious nutter masquerading as an academic...and you have not provided any proof, only supposition.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Sigh.  I'm afraid that we may have reached a sad moment.  There comes a time in all human endeavour when we are forced to declare that enough is enough.  No matter how righteous the cause, no-one can fight a losing battle forever.  After a while, the crushing weight of ridicule, and the constant pressure of objections simply become too much to bear.  No amount of dedication can consistently overcome an unceasing storm of hostility.  Eventually, we have to throw in the towel, admit that our efforts were in vain, and--not to put to fine a point on it--just give up.
> 
> I fear that Nino Savatte has now reached that stage.  Despite his unrelenting exertions, his unbounded energy and his most strenuous arguments, he has proved unequal to the task of derailing this thread.  There now seems to be no prospect of success for him on the horizon.  Surely even Nino must now admit defeat and do as he has been advised for far too long: go away.  The real problem, I suspect, is that he has not read any Foucault.  Since everyone else here has read tons of the stuff, this puts him at a real disadvantage.  Nino, I suggest that you retire to your corner and read your way through Foucault's major works.  No, make that *all* of Foucault.  After you have accomplished this task, you can apply to be re-admitted to this thread, and I am sure that your pleas will find a sympathetic ear.
> 
> ...



Desperate for allies in your non-argument, you resort to the time-honoured tactic of smearing your opponent. Here you cast apersions on both my reading and my intelligence. But you have absolutely no right to do this, since much of what you have posted here is a regurgitation of what others have said. If I were you I would look at the replies of other posters...they are not as complimentary of you as you think.

You lost the moment you started this thread.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> and demonstrate that financial value is nothing more or less that "Satan," as that term has been understood for the last four hundred years of Western culture.



 If only we could have stuck to barter, everything would have been fine and dandy. Does anyone want to swap me a handful of beans for this lovely old cow? Please.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

"Financial value is Satan"....now I've heard everything.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

Very well.  We have pretty much etsablished what financial value is and, although some of you are still worried about the terminology, we have basically agreed that it is not an "idea," much less a "thing," and that the English word most closely approximating to it is "spirit."  We will now move to consider the nature of this spirit.

The first thing to note is that it only comes into being about four hundred years ago.  Before that, prohibitions against usury had largely ensured that financial value could not reproduce on its own, and so could not become an independent force.  Most people did not even recognize its existence, and it was to all intents and purposes equated with money.

That all changed with the discovery of America.  The consequent influx of precious metals into Europe caused massive and unprecedented inflation.  Governments responded with deflations--or "debasements" as they were called--of the coinage.  The *value* of gold fluctuated visibly from year to year.  So people came to understand that financial value was not somehow "in" the material body of the gold, but was an independent and nonmaterial force.  The recognition of this force coincided with the emergence onto the historical stage of the figure known to us as "Satan."

We must understand that, although the concept and the word "Satan" have existed since Biblical times, our modern understanding of this figure is very recent.  In fact, medieval authors are largely ignorant of Satan's existence, and they refer more often to "Lucifer," the morning star, which represents an angel expelled from heaven by God.  But the emergence of financial value as an independent force produced a sudden outburst of interest in the Satanic.  The craze for "Teufelbucher" in Germany and the European-wide witch hunts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries testify to a rapid, panicky realization that Satan was at work in the world.  This is an entirely new phenomenon.

Of course, the fact that Satan and financial value are both recognized at the same time does not, in itself, suggest an identity between them.  To establish this identity we need to examine their natures, and we will now return to the characteristics of financial value that we identified earlier. First, consider the fact that it is human life confronting us in alien form.  It is our subjective activity in objective guise.  It is the *opposite,* the dialectical *antithesis* of human life.  All of this is uncontroversial.

Now, the Hebrew word "Satan" has various connotations, but let us consider the most prevelent one first: "enemy," or "adversary."  Satan is an *enemy.*  Whose enemy is he?  Perhaps God's?  But this is absurd: God is omnipotent, He does not have "enemies," in in fact everything that happens, including things that we regard as "evil" are done by God.  Satan, I contend, is the "enemy," the "opponent" of each individual *human* being.  he is the force that seeks to destroy human life, and the means by which he does so is death.  Death is the *objectification* of a human being, it is the condition of humanity devoid of subjectivity.  A dead body is an object without a subject.  

Well, I've probably given you quite a lot to chew on here, so I'll pause for a while.  I want to spend some time making fun of Nino too.  But I promise that I will answer any questions, and refute any objections to the above, in due course.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

Satan didn't exist until he was invented and if memory serves me correctly, Satan does not exist in Judaism.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *the man with an ego the size of Canada*
> _Well, I've probably given you quite a lot to chew on here, so I'll pause for a while. I want to spend some time making fun of Nino too. But I promise that I will answer any questions, and refute any objections to the above, in due course._



Perhaps in your head, phil. But from what I can see I'm not the only one taking the piss out of you...or are you too [selectively] blind to notice?

Come on, let's see what you've got you silly wee troll.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> "Financial value is Satan"....now I've heard everything.



Nino, you agenda is becoming ever more prevelent here.  In fact, your agenda trails in the dust behind you as you plod your weary way.  Conceal it as you might, your agenda is visible to all.  And a most unpleasant, a most stinking, reeking agenda it is.  It is the agenda of one who hates God.  As soon as you arrived on this thread, you announced your detetstation of God, and your ruthless determination to do everything you could to bring Him down.  You struggle against God, feebly but persistantly, by dogging this thread with your dour, grim efforts at sarcasm, and your dull, impotent jibes against Truth.  I wouldn't even mind if you enlivened your efforts with some of your amusing trademarks, your leitmotifs--repeatedly asking us if we have read Foucault, for example, or flagging your efforts at sarcasm with "I *don't* think."  But recently you have deprived us of even these solaces.  Spice it up man, give us the *old* Nino, the one who made us *laugh.*  No, seriously, have you ever read Foucault?  Because you seem quite knowledgeable on the subject--I *don't* think!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Satan didn't exist until he was invented and if memory serves me correctly, Satan does not exist in Judaism.



Fool and ignoramus.  Satan does exist in Judaism.  At least do us the courtesy of Googling before you post your efforts.


----------



## robotsimon (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> .That all changed with the discovery of America.  The consequent influx of precious metals into Europe caused massive and unprecedented inflation.  Governments responded with deflations--or "debasements" as they were called--of the coinage.  The *value* of gold fluctuated visibly from year to year.  So people came to understand that financial value was not somehow "in" the material body of the gold, but was an independent and nonmaterial force.  The recognition of this force coincided with the emergence onto the historical stage of the figure known to us as "Satan."



I do not feel qualified to argue with you on philosophical matters but, again, you are playing free and easy with the facts. The concept of financial value being independent of the physical material of coinage dates from much further back than four hundred years.

The antoninianus introduced by Caracalla in the early 3rd century CE was valued twice as much as the denarius yet never contained more than 1.6 times as much silver. Debasement of coinage has occurred at least since 2nd century CE.  Later in the third century, the antoninianus was debased further with the addition of tin and copper so they looked a bit like silver yet contained very little or even none.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fool and ignoramus.  Satan does exist in Judaism.  At least do us the courtesy of Googling before you post your efforts.



"Fool and ignoramus"...is that the best you can come up with? An academician like you? 

You're nothing but a cheap troll.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nino, you agenda is becoming ever more prevelent here.  In fact, your agenda trails in the dust behind you as you plod your weary way.  Conceal it as you might, your agenda is visible to all.  And a most unpleasant, a most stinking, reeking agenda it is.  It is the agenda of one who hates God.  As soon as you arrived on this thread, you announced your detetstation of God, and your ruthless determination to do everything you could to bring Him down.  You struggle against God, feebly but persistantly, by dogging this thread with your dour, grim efforts at sarcasm, and your dull, impotent jibes against Truth.  I wouldn't even mind if you enlivened your efforts with some of your amusing trademarks, your leitmotifs--repeatedly asking us if we have read Foucault, for example, or flagging your efforts at sarcasm with "I *don't* think."  But recently you have deprived us of even these solaces.  Spice it up man, give us the *old* Nino, the one who made us *laugh.*  No, seriously, have you ever read Foucault?  Because you seem quite knowledgeable on the subject--I *don't* think!



No, phil, you are projecting again: it is obvious what your agenda is here: to wind up posters with your nonsense (because that is what it is) and attack others with whom you have a personal vendetta. Your masturbatory threads serve only one purpose: to boost you enormous and empty ego.

This statement proves that you are a troll.



> You struggle against God, feebly but persistantly, by dogging this thread with your dour, grim efforts at sarcasm, and your dull, impotent jibes against Truth.



What a strange universe you inhabit. "Truth"? You wouldn't know it if it came up and kicked you in the balls (assuming you have balls that is). "Struggle against God"...how can one struggle against something that was invented by religious leaders and is not believed by the person you are hruling abuse at?

Your attempts at witty comebacks are not only feeble but reveal the true state of your mental condition. You need help, go and get some.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Very well.  We have pretty much etsablished what financial value is and, although some of you are still worried about the terminology, we have basically agreed that it is not an "idea," much less a "thing," and that the English word most closely approximating to it is "spirit."  We will now move to consider the nature of this spirit.


Breathtaking.  Phil, my reading of the responses suggests that the audience has basically agreed that you are fucking hatstand and not much else beyond.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> The first thing to note is that it only comes into being about four hundred years ago.  Before that, prohibitions against usury had largely ensured that financial value could not reproduce on its own, and so could not become an independent force.  Most people did not even recognize its existence, and it was to all intents and purposes equated with money.


I refer you to the Laws of Draco, Athens 621 B.C which forced bad debtors to become slaves to their creditors and, despite the various anti-usury rants by philosophers, it is clear that it was common practice in ancient athens.  




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> That all changed with the discovery of America.  The consequent influx of precious metals into Europe caused massive and unprecedented inflation.  Governments responded with deflations--or "debasements" as they were called--of the coinage.  The *value* of gold fluctuated visibly from year to year.  So people came to understand that financial value was not somehow "in" the material body of the gold, but was an independent and nonmaterial force.  The recognition of this force coincided with the emergence onto the historical stage of the figure known to us as "Satan."


That's just rubbish, ahistorical and made up to suit your conclusion.  The value of currency tokens has always fluctuated, whether salt, cowrie shells, guns or gold. 

I refer you to Mansa Musa's pilgrimage to mecca in the early 14th century, after which it was widely reported across the Muslim world that it took the price of gold 12 years to recover in Cairo after his splurge while passing through, showing that not only did the value of gold fluctuate long before the 'discovery' of America, but that the concept was well known and accepted throughout society (this story circulated as a popular myth of his wealth and splendour).


----------



## angry bob (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Nonsense. I don't need 'faith' to declare "God" an imaginary construct. On the contrary I have both reason and logic at my disposal and both have led me to that conclusion.



Perhaps you could start a thread using a reasonable and logical argument to disprove the existence of god? Without resorting to 'if you can't prove there is then there isn't' of course ... which I find a pretty weak argument.



> You, on the other hand, are a religious nutter masquerading as an academic....





> Desperate for allies in your non-argument, you resort to the time-honoured tactic of smearing your opponent. Here you cast apersions on both my reading and my intelligence. But you have absolutely no right to do this ...


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 29, 2005)

> First, consider the fact that it is human life confronting us in alien form. It is our subjective activity in objective guise. It is the *opposite,* the dialectical *antithesis* of human life. All of this is uncontroversial.



Uncontroversial?!? It's rubbish, Phil, rubbish.

As for there being no enthusiasm for Satan in the medieval period, that's rubbish as well. A quick search of the Patrologia Latina (which comprises the works of the Church Fathers from Tertullian in 200 AD to the death of Pope Innocent III in 1216) reveals 816 references to Satan, and that's not counting spelling variations or declension. Where on earth are you getting this stuff?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could start a thread using a reasonable and logical argument to disprove the existence of god? Without resorting to 'if you can't prove there is then there isn't' of course ... which I find a pretty weak argument.



Don't roll your eyes at me pal. I don't need to 'disprove' anything...at least not for your satisfaction.

So you think phil has provided us all with 'proof' then?


----------



## slaar (Sep 29, 2005)

This is all looking pretty tenuous, even before discussing the fact that the proof isn't sound up to talk of Satan.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Where on earth are you getting this stuff?



Unfortunately, just as this discussion is really getting interesting, I'm going to be away from my copmupter for at least two days.  I do promise, though, to answer everyone's objections, both to my history of Satan and my description of financial value, as well as my equation of the two.  But I just had to answer Fruitloop's query, becasue I really want to plug my source here.  In my opinion, there is *only* one serious historical study of the devil in English: Jeffrey Burton Russell's absolutely stunning, magisterial, comprehensive and brilliant five-volume analysis.  Its divided into volumes on The Devil, Satan, Lucifer, Mephistopheles and The Prince of Darkness.  Burton is an *astonishing* historian, and everyone should read these books (although they total several thousand pages).  Everyone, that is, except Nino, who must stick to Foucault for a while.  Catch y'all later.


----------



## slaar (Sep 29, 2005)

Phil you really need to consider quite how subjective this "proof" is, all the way along. Rational it ain't; perhaps a new thread title is required.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Don't roll your eyes at me pal. I don't need to 'disprove' anything...at least not for your satisfaction.
> 
> So you think phil has provided us all with 'proof' then?



No not at all pal. I'm still waiting but I'm finding it quite interesting.

It's just that you seem to be laying into the guy with some venom and I find it hard to tell why. You also claim the very idea of there being a god to be ridiculous (not in as many words perhaps) and was invented by religious leaders (although presumably they only became religious leaders after they invented god?).

You claim that you arrived at this conclusion through logical and reasoned thought on the subject rather than simply believing your position to be correct (i.e. having faith).

It just seemed to me that the best way for you to support your assertations (rather than just calling phil names) would be to share some of your logical and reasoned arguments, thereby showing phil to be wrong.

I don't suggest you do any of this for my satisfaction though but.

Apologies for the rolleyes ... but it did seem rather off for you to accuse phil of smear tactics when you are using little but. Drawing into question his religion, mental capacity and the existence of his testicles to name but a few.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> No not at all pal. I'm still waiting but I'm finding it quite interesting.
> 
> It's just that you seem to be laying into the guy with some venom and I find it hard to tell why. You also claim the very idea of there being a god to be ridiculous (not in as many words perhaps) and was invented by religious leaders (although presumably they only became religious leaders after they invented god?).
> 
> ...



You've simply assumed this is a case of me being 'nasty' to phil but you haven't seen the way the fucker has stalked me all over these boards and selectivised his attacks. The man has a serious mental health problem that isn't confined to his egotism. Like all troll he has a sociopathic streak running through him. If you think you can engage him in a proper discussion, then be my guest.

I found much of what he has said here to be complete and utter nonsense and so have many others...but as far as you are concerned all I am doing is attacking him for no reason. I would suggest you actually look at the rest of this thread before you pass judgement on me.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 29, 2005)

Angry Bob: I think the vitriol is directed at the idea that there exists a rational proof of God's existence, and the only reason for its limited currency is that the majority of people are simply too dim or too ill-read to understand it. Normally I would recommend that you read the entire thread before joining in, but unless you're presently trapped in an iron lung I'm confident there are many more worthwhile things you could be doing with your time.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> No not at all pal. I'm still waiting but I'm finding it quite interesting.
> 
> It's just that you seem to be laying into the guy with some venom and I find it hard to tell why. You also claim the very idea of there being a god to be ridiculous (not in as many words perhaps) and was invented by religious leaders (although presumably they only became religious leaders after they invented god?).
> 
> ...



Thanks Bob.  But to be honest, the hostility that this subject attracts does not surprise me.  In fact, that hostility is itself an element in my proof.  If people *really* didn't believe in God, they wouldn't get so het up when someone makes a serious argument for His existence.  It is very revealing to find that people like Gurrier and Nino, who simply haven't ever thought about the question seriously (and I really don't mean to be insulting here, just accurate) get visibly, viscerally and instinctively *angry* when someone who does know something about theology makes what is actually a quite mild, rational case for God.  Why do they *care* so much, if they really don't believe?  

I hope to answer this question in the course of my argument.  For now though (and I am sure I'll be loudly insulted for name-dropping here), I'll repeat an anecdote I've told before.  I once asked the philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard--a materialist by most people's standards--whether he believed in God.  He looked surprised at the question, and replied, as if it were obvious: "but *everyone* believes in God!"  I think that's profoundly true, and my aim here is to show everyone that they *already* believe.  Anyway, like I say, I must be off now, but I will return!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

> I once asked the philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard



Really? I suppose you spoke to Kant while you were there too.


----------



## Santino (Sep 29, 2005)

> If people *really* didn't believe in God, they wouldn't get so het up when someone makes a serious argument for His existence.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

*clutches stomach*


----------



## angry bob (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You've simply assumed this is a case of me being 'nasty' to phil but you haven't seen the way the fucker has stalked me all over these boards and selectivised his attacks. The man has a serious mental health problem that isn't confined to his egotism. Like all troll he has a sociopathic streak running through him. If you think you can engage him in a proper discussion, then be my guest.
> 
> I found much of what he has said here to be complete and utter nonsense and so have many others...but as far as you are concerned all I am doing is attacking him for no reason. I would suggest you actually look at the rest of this thread before you pass judgement on me.



OK ... fair enough. I was certainly unaware of conflict on other threads.

I have been following this thread pretty closely (all 60+ pages of it!) from the beginning although I've rarely got involved in the arguments. I'm just interested to see where it's going.

It's pretty hard though when it keeps descending into petty points about reggae or poltical parties in the 16th century (was that this thread??) or whatever (not that i'm blaming anyone in particular for that).

It does seem to me that we'd all be better off without the insults and what have you ... but I realise I'm a newbie so I withdraw all criticism!

(and I'd really, really be interested to see a rational proof of the non-existence of god ... or at least arguments to that effect. I find the whole business fascinating ...)


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You've simply assumed this is a case of me being 'nasty' to phil but you haven't seen the way the fucker has stalked me all over these boards and selectivised his attacks. The man has a serious mental health problem that isn't confined to his egotism. Like all troll he has a sociopathic streak running through him. If you think you can engage him in a proper discussion, then be my guest.



You're the only stalker here, Nino.  My proof: your very presence on this thread.  You've said over and over again that its all rubbish and nonsense, you've boasted that you're going to derail it if you can, you've failed to contribute *anything* to the discussion, and in fact have mocked the very idea that you might contribute when you've been invited to do so.  What are you *doing* here?  I mean, seriously, what kind of satisfaction do you get out of this?


----------



## Santino (Sep 29, 2005)

The whole point of the internet is arguing with people you consider fuckwits.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Thanks Bob.  But to be honest, the hostility that this subject attracts does not surprise me.  In fact, that hostility is itself an element in my proof.  If people *really* didn't believe in God, they wouldn't get so het up when someone makes a serious argument for His existence.  It is very revealing to find that people like Gurrier and Nino, who simply haven't ever thought about the question seriously (and I really don't mean to be insulting here, just accurate) get visibly, viscerally and instinctively *angry* when someone who does know something about theology makes what is actually a quite mild, rational case for God.  Why do they *care* so much, if they really don't believe?
> 
> I hope to answer this question in the course of my argument.  For now though (and I am sure I'll be loudly insulted for name-dropping here), I'll repeat an anecdote I've told before.  I once asked the philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard--a materialist by most people's standards--whether he believed in God.  He looked surprised at the question, and replied, as if it were obvious: "but *everyone* believes in God!"  I think that's profoundly true, and my aim here is to show everyone that they *already* believe.  Anyway, like I say, I must be off now, but I will return!



I look forward to the rest of your proof. I'm somewhat of a dimwit when it comes to all this philosophical/theological language but I think I'm following so far.

As to why people care so much ... well this is only a bulletin board and it seems to me that people like to argue on it. It's a lot more fun than just agreeing!!

As an agnostic I find it somewhat strange that people can be so sure whether or not there is a god either way. But I'm always interested to find out.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> The whole point of the internet is arguing with people you consider fuckwits.



Ah yes, there is that.  But I can't really think of Nino as a "fuckwit," since that term implies some vigour, some vim, some lively spark of insanity.  Nino is more of a *dullard.*  Yes, that's the very term I've been groping for, *dullard.*  Dullard, and sluggard.


----------



## Santino (Sep 29, 2005)

My point of view is that a) If you're claiming that there is a great entity, creator of the universe, foundation of all morality and worthy of our attention, then it's up to you to come up with some pretty fucking good evidence for It, and b) Any attempt at a definition of what God could be and how it would work always falls into contradiction, nonsense or hopeless ambiguity, e.g. whatever we can't explain is God, and God is Beyond Our Understanding, although I'm pretty sure he doesn't want you to have a lie-in on Sundays.


----------



## Santino (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Ah yes, there is that.  But I can't really think of Nino as a "fuckwit," since that term implies some vigour, some vim, some lively spark of insanity.  Nino is more of a *dullard.*  Yes, that's the very term I've been groping for, *dullard.*  Dullard, and sluggard.


Then ignore him, for the love of fuck, or answer his objections. At the moment you look like a feeble hypocrite, threatening to ignore him but responding to every post he makes.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 29, 2005)

> Jeffrey Burton Russell's absolutely stunning, magisterial, comprehensive and brilliant five-volume analysis. Its divided into volumes on The Devil, Satan, Lucifer, Mephistopheles and The Prince of Darkness. Burton is an *astonishing* historian, and everyone should read these books (although they total several thousand pages).



I've read some JBR, although not the full set (vita brevis and all that). I don't see what he says supporting your contention, in fact in his review of "The Devil at Isenheim" by Ruth Mellinkoff (Los Angeles Times Jun 4, 1989. pg. 9) he uses the terms 'Devil' and 'Satan' completely interchangeably from one sentence to the next - in reference to Matthias Grunewald's famous altarpiece (which is admittedly a little late at 1512-1516). In any case, I'd sooner trust a 'primary' source like the Patrologia Latina than third-hand info.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 29, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> My point of view is that a) If you're claiming that there is a great entity, creator of the universe, foundation of all morality and worthy of our attention, then it's up to you to come up with some pretty fucking good evidence for It, and b) Any attempt at a definition of what God could be and how it would work always falls into contradiction, nonsense or hopeless ambiguity, e.g. whatever we can't explain is God, and God is Beyond Our Understanding, although I'm pretty sure he doesn't want you to have a lie-in on Sundays.



Pretty common point of view. My question would be if you claim there is no great entity then- how did the universe come into being, what is the foundation of morality, what was the original spark of life? Are love, music, beauty, hope, etc. all just chemical reactions brought about my evolution in order for us to continue our existence as pointless little self-replicating machines?

That sounds like I'm advocating the existence of god ... which I'm not. They're just some of the reasons I'm not an atheist.


----------



## Santino (Sep 29, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> Pretty common point of view. My question would be if you claim there is no great entity then- how did the universe come into being, what is the foundation of morality, what was the original spark of life? Are love, music, beauty, hope, etc. all just chemical reactions brought about my evolution in order for us to continue our existence as pointless little self-replicating machines?
> 
> That sounds like I'm advocating the existence of god ... which I'm not. They're just some of the reasons I'm not an atheist.


To me, just positing the existence of a thing called God doesn't answer any of those questions. (Very specifically, I don't think religion can answer ethical questions at all, but I can't be arsed to get into that at the moment.) If you posit a God, then I can quite legitimately ask 'Where did he come from?', 'If he's so clever, who made him?' etc.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 29, 2005)

The question is; what do you mean when you say God? What function does this word serve?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You're the only stalker here, Nino.  My proof: your very presence on this thread.  You've said over and over again that its all rubbish and nonsense, you've boasted that you're going to derail it if you can, you've failed to contribute *anything* to the discussion, and in fact have mocked the very idea that you might contribute when you've been invited to do so.  What are you *doing* here?  I mean, seriously, what kind of satisfaction do you get out of this?



Wrong, but then you can't see that can you? You followed me all over these boards with your half baked insults and pseudo-intellectual ramblings. You are really no better than some dosser outside Brixton Tube station.

As I said before, if you start a thread with such a provocative title, what do you expect? But you have singled me out for abuse because you have a personal problem with me that is merely a symptom of your mental health problem.

*Troll*


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Then ignore him, for the love of fuck, or answer his objections. At the moment you look like a feeble hypocrite, threatening to ignore him but responding to every post he makes.



But Nino hasn't *made* any objections.  He's even said that he's not *going* to make any.  He's clearly announced that he only wants to derail this thread, and that is his only purpose in being here.  Quite why he feels such a strong need to do this I've no idea.  But you're right, I should probably not dignify his dullardisms by responding.  I'll stop now.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Ah yes, there is that.  But I can't really think of Nino as a "fuckwit," since that term implies some vigour, some vim, some lively spark of insanity.  Nino is more of a *dullard.*  Yes, that's the very term I've been groping for, *dullard.*  Dullard, and sluggard.



Arrogant
Pompous
Egotist


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> *Troll*



Right, now I'm going to challenge you.  Make some substantive contribution to this thread, say something sensible about the issues we're discussing, or go away.  If you fail to do this, everyone will clearly see that *you* are the troll.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But Nino hasn't *made* any objections.  He's even said that he's not *going* to make any.  He's clearly announced that he only wants to derail this thread, and that is his only purpose in being here.  Quite why he feels such a strong need to do this I've no idea.  But you're right, I should probably not dignify his dullardisms by responding.  I'll stop now.



Wrong, I have but it suits you to say that I haven't. You're one of the worst liars I have ever seen on Urban.

Now you have a new word to play with. That must make you truly happy O Onanistic one.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Wrong, I have but it suits you to say that I haven't.



Where?  Where have you ever made any worthwhile contribution to this thread?  Where have you done anything but attempt to derail it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right, now I'm going to challenge you.  Make some substantive contribution to this thread, say something sensible about the issues we're discussing, or go away.  If you fail to do this, everyone will clearly see that *you* are the troll.



You have used this thread to belittle others and generally take the piss. You are the *troll*.

You have consistently failed to provide 'proof' when asked...yet you pretend that you are serious...I beg to differ and so do many others.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Where?  Where have you ever made any worthwhile contribution to this thread?  Where have you done anything but attempt to derail it?



This is the sort of thing that is typical of the troll. You've been sussed phil, give it up.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You have used this thread to belittle others and generally take the piss. You are the *troll*.
> 
> You have consistently failed to provide 'proof' when asked...yet you pretend that you are serious...I beg to differ and so do many others.



Contribute, Nino, or go away.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Contribute, Nino, or go away.



Like you contribute to other threads? Come on, let's see what you have. You've spent over 60 pages wanking yourself off  and getting others to do the same. You're a *joke*.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Satan didn't exist until he was invented and if memory serves me correctly, Satan does not exist in Judaism.



There's some truth in this, in that many Jewish people will tell you that both the prolific and the destructive elements of God are still God.  And others will say that there is Shaitan, but that it works for God.  

However, from the New Testament we have the story of Jesus in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights, and his temptation by the devil.  It seems likely that this story must have been told by Jesus to his friends, as there doesn't seem to be much other way for anyone to have known about it.  
In this story, the devil offers Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, if he willl just bow down and worship the devil, and Jesus does not dispute the power of the devil to do this. which is suggestive,   (but later Jesus says -my kingdom is not of this world,- meaning perhaps that he was waiting for a later stage.)  Other names for the devil were Beelzebub, or -bul, which means the Lord of the house, it also  suggests interpretations of why Jesus says, the messiah will come like a thief in the night, or the parable where he talks about breaking into a house, tieing up the owner, in order to get his locked up treasure out.  he said you need to be strong to tie up the master of the house.   and of course to many at the time, Roma, or Amor backwards was pretty much God- The Jews were in quite a minority to suggest that their God was in fact the true God, and most of the roman world thought they were pretty barking.  (But go to Rome now)  

It's worth bearing in mind that Jesus was jewish and yet it seemed that he believed in the devil, and furthermore considered him to be the current ruler of the world.  Famously, also, he said, you cannot serve two masters.  You cannot serve both God and Mammon.  These days, perhaps for disguise, mammon is translated as money, http://www.angelfire.com/ca/mammon/.  Maybe when it was said, mammon just meant wealth, or property, but then, it was odd of Jesus to put it alongside God as a potential master.   

Roma.  People don't really get it.  Maybe you'd have to have been there to really grasp the full horror.  When humanity is just another commodity, and justice just the carrying out of the law, means nailing up a runaway slave,and the word for -right- is -decorum- meaning what is done- is it irrational to think that the world is in the grip of a demon?  And crucifixion.  It's the torturer's torture.  Being burned alive, or hung drawn and quartered are extraordinary mercy in comparison.  

It's odd, , although most of the world was brought into subjection to the Jewish God, and ancient Rome now lies in ruins, it was very much a bastardised version of God and Christ that Roman christianity presented.  The Romans stole the clothes of Christ, and carried on and are still trying to impose the commodification of humanity, and the master-slave reality on the rest of the world.  Of course they have to pretend to be a lot nicer now, hypocrisy being the homage vice pays to virtue, and life has turned pretty strange.  With Satan stealing God's clothes, it seems God had to steal Satan's also, so you find God in magic and ecstatic celebration where anything goes.  But Satanism.. yes, it's the oldest religion there is, and money-worship is just the form it's taking today, the joke being that it's so easy to blind humanity to what they're actually doing, even when "In God we trust" is printed on the dollar bill.  I wonder what will become of us, are they waiting for me to be dead before they take off the mask and bring back human sacrifice, or is that unnecessary given that we've been successfully enslaved into damaging the planet enough to cause climate change that will mainly wipe us out.  

Well if we haven't been enslaved by a malign spirit, by the demand of money that it increase so that we exploit the earth and any humans we can to the limit, even destroying the ecosystem in the process, then why exactly are we doing it?  And why can't we stop?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Like you contribute to other threads? Come on, let's see what you have. You've spent over 60 pages wanking yourself off  and getting others to do the same. You're a *joke*.



Right, you've now finally made it clear to everyone that you just don't want this discussion to take place.  You are here to stop us discussing God's existence.  You might want to ask yourself why this is so important to you.  From now on, I will confine myself to answering the serious points that others are making, and leave you to ramble away like the dullard in the corner.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> There's some truth in this, in that many Jewish people will tell you that both the prolific and the destructive elements of God are still God.  And others will say that there is Shaitan, but that it works for God.
> 
> However, from the New Testament we have the story of Jesus in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights, and his temptation by the devil.  It seems likely that this story must have been told by Jesus to his friends, as there doesn't seem to be much other way for anyone to have known about it.
> In this story, the devil offers Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, if he willl just bow down and worship the devil, and Jesus does not dispute the power of the devil to do this. which is suggestive,   (but later Jesus says -my kingdom is not of this world,- meaning perhaps that he was waiting for a later stage.)  Other names for the devil were Beelzebub, or -bul, which means the Lord of the house, it also  suggests interpretations of why Jesus says, the messiah will come like a thief in the night, or the parable where he talks about breaking into a house, tieing up the owner, in order to get his locked up treasure out.  he said you need to be strong to tie up the master of the house.   and of course to many at the time, Roma, or Amor backwards was pretty much God- The Jews were in quite a minority to suggest that their God was in fact the true God, and most of the roman world thought they were pretty barking.  (But go to Rome now)
> ...



Indeed, Satan had to be created for a reason and iirc the concept was appropriated from the Zoroastrians. There are other religions where the embodiment of 'evil' is absent as opposed to evil itself.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right, you've now finally made it clear to everyone that you just don't want this discussion to take place.  You are here to stop us discussing God's existence.  You might want to ask yourself why this is so important to you.  From now on, I will confine myself to answering the serious points that others are making, and leave you to ramble away like the dullard in the corner.



Change the record fuckwit.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right, you've now finally made it clear to everyone that you just don't want this discussion to take place.  You are here to stop us discussing God's existence.  You might want to ask yourself why this is so important to you.  From now on, I will confine myself to answering the serious points that others are making, and leave you to ramble away like the dullard in the corner.



Click his username, then click 'add to my ignore list'

Problem solved.

Nino, you do the same


----------



## ZWord (Sep 29, 2005)

To be honest, I have had my doubts as to the wisdom of this thread.  

I find the idea of "the rational proof of God's existence" not risible, but dubious, and I've generally thought that the best evidence for God is personal experience.  But I remember now, there was a time when I didn't really think I had any personal experience, and yet reason still convinced me.  

But maybe there's a confusion between logic and reason.  Robots are logical, but not reasonable. Humans can be reasonable, but are rarely logical.  I guess when people see the words -rational proof-, they expect a faultless seamless web of logic, not just a reasonable argument,  I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the proof starts off with this discussion of Satan, a much underestimated force in the world. -you should see if you can find the poem -the money God- from -keep the aspidistra flying-, 

The devil, though, I wonder... Looks like it won this one.  But they say he was God's best mate originally


----------



## ZWord (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Indeed, Satan had to be created for a reason and iirc the concept was appropriated from the Zoroastrians. There are other religions where the embodiment of 'evil' is absent as opposed to evil itself.



Well if we haven't been enslaved by a malign spirit or the demand of money for incessant growth into exploiting the planet and each other, even to the extent of destroying our ecosystem, and eventually our civilisation, why exactly are we doing it?  And why can't we stop?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Click his username, then click 'add to my ignore list'
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> Nino, you do the same




I tried ignoring him but it is difficult when you see him quoted in other posts spreading lies around. He's a fucking menance and no mistake.

Thing is, he could ignore me but he chooses not to, which says an awful lot about his pettiness and vindictiveness.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Click his username, then click 'add to my ignore list'
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> Nino, you do the same



As ever, Crispy, you provide a refreshing voice of sanity in the madhouse that this thread occasionally threatens to become.  It does occur to me to point out that Nino claims that he *already* has me on ignore, but let it pass, let it pass...


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Well if we haven't been enslaved by a malign spirit or the demand of money for incessant growth into exploiting the planet and each other, even to the extent of destroying our ecosystem, and eventually our civilisation, why exactly are we doing it?  And why can't we stop?



I agree these things are malign but I do not think I could apply relgious concepts to markets, money or value...it seems far too primitive for my liking...a little like how hurricanes and other natural disasters are described as "God's will/punishment". It works for the superstitious but not for me.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 29, 2005)

> Well if we haven't been enslaved by a malign spirit or the demand of money for incessant growth into exploiting the planet and each other, even to the extent of destroying our ecosystem, and eventually our civilisation, why exactly are we doing it? And why can't we stop?



One main reason is corporate law; the only duty of any board of directors is to maximise the share dividend for investors - any environmental or social considerations must come secondary to this, or the investors can remove and/or prosecute the board of directors. What this means is that any social or environmental concern on the part of large corporations is almost always window-dressing, because if it actually went so far as to effect the bottom line (i.e. profit) then the directors could be sacked.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> As ever, Crispy, you provide a refreshing voice of sanity in the madhouse that this thread occasionally threatens to become.  It does occur to me to point out that Nino claims that he *already* has me on ignore, but let it pass, let it pass...



Once again you twist things around to suit your position. I put you on ignore once but after I had seen you lie about me, I had to take action. You, on the other hand, have never put me on 'ignore' precisely for the reason I mentioned...you're a troll.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I agree these things are malign but I do not think I could apply relgious concepts to markets, money or value...it seems far too primitive for my liking...a little like how hurricanes and other natural disasters are described as "God's will/punishment". It works for the superstitious but not for me.



Finally!  See, how hard was that?  Welcome to the thread Nino, I am delighted that you have graced us with your presence, pull up a chair etc.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Finally!  See, how hard was that?  Welcome to the thread Nino, I am delighted that you have graced us with your presence, pull up a chair etc.



Don't patronise me, phil. You cannot disguise the fact that you are trolling.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Once again you twist things around to suit your position. I put you on ignore once but after I had seen you lie about me, I had to take action. You, on the other hand, have never put me on 'ignore' precisely for the reason I mentioned...you're a troll.



And now you're back to your old trolling games again, just after what now appears to have been a *diversionary* constructive post.  I cannot begin to imagine what twisted pleasure tou derive from preventing other people having an important discussion, but I suspect that it has to do with your fanatical determination to destroy all that is holy.  Am I getting warm?


----------



## gurrier (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I tried ignoring him but it is difficult when you see him quoted in other posts spreading lies around. He's a fucking menance and no mistake.
> 
> Thing is, he could ignore me but he chooses not to, which says an awful lot about his pettiness and vindictiveness.


Hmmm.  You should consider the possibility that it is part of his method of proof which seems to go something like this.

1. Phil makes sweeping, general, unsubstantiated assertion X.
2. Several people respond with sourced and verifiable evidence which would disprove assertion X.
3. Phil insults somebody's intelligence and engages in a long digression concerning their lack of education / reggae music / his supper.
4. Phil says "where was I? Oh yeah, I had just proven assertion X, I think we've dealt with all objections and everybody agrees, now the next stage in my proof is..."


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And now you're back to your old trolling games again, just after what now appears to have been a *diversionary* constructive post.  I cannot begin to imagine what twisted pleasure tou derive from preventing other people having an important discussion, but I suspect that it has to do with your fanatical determination to destroy all that is holy.  Am I getting warm?



No, I've sussed you and you don't like it. You will continue to project the illusion of 'serious academic' but it is only you who is fooled by this.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  You should consider the possibility that it is part of his method of proof which seems to go something like this.
> 
> 1. Phil makes sweeping, general, unsubstantiated assertion X.
> 2. Several people respond with sourced and verifiable evidence which would disprove assertion X.
> ...



I couldn't have put it better myself gurrier.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  You should consider the possibility that it is part of his method of proof which seems to go something like this.
> 
> 1. Phil makes sweeping, general, unsubstantiated assertion X.
> 2. Several people respond with sourced and verifiable evidence which would disprove assertion X.
> ...



Gurrier, I think it is more than a little cruel of you to encourage Nino in his antics.  I suppose I can see the attraction in goading him on to yet more buffoonery, but you might find that your conscience would give you more rest if you go off and watch a car-crash or something.  As you know perfectly well, Nino is to intellectual debate what Stephen Hawking is to speed-skating.  It is simply mean of you to spur him into trying just so that you can enjoy a cheap laugh at his expense.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2005)

You can't control yourself can you? Even making the feeble attempt to deflect attention away from your risible attempt to prove (which you thus far have failed to do) "God's existence" can't save you. 

You're a fool.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 29, 2005)

Well, this isn't very Christmassy.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 29, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> One main reason is corporate law; the only duty of any board of directors is to maximise the share dividend for investors - any environmental or social considerations must come secondary to this, or the investors can remove and/or prosecute the board of directors. What this means is that any social or environmental concern on the part of large corporations is almost always window-dressing, because if it actually went so far as to effect the bottom line (i.e. profit) then the directors could be sacked.



I agree.  Did you ever hear this one? 

"Oh death where is thy sting, O grave where is thy victory. The wages of sin is death, and the strength of sin is the Law."


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 29, 2005)

or even:




			
				Lao Tzu said:
			
		

> The more laws and restrictions there are,
> The poorer people become.
> The sharper men's weapons,
> The more trouble in the land.
> ...


----------



## gurrier (Sep 29, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> One main reason is corporate law; the only duty of any board of directors is to maximise the share dividend for investors - any environmental or social considerations must come secondary to this, or the investors can remove and/or prosecute the board of directors. What this means is that any social or environmental concern on the part of large corporations is almost always window-dressing, because if it actually went so far as to effect the bottom line (i.e. profit) then the directors could be sacked.


This is surely just a symptom of capitalism, which is the underlying cause.

Regardless of the law, in a capitalist system capital investment will always focus pretty much purely on profitability.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 29, 2005)

I tend to shy away from discussion of causes in general. Capitalism is a set of institutions with a particular history and one of those insitutions is company law, which is as you point out is generally consistent with the profit motive being paramount. It was an aside in terms of the thread in general, I just thought it worthwhile to point out in response to ZWord's question that if you want to know why companies always behave in a particular way, it's because they're legally obliged to.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 29, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You have used this thread to belittle others and generally take the piss. You are the *troll*.
> 
> You have consistently failed to provide 'proof' when asked...yet you pretend that you are serious...I beg to differ and so do many others.



How can he be the troll, when it's his thread?  And I haven't seen you engage with phil in any real debate.  Start your own thread, and if he annoys you on that, then you can say he's trolling.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 29, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> To me, just positing the existence of a thing called God doesn't answer any of those questions. (Very specifically, I don't think religion can answer ethical questions at all, but I can't be arsed to get into that at the moment.) If you posit a God, then I can quite legitimately ask 'Where did he come from?', 'If he's so clever, who made him?' etc.



Which is one of the main reasons I'm not a theist either.

But I suppose an answer would be that he's always been there, outside of time if you will, whereas the universe hasn't.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 29, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The question is; what do you mean when you say God? What function does this word serve?



Someone/thing outside of the physical universe? Or perhaps something that moves freely in all 7 dimensions.?

I see what you mean though. That is indeed the question.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 29, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I tend to shy away from discussion of causes in general. Capitalism is a set of institutions with a particular history and one of those insitutions is company law, which is as you point out is generally consistent with the profit motive being paramount. It was an aside in terms of the thread in general, I just thought it worthwhile to point out in response to ZWord's question that if you want to know why companies always behave in a particular way, it's because they're legally obliged to.



But then the question becomes why they're legally obliged to, and the answer seems to be that governments and world institutions such as the WTO and the IMF are controlled by money-power.  Even democracy which we once thought could save us has been subverted to the extent that we just have a good cop bad cop choice, and can't actually change the law to serve humanity's interests.  I think the malign spirit explanation is still perfectly reasonable, and law is just one of the means it uses to further humanity's enslavement and self-destruction.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 29, 2005)

phil answer this

theologically we are all god... 

man was created in god's image ergo it can be said that any of us can claim to be the "son's" of god, "daughters" of god or god's "children" which means that if god was god and then god was gods own child and then god's sprit or ethos was also god then we are by the same extentsion also god meaning that relgion is merely mans attempt to control god and or gods and not as it is claimed it's vessal but infact it's nemasis making later part's of the bible also accurate as "even the devil can quote scripture" moreover tho's theologically speaking the above is true and that we are indeed our own god's to prove this i offer -"you mad ehide your works and deeds from all men but god knows the things hidden in your darkest depths" - the only logical translation of this is you know when you are lying even if others are fooled... ie you are god. subjective abstract.

the second is "the truth has been made overly simple to confuse the wise" ie people will send ages talkng discussing what is vaild as a form of god and or worship whilst failing to look after themselves and others all under the pretence of following 'god'.

however if consider act's of god, a monotheisitic god, not god's or spritis or nymphs or jin but god capital letter God which inferrs a beleif system, a judeaic/xtian belief system which we must therefore include freewill then we also have to accept determinism which means that everything is therefore an act of god.

case closed ...

I'm god... so are you...

end of debate... if not why not?


----------



## ZWord (Sep 29, 2005)

But it's not quite that simple.  Actually, I agree that humanity is the son of God, and I think traditional christianity went wrong in applying that title only to Jesus.  But Jesus called himself the son of Man, which suggests maybe that he thought of himself as the representative of humanity.  

The point I'm trying to make is that it's only humanity as a whole that is God.  Individually we're just fragments of divine spirit, humanity is designed to take part in a spiritual structure, and we can only attain our divinity and salvation collectively, by acknowledging each person's unique role in the divine body.   But humanity seems more like it would cut off its head. Or wants oblivion, through surgical removal of the pineal gland.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 29, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> But then the question becomes why they're legally obliged to, and the answer seems to be that governments and world institutions such as the WTO and the IMF are controlled by money-power.  Even democracy which we once thought could save us has been subverted to the extent that we just have a good cop bad cop choice, and can't actually change the law to serve humanity's interests.  I think the malign spirit explanation is still perfectly reasonable, and law is just one of the means it uses to further humanity's enslavement and self-destruction.


The malign spirit explanation ignores the fact that there are considerable numbers of people who spend their entire lives actively working to ensure that those with wealth retain and increase their power.  They are the people with wealth and power (capitalists) and the people who work in those non-productive jobs which are responsible for mantaining the division of wealth and power in the world (eg managers, judges, police, military, most academics, etc.)  The current division of power and wealth is a consequence of the active and conscious actions of these people.  If they stopped acting in such a way, it would soon disappear or change radically.   Describing such an effect as a 'spirit' is bonkers.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 29, 2005)

> But then the question becomes why they're legally obliged to, and the answer seems to be that governments and world institutions such as the WTO and the IMF are controlled by money-power. Even democracy which we once thought could save us has been subverted to the extent that we just have a good cop bad cop choice, and can't actually change the law to serve humanity's interests. I think the malign spirit explanation is still perfectly reasonable, and law is just one of the means it uses to further humanity's enslavement and self-destruction.



I think it's symptomatic of the old adage that for every complex problem there's a simple solution, and it's wrong. Power relations have always existed in social groups, and instutions and laws are in effect an objectification of these power relations. There's an interesting genealogy that could be written (and to a large extent has already been written) as to why corporations have been given rights far in excess of those of individual citizens, and can evade their responsibilities to an equivalent degree. Equally, you can construct a historical narrative that documents how true democracy has been subverted into the political systems that we see today. I just don't think that constructing some big baddy spirit is a useful or necessary way of looking at a picture which is in many ways arbitrary and chaotic - in fact I think it's a positively bad idea as politically it's a recipe for quietism and despair. Far better to concentrate on those concrete social practices that can be understood and altered, rather than the 'bad reconciliation' of a falsely totalising mythology.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 29, 2005)

Well it might be true that gurrier myself and fruitloop could construct a history of how the world got to be like this, and we'd more or less agree how it came to pass, but, It's not a matter of taking the effects of money, and then tacking on a big baddy spirit to explain how it's so malign.  The money is a malign spirit.  Maybe it got cursed cause we stole all that gold off the native americans, both north and south.  

Look at how the law was constructed and you'll find that the reasons were the demands of the financial system, and people with money, or the servants of money.  Of course, humans with lots of money like to imagine that they are money's masters.  But, for something with no mind at all, money has a surprising amount of power, more than humanity it seems, for we seem powerless to get out of the trap we're in even as it gets increasingly obvious, that it's leading us to our doom.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 29, 2005)

And I certainly don't see how it's politically a recipe for quietism and despair.  To me me it seems more like a reason for humanity to wake up and fight.

Also realising that humanity gives money its power by worshipping it, may help us realise that we can also find our own power by worshipping "God"  

A living man could be a mighty God.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 29, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Look at how the law was constructed and you'll find that the reasons were the demands of the financial system, and people with money, or the servants of money.  Of course, humans with lots of money like to imagine that they are money's masters.  But, for something with no mind at all, money has a surprising amount of power, more than humanity it seems, for we seem powerless to get out of the trap we're in even as it gets increasingly obvious, that it's leading us to our doom.


Some people don't want to get out of the trap and they are the ones with power.  Human's with lots of money *are* the money's masters.  They can give it away and some have.  Ergo they are not controlled by the money.  

Once again, money is a representation of power in capitalism.  It is futile to try to understand it without reference to the organisation of the society within which it exists.


----------



## ZWord (Sep 29, 2005)

But even when they give it away, the demand of the money that it grows incessantly, through interest, remains, whoever owns the pot of money, humanity has to be exploited in order to keep the pot growing.

And when I hear of hurricanes and tsunamis, I wonder if these somehow reflect the inchoate frustration of humanity with ourself, and show that we have yet to grasp our true divine power.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 29, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> The malign spirit explanation ignores the fact that there are considerable numbers of people who spend their entire lives actively working to ensure that those with wealth retain and increase their power.  They are the people with wealth and power (capitalists) and the people who work in those non-productive jobs which are responsible for mantaining the division of wealth and power in the world (eg managers, judges, police, military, most academics, etc.)  The current division of power and wealth is a consequence of the active and conscious actions of these people.  If they stopped acting in such a way, it would soon disappear or change radically.   Describing such an effect as a 'spirit' is bonkers.



This really will be my last contribution for a couple of days.  Z-Word, Garfield, Fruitloop and others have made truly excellent points, to which I will return individually.  The last sensible hold-out (the drivelling Nino obviously doesn't count) to this stage of my argument is the ever-stubborn Gurrier.  Gurrier, you are wrong to say that "money" (the term is imprecise: what you mean is "fianancial value," but let's stick with "money" for convenience) is controlled by the conscious intentions of individual people.  Even though people are the necessary conduits through which money works, they make their decisions based on the requirements of money.  The "economy" (another misleading term, since it implies a discrete and separable element of society) is run by and for money, not people.  Money is an independent and autonomous force with the ability  to reproduce, the power to rule the world, and the ability to control the minds of its inhabitants.

Yes, as you say elsewhere, an individual could just give all his money away.  That would change nothing.  Other people would simply take their place.  Nor is class struggle an adequate explanatory model.  A hundred or so years ago, when society was divided into easily identifiable social classes, you could argue that capital was incarnated in the bourgeoisie, while labour was incarnated in the proletariat.  But in the age of pension schemes, savings accounts and home ownership, this conditon no longer pertains.  Almost everyone in the West *both* sells their labour-power (their time, their life) for wages--and is thus a proletarian--*and* simultaneously receives some income or benefit from investments--and is thus a bourgeois.  Everyone contains the standpoints of bougeois and proletarian within their own consciousness.  And yet this fact in no way obviates the contradiction between capital and labour, since that contradiction is a *logical* opposition, a dialectical contradiction.

This becomes yet more interesting once we grasp what money *is.*  Money is dead labour-power and, as I have shown earlier in this thread, labour-power is human life itself.  Money is dead life: it is *death.*  The rule of money over people is the rule of death over life.  There is no way to understand this opposition without recourse to metaphysical concepts and, in the Western tradition, the power of death, the force that negates life, the *enemy* of human life, is known as "Satan."  It really would be a great leap forward in your understanding if you could abandon your superstitious horror of metaphysical terminology.  You would then be able to place the struggle between capital and labour (or to be more precise between value and labour-power) in the context of a far older contradiction, one that has been studied and analyzed to no small usefulness by the greatest thinkers of three millennia.  You must understand that human wisdom did not begin with the materialist thinkers of the eighteenth century.  Otherwise, despite your undoubted political commitment and intellectual energy, you are forever doomed to huddle shivering in the corner with Nino and his ilk, a prospect that I would not wish on my worst enemy.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 29, 2005)

> Money is an independent and autonomous force with the ability to reproduce, the power to rule the world, and the ability to control the minds of its inhabitants.



No it isn't. That's a rhetorical assertion you are trying to use in order to have us accept your method of argument before you say something similar about satan and then god. Money does not have agency.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 29, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> But even when they give it away, the demand of the money that it grows incessantly, through interest, remains, whoever owns the pot of money, humanity has to be exploited in order to keep the pot growing.


The owner of the money can always put it under the bed and let it shrink and some do.  




			
				ZWord said:
			
		

> And when I hear of hurricanes and tsunamis, I wonder if these somehow reflect the inchoate frustration of humanity with ourself, and show that we have yet to grasp our true divine power.


They don't. They existed long before there were any humans.  Jesus, you'd think the sun revolves around us too.  The laws of the universe don't give a shit if there are humanoids toddling about the place.


----------



## slaar (Sep 29, 2005)

I can see the argument phil. My viewpoint, and one that I have expressed repeatedly, is that this is *one* way of expressing the complex system of modern materialism and capitalism, but by no means the only one. The fact that your assertions and logical steps are not exclusive, nor even water-tight means that this can never be a proof of god, but only one interpretation of modern systems. One that I don't agree with. Gurrier is lucidly explaining a different way of looking at things, as you yourself are beginning to recognise I think.

Nevertheless do carry on, it's entertaining and providing some good discussion of modern systems.


----------



## deeplight (Sep 29, 2005)

*And now for the simple explanation*

You are one clever fucker phil but surely you over complicate. Yes God exists because everything exists. God is in a word infinity. everything is energy. Matter is just energy in a denser form. This energy goes on forever. And if you dont believe me on that just take a look at Einsteins work on the subject. It'd be a brave man who calls einstein a liar. Besides if energy does end. Where does it end? Why would it end?  

There you go

Infinity 

or as some like to call it God.


----------



## parallelepipete (Sep 29, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Well if we haven't been enslaved by a malign spirit or the demand of money for incessant growth into exploiting the planet and each other, even to the extent of destroying our ecosystem, and eventually our civilisation, why exactly are we doing it?  And why can't we stop?


Tragedy of the commons?


----------



## slaar (Sep 29, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> Tragedy of the commons?


Well, quite. Another equally plausible answer, albeit a secular, classical economics one.


----------



## slaar (Sep 29, 2005)

Have The Onion been frequenting the boards?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40984

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31316


----------



## deeplight (Sep 29, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> Have The Onion been frequenting the boards?
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40984
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31316


  these made me chuckle


----------



## 888 (Sep 30, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> Have The Onion been frequenting the boards?
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40984
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31316




Also:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512


----------



## deeplight (Sep 30, 2005)

Surley this is all mental masturbation...... I sure hope you all enjoy it. Me. Ive got my faith in God. It makes my life more meaningful. I cant think of a logical reason for not choosing faith personally? 
P.S. lets all make a humming noise


----------



## IMHO (Sep 30, 2005)

POST TO PHIL:

Phil, doesn't it worry you that we're 66 pages into your shit and no-one believes a word of your bollox?

Love
IMHO


----------



## IMHO (Sep 30, 2005)

P.S. Just how many books do you think you'll sell


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> POST TO PHIL:
> 
> Phil, doesn't it worry you that we're 66 pages into your shit and no-one believes a word of your bollox?
> 
> ...



Aren't you the one that either the Editor or Johnny Canuck (or quite possibly both) just described as having "a written version of Tourette's syndrome?"  I think they're right.


----------



## IMHO (Sep 30, 2005)

P.P.S. As I said before >_sigh_< if god always existed, then so could matter/energy/whatever. The best sale for a "god" you'll get is creative intelligence being _part and parcel _ of matter/energy. In other words, the INTELLITRON. A theoretical particle which is creative inetlligence existing WITHIN atomic structure. That is *matter/energy/inelligence/god all rolled into one.*

The whole thing having always existed.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

deeplight said:
			
		

> Surley this is all mental masturbation...... I sure hope you all enjoy it. Me. Ive got my faith in God. It makes my life more meaningful. I cant think of a logical reason for not choosing faith personally?
> P.S. lets all make a humming noise



I can't imagine why you'd believe in God on "faith."  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you take God's existence on "faith," you don't truly believe in Him at all.


----------



## IMHO (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Aren't you the one that either the Editor or Johnny Canuck (or quite possibly both) just described as having "a written version of Tourette's syndrome?"  I think they're right.


I've no idea. But to re-phrase (and I hope you'll answer the question): doesn't it bother you that we're 66 pages into this and no-one believes you have even THE MAKING of a case?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> I've no idea. But to re-phrase (and I hope you'll answer the question): doesn't it bother you that we're 66 pages into this and no-one believes you have even THE MAKING of a case?



I'm doing a bit better than you with your "intellitron," you nutter.


----------



## IMHO (Sep 30, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> P.P.S. As I said before >_sigh_< if god always existed, then so could matter/energy/whatever. The best sale for a "god" you'll get is creative intelligence being _part and parcel _ of matter/energy. In other words, the INTELLITRON. A theoretical particle which is creative inetlligence existing WITHIN atomic structure. That is *matter/energy/inelligence/god all rolled into one.*
> 
> The whole thing having always existed.


Would you like to make a comment on this, Phil, which rather blows you out of the water?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> Would you like to make a comment on this, Phil



No.  How about those Eagles?


----------



## IMHO (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No.  How about those Eagles?


Destroy my simple argument. Can't, can you?


----------



## Loki (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm doing a bit better than you with your "intellitron," you nutter.


I'm afraid you're not. In fact you're making a great case for the non-existence of god.


----------



## maomao (Sep 30, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> Destroy my simple argument. Can't, can you?



It wasn't an argument it was a hypothesis, there's a difference. It's generally incubent on the proposer of the hypothesis to come up with some proof before hassling for a rebuttal.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> Destroy my simple argument. Can't, can you?



Oh alright.  Your argument is wrong because it collapses a binary opposition into an artificial unity.  You want to say that mind and matter are the same thing, when in fact they constitute a mutually definitive polarity.


----------



## IMHO (Sep 30, 2005)

maomao said:
			
		

> It wasn't an argument it was a hypothesis, there's a difference. It's generally incubent on the proposer of the hypothesis to come up with some proof before hassling for a rebuttal.


Whatever you want to call it, Phil The Great can't desroy it.


----------



## maomao (Sep 30, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> Whatever you want to call it, Phil The Great can't desroy it.



Well, he just did. And his explanation impressed me more cause it had more _long words_ in it.


----------



## IMHO (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh alright.  Your argument is wrong because it collapses a binary opposition into an artificial unity.  You want to say that mind and matter are the same thing, when in fact they constitute a mutually definitive polarity.


Oh all right. Your argument is wrong because it contains mutually opposing nanomectrical dispositions.


----------



## IMHO (Sep 30, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> P.P.S. As I said before >_sigh_< if god always existed, then so could matter/energy/whatever. The best sale for a "god" you'll get is creative intelligence being _part and parcel _ of matter/energy. In other words, the INTELLITRON. A theoretical particle which is creative inetlligence existing WITHIN atomic structure. That is *matter/energy/inelligence/god all rolled into one.*
> 
> The whole thing having always existed.


You really can't get around this, can you, Phil


----------



## revol68 (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh alright.  Your argument is wrong because it collapses a binary opposition into an artificial unity.  You want to say that mind and matter are the same thing, when in fact they constitute a mutually definitive polarity.



And who defines them as binary oppositions? 

Seems like you've mistaken dialetics conceptual toolbox for actual reality. Go finger Engels bumhole you daft wee boy!


----------



## Crispy (Sep 30, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> You really can't get around this, can you, Phil



Yours is just as bonkers as his, don't worry


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> How can he be the troll, when it's his thread?  And I haven't seen you engage with phil in any real debate.  Start your own thread, and if he annoys you on that, then you can say he's trolling.



Actually you're wrong: trolls _do _ start their own threads either for the purpose of winding up other posters, or to start fights (and then claim they were wronged), or to use the thread to set up fights between posters. Phil has conformed to at least one of those criteria.

Oh, and I have engaged him as have many others...he is lying when he says that I haven't, he has accused gurrier of the same thing. If he doesn't like what you've said he either belittles or insults you. I thought gurrier made some excellent points, phil didn't take too kindly to having his 'argument' debunked and proceeded to insult him. Do you think that's right or fair?

Please have a look at all his posts from the beginning of this thread to the end. On this page alone he has referred to others as "nutters" or has, in some other way, insulted their intelligence. You see, phil thinks he is superior to the rest of us; his intellect is the greater and the things he says are the wittiest...but it is all in his head.

You should also have a look at his thread titles...this one in particular has a provocative title.  This is a very good example of how to wind up posters and start fights.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3430107&postcount=1


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 30, 2005)

> The malign spirit explanation ignores the fact that there are considerable numbers of people who spend their entire lives actively working to ensure that those with wealth retain and increase their power. They are the people with wealth and power (capitalists) and the people who work in those non-productive jobs which are responsible for mantaining the division of wealth and power in the world (eg managers, judges, police, military, most academics, etc.) The current division of power and wealth is a consequence of the active and conscious actions of these people. If they stopped acting in such a way, it would soon disappear or change radically. Describing such an effect as a 'spirit' is bonkers.



I think this is absolutely the nub of the problem. What causes people to act in these particular ways is much better analysed as an ideology, and is better understood as hegemony in the Gramscian sense; as a covertly coercive social structure that is built out of elements of both w/c and ruling class culture, but is fundamentally skewed in the interests of the holders of capital. Gramsci also correctly identified the essential religiosity of the hegemonic culture, which is I think why I sense an air of reactionary politics about Phil's story.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 30, 2005)

Tool use among gorillas

Poor Koko


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 30, 2005)

Alright, back from holiday.  I read up to the point where Phil gave up on the thread (page 40-odd).  I see it's still got legs, has anyone actually said anything worth reading since then?


----------



## hipipol (Sep 30, 2005)

*This is astonishing*

I could waste hours reading even more of this crap than I have already wasted. Using any analysis of Human behaviour, human societies - especially connected to material possesion, power structures, etc is utter arse about tit shite
If I wanted to actually read some proof of Gods existance I would turn to Descartes and the Discourse on the Method and Meditations, or even Pascal - this on the other hand is some kind half informed student bar wank
Phil, you really are one smug ape, look at what you've started

PS if God - in the Xtian notion at least exists he has proved him/herself such an utter cunt, we ought to deny its existance anyway. How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? That one ran for years.........
I can feel another thread coming on.....


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Well if we haven't been enslaved by a malign spirit or the demand of money for incessant growth into exploiting the planet and each other, even to the extent of destroying our ecosystem, and eventually our civilisation, why exactly are we doing it?  And why can't we stop?



Exactly.  Especially when the influence of financial value so meticulously parallels the set of charcteristics collectively labelled "Satan" in past ages.  I do think, however, that the true nature of financial value as a spirit is being progressively revealed in the course of history--Butchersapron pointed to the recent recognition of "fictitious capital" as a good example.  Of course, capital always *was* fictitious, but for obvious reasons this fact has been obscured for centuries.  Now, though, people seem to be coming to the realization that the power which rules the world *does not exist,* according to the ontological criteria we have erected.  And yet in indupitably *does* rule the world.  This cannot be explained in empirical or materialist terms, since we are dealing with a phenomenon that is neither empirical nor material.  Hence the continued, or resurrected, need for the metaphysical terminology with which past ages discussed its nature.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> But then the question becomes why they're legally obliged to, and the answer seems to be that governments and world institutions such as the WTO and the IMF are controlled by money-power.  Even democracy which we once thought could save us has been subverted to the extent that we just have a good cop bad cop choice, and can't actually change the law to serve humanity's interests.  I think the malign spirit explanation is still perfectly reasonable, and law is just one of the means it uses to further humanity's enslavement and self-destruction.



Exactly again.  And its not just law: the influence of money can increasingly be felt in every area of society and in every cranny of the human mind.  The last twenty-five years, in particular, have seen a dramatic expansion in the power of money, both geographically and within individual societies.  The imposition of exchange-value upon use-value--of representation upon essence--affects our politics, psychology, linguistics and entertainment.  The rule of the image--"idolatry" in traditional terminology--is an identical process to the dominance of money, for money *is* an image.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 30, 2005)

Fictitious capital doesn't demostrate the spirit-nature of financial value, it just 'sounds like' it does. It's like philosophy _qua _ Charades.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Well it might be true that gurrier myself and fruitloop could construct a history of how the world got to be like this, and we'd more or less agree how it came to pass, but, It's not a matter of taking the effects of money, and then tacking on a big baddy spirit to explain how it's so malign.  The money is a malign spirit.  Maybe it got cursed cause we stole all that gold off the native americans, both north and south.



In fact, the Indians of the Caribbean and Mexico naturally and universally inferred, from the behavior of the Spaniards, that gold was the Spanish "god," and that the Conquistadors believed there was some mysterious spirit that lived in gold.  They were right.


----------



## Santino (Sep 30, 2005)

Funny how the superstitious beliefs of primitive peoples can be both good (the Aztecs and Incas) and bad (anyone's whose religion hasn't come through rational consideration of 'theological' propositions). Tell me Phil, did the central Americans come to this conclusion through a Hegelian-Marxist analysis of the labour theory of value?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I think this is absolutely the nub of the problem. What causes people to act in these particular ways is much better analysed as an ideology, and is better understood as hegemony in the Gramscian sense; as a covertly coercive social structure that is built out of elements of both w/c and ruling class culture, but is fundamentally skewed in the interests of the holders of capital. Gramsci also correctly identified the essential religiosity of the hegemonic culture, which is I think why I sense an air of reactionary politics about Phil's story.



Gramsci was writing in 1920's Italy, where religion was indeed an instrument of ruling class hegemony.  I would suggest that religion has long ceased to play that role anywhere in Europe.  I also believe that it is obsolete to speak of a "ruling class."  There are certainly individuals who are richer than others, but there is no longer a bourgeoisie that can be identified with the interests of capital.  *Everyone* in the Western world, to varying degrees, benefits from capital, just as virtually everyone sells their labour for wages.  We are all simultaneously bourgeois and proletarians, and the contradiction between capital and labour is manifested in our minds, not in class struggle.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Funny how the superstitious beliefs of primitive peoples can be both good (the Aztecs and Incas) and bad (anyone's whose religion hasn't come through rational consideration of 'theological' propositions). Tell me Phil, did the central Americans come to this conclusion through a Hegelian-Marxist analysis of the labour theory of value?



They didn't need to: this conclusion was *obvious* to them.  Put yourself in their position.  These weird foriegners arrive, and they spend all their time and effort in acquiring this yellow metal.  What are they up to?  Why are they so fascinated with this stuff that they will do *anything*--kill, die, whatever--to attain it?  Quite obviously, they worship it.  Right?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 30, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> phil answer this
> 
> theologically we are all god...
> 
> ...



your response phil...


----------



## angry bob (Sep 30, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> however if consider act's of god, a monotheisitic god, not god's or spritis or nymphs or jin but god capital letter God which inferrs a beleif system, a judeaic/xtian belief system which we must therefore include freewill then we also have to accept determinism which means that everything is therefore an act of god.



Can I just ask why we must accept determinism?


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 30, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> Can I just ask why we must accept determinism?



Because we were always going to accept it anyway...


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 30, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> Can I just ask why we must accept determinism?


If God controls everything (omnipotent) then we have no free will, if we are capable of acting against God's will, then God is not omnipotent.

Of course, free will is a silly idea anyway.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 30, 2005)

> Gramsci was writing in 1920's Italy, where religion was indeed an instrument of ruling class hegemony. I would suggest that religion has long ceased to play that role anywhere in Europe. I also believe that it is obsolete to speak of a "ruling class." There are certainly individuals who are richer than others, but there is no longer a bourgeoisie that can be identified with the interests of capital. *Everyone* in the Western world, to varying degrees, benefits from capital, just as virtually everyone sells their labour for wages. We are all simultaneously bourgeois and proletarians, and the contradiction between capital and labour is manifested in our minds, not in class struggle.



According to the (seriously conservative) WB estimates, in 2001 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day. In the meantime, the world's richest 200 people doubled their net worth between 1994 and 1998 to more than $1 trillion. The world's top three billionaires alone possess more assets than the combined GNP of all the least developed countries, and their combined population of 600 million people. Your version of 'we're all middle-class now' is as fantastical as its predecessors.

It's my view that even though organised religion is thankfully on the wane in England (allthough not noticeably so in the U.S.), contemporary hegemonic culture still bears strong traces of its religious origins even here. Instead of papal funerals we have princess fucking di, instead of heretic burnings we've got the Ian Huntley trial, the Bolger killers etc. I could develop this in more detail (and may do so) but work beckons.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 30, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> If God controls everything (omnipotent) then we have no free will, if we are capable of acting against God's will, then God is not omnipotent.
> 
> Of course, free will is a silly idea anyway.



omnipotent doesn't mean he controls everything rather that  he could if he wanted.

(not that I believe in god mind)

and why is free will a silly idea. It sure seems like I can choose what I'm going to do. I guess in a deterministic universe with no god, free will wouldn't exist?

but I don't accept that the universe is deterministic.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 30, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> omnipotent doesn't mean he controls everything rather that  he could if he wanted.
> 
> (not that I believe in god mind)
> 
> ...




so if he doesn't controll everything then that would be .... 1 guess...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 30, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> but I don't accept that the universe is deterministic.



i dont' accept there's some spook in the sky designed and designnated to deviorce us from ourselves and to made to subjigate us...

which sounds like the rantings of a nutter here....


----------



## Santino (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> They didn't need to: this conclusion was *obvious* to them.  Put yourself in their position.  These weird foriegners arrive, and they spend all their time and effort in acquiring this yellow metal.  What are they up to?  Why are they so fascinated with this stuff that they will do *anything*--kill, die, whatever--to attain it?  Quite obviously, they worship it.  Right?


Wow. Great argument.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 30, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> omnipotent doesn't mean he controls everything rather that  he could if he wanted.


But, by definition, if God is omnipotent, it would be impossible to act against his will.  Furthermore, since the xtian God is supposed to be omniscient, he knew exactly what the consequences of each interaction between every single particle from the begninning, hence he set things up in a particular way which he knew would result in the world we see today.  OmniGod and free will don't work very well together.



> and why is free will a silly idea. It sure seems like I can choose what I'm going to do. I guess in a deterministic universe with no god, free will wouldn't exist?


1)  Define free will.
2)  People don't just make decisions because they feel like it, every choice we make is made for a reason, we evaluate each choice based upon our personality, which is shaped by our genetics and our life experience, two things which we have no control over.  



> but I don't accept that the universe is deterministic.


Hard fucking luck


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 30, 2005)

God would have to intervene after the big bang, because there is no possibility of actions before that could have a causative effect on anything.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 30, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Hard fucking luck


----------



## Doomsy (Sep 30, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> If God controls everything (omnipotent) then we have no free will, if we are capable of acting against God's will, then God is not omnipotent.
> 
> Of course, free will is a silly idea anyway.



But, if God is omnipotent, he is able to bestow free will upon us, without relinquishing his omnipotence.  If he is unable to do so, he is not omnipotent.

There is only a contradiction if we consider God to be omnipotent, omniscient _and_ omnibenevolent. (Omniscient = all knowing, Omnibenevolent = all good).

Edited to add: Sorry, forgot what thread I was on for a minute.  What I have just said is self-evident and anyone who disagrees clearly doesn't understand the question.  If you'd just stop hounding me for a second, I could explain why.


----------



## angry bob (Sep 30, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> i dont' accept there's some spook in the sky designed and designnated to deviorce us from ourselves and to made to subjigate us...
> 
> which sounds like the rantings of a nutter here....




well I'm not sure.

I think that determinism in the traditional sense has been rather discredited by the advent of quantum theory.

and I don't really understand what you just said ...


----------



## angry bob (Sep 30, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> God would have to intervene after the big bang, because there is no possibility of actions before that could have a causative effect on anything.



what do you mean 'before' ??


----------



## angry bob (Sep 30, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> But, by definition, if God is omnipotent, it would be impossible to act against his will.  Furthermore, since the xtian God is supposed to be omniscient, he knew exactly what the consequences of each interaction between every single particle from the begninning, hence he set things up in a particular way which he knew would result in the world we see today.  OmniGod and free will don't work very well together.



hmmm ... the xtian god made man in his own image which I don't think was supposed to be read as 'look like him' but rather have some sort of ... I dunno ... let's call it soul.

and it is presumably the xtian contention that it is this soul which gives us free will?


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 30, 2005)

> what do you mean 'before' ??



Egg-sactly!


----------



## deeplight (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I can't imagine why you'd believe in God on "faith."  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you take God's existence on "faith," you don't truly believe in Him at all.


I have my reasoning. Check page 65 to see what this is. But reasoning will never get us all the way there. For every argument there is a counter argument. This is infinity after all so there will always be another thought to be had about something. I think it also comes down to the balance of the universe. Besides if reasoning was really going to prove anything theologically. Surely it would have done so after more than a 1000 yrs of rational thought. (Or even 66 pages.) I would certainly hold it true that reasoning can enhance an already strong faith. I will however leave the last word to Immanuel Kant who I believe said. "Faith begins where reasoning ends."


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> According to the (seriously conservative) WB estimates, in 2001 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day. In the meantime, the world's richest 200 people doubled their net worth between 1994 and 1998 to more than $1 trillion. The world's top three billionaires alone possess more assets than the combined GNP of all the least developed countries, and their combined population of 600 million people. Your version of 'we're all middle-class now' is as fantastical as its predecessors.



The gulf between rich and poor is indeed growing, but that is not a *logical* contradiction.  The logical contradiction is between capital and labour, and these two forces were for centuries incarnated in two social classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  But this isn't necesarily a matter of wealth: it is perfectly possible for a proletarian to be richer than a bourgeois.  A proletarian is one who sells his labour-power for wages; a bourgeois is one who lives off the interest from investments.  Today, the vast majority of people in the West are *both.*


----------



## gurrier (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> *Everyone* in the Western world, to varying degrees, benefits from capital, just as virtually everyone sells their labour for wages.  We are all simultaneously bourgeois and proletarians, and the contradiction between capital and labour is manifested in our minds, not in class struggle.


And there's the reactionary political stuff right on time.  

In what sense is the queen a proletarian?  How about the major shareholders of trans-national corporations?  In what sense is your average factory worker a capitalist?  When the aforementioned shareholder decides to shut down the factory and move it to the third world, putting the aforementioned factory worker into poverty, in what sense is this 'in our minds'?

Obfuscating, mystical, reactionary shite that could only come from somebody who lives a ridiculously privileged life and doesn't have a fucking clue how the world works for most people.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Today, the vast majority of people in the West are *both.*


That's just not true.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> And there's the reactionary political stuff right on time.
> 
> In what sense is the queen a proletarian?  How about the major shareholders of trans-national corporations?  In what sense is your average factory worker a capitalist?  When the aforementioned shareholder decides to shut down the factory and move it to the third world, putting the aforementioned factory worker into poverty, in what sense is this 'in our minds'?



Anyone who earns income from investment, even if only through a pension scheme, home ownership or savings account, is *to that extent* a capitalist.  Anyone who sells their labour-pwer for wages, not matter how small a proportion of their income that provides, is *to that extent* a proletarian.  As I said, the vast majority of people in the twenty-first century West are both.  This is a very different situation to the one pertaining a hundred years ago, when the vast majority were either one or the other.

A better argument, from your perspective, would be to claim that the bourgeis/proletarian opposition has been refracted into a first world/third world relationship.  There is a lot of truth in that, empirically, but it still doesn't speak to the true nature of the capital/labour contradiction.  That contradiction is *logical,* not (or not necessarily) empirical: capital is alienated labour-power.  I believe that it is when we lose sight of that basic fact that our politics becomes compromising and reactionary.


----------



## deeplight (Sep 30, 2005)

*Where are you Phil?*

Should I take your leapfrogging my reply, as an acknowledgement of a perception of the truth contained therin?  

That said I am enjoying watching this teleological debate unfold.... Its kind of like fencing with words.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 30, 2005)

deeplight said:
			
		

> Should I take your leapfrogging my reply, as an acknowledgement of a perception of the truth contained therin?
> 
> That said I am enjoying watching this teleological debate unfold.... Its kind of like fencing with words.



Christ, between you and Garfield a man never gets a moment's peace.  I will answer everyone's comments, but I am a bit busy right now.  Just be patient, please.


----------



## robotsimon (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I will answer everyone's comments, but I am a bit busy right now.  Just be patient, please.



You've not answered either of my comments. And your post above claiming western people are both proles and bourgeois contradicts your ludicrous idea that atheism is the default position of the western bourgeois (given that 76% of british people claim to identify with a religion - remember).

And the small matter of roman coinage being worth more than the silver is contained.

Come on Phil, you're not just ignoring me are you?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Sep 30, 2005)

You are far too vague with your classification phil. I think it's pretty clear that power in this country is not distributed evenly amongst of us bourgeois proles.

Obfuscation sums this all up.

And a tad Ickey.


----------



## deeplight (Sep 30, 2005)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> (given that 76% of british people claim to identify with a religion - remember)


 
 When pushed 40% of those claimed to be jedis


----------



## gurrier (Sep 30, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Anyone who earns income from investment, even if only through a pension scheme, home ownership or savings account, is *to that extent* a capitalist.  Anyone who sells their labour-pwer for wages, not matter how small a proportion of their income that provides, is *to that extent* a proletarian.  As I said, the vast majority of people in the twenty-first century West are both.  This is a very different situation to the one pertaining a hundred years ago, when the vast majority were either one or the other.


At least 80% of the population of all western countries earn negative net income from profits, rents and interest (income from capital) and still depend for 100% of their 'financial value' on their labour.  Interest earning pension funds, savings accounts and so on do not change this fundamental fact and are largely irrelevant to the class structure of society.  Besides, building societies and credit unions were among the first innovations of the proletariat.  There has never been a proletarian class which did not have interest earning savings accounts.     

On the other side of the coin, the owners of capital have often chosen to work to maximise their profits.  Your distinction is sophistic and purposely obfuscating - similar in its aims to the same point when made by Tony Blair.  




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> A better argument, from your perspective, would be to claim that the bourgeis/proletarian opposition has been refracted into a first world/third world relationship.  There is a lot of truth in that, empirically, but it still doesn't speak to the true nature of the capital/labour contradiction.  That contradiction is *logical,* not (or not necessarily) empirical: capital is alienated labour-power.  I believe that it is when we lose sight of that basic fact that our politics becomes compromising and reactionary.


I have never subscribed to the Maoist theory of labour aristocracies and the proletariat of the third world is similarly complex to the proletariat of the first world, with savings accounts, interest raising loans and so on (even on the tiny scales that they deal in).  Your apparent belief that as soon as somebody earns a cent in interest, they are no longer a proletariat, would probably rule out over 90% of the world's working class, present and historical.  

The sort of nit-picking definition that you are using to define classes here makes no sense.  In the domain of the social sciences, trends, relations, forces and generalisations are the limit of our ambitions.  There never was a homogeneous, well-defined working class and bourgeois.  The concepts describe general classes based on the dominant relations to capital and labour that the members of the classes have.


----------



## IMHO (Oct 1, 2005)

Accept it, Phil, your argument is fucked. From every direction. When you've accepted it, GET A LIFE. A life = something that is not only useful to you, but is useful to SOCIETY.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 1, 2005)

IMHO said:
			
		

> Accept it, Phil, your argument is fucked. From every direction. When you've accepted it, GET A LIFE. A life = something that is not only useful to you, but is useful to SOCIETY.



I hope its not a rude question but I can't help noticing that the more, er, *passionate* of your posts are always made in the wee wee hours of the morning, whereas your more earnest messages, in which you try to be part of the conversation, are universally made in the early afternoon.  In other words: you're pissed, aren't you?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 1, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> At least 80% of the population of all western countries earn negative net income from profits, rents and interest (income from capital) and still depend for 100% of their 'financial value' on their labour.  Interest earning pension funds, savings accounts and so on do not change this fundamental fact and are largely irrelevant to the class structure of society.  Besides, building societies and credit unions were among the first innovations of the proletariat.  There has never been a proletarian class which did not have interest earning savings accounts.
> 
> On the other side of the coin, the owners of capital have often chosen to work to maximise their profits.  Your distinction is sophistic and purposely obfuscating - similar in its aims to the same point when made by Tony Blair.
> 
> ...



I’m temporarily “leapfrogging” over other objections, because this one is the most threatening to my case.  I don’t want to downplay the importance of class struggle, and clearly there are people whose interests are primarily connected to capital, just as there are those whose interests lie with labour.   The gap between rich and poor is of tangential interest only here.  We must not lose sight of the fact that capital and labour (more precisely, value and labour-power) are *logically* opposed.  There can never be any compromise between these forces (whereas there can between social classes) because one of them *negates* the other.  Capital *is* labour in alienated form.  This irreconcilable opposition is only the latest form of a wider contradiction between labour and alienated labour: indeed the history of civilization is nothing more than the appropriation of the labour of the many by the few.  But capitalist society displays this opposition in an unprecedented, stark fashion.  In our society, capital is revealed as a truly *inhuman,* or more accurately, *anti-human* power.  The contradiction between life and death has never before taken such a glaringly obvious form.  

There was an historical epoch, from say 1848 to 1945, in which the class struggle seemed poised to abolish this contradiction.  But that opportunity, which peaked in 1917-21, was missed.  After the second world war, the western working class was itself rendered semi-capitalist, and as I have suggested, what was previously an external opposition was largely internalized.  Anyone who still sees the proletariat as the grave-digger of capitalism is simply deluding themselves.  If capitalism has a grave-digger (which I doubt) it lies within the *minds* of the people.  After all, financial value does not exist, and nothing would be easier to abolish it.  No revolution is necessary, a simple act of collective will would suffice.  If we don’t believe in it--its gone.   So, to my mind, the interesting question becomes: what is preventing us from this cessation of belief?  It is here that the concept of “Satan” will be useful, of which more anon.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 2, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

> hmmm ... the xtian god made man in his own image which I don't think was supposed to be read as 'look like him' but rather have some sort of ... I dunno ... let's call it soul.
> 
> and it is presumably the xtian contention that it is this soul which gives us free will?


But that's utterly incoherent.  What does it actually mean?


----------



## Loki (Oct 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I’m temporarily “leapfrogging”



You can't temporarily "leapfrog". You either do or you don't.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 2, 2005)

angry bob said:
			
		

>


Would you care to explain what that has to do with anything?

Let me guess, the usual "Quantum Mechanical indeterminacy implies free will" bullshit.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> You can't temporarily "leapfrog". You either do or you don't.



You can leapfrog backwards.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You can leapfrog backwards.



That's quite tricky. You'd need very long legs I think.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> That's quite tricky. You'd need very long legs I think.



Frogs can do it.


----------



## 118118 (Oct 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You can leapfrog backwards.


No you've confused me. Are you saying that your going to skip out and not do something that you have already done? In that case are you implying that you are going to go through the whole argument backwards? Or you can travel through time and undo something which you have done?


----------



## 118118 (Oct 3, 2005)

You'll never prove God to any "rational" man with this thread  
Lol


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 3, 2005)

> Anyone who earns income from investment, even if only through a pension scheme, home ownership or savings account, is *to that extent* a capitalist. Anyone who sells their labour-pwer for wages, not matter how small a proportion of their income that provides, is *to that extent* a proletarian. As I said, the vast majority of people in the twenty-first century West are both. This is a very different situation to the one pertaining a hundred years ago, when the vast majority were either one or the other.



Dear me, tired capitalist apologetics. It's almost Randian   

Where's Blueskybollocks when you need him?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Dear me, tired capitalist apologetics. It's almost Randian



I don't remember Rand arguing that capital is the devil.


----------



## angry bob (Oct 3, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Would you care to explain what that has to do with anything?
> 
> Let me guess, the usual "Quantum Mechanical indeterminacy implies free will" bullshit.




Not at all. When I said that I didn't accept a deterministic universe you replied "tough bloody luck" and stuck your tongue out at me. 

I took this to mean that you were saying it _is_ deterministic and is generally accepted as such whether I like it or not.

So my reply was to say that the universe is not deterministic ... or at least that it is not that clear cut whether it is or not.


----------



## angry bob (Oct 3, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> But that's utterly incoherent.  What does it actually mean?



It's not really worth going into it as it's really not my standpoint. I'm sure you understood what I meant though.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 3, 2005)

> I don't remember Rand arguing that capital is the devil.



My comment was related to the bit I quoted. Obviously


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> My comment was related to the bit I quoted. Obviously



That bit was hardly Randian either. You ever read her?  She's into a Nietzschean entrepreneur-as-superman thing.  Incredibly, she's taken quite seriously as a philosopher over here (although nowhere else AFAIK).


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 3, 2005)

Of course I've read her.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Of course I've read her.



Why?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That bit was hardly Randian either. You ever read her?  She's into a Nietzschean entrepreneur-as-superman thing.  Incredibly, she's taken quite seriously as a philosopher over here (although nowhere else AFAIK).



I've read her...which book would you like to discuss? Atlas Shrugged? The Romantic Manifesto? The Virtue of Selfishness? 

I agree with Fruitloop btw.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I've read her...which book would you like to discuss? Atlas Shrugged? The Romantic Manifesto? The Virtue of Selfishness?
> 
> I agree with Fruitloop btw.



You would.  I've only read The Fountainhead, but my God, what a load of tosh.  I'm appalled to find that she's actually taught on some American philosophy syllabi--that's a far bigger joke and scandal than teaching "Intelligent Design" in science classes.  I assume that no-one takes her seriously in the UK?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You would.  I've only read The Fountainhead, but my God, what a load of tosh.  I'm appalled to find that she's actually taught on some American philosophy syllabi--that's a far bigger joke and scandal than teaching "Intelligent Design" in science classes.  I assume that no-one takes her seriously in the UK?



I've never thought of Rand as a philosopher but she does enjoy that status in the US. Her prose style is laughable and there isn't much there that hasn't been said by Nietzche. No, she is not taken seriously here. However her ideas have found their way into mainstream American thought...perhaps you are familiar with the American Dream?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 3, 2005)

We still haven't actually got anywhere, although nearly 70 pages doing so is pretty impressive.

phil, is this a spoof? it would be a great one.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> We still haven't actually got anywhere, although nearly 70 pages doing so is pretty impressive.
> 
> phil, is this a spoof? it would be a great one.



It has been a bit of an epic, hasn't it, if I do say so myself.  But I'm quite serious, and I *think* we've established that financial value is more appropriately regarded as a "spirit" rather than as an "idea."  Now we're moving on to consider the nature of this spirit, or we will be soon.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 3, 2005)

What I meant is that attempting to blur the boundary between owners and labourers, between the exploiters and the exploited, is a well-worn technique of capitalist apologists, of which Rand is a prime, leathery and fag-stained example. There's a Rand quote almost identical to the bit that I highlighted, but after trawling through her diseased literary spurtings for about five minutes I realised that life's just too short.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> What I meant is that attempting to blur the boundary between owners and labourers, between the exploiters and the exploited, is a well-worn technique of capitalist apologists, of which Rand is a prime, leathery and fag-stained example. There's a Rand quote almost identical to the bit that I highlighted, but after trawling through her diseased literary spurtings for about five minutes I realised that life's just too short.



Ain't that the truth.  There aren't many writers who I find actively *unpleasant* to read, but Rand certainly qualifies.  Anyway, I remain firm in my contention that the real, logical and dialectical contradiction is between capital and labour, *not* between any social classes, no matter how repugnant glaring disparities in wealth may be.  Such disparities are matters of justice, not of logic.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 3, 2005)

> and I *think* we've established that financial value is more appropriately regarded as a "spirit" rather than as an "idea."



Before we rush towards the final proof that the lord exists, let's have a show of hands. Who agrees that financial value is 'spirit' rather then anything else? 'Idea' isn't the only other option after all.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 3, 2005)

Poll?


----------



## laptop (Oct 3, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Before we rush towards the final proof that the lord exists, let's have a show of hands. Who agrees that financial value is 'spirit' rather then anything else?



Not I. 

I suggested a while ago that this was a point in the argument where it could be worth investigating whether phildwyer was smuggling his conclusion in as an assumption. As does the "ontological proof"...




			
				Jo said:
			
		

> 'Idea' isn't the only other option after all.



Indeedy. "Grammar" is an interesting word to explore in this context... I don't think anyone would build an argument for a deity on the existence of regularities in linguistic exchanges...


----------



## Santino (Oct 3, 2005)

Not I.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 3, 2005)

Absolutely not. I think it's a profound mistake to conflate the struggle of social classes simply into the terms of economic self-interest, because this involves the exclusion of the whole field of human action: needs, customs, traditions, morals and values - the real area of action of human life. Nor do I think that the conflict of capital and labour can be seen as a pure theoretical contradiction - it's a product of power relations between actual human actors.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 3, 2005)

ok, ok, so god hasn't been proved yet.  have we even achieved anything remotely describable as 'rational' in the last thousand-plus posts?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Indeedy. "Grammar" is an interesting word to explore in this context... I don't think anyone would build an argument for a deity on the existence of regularities in linguistic exchanges...



Actually, the second half of my proof will argue precisely this.  Are you familiar with Jacques Derrida's Of Grammatology, perhaps the most famous  philosophical work of the last 50 years?   It argues that linguistic meaning always derives from the *logos,* which as you know is the Biblical word for the "Son" of God.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 3, 2005)

There was always a probability of 1 of 'logos' turning up at some point....


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> There was always a probability of 1 of 'logos' turning up at some point....



You can't do God without "logos!"


----------



## laptop (Oct 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Derrida [says] linguistic meaning always derives from the *logos,* which as you know is the Biblical word for the "Son" of God.



And the Greek word for "word". And a metaphor for the existence of language itself. And... been there, done that: anyone who bases *any* argument (or particularly yours) on a particular interpretation of "logos" is engaging in a major, but transparent and therefore very stupid, conclusion-smuggling excercise.


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It has been a bit of an epic, hasn't it, if I do say so myself.  But I'm quite serious, and I *think* we've established that financial value is more appropriately regarded as a "spirit" rather than as an "idea."  Now we're moving on to consider the nature of this spirit, or we will be soon.



I have an objection which I would appreciate an answer to before we move on.  Your criteria for financial value being a 'spirit' were:




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> (a) it is independent of the human mind: it exists above and beyond the mind of any individual; (b) it has real power and real effects; (c) it exists in an antagonistic or hostile relationship to human beings, damaging or harming them in some way; (d) it can take a material form, although it is not itself material.



I pointed out* that ideas can fit these criteria, as follows:

(a) Ideas exist independently of the human mind, if you take 'the human mind' to mean "the mind of any individual" as you appear to.

(b) Ideas have real power and effects. Take, for example, Laws.

(c) Certain ideas can be harmful too, eg. racism, homophobia, etc. 

(d) So can ideas, I could make a painting, or a sculpture of a unicorn, even though such creatures only exist as ideas.

You have not shown the difference between ideas and spirits.

Have you added/changed any criteria to address this point?

* Post 707


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 3, 2005)

Hmm, we seem stuck on step 1 of your argument phil. We have not established anything.


----------



## gurrier (Oct 3, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Before we rush towards the final proof that the lord exists, let's have a show of hands. Who agrees that financial value is 'spirit' rather then anything else? 'Idea' isn't the only other option after all.


Go away man cause we no love pagan 
I and I dun see de light.

now me gan fi speak in de prophet tongue.

There are dem who constantly dey hef bin placing
The rocks on the tracks leaving devil snairs laying.
And them wish fi all who dem hate to be falling
Yet inna dem face they witness thy uprising. 

Me haffi holla out
Phil Dwyer, him the Royal son of King David
So Babylon why you try to deny
The urban youths loyal knowledge ?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 3, 2005)

What's that? You want to burn my ass?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Go away man cause we no love pagan
> I and I dun see de light.
> 
> now me gan fi speak in de prophet tongue.
> ...



Say that no matter how you bad I man badder than you 
No matter how you dread I man dreader than you 
No matter how you hard I man harder than you 
No matter how you raw I more
Weak heart back weh so 

A bad man a no want go back in captivity 
A bad man a no want go back to slavery 
Uprising from the claws of the wicked 

Two bulls can't reign in one pen 
Two lions can't roar in a small den now 
Two scorpions don't sting at the same spot 
Two guns can't fire the same bullet 

A bad man a no want go back in captivity 
A bad man a no want go back to slavery 
Uprising from the claws of the wicked 

Two kings don't wear the same crown 
Two beauties don't have the same gown on 
Tomorrow is too late to leave town 
If you're still here at noon, 
There'll be one big, big, big showdown oh


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2005)

bin ban etc


----------



## trashpony (Oct 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> bin ban etc



Seconded. 

FFS, I can't believe this is still going. I've been away for two weeks and nothing has changed. I thought that you weren't going to allow yourself to be diverted from your godsquadism (c) by diversionary tactics, Phil. Seems to me that they're proving to be a very useful sideline. Can't you summarise your argument in a few short paragraphs? Or is that going to expose the gaping holes in your argument?

Good to be back!

*flexes argumentative muscles*


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 3, 2005)

Wahay! A pissing contest!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Wahay! A pissing contest!


yeh - and that's more likely to lead to a proper proof of the existence, or otherwise, of god than the pisspoor wankery we've been putting up with here for far too long!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Seconded.
> 
> FFS, I can't believe this is still going. I've been away for two weeks and nothing has changed. I thought that you weren't going to allow yourself to be diverted from your godsquadism (c) by diversionary tactics, Phil. Seems to me that they're proving to be a very useful sideline. Can't you summarise your argument in a few short paragraphs? Or is that going to expose the gaping holes in your argument?
> 
> ...



Greetings Trashpony, good to have you back.  We actually have made quite a bit of progress, but you know what the heathen are, they continually try to drag us backwards.  Fear not though: the Truth always triumphs in the end.  Been anywhere nice?  I'm off on a bit of world tour myself next week: Montreal, Cardiff, London, Amsterdam and Istanbul in ten days.  No rest for the righteous!


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 3, 2005)

*While we're posting random lyrics...*




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Say that no matter how you bad I man badder than you
> No matter how you dread I man dreader than you
> No matter how you hard I man harder than you
> No matter how you raw I more
> ...


Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, where have you been, my darling young one?
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains,
I've walked and I've crawled on six crooked highways,
I've stepped in the middle of seven sad forests,
I've been out in front of a dozen dead oceans,
I've been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, and it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

Oh, what did you see, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what did you see, my darling young one?
I saw a newborn baby with wild wolves all around it
I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it,
I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin',
I saw a room full of men with their hammers a-bleedin',
I saw a white ladder all covered with water,
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken,
I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

And what did you hear, my blue-eyed son?
And what did you hear, my darling young one?
I heard the sound of a thunder, it roared out a warnin',
Heard the roar of a wave that could drown the whole world,
Heard one hundred drummers whose hands were a-blazin',
Heard ten thousand whisperin' and nobody listenin',
Heard one person starve, I heard many people laughin',
Heard the song of a poet who died in the gutter,
Heard the sound of a clown who cried in the alley,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

Oh, who did you meet, my blue-eyed son?
Who did you meet, my darling young one?
I met a young child beside a dead pony,
I met a white man who walked a black dog,
I met a young woman whose body was burning,
I met a young girl, she gave me a rainbow,
I met one man who was wounded in love,
I met another man who was wounded with hatred,
And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

Oh, what'll you do now, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what'll you do now, my darling young one?
I'm a-goin' back out 'fore the rain starts a-fallin',
I'll walk to the depths of the deepest black forest,
Where the people are many and their hands are all empty,
Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters,
Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison,
Where the executioner's face is always well hidden,
Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten,
Where black is the color, where none is the number,
And I'll tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it,
And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it,
Then I'll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin',
But I'll know my song well before I start singin',
And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> I have an objection which I would appreciate an answer to before we move on.  Your criteria for financial value being a 'spirit' were:
> 
> I pointed out* that ideas can fit these criteria, as follows:
> 
> ...



Hiya Doomsy.  I put it to you that (a) financial value is far more powerful than any other idea.  Laws, for example, serve the interests of financial value, not the other way around;  (b) racism, homophobia and other harmful ideas are the direct result of financial value's influence.  Racism, for example, emerged in its modern form only with the profit-driven slave trade and colonialism.  Yes, I'm an economic determinist.  And most important, (c) financial value is different from any other idea because of its *essence,* which is human life *per se,* human activity considered as a whole.  This is true of *no* other idea.  So, again, financial value is a completely unique idea, to the degree that it no longer makes sense to describe it as such.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son?
> Oh, where have you been, my darling young one?
> I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains,
> I've walked and I've crawled on six crooked highways,
> ...



There is nothing in this world quite as touching as a teenager who has just been exposed to Bob Dylan for the first time.  How sweet.  Have you read "Catcher in the Rye" yet?  Or "On the Road?"  We await your continued explorations in adolescent angst with the keenest anticipation.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> There is nothing in this world quite as touching as a teenager who has just been exposed to Bob Dylan for the first time.  How sweet.  Have you read "Catcher in the Rye" yet?  Or "On the Road?"  We await your continued explorations in adolescent angst with the keenest anticipation.


Just the first artist that came to mind, is all, no need to get so arsey about it 

(though "for the first time" is hardly accurate, what with my slightly hippyish folks)


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Just the first artist that came to mind, is all, no need to get so arsey about it
> 
> (though "for the first time" is hardly accurate, what with my slightly hippyish folks)



Get them to play you some Iggy and the Stooges, that'll learn ya.


----------



## Purdie (Oct 3, 2005)

*Can i join in here*

One of my favourites at the mo ...   

"Jesus Of Suburbia"

[Part 1]

I'm the son of rage and love
The Jesus of suburbia 
From the bible of none of the above 
On a steady diet of soda pop and Ritalin 
No one ever died for my sins in hell 
As far as I can tell 
At least the ones I got away with 

And there's nothing wrong with me 
This is how I'm supposed to be 
In a land of make believe 
That don't believe in me

Get my television fix sitting on my crucifix 
The living room or my private womb 
While the moms and brads are away 
To fall in love and fall in debt 
To alcohol and cigarettes and Mary Jane 
To keep me insane and doing someone else's cocaine

And there's nothing wrong with me
This is how I'm supposed to be
In a land of make believe
That don't believe in me

[Part 2: City Of The Damned]

At the center of the Earth
In the parking lot 
Of the 7-11 were I was taught 
The motto was just a lie 
It says home is where your heart is
But what a shame 
Cause everyone's heart 
Doesn't beat the same 
It's beating out of time 

City of the dead 
At the end of another lost highway 
Signs misleading to nowhere 
City of the damned 
Lost children with dirty faces today 
No one really seems to care 

I read the graffiti 
In the bathroom stall 
Like the holy scriptures of a shopping mall 
And so it seemed to confess 
It didn't say much 
But it only confirmed that
The center of the earth 
Is the end of the world 
And I could really care less 

City of the dead
At the end of another lost highway
Signs misleading to nowhere
City of the damned
Lost children with dirty faces today
No one really seems to careeeeee

[Part 3: I don't care]

I don't care if you don't 
I don't care if you don't
I don't care if you don't care
[x4]

I don't careeeeeeeeee

Everyone is so full of shit 
Born and raised by hypocrites 
Hearts recycled but never saved
From the cradle to the grave 
We are the kids of war and peace
From Anaheim to the middle east 
We are the stories and disciples 
Of the Jesus of suburbia 
Land of make believe 
And it don't believe in me 
Land of make believe 
And I don't believe 
And I don't care! 
I don't care! [x4]

[Part 4: Dearly beloved]

Dearly beloved are you listening?
I can't remember a word that you were saying
Are we demented or am I disturbed? 
The space that's in between insane and insecure 
Oh therapy, can you please fill the void? 
Am I retarded or am I just overjoyed 
Nobody's perfect and I stand accused 
For lack of a better word, and that's my best excuse 

[Part 5: Tales of another broken home]

To live and not to breathe 
Is to die In tragedy
To run, to run away 
To find what you believe 
And I leave behind
This hurricane of fucking lies 
I lost my faith to this 
This town that don't exist

So I run 
I run away
To the light of masochist
And I leave behind 
This hurricane of fucking lies
And I walked this line 
A million and one fucking times
But not this time

I don't feel any shame
I won't apologize 

When there ain't nowhere you can go
Running away from pain
When you've been victimized
Tales from another broken home

You're leaving...
You're leaving...
You're leaving...
Ah you're leaving home...


Oops


----------



## trashpony (Oct 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Greetings Trashpony, good to have you back.  We actually have made quite a bit of progress, but you know what the heathen are, they continually try to drag us backwards.  Fear not though: the Truth always triumphs in the end.  Been anywhere nice?  I'm off on a bit of world tour myself next week: Montreal, Cardiff, London, Amsterdam and Istanbul in ten days.  No rest for the righteous!



Please don't say 'us' - it implies I'm on your side of the great divide which certainly isn't the case. I'm just waiting to be convinced.

And I've been to Peru which was very nice. Not in a particularly righteous way either.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Please don't say 'us' - it implies I'm on your side of the great divide which certainly isn't the case. I'm just waiting to be convinced.
> 
> And I've been to Peru which was very nice. Not in a particularly righteous way either.



Macchu Picchu, or did you go of your own accord?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Please don't say 'us' - it implies I'm on your side of the great divide which certainly isn't the case. I'm just waiting to be convinced.
> 
> And I've been to Peru which was very nice. Not in a particularly righteous way either.



Titicaca, or are they still pretty good?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Please don't say 'us' - it implies I'm on your side of the great divide which certainly isn't the case. I'm just waiting to be convinced.
> 
> And I've been to Peru which was very nice. Not in a particularly righteous way either.



Nazca, or formula one?  You're right, I need a drink.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Macchu Picchu, or did you go of your own accord?


  

Yes I did go but no one made me go - I walked and wasn't carried or anything. 

I went to a couple of other places too.

And this is waaaay off topic.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Yes I did go but no one made me go - I walked and wasn't carried or anything.
> 
> I went to a couple of other places too.
> 
> And this is waaaay off topic.



I went to Macchu Picchu a couple of years ago.  Stunning: those Incas weren't daft.  Did you walk up the mountain, or take the bus?  Cuzco is very nice, but you've got to watch the altitude, that's what did for John Peel.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I went to Macchu Picchu a couple of years ago.  Stunning: those Incas weren't daft.  Did you walk up the mountain, or take the bus?  Cuzco is very nice, but you've got to watch the altitude, that's what did for John Peel.



I walked the Inca Trail but took good altitude prevention precautions - four days in Cuzco before I started it. I didn't know that's how John Peel died. Wasn't he in Mexico?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I walked the Inca Trail but took good altitude prevention precautions - four days in Cuzco before I started it. I didn't know that's how John Peel died. Wasn't he in Mexico?



No, he was in Cuzco.  You mean they haven't got a statue?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

Mind you, I got altitude sickness--soroche or whatever--in La Paz.  Bloody horrible it was, you did well to avoid it.  They try to make you drink coca tea, but I couldn't lift the cup to my mouth.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 4, 2005)

phil, your mind is not on the job. I think you're looking for an exit strategy.


----------



## Santino (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> There is nothing in this world quite as touching as a teenager who has just been exposed to Bob Dylan for the first time.  How sweet.  Have you read "Catcher in the Rye" yet?  Or "On the Road?"  We await your continued explorations in adolescent angst with the keenest anticipation.


No need to be a cunt, Phil.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> No need to be a cunt, Phil.



It's in his nature.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2005)

i dreamed i stood upon a hill, and, lo!
the godly multitudes walked to and fro
beneath, in sabbath garments fitly clad,
with pious mien, appropriately sad,
while all the church bells made a solemn din --
a fire-alarm to those who lived in sin.
then saw i gazing thoughtfully below,
with tranquil face, upon that holy show
a tall, spare figure in a robe of white,
whose eyes diffused a melancholy light.
"god keep you, stranger," i exclaimed. "you are
no doubt (your habit shows it) from afar;
and yet i entertain the hope that you,
like these good people, are a christian too."
he raised his eyes and with a look so stern
it made me with a thousand blushes burn
replied -- his manner with disdain was spiced:
"what! i a christian? no, indeed! i'm christ."


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> It's in his nature.



Nino, don't you think you're a bit *old* for this sort of thing?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nino, don't you think you're a bit *old* for this sort of thing?



You're not making any sense phil, but that's nothing unusual. 

I see you've still not come up with "rational proof of God's existence" yet.

Are you a *Xtian*, phil?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2005)

Phil, what's with the *s? It makes me feel like you're writing in C. The rest of us have quote marks (two different types!).


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Are you a *Xtian*, phil?



No.  Are you a *twat,* Nino?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2005)

See, that just makes me think 'pointer-to-twat'. Which makes no sense


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> See, that just makes me think 'pointer-to-twat'. Which makes no sense



*Pointing* to twat was exactly what I intended.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No.  Are you a *twat,* Nino?



I'm willing to bet you were a school bully. We all know you're a *cunt" anyway.

Steal a lot of dinner money at school, phil?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2005)

Ah I see. You're allocating an area of memory twat with a pointer *twat. Don't forget to free up the space when you're done


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Phil, what's with the *s? It makes me feel like you're writing in C. The rest of us have quote marks (two different types!).



He thinks it makes him look sophisticated but it makes him look like a prick.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2005)

> *cunt"



matches:

"Shit-cunt"
"God-cunt"
"Rambling-cunt"


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Steal a lot of dinner money at school, phil?



Now we seem to be reaching an explanation of Nino's disorder.  Traumatized by his childhood experiences, he now seeks recompence by bullying others.  Oh dear, how sad, never mind.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2005)

> He thinks it makes him look sophisticated but it makes him look like a prick.



It certainly adds to the obfuscation. This post is an absolute classic of the genre - contrast question and answer:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3586802&postcount=1452


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> He thinks it makes him look sophisticated but it makes him look like a prick.



Still stalking, still haunting, still plaguing this thread with your endless, tedious flaming, Nino?  What *are* you doing here?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer's conception of god - god as something to do with value, god as something that can be proved, god as spider - is one of the most corrupt conceptions of the god-type yet arrived at on earth; one might even say it marks the low-water mark in the descending development of the god-type.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> phildwyer's conception of god - god as something to do with value, god as something that can be proved, god as spider - is one of the most corrupt conceptions of the god-type yet arrived at on earth; one might even say it marks the low-water mark in the descending development of the god-type.



Sorry mate, I can't make any sense of this at all.  I'd stick to the Ambrose Bierce if I were you.


----------



## Alf Klein (Oct 4, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Ah I see. You're allocating an area of memory twat with a pointer *twat. Don't forget to free up the space when you're done



Geek


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now we seem to be reaching an explanation of Nino's disorder.  Traumatized by his childhood experiences, he now seeks recompence by bullying others.  Oh dear, how sad, never mind.



Projection and deflection: the twin traits of the scoundrel. Examples of your bullying behaviour are legion on this thread alone. It is common for someone like you to deny that you were a bully and offer excuses for your behaviour.

You have brought your playground behaviour here to this thread. You are the bully, make no mistake and no matter how hard you try to deflect or project, everyone knows the truth.

So still no "proof" of "God" then? I suppose you would resort to this sort of thing given the fact that you never had "proof" nor did you ever intend to provide "proof". Your sole reason for starting this thread was to 1. bully others, 2. start fights and 3. to make your self look/feel good. Your feelings of inadequacy must be so deeprooted. Have you ever considered therapy? Perhaps you should.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2005)

> Geek



  I'm just pleased someone got it....


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Still stalking, still haunting, still plaguing this thread with your endless, tedious flaming, Nino?  What *are* you doing here?



I've got a better question: *why* did you start this thread? I know why but I want you to tell me.

You're the stalker and it's funny how you accuse me of being the very thing that you are when you have followed me around these boards with your tiresome quips. You really are quite *fucked* in the head, aren't you?

Phil, the school bully.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I've got a better question: *why* did you start this thread? I know why but I want you to tell me.



For the sole purpose of annoying *you,* Nino.  In which, if I do say so myself, I have succeeded quite brilliantly.  But seriously, have you ever read any Foucault?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> For the sole purpose of annoying *you,* Nino.  In which, if I do say so myself, I have succeeded quite brilliantly.  But seriously, have you ever read any Foucault?



"Annoying me"? "Succeeded brilliantly" Don't flatter yourself Mister Ego. You remember what happened to Narcissus don't you? Or would you like me to remind you?

Deluded and a school bully, what a combination.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 4, 2005)

Another thing phil, apart from the fact that nothing has been established. You criticise behaviour in others that you are happy to exhibit yourself. What's that all about?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

Well, school bully? Have I touched a nerve?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Another thing phil, apart from the fact that nothing has been established. You criticise behaviour in others that you are happy to exhibit yourself. What's that all about?



Actually, Jo/Joe, I'll give this a serious reply.  Nino has *never* contributed to this thread, and from his first appearance here he has openly announced his intention to disrupt it.  I've suggested many times that he either contribute or leave, but he insists on just continuing with his monotonous, plodding, dull interventions.  So I'm using him as light relief from the very serious matter under discussion.  Yes, I sometimes feel a bit mean, but I don't think he really minds, or he wouldn't be here.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> "Annoying me"? "Succeeded brilliantly" Don't flatter yourself Mister Ego.



Sorry Nino.  Its clear that you are not annoyed at all, how silly of me to think so.  But really, *have* you ever read Foucault?  I strongly suspect that you have not--am I right?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2005)

> Are you familiar with Jacques Derrida's Of Grammatology, perhaps the most famous philosophical work of the last 50 years? It argues that linguistic meaning always derives from the *logos,* which as you know is the Biblical word for the "Son" of God.



Wasn't Derrida's main point that we have to deconstruct the underlying logocentric oppositions in order to dismantle the  power imbalances that they support, and ultimately to move beyond them into a terminology that no longer relies on these oppositions for meaning - i.e. to move into the realm of signs and marks from that of concept and *spirit* or whatever. How can you invert Grammatology's de-throning into some sort of re-throning of the logos? I await the next installment with substantial logical trepidation.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Sorry Nino.  Its clear that you are not annoyed at all, how silly of me to think so.  But really, *have* you ever read Foucault?  I strongly suspect that you have not--am I right?



What is it with you and Foucault?

You're no philosopher nor are you a philosophy student. You're a narcissistic sociopath who delights in the 'intellectual' bullying of others.

Have you ever had sex?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually, Jo/Joe, I'll give this a serious reply.  Nino has *never* contributed to this thread, and from his first appearance here he has openly announced his intention to disrupt it.  I've suggested many times that he either contribute or leave, but he insists on just continuing with his monotonous, plodding, dull interventions.  So I'm using him as light relief from the very serious matter under discussion.  Yes, I sometimes feel a bit mean, but I don't think he really minds, or he wouldn't be here.



Liar. What I find interesting about cases like you is the fact that you always try to get someone to do your work for you. It has failed in this case but you delude yourself into thinking you've done a grand job.

Keep going phil, you're digging a hole big enought to bury the planet Jupiter.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Wasn't Derrida's main point that we have to deconstruct the underlying logocentric oppositions in order to dismantle the  power imbalances that they support, and ultimately to move beyond them into a terminology that no longer relies on these oppositions for meaning - i.e. to move into the realm of signs and marks from that of concept and *spirit* or whatever. How can you invert Grammatology's de-throning into some sort of re-throning of the logos? I await the next installment with substantial logical trepidation.



You're absolutely right about the *early* Derrida, and you're certainly right about his acolytes.  A typical piece of his Dantonesque anti-logocentric rhetoric is the following, from Margins of Philosophy.  Its worth quoting at length, because the second half of my proof will begin with a detailed critique of his reasoning here.  Actually, I suppose we might as well start now:

"An opposition of metaphysical concepts (for example, speech/writing, presence/absence, etc.) is never the face-to-face of two terms, but a hierarchy and an order of subordination.  Deconstruction cannot limit itself or proceed immediately to a neutralization: it must, by means of a double gesture, a double science, a double writing, practice an overturning of the classical opposition and a general displacement of the system…. For example, writing, as a classical concept, carries within it predicates which have been subordinated, excluded, or held in reserve by forces and according to necessities to be analyzed.  It is these predicates… whose force of generality, generalization, and generativity find themselves liberated, grafted onto a ‘new’ concept of writing which also corresponds to whatever always has resisted the former organization of forces, which has always constituted the remainder irreducible to the dominant force which organized the--to say it quickly--logocentric hierarchy." (1984, 329-30)

I'm going to argue that, not only was Derrida quite wrong here, but that he later repudiated this position, and came to see logos as the precondition of all human life and thought.  In later works, notably Specters of Marx, he is essentially preaching a logocentric theology, and indeed he has become the darling of the school known as "negative theology."  You'll forgive the long and difficult quotation, and you'll appreciate that this is a complex matter, but I believe I can explain it in layman's terms, provided I am not overly distracted by the increasingly desperate attempts of Nino Savatte to derail our conversation.  I'll do my best anyway.  And now--bacon and eggs for me this morning!


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 4, 2005)

Further excuse to avoid the point of the thread.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> What is it with you and Foucault?



Hee.  Last time I started teasing Nino about his constantly asking everyone if they'd read Foucault, he replied with a most cunning strategem: he started asking everyone if they'd read *Gramsci* instead.  He *did,* twas a classic moment!  Let's see if it'll work again.  Nino, I can't help but notice from your posts that you seem to be neglecting Antonio Gramsci's concept of "hegemony" as outlined in the Prison Notebooks.  I wonder if you are familiar with his work?

<runs, hides, giggles in anticipation>


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Further excuse to avoid the point of the thread.



Piss off Jo/Joe, I was asked a serious question and I responded to it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hee.  Last time I started teasing Nino about his constantly asking everyone if they'd read Foucault, he replied with a most cunning strategem: he started asking everyone if they'd read *Gramsci* instead.  He *did,* twas a classic moment!  Let's see if it'll work again.  Nino, I can't help but notice from your posts that you seem to be neglecting Antonio Gramsci's concept of "hegemony" as outlined in the Prison Notebooks.  I wonder if you are familiar with his work?
> 
> <runs, hides, giggles in anticipation>



Pathetic...but tiny things for tiny minds eh, school bully?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Piss off Jo/Joe, I was asked a serious question and I responded to it.



No you didn't and nowhere on this thread have you *responded* in a way which suggests that you are serious or, for that matter, knowledgeable.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Pathetic...but tiny things for tiny minds eh, school bully?



Nino, I am truly sorry, but since you effectively admit to never having read either Gramsci or Foucault, I do not think we can continue our conversation.  Its a shame, because I was almost certain that you had read them, but now I see that you have not.  Please familiarize yourself with their respective ouevres, and return to us at a later date.  And, who was the other one you sometimes interrogate people about?  De Certeau!  Read him too.  Unless, of course, you have already done so?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

Rational - _no_
Proof - _none_
God - _er, no_
Existence - _not likely_

Piss take - _most probably_

The Ego has landed.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nino, I am truly sorry, but since you effectively admit to never having read either Gramsci or Foucault, I do not think we can continue our conversation.  Its a shame, because I was almost certain that you had read them, but now I see that you have not.  Please familiarize yourself with their respective ouevres, and return to us at a later date.  And, who was the other one you sometimes interrogate people about?  De Certeau!  Read him too.  Unless, of course, you have already done so?



Keep digging, phil, you don't realise what a prick you're making of yourself. I'm finding this not only amusing but it vindicates my belief that you have a serious mental illness, of which _obsessive behaviour_ is a large part.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Keep digging, phil, you don't realise what a prick you're making of yourself. I'm finding this not only amusing but it vindicates my belief that you have a serious mental illness, of which _obsessive behaviour_ is a large part.



On and on he rambles, far into the night...


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> On and on he rambles, far into the night...



http://www.pantheon.org/articles/n/narcissus.html

Oh and it's daytime...even on your side of the Atlantic. More proof of your questionable state of mental health.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

I'll be back, I've just found a three week old piece of pizza under my fridge that I'm going to have for lunch (once I've picked the dust and hairs off it first). I may wash that down with some Domestos.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I'll be back, I've just found a three week old piece of pizza under my fridge that I'm going to have for lunch (once I've picked the dust and hairs off it first). I may wash that down with some Domestos.



Cheers Nino!  Looking forward to hearing from you after that little concoction!  I ended up having an *enormous* egg, cheese and sausage roll from what we Philadelphians call the "roach coach."  Absolutely fantastic it was, and only $2.  The guy who works there is from Turkey, like my girlfriend, so we always have a good old chat about politics.  Today, of course, he was going on about the EU.  Basically, he hates them and considers them racist, but still wants to join them.  The Turks have invested a great deal of psychological enegry in getting into Europe, and are getting more and more frustrated at being knocked back all the time.  I told him they should look east, go off and reconquer Armenia and that, which elicited a hollow laugh and a "you think the bullies would allow *that*..."  He's right of course.  He also denies the Aremenian genocide though, which is a bit much even for a Turkophile like myself.  What do you mean "wrong thread," is that the time?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Sorry mate, I can't make any sense of this at all.  I'd stick to the Ambrose Bierce if I were you.


there's no need to highlight your ignorance of the great philosophers, phildwyer...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> there's no need to highlight your ignorance of the great philosophers, phildwyer...



To phil there is only one "geat philosopher".

Himself.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 4, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> To phil there is only one "geat philosopher".
> 
> Himself.


In all fairness, reconciling the beliefs of Marx and Luther is quite an achievement


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *the man who would be God*
> we Philadelphians



I thought you were fae Wales.   Or is it the case that you enjoy Philadelphia cream cheese and consider yourself to be a"Philadelphian"? Or perhaps it has something to do with your first name.

Who cares?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I thought you were fae Wales.   Or is it the case that you enjoy Philadelphia cream cheese and consider yourself to be a"Philadelphian"? Or perhaps it has something to do with your first name.
> 
> Who cares?



You, evidentally, since you ceaselessly interrogate me about every little detail of my biography.  You'll be pestering me for autographs next.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> In all fairness, reconciling the beliefs of Marx and Luther is quite an achievement



Thanks Bloom, I was quite chuffed myself.  But I don't think I've done that on these boards: have you been having a look at stuff what I wrote elsewhere?


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Thanks Bloom, I was quite chuffed myself.  But I don't think I've done that on these boards: have you been having a look at stuff what I wrote elsewhere?


Didn't you list the two (among Plato, Hegel and others) as part of a number of philosophers throughout time who represent a coherent view of the world?  Can't think of any decent search criteria for it now, will have a shufti for the exact quote later.

Edit: here we go



			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact there is a considerable degree of agreement among theologians and philosophers as to the nature of deity. I give you Plato, Aristotle, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Mohammed, Aquinas, Avicenna, Luther, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Lukacs and Adorno. These thinkers consitute a coherent series of commentaries on each other and, despite inevitable differences in emphasis and terminology, *are saying essentially the same thing**.
> *emphasis added



Do apologise, I have a long memory for stuff like this


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Didn't you list the two (among Plato, Hegel and others) as part of a number of philosophers throughout time who represent a coherent view of the world?  Can't think of any decent search criteria for it now, will have a shufti for the exact quote later.
> 
> Edit: here we go
> 
> ...



Blimey, you do, too.  But all I'm doing there is *asserting* this similarity, I'm not *demonstrating* it, although I do that elsewhere.  My argument focuses on the indulgence controversy, which sparked the reformation: Luther saw indulgences as fetishized certificates denoting a determinate amount of penitential human labour--in other words, as a form of paper money.  Marx did indeed inherit this and other Luthran concepts, via Hegel.  Its quite a nifty little argument if I do say so myself.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Blimey, you do, too.  But all I'm doing there is *asserting* this similarity, I'm not *demonstrating* it, although I do that elsewhere.  My argument focuses on the indulgence controversy, which sparked the reformation: Luther saw indulgences as fetishized certificates denoting a determinate amount of penitential human labour--in other words, as a form of paper money.  Marx did indeed inherit this and other Luthran concepts, via Hegel.  Its quite a nifty little argument if I do say so myself.


But doesn't that ignore the huge differences in their philosophies?  Marx was a rationalist and an atheist, Luther was, corect me if I'm wrong, a fideist and a theologian.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> But doesn't that ignore the huge differences in their philosophies?  Marx was a rationalist and an atheist, Luther was, corect me if I'm wrong, a fideist and a theologian.



You're right, of course, but Hegel--who was deeply trained in Lutheran theology--provides a bridge between Luther and Marx.  That's sort of the basis for my argument on this thread so far.  I'd love to tell you more, for the gap between theology and philosophy is not nearly as wide as you imagine, but I really have to run.  A bientot.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You, evidentally, since you ceaselessly interrogate me about every little detail of my biography.  You'll be pestering me for autographs next.



Autographs? In your dreams.

 *Makes another note about phil's delusions of grandeur


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Autographs? In your dreams.
> 
> *Makes another note about phil's delusions of grandeur



*makes another note about the fact that Nino is making notes...*


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 4, 2005)

> Piss off Jo/Joe, I was asked a serious question and I responded to it.



You've avoided the point of this thread pretty much all the way. How much opportunity do you want? Why don't you piss off or address the fucking question at hand.

Now where were we? Oh yes, nothing, despite 70+ pages, has been established.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> You've avoided the point of this thread pretty much all the way. How much opportunity do you want? Why don't you piss off or address the fucking question at hand.
> 
> Now where were we? Oh yes, nothing, despite 70+ pages, has been established.



Why are you still here then?  No-one's forcing you.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 4, 2005)

To see how you deal with the mess your pompous, pretentious and ultimately useless ego has created. You're good at citing other people's ideas, but not very successful at presenting any sound ones of your own. And we can all recognise the mothods you employ to disguise this.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> To see how you deal with the mess your pompous, pretentious and ultimately useless ego has created. You're good at citing other people's ideas, but not very successful at presenting any sound ones of your own. And we can all recognise the mothods you employ to disguise this.



Fine, if that's how you get your jollies.  How about observing in silence for a while, though?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 5, 2005)

Ou est Dieu?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

Il me semble qu'il est allé parachuter un senegalais


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Il me semble qu'il est allé parachuter un senegalais



Vraiment? Quel surprise.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

On est foutu, je pense. C'est clair que Phil péte plus haut que son cul.


----------



## Santino (Oct 5, 2005)

Bof.


----------



## laptop (Oct 5, 2005)

J'ai ici une preuve très rationelle de l'existence du Godot, mais c'est trop grand pour cette p'tit boite...


----------



## parallelepipete (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fine, if that's how you get your jollies.  How about observing in silence for a while, though?


Preferably kneeling, head bowed, having lit a votive candle...


----------



## parallelepipete (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> On est foutu, je pense. C'est clair que Phil péte plus haut que son cul.


Une expression très evocatrice, que je ne connaissais pas jusqu'ici!


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hiya Doomsy.  I put it to you that (a) financial value is far more powerful than any other idea.  Laws, for example, serve the interests of financial value, not the other way around;  (b) racism, homophobia and other harmful ideas are the direct result of financial value's influence.  Racism, for example, emerged in its modern form only with the profit-driven slave trade and colonialism.  Yes, I'm an economic determinist.  And most important, (c) financial value is different from any other idea because of its *essence,* which is human life *per se,* human activity considered as a whole.  This is true of *no* other idea.  So, again, financial value is a completely unique idea, to the degree that it no longer makes sense to describe it as such.



(a) If it is true that financial value is simply "more powerful" than any other idea, without any other distinguishing factors, then it is a difference of magnitude, and not type.  'Financial Value' is like an idea, but more so.  Is there a threshold of power at which an 'idea' becomes a 'spirit' once it crosses it?

(b) All ideas give rise to others, for example the idea of 'Crazy Frog' gives rise to the idea 'I fookin' hate Crazy Frog'.  Unless financial value was the first idea which gave rise to all others, this does not distinguish it from other ideas.

(c) Human activity considered as a whole is a useful model to use at times, but not an accurate one.  Human activity as a whole is a sum of a very large number of discrete elements, it is not an actual 'thing' in itself.  Could you elaborate on this 'essence' you mentioned?  For instance, does 'idea'+'essence'='spirit', then?  If Financial Value is the only *idea* with 'essence', does any other, non-idea, thing have essence?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> (a) If it is true that financial value is simply "more powerful" than any other idea, without any other distinguishing factors, then it is a difference of magnitude, and not type.  'Financial Value' is like an idea, but more so.  Is there a threshold of power at which an 'idea' becomes a 'spirit' once it crosses it?
> 
> (b) All ideas give rise to others, for example the idea of 'Crazy Frog' gives rise to the idea 'I fookin' hate Crazy Frog'.  Unless financial value was the first idea which gave rise to all others, this does not distinguish it from other ideas.
> 
> (c) Human activity considered as a whole is a useful model to use at times, but not an accurate one.  Human activity as a whole is a sum of a very large number of discrete elements, it is not an actual 'thing' in itself.  Could you elaborate on this 'essence' you mentioned?  For instance, does 'idea'+'essence'='spirit', then?  If Financial Value is the only *idea* with 'essence', does any other, non-idea, thing have essence?



(a) Yes, there is such a threshold, as with anything.  It is a logical law that at a certain point a quantitative difference becomes qualitative.

(b) Value doesn't have to be the *first* idea, temporally speaking, but it has to be the "base" on which other ideas are *currently* built.  This is just ordinary economic determinism.

(c) Any thing has essence, or it wouldn't be a thing.  But the essence of value is difference from anything else, because it is human activity considered as a whole.  This is Marx's labour theory of value, which he derives from Feuerbach's concept of God.

Anyway, I'm still trying to come up with a title.  Well actually, I've got the title, but I need a subtitle.  The publisher says it must contain the word "religion."  Any more ideas?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Oh yeah, I forgot.  The most significant factor that differentiates financial value from all other ideas, and makes it unlike an idea, is its ability to *reproduce,* independently of human intervention.  The only other non-living thing that can do this is linguistic significance and, as I shall demonstrate in the second half of my proof, language and financial value turn out to be two manifestations of the same thing.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

> Oh yeah, I forgot. The most significant factor that differentiates financial value from all other ideas, and makes it unlike an idea, is its ability to *reproduce,* independently of human intervention.



If there were no humans, there would be no reproduction of value.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> If there were no humans, there would be no reproduction of value.



True, but so what?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

So how can it reproduce independently of human intervention? Take away the humans and there is no reproduction of value.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> True, but so what?


then where would yr god be, without people to debate his/her existence & worship?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Bof.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> So how can it reproduce independently of human intervention? Take away the humans and there is no reproduction of value.



I see what you mean.  You don't even have to take away the humans, of course: if humans simply agreed--as they did until three hundred years ago--that value does *not* reproduce, then it wouldn't.  In the usury debates of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, it was always argued that to imagine that value does reproduce was to do the work of Satan.  But what I mean is that humans don't have to *do* anything for value to reproduce, they don't have to intervene in any way.  Usury is the *autonomous* reproduction of value.  Leaving the complex question of language aside for the moment, can we agree that no other idea reproduces in the way that financial value does?  Can we agree that this is a quality of value that distinguishes it from all other ideas?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

I don't understand what you mean by 'they don't have to do anything'. Usury is an activity, like golf. In the absence of this human activity, there is no reproduction of value - thus the statement that value can reproduce independently of human activity is obscure at best, if not obviously incorrect.


----------



## Santino (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It is a logical law that at a certain point a quantitative difference becomes qualitative.


Not in any logic I know.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

I was going to point that out. It's a feature of dialectical thinking, but I think we should by no means take it as a given, particularly not a 'logical' one.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Not in any logic I know.



Then you don't know dialectical logic mate!


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

In any case, there remains the question of whether anything, most of all 'value' is created. Clearly in the case of money-lending, my gain is someone else's loss. If you lend me a fiver, and I pay you back six, the additional pound isn't created at all - I have to get it from somewhere else.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I don't understand what you mean by 'they don't have to do anything'. Usury is an activity, like golf. In the absence of this human activity, there is no reproduction of value - thus the statement that value can reproduce independently of human activity is obscure at best, if not obviously incorrect.



No, its not an activity like golf.  Its an activity like *thinking.*  Except that, in usury, (a) the object of thought is human life itself in alienated form, and (b) in usury the object of thought reproduces independently of any human intervention.  Do you really not see the difference between usury and golf, or are you taking the piss?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> In any case, there remains the question of whether anything, most of all 'value' is created. Clearly in the case of money-lending, my gain is someone else's loss. If you lend me a fiver, and I pay you back six, the additional pound isn't created at all - I have to get it from somewhere else.



That's right, my point exactly!  Now: *where* do you get it?


----------



## Santino (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Then you don't know dialectical logic mate!


Thank fuck. You can call it anything you like, it ain't logic if it's not derivable from basic axioms, rather than Germanic pondering of the infinite.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

> Now: *where* do you get it?



Absolutely anywhere I can. Steal it? Find it? What does it matter?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

> No, its not an activity like golf. Its an activity like *thinking.* Except that, in usury, (a) the object of thought is human life itself in alienated form, and (b) in usury the object of thought reproduces independently of any human intervention. Do you really not see the difference between usury and golf, or are you taking the piss?



Usury is simply the rental of money. I see no way in which it is like "*thinking.*". Like renting a car, it involves a one-way transference of money (just like a sale) in exchange for a loan of some item of property (which in this case happens to be a sum of money, although in the biblical sense could also be food etc). Does renting a car to someone somehow produce new value?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Absolutely anywhere I can. Steal it? Find it? What does it matter?



No, what I mean is: what *is* it, where does it *come* from?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Usury is simply the rental of money. I see no way in which it is like "*thinking.*". Like renting a car, it involves a one-way transference of money (just like a sale) in exchange for a loan of some item of property (which in this case happens to be a sum of money, although in the biblical sense could also be food etc). Does renting a car to someone somehow produce new value?



The difference is that a car exists, while financial value does not.  Nothing "changes hands" in usury.  As I have often said before on this thread, anyone who believes in financial value *already* believes in a supernatural phenomenon.  Usury allows this supernatural phenomenon to reproduce, and that is why it was universally assumed to be the work of Satan until the early modern period.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

I don't in any sense believe in financial value as you define it, so I have no problems with the supernatural. 

If I lend you five pounds at an interest rate of 20%, I first have to give you five pounds. As I've already pointed out, from a Christian perspective it was viewed as usury even if the goods that were given and returned were also cabbages, which whilst disgusting are far from supernatural.

My understanding of the Christian objection was that it was thought to involve charging twice for something - both for the thing itself and for the use of the thing (hence the term). Even so it has always been understood that there were situations where usury was acceptable and indeed inevitable (for example where there existed a risk to the article that was loaned).


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 5, 2005)

*gnaws own leg off*


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Usury is simply the rental of money. I see no way in which it is like "*thinking.*"



I'm going to say this one more time, so that there can be no doubt that you have been refuted.  Usury is like thinking because it involves the "rental" of something (you call it "money," but what you mean is "financial value) which *does not exist* outside of thought.  Indeed, usury is not merely *like* thinking, it is *only* thinking.  Sorry, I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

Deuteronomy 23:19

Consider yourself refuted.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

Further to this, in the case of _fiat money_ (as opposed to commodity money which has inherent value), the security of its value relies on legal institutions which are themselves aspects of the real world. The Greek word for money is even derived from the word for law.


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 5, 2005)

Isn't paying to use an intellectual property 'renting something which does not exist outside of thought'?  For instance, the royalties paid to musicians due to radio airplay, etc.

Does IP therefore have the same spiritual status as financial value?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The difference is that a car exists, while financial value does not.  Nothing "changes hands" in usury.  As I have often said before on this thread, anyone who believes in financial value *already* believes in a supernatural phenomenon.  Usury allows this supernatural phenomenon to reproduce, and that is why it was universally assumed to be the work of Satan until the early modern period.


but...

but...

but jesus indulged in that foul practice! 

do you have anything to substantiate this satan bit, or is it a load of old bollox?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2005)

> Does IP therefore have the same spiritual status as financial value?



IP is a malign spirit - thousands, perhaps millions of people are dying because of the lack of cheap drugs due to big pharma's IP rights. IP is the devil!!!

I'm not sure that this line of reasoning is completely watertight, tbh.


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> (a) Yes, there is such a threshold, as with anything.  It is a logical law that at a certain point a quantitative difference becomes qualitative.
> 
> (b) Value doesn't have to be the *first* idea, temporally speaking, but it has to be the "base" on which other ideas are *currently* built.  This is just ordinary economic determinism.
> 
> (c) Any thing has essence, or it wouldn't be a thing.  But the essence of value is difference from anything else, because it is human activity considered as a whole.  This is Marx's labour theory of value, which he derives from Feuerbach's concept of God.



(a) If this is true, then in order to be able to say that 'financial value' is the *only* idea to cross the threshold, you would need to be able to say that you knew every idea, ever.  Otherwise, there may be an idea you've never heard of with the same status as 'financial value' that you had not previously taken into account.

(b) So, to sum up where we've got to so far on this point, 'financial value' is a spirit because it is harmful to humans.  Other harmful ideas are not spirits because they derive from 'financial value'.  Yet, it is possible that 'financial value' is derivative and still a spirit.  Am I being dense or does that not make sense?

(c) Could you please explain your understanding of an essence, so I can properly consider this comment?

Random thought: Since the financial value of an object is different in different places (cigarettes in the UK cost more, or have a higher percieved value than, cigarettes in France for example), it would seem that it is non-universal.  Does anything subjective really have a place in a rational proof?


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> IP is a malign spirit - thousands, perhaps millions of people are dying because of the lack of cheap drugs due to big pharma's IP rights. IP is the devil!!!
> 
> I'm not sure that this line of reasoning is completely watertight, tbh.



And they said that understatement was dead...


----------



## parallelepipete (Oct 5, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that this line of reasoning is completely watertight, tbh.


But it _is_ a rational proof of the existence of semantics.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> but...
> 
> but...
> 
> ...



What, Jesus indulged in usury?  Kindly expound.  And by "this Satan bit," do you mean the idea that usury was Satanic?  If you do, I can cite you about three hundred texts that make this argument, but you'd be better off consulting the best modern discussion of them, which is Norman Jones's "God and the Moneylenders."  Well worth a look, it makes you realize how strongly, and why, usury was associated with the devil--puts the modern economic system in a bit of historical and ethical perspective, like.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

st tho's aquinas said:
			
		

> Objection 1. It would seem that it is not a sin to take usury for money lent. For no man sins through following the example of Christ. But Our Lord said of Himself (Lk. 19:23): "At My coming I might have exacted it," i.e. the money lent, "with usury." Therefore it is not a sin to take usury for lending money.


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

What rubbish.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

>



Ha, you pisstaker, you think you can argue theology with me?  That's the *objection,* the argument that Aquinas does *not* agree with, you TWIT.  Jesus Christ, I wonder why I bother sometimes, I really do.  Aquinas's own opinion, given in response to this objection is as follows:

"I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. On order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury."


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ, I wonder why I bother sometimes, I really do.


i wonder why you bother any of the time.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i wonder why you bother any of the time.



I wonder why *you* bother posting up crap that you know perfectly well I can shoot down dead as a dodo in thirty seconds.  Care to explain *that* little mystery?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I wonder why *you* bother posting up crap that you know perfectly well I can shoot down dead as a dodo in thirty seconds.  Care to explain *that* little mystery?


how would you explain matthew 19:29? sounds uncommon like usury to me.

incidentally, how come you're apparently entirely ignorant of f w nietzsche?

& if yr so cunting top at theology, how d'you explain the complete absence of a proof of god's existence on this thread, despite the title's assertion?


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

he hardly needs to prove God's existence.  

Why do I find you so incredibly annoying, any idea?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> he hardly needs to prove God's existence.


so what the fucking fuck's this fucking thread about then?



> _Why do I find you so incredibly annoying, any idea?_


 

i wish i knew, i'd do it more.


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

Must be your character, then, I get it, it's cause you get a kick out of annoying people who are better than you, why?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Must be your character, then, I get it, it's cause you get a kick out of annoying people who are better than you, why?


there are people who are *better* than me? 

i don't believe there exist such.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> how would you explain matthew 19:29? sounds uncommon like usury to me.
> 
> incidentally, how come you're apparently entirely ignorant of f w nietzsche?
> 
> & if yr so cunting top at theology, how d'you explain the complete absence of a proof of god's existence on this thread, despite the title's assertion?



Matt 19:29 isn't talking about money, quite obviously.  Don't tell me, it'll be the parable of the talents next, won't it?  So before you start: its a *parable,* a metaphor.  Now let's look at an *historical* event: try Googling "money-changers" and "temple."  Can't imagine why you think I'm ignorant of Nietzsche, unless you're taking the piss, like I do with Nino?  Well it won't work, do you hear?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Must be your character, then, I get it, it's cause you get a kick out of annoying people who are better than you, why?



Phil? Better? LOL!!!!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Matt 19:29 isn't talking about money, quite obviously.  Don't tell me, it'll be the parable of the talents next, won't it?  So before you start: its a *parable,* a metaphor.  Now let's look at an *historical* event: try Googling "money-changers" and "temple."  Can't imagine why you think I'm ignorant of Nietzsche, unless you're taking the piss, like I do with Nino?  Well it won't work, do you hear?


you didn't recognise a pastiche of a  famous passage from the antichrist above - i see no reason to believe that you have any familarity with the great friedrich's other work.






			
				f w nietzsche said:
			
		

> The Christian concept of a god--the god as the patron of the sick, the god as a spinner of cobwebs, the god as a spirit--is one of the most corrupt concepts that has ever been set up in the world: it probably touches low-water mark in the ebbing evolution of the god-type. God degenerated into the contradiction of life. Instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yea! In him war is declared on life, on nature, on the will to live! God becomes the formula for every slander upon the "here and now," and for every lie about the "beyond"! In him nothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy! . . .


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Matt 19:29 isn't talking about money, quite obviously.  Don't tell me, it'll be the parable of the talents next, won't it?  So before you start: its a *parable,* a metaphor.  Now let's look at an *historical* event: try Googling "money-changers" and "temple."  Can't imagine why you think I'm ignorant of Nietzsche, unless you're taking the piss, like I do with Nino?  Well it won't work, do you hear?



Take the piss with "me"? You really _are_ deluded.  

Please note the use of italics rather than the *


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Phil? Better? LOL!!!!!!



And right on cue--this thread's very own court jester.  Bad timing though Nino, I have to nip out for a bit.  Just carry on though, and I'll chastize you thoroughly when I get back (that *is* what you come here for isn't it...)?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Please note the use of italics rather than the *



Noted, Nino, thanks.  Well done.


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> there are people who are *better* than me?
> 
> i don't believe there exist such.



Well I got not idea why you've got so high an onion of yourself. 

Nino, I know you and phil don't appear to like each other, but, well, I don't know.  one possible division you can make in people on the boards, or in the theory philosophy section, is those who are trying to achiee something, cause they think it's a good thing to do, and those who mock..


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And right on cue--this thread's very own court jester.  Bad timing though Nino, I have to nip out for a bit.  Just carry on though, and I'll chastize you thoroughly when I get back (that *is* what you come here for isn't it...)?


shurely "i'll bore you to tears when i get back (that *is* what you came here for isn't it...)"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Well I got not idea why you've got so high an onion of yourself.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And right on cue--this thread's very own court jester.  Bad timing though Nino, I have to nip out for a bit.  Just carry on though, and I'll chastize you thoroughly when I get back (that *is* what you come here for isn't it...)?



"Right on cue"...that's good phil, I'm becoming better acquainted with your wobbly universe. 

I look forward to you *chastising* me when you've finished your cheese steak sub.  


*Please not the correct spelling of the word 'chastise' here, not the dopey US version


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Noted, Nino, thanks.  Well done.



You're a *bit* *obsessed* don't *you* think?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you didn't recognise a pastiche of a  famous passage from the antichrist above - i see no reason to believe that you have any familarity with the great friedrich's other work.



Oh, I know The Antichrist alright.  One thing you may have noticed about it is that Nietzsche most certainly *believes* in God (for he was no fool), he just *hates* Him.  I wonder if you are cut from the same cloth?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh, I know The Antichrist alright.


i don't believe you.


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

I know my onions better than you. 

It's just a short form of the word it obviously replaced due to a typo that I found moderately entertaining. 

Phil, this thread is a waste of time, I reckon, maybe you should abandon it forthwith.  Honestly, when was anyone ever convinced of anything they didn't want to be convinced of by rational argument, and the whole thing looks so silly and is so long, that you're hardly going to get outsiders come and read the whole thing to learn something from it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> It's just a short form of the word it obviously replaced due to a typo that I found moderately entertaining.




you _are_ "the only one"!


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh, I know The Antichrist alright.



Is this on a _personal_ level? Or do you have to come to him like Him?


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

What?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> What?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> What?


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you _are_ "the only one"!



What?... one what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> What?... one what?


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

Maybe you should unpack your point a bit.  just to be sure I understand it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Maybe you should unpack your point a bit.  just to be sure I understand it.


yr the only one who found that typo in the slightest bit amusing.


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

A real talent..

you must be proud.

Eventually you'll be able to use your talent to entertain yourself.  I hope you enjoy it.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Phil, this thread is a waste of time, I reckon, maybe you should abandon it forthwith.  Honestly, when was anyone ever convinced of anything they didn't want to be convinced of by rational argument, and the whole thing looks so silly and is so long, that you're hardly going to get outsiders come and read the whole thing to learn something from it.



Just let me be completely serious for a brief moment.  I hope it won’t spoil the fun, but I’m off on a 10-day world tour on Friday, so I won’t be contributing here for a while after tomorrow.  I’ll admit that I enjoy a verbal scrap more than I probably should, but as Z-word (who has excellent ideas himself) and some others have noticed, my intent on this thread is perfectly sincere.  As I mentioned, I’m just completing the final revisions for a book along these lines, and I want it to be as accessible as possible, so I thought I’d try and explain my argument to an audience that I knew would be unsympathetic.  

I’ve been a bit surprised at just *how* unthinkingly secular the British Left is, though.  There seems to be an automatic assumption that theology is inherently reactionary, which as anyone who knows anything at all about it can tell you, is simply not true.  In fact, I believe that this *blind faith* in materialism is the major obstacle to the radical Left’s gaining any significant degree of popular support.  Most of you guys seem happy to cede religious discourse to the fundamentalist Right, which may well prove to be a fatal error, not just for the Left but for all humanity.  You really, truly, should examine your presuppositions on this matter, and I know that I’ve convinced a few people to do exactly that.  OK, serious mood over, back to the flame fest…


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> A real talent..
> 
> you must be proud.
> 
> Eventually you'll be able to use your talent to entertain yourself.  I hope you enjoy it.


i'd be more impressed if you'd come up with that yourself.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Must be your character, then, I get it, it's cause you get a kick out of annoying people who are better than you, why?



Because envy is the only sin of which the sinner himself is unaware, obvious as it is to others.  That's one thing this thread *has* proved.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Because envy is the only sin of which the sinner himself is unaware, obvious as it is to others.  That's one thing this thread *has* proved.


yeh. in all of yr 401 posts on this thread.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> A real talent..
> 
> you must be proud.
> 
> Eventually you'll be able to use your talent to entertain yourself.  I hope you enjoy it.



He won't.  Mockery is the surest sign of misery.  Satan is a mocker.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> He won't.  Mockery is the surest sign of misery.  Satan is a mocker.


what, i'm satan now?

that's the kindest thing anyone's said to me today.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what, i'm satan now?
> 
> that's the kindest thing anyone's said to me today.



Why doesn't this surprise me?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2005)




----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 5, 2005)

> I’ve been a bit surprised at just *how* unthinkingly secular the British Left is, though. There seems to be an automatic assumption that theology is inherently reactionary, which as anyone who knows anything at all about it can tell you, is simply not true.



Don't blame your failures on others phil. You havne't even established the most basic point your theory requires, that money is 'spirit'. It's a meaningless, vague and mystical notion, whereas you promised reason.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 5, 2005)

> The most significant factor that differentiates financial value from all other ideas, and makes it unlike an idea, is its ability to *reproduce,* independently of human intervention. The only other non-living thing that can do this is linguistic significance and, as I shall demonstrate in the second half of my proof, language and financial value turn out to be two manifestations of the same thing.



No, financial value, like linguistic significance, rises or falls as a result of aggregated exchanges made by the humans whose tools they are.


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Don't blame your failures on others phil. You havne't even established the most basic point your theory requires, that money is 'spirit'. It's a meaningless, vague and mystical notion, whereas you promised reason.



This depends on what you mean by -establish.  As far as I know, to establish that some entity is a member of some other set of entities, you have to show that it has the characteristics normally associated with members of that other set of entities.  

As far as I can tell, that's what phil's trying to do, and has done: he's told you the characteristics of things that are identified as spirits, and he's told you the characteristics of financial value,  and, well, the onus now seems to be on the rest of you to point out why that doesn't show that money is a spirit, without resorting to arguments like, - spirit to me has never meant the kind of thing that money means to me, so I can't believe they are the same thing,- which though it may be psychologically accurate, doesn't really make any argument.  

But as far as I can tell, Jo, despite your shining intellect, you don't really have anything to say on the subject at all, as I think you've made it fairly clear that you don't believe in spirits at all.  You've got phil trying to show that financial value, if correctly understood, will be seen to belong in the family of entities correctly designated by the concept -spirit- but, you, you don't believe in spirits, so for you, there aren't any actuallly existing entities correctly designated by the concept, spirit, you can't argue with phil, because, you've got nothing to say to him, as far as you can tell, he's using words that don't mean anything?  At least as far as I can tell, 

Am I right, or is it more complicated? Do you think "spirit" means anything at all, - do you think it's a coherent concept, that just fails to have any application in "reality", or do you think it's an incoherent concept?  

And if by any chance you're humble enough to think that possibly the majority of human beings who've ever lived haven't been talking sheer nonsense when they talked about spirits, i.e. it is a coherent concept, then why don't you engage with the argument, tell us what the concept is, and show why financial value is not a species of spirit?


----------



## 118118 (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Am I right, or is it more complicated? Do you think "spirit" means anything at all, - do you think it's a coherent concept, that just fails to have any application in "reality", or do you think it's an incoherent concept?


Its possible that it is a "coherent concept". But yeah, well to me I see no argument for the existence of spirit as a immutable substance. The fact that alot of dead Christians believed in it isn't enough, and believing it "had application to reality" as a basic substance might beg the question for the existence of the devil or God somewhat.

There clearly are coherent arguments for the existence of physical things and mind, I would think that 'spirit' is stretching it a bit.


----------



## ZWord (Oct 5, 2005)

I've never yet heard an argument for the existence of any "physical" things that seemed plausible to me.  
Do you know any?  Honestly, I don't believe there are such things as physical things, can you prove that they really exist?

And even if there were, I'm fairly sure you're not going to claim that financial value is a physical thing.  

If spirit is a coherent concept, what is the concept?  

And if anyone involved in this thread is actually interested in advancing their understanding, then it seems to me that the thing to do is to work out what - -spirit- means, or what it's meant to mean, even if there is no entity that is actuallly spirit, and then see whether what phil calls financial value has the necessary characteristics.  As far as I can see, if you do the first, and then financial value turns out to have the necessary characteristics, then people are perfectly justified in claiming it's spirit, and the only reason people would disagree is prejudice.  I can see why you might say that calling it spirit is stretching it a bit, the key sticking point might be the issue of mentality?  

But as far as I can tell, the issue has hardly been honestly debated here, most people already "knew" that phil was talking bollocks as soon as he started, and the idea of calling money a spirit is so alien, that it doesn't need to considered.  That's just my perception of how most people who've contributed seem to operate.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 5, 2005)

Are you really Phil posting under a pseudonym?

Just wondering ...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> This depends on what you mean by -establish.  As far as I know, to establish that some entity is a member of some other set of entities, you have to show that it has the characteristics normally associated with members of that other set of entities.
> 
> As far as I can tell, that's what phil's trying to do, and has done: he's told you the characteristics of things that are identified as spirits, and he's told you the characteristics of financial value,  and, well, the onus now seems to be on the rest of you to point out why that doesn't show that money is a spirit, without resorting to arguments like, - spirit to me has never meant the kind of thing that money means to me, so I can't believe they are the same thing,- which though it may be psychologically accurate, doesn't really make any argument.
> 
> ...



Aye ZWord, you're quite right.  Perhaps its partly my fault for adopting a somewhat arrogant tone as a defense, but I think most people would have done the same, or much worse, if faced with the barrage and blockade of blind, stonewalling rejectionism that has been my lot here.  Not that it was unexpected, as I've said, and they're not bad people--society really *is* to blame.  Our society indoctrinates especially people of a certain class (let's call them the "bourgeoisie" for shothand) into materialism extremely effectively, and we've seen just how effectively right here.  People who've obviously never even considered the issue, and who actively don't *want* to consider it, who find considering it a dreadful strain on their psychological resources, will rally round materialism in *exactly* the same way that people in previous ages, or in other socieites, will rally around religious faiths: with fanaticism, with fervour, and above all with hostility towards those they consider heretics.  Its been quite instructive, I must say.

As you say here, Jo/Joe is one example, but he's hardly the worst culprit.  I'll single out Nino, again, just because I don't think he really minds, and in fact he probably enjoys it, but he's not the only one either.  Nino has repeatedly said (when he can be induced to say *anything* substantive at all) that he doesn't *need* to take my ideas seriously because he *knows* "for a fact"--a phrase he's repeated several times--that God is a fantasy.  It would be strange if it weren't so clearly the product of capitalist ideology.  I mean, what the *hell* is it about the world that makes anyone think that God's nonexistence is an obvious "fact?"  Is it that you can't see, touch or taste God?  Well how stupid is that?  Very stupid indeed, obviously.  And then when it is patiently demonstrated to them that the entire world is *ruled* by financial value, a power that can certainly not be perceived by the senses, they will quibble and cavil endlessly--and I do mean endlessly--and run round in futile circles in their attempts to deny that power's supernatural provenance.

But perhaps the most ludicrous spectacle we've witnessed here has been numerous self-proclaimed "Marxists" ridiculing the most basic ideas of Marx, as expressed in Capital.  Now, most of them clearly didn't *know* they were Marx's ideas until I told them so, which is revealing in itself.  But the *reason* they didn't know this is yet more instructive: they assumed, in their ignorance, that Marx was a materialist, and therefore that he couldn't possibly have believed that financial value was a supernatural force.  This is the legacy of Leninism, as I've explained both here and in print.  It fully confirms the argument that Soviet Communism was *not* the opponent of capitalism, but was in fact an allied, supplementary and necessary alibi for capitalist thought.  The sight of In Bloom (for whom I actually have a great deal of affection) in total *shock* at being informed that Marx was influenced by Martin Luther is especially pertinant here.  He's a bright enough lad, he just didn't *know,* no-one had ever *told* him.  I hope that my work will go some way towards remedying this situation.     

But its your last paragraph above that really hits the nail on the head.  Any atheist is faced with what seems to me the insurmountable task of explaining how the *vast* majority of people who have ever lived--and indeed the vast majority of people living today--have believed in metaphysical categories like God, spirits and so on.  Their only recourse, usually, is simply to declare that everyone except Westerners of the last two centuries or so have been stupid, deluded or mad.  Well it seems to me that this is *self-evidentally* a ludicrous position to hold, and that the onus of proof is very much on the materialists.  And, as we've seen, this is a burden that they are quite incapable of shouldering.  Now, as William Blake put it: Enough!  Or Too Much!


----------



## 118118 (Oct 5, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> the thing to do is to work out what - -spirit- means, or what it's meant to mean, even if there is no entity that is actuallly spirit, and then see whether what phil calls financial value has the necessary characteristics.  As far as I can see, if you do the first, and then financial value turns out to have the necessary characteristics, then people are perfectly justified in claiming it's spirit



To me it seems that a concept must be shown to be real (or valid) before the concepts comparision with a entity can add to our knowldege of the entity. I could create a concept, call it X, whose meaning is in part that it is not perceptable to God, and green . I could then show that because grass is green, it is likely not perceptable to God.
No-one can argue that it isn't part of the meaning of concept X to be invisible to God, because I invented the concept. I am justtified in calling grass concept X because it is green, and is hence justified in saying it is invisible to God.
Do you see what I'm getting at.
So one would need an argument not only that Phil is using the concept correctly - that he is correct in its meaning, but also for the reality or validity of 'spirit'.

Besides, if fv had some of the characterstics of spirit, then it would still not be, conclusively, spirit.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Are you really Phil posting under a pseudonym?
> 
> Just wondering ...



Hey Trashpony.  No, he's not me.  You might find it hard to believe, but I'm not the only one.  Actually several people (you know who you are) who've been dismissive on this thread have been quite interested in my ideas via PM.  Not you though, worse luck.  Did you go to Lake Titicaca then?


----------



## 118118 (Oct 6, 2005)

...


----------



## gurrier (Oct 6, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Are you really Phil posting under a pseudonym?


More like phil posting after a few bongs.   

Zword, the big problems with phil's definition of financial value as a spirit are the following:

1) his choice of the defining characteristics of 'a spirit' are arbitrary and chosen to fit his conclusion (for example, even people who believe in spirits don't normally believe that 'malign influence' is a defining characteristic of them).  

2) the defining characteristics of his 'spirit' are broad enough to encompass a large number of abstractions

3) he has ignored the fact (pointed out probably hundreds of times with examples and evidence) that financial value can not be modelled as an autonomous agent.


----------



## laptop (Oct 6, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> financial value ... modelled as an autonomous agent.



  If possible and applicable, that would mean it will be the financial value of my next pair of glasses that will *make* them have a certain price?

Strewth. Now you put it like that... 

* Goes off to change Financial Value's idea, nay its very *logos*, about the price of a small island in the Caribbean and a boat to get there *


----------



## gurrier (Oct 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Aye ZWord, you're quite right.  Perhaps its partly my fault for adopting a somewhat arrogant tone as a defense, but I think most people would have done the same, or much worse, if faced with the barrage and blockade of blind, stonewalling rejectionism that has been my lot here.  Not that it was unexpected, as I've said, and they're not bad people--society really *is* to blame.  Our society indoctrinates especially people of a certain class (let's call them the "bourgeoisie" for shothand) into materialism extremely effectively, and we've seen just how effectively right here.  People who've obviously never even considered the issue, and who actively don't *want* to consider it, who find considering it a dreadful strain on their psychological resources, will rally round materialism in *exactly* the same way that people in previous ages, or in other socieites, will rally around religious faiths: with fanaticism, with fervour, and above all with hostility towards those they consider heretics.  Its been quite instructive, I must say.


Since the unhappy day that you arrived on this site, you have churned out a steady stream of anti-darwinist propaganda.  Your very first post on this section was a woefully ill-informed and fanatical attack on Dawkins, and you have repeatedly gone on about that individual and darwinists in general running scared ad naseum since.  Adopting the victim role and going on about the small mindedness of the people who you have been abusing (who are almost all far more intelligent than you are) is really really pathetic.  

I think you are on a recruitment mission for some loopy religious sect.  Or maybe it's just your supernaturally large ego (which is the only supernatural entity that has been proved on this thread - but what a proof).


----------



## lidlenooney (Oct 6, 2005)

*Do Me A Favour*

Faith,a figment,an easy solution,to an age old problem. If it dont exsist then why not give it a name, but it has no name,so the sooner thoughts of faith and gods stop then so will the search.Then division will sease to exsist.


----------



## lidlenooney (Oct 6, 2005)

*i wont t tell u a story..quote[max buygraves]god!*

WELL the name chosen is wrong.Rational proof.it'll never work..plus it dos'nt help having an almost audible monotone speach.To create the idea of an alturnative sollution to a nosence question such as god ,faith n everything is very telling indeed.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Since the unhappy day that you arrived on this site, you have churned out a steady stream of anti-darwinist propaganda.  Your very first post on this section was a woefully ill-informed and fanatical attack on Dawkins, and you have repeatedly gone on about that individual and darwinists in general running scared ad naseum since.  Adopting the victim role and going on about the small mindedness of the people who you have been abusing (who are almost all far more intelligent than you are) is really really pathetic.
> 
> I think you are on a recruitment mission for some loopy religious sect.  Or maybe it's just your supernaturally large ego (which is the only supernatural entity that has been proved on this thread - but what a proof).



Rather than respond to this reckless old man in his own mean-spirited invective, I shall allow my magnanimity to shame his spite.  Gurrier’s insatiable appetite for discord and conflict are best allowed to tell their own sad story.  For what clearer contrast could there be between the joyful, heartfelt lovers of Truth and the twisted acrimony of the mockers?  Allow me to complement you, Gurrier, on your knowledge of Darwin, which comfortably equals your knowledge of Marx.   Your contributions to this and other threads have more than served their purpose, and I graciously thank you for them.  You may consider yourself more than welcome to engage me in debate at any time, and I have no doubt that your efforts will meet with the same success as you have hitherto achieved.  I wish you the very best of luck, and I look forward to our next engagement with the keenest possible anticipation.


----------



## gurrier (Oct 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Rather than respond to this reckless old man in his own mean-spirited invective, I shall allow my magnanimity to shame his spite.  Gurrier’s insatiable appetite for discord and conflict are best allowed to tell their own sad story.  For what clearer contrast could there be between the joyful, heartfelt lovers of Truth and the twisted acrimony of the mockers?  Allow me to complement you, Gurrier, on your knowledge of Darwin, which comfortably equals your knowledge of Marx.   Your contributions to this and other threads have more than served their purpose, and I graciously thank you for them.  You may consider yourself more than welcome to engage me in debate at any time, and I have no doubt that your efforts will meet with the same success as you have hitherto achieved.  I wish you the very best of luck, and I look forward to our next engagement with the keenest possible anticipation.


 oh me oh my, caught one did you phil?


----------



## 118118 (Oct 6, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> the thing to do is to work out what - -spirit- means, or what it's meant to mean, even if there is no entity that is actuallly spirit, and then see whether what phil calls financial value has the necessary characteristics.  As far as I can see, if you do the first, and then financial value turns out to have the necessary characteristics, then people are perfectly justified in claiming it's spirit


I see the need of some kind of argument showing a rational (or an empirical) association between being malign/powerful and the other properties of spirit, for example being irreducible; otherwise the concept of spirit is meaningless and could not be used to advance our knowldege of fv. As we can create any concepts we like, their meaning to us says nothing about the way the world really is. It would have to be more than the correct meaning of the concept of spirit, the meaning of spirit would have to be real or rationally correct: the properties attributed to spirit would have to be shown to rationally co-occur.
Do you see what I'm saying


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 6, 2005)

> Our society indoctrinates especially people of a certain class (let's call them the "bourgeoisie" for shorthand) into materialism extremely effectively, and we've seen just how effectively right here. People who've obviously never even considered the issue, and who actively don't *want* to consider it, who find considering it a dreadful strain on their psychological resources, will rally round materialism in *exactly* the same way that people in previous ages, or in other societies, will rally around religious faiths: with fanaticism, with fervour, and above all with hostility towards those they consider heretics. Its been quite instructive, I must say.



I've never really been clear on what you actually mean by materialism. I would say that I subscribe to a form of hierarchical reductionism ontologically speaking, but with the reservation that an understanding of system-theoretic ideas like self-organisation and emergence/connectionism are probably essential tools for understanding the natural and social world. It seems to me to be a worldview of elegant clarity and simplicity, and I don't notice any undue cognitive dissonance involved in using it to model actual events. Moreover, it's capable of providing a platform for concrete political action - something that appears to be woefully lacking in statements such as this. 

I have two main concerns about your line of thinking in general; I really wonder whether renouncing the ability to make testable predictions in favour of an understanding of the world that is so intensely metaphorical is an advantageous exchange, and I'm wary of a genealogy that yokes such an unjustified proportion of the whole edifice of modern culture to the ideology of the free market, as the only practical effect of this manoeuvre is to make the problem of market capitalism seem even more intractable than it in fact is.


----------



## laptop (Oct 6, 2005)

* Stands at desk and applauds *


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 6, 2005)

I can't believe that this is actually going to beat the bolshevismva anarchism thread.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 6, 2005)

ZWord is phil's floozy...it's official.


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 6, 2005)

Since the fat lady seems to be doing her vocal warmups, I may as well post a conclusion on where I stand.

I am still convinced it is impossible to prove/disprove the existence of a god with logic.  Phil promised to show that god is a prerequisite of logic, and therefore must exist if logic does.  I don't feel he has achieved this.

I am also struggling to understand the difference between an 'idea' and a 'spirit'*.  All it would take for me to get this would be a single trait of 'spirit' that all and only spirits posess, a defining characteristic if you will.

As phil never got on to the conclusion of his argument, I can't really judge if it is convincing or not; my intuition tells me it probably won't be for me, but I don't think you can justifyably claim an idea is wrong if you haven't actually heard it.

Conclusion: Insufficient data to decide.**

*the way phil means it.
**and after nearly 2000 posts, that's impressive.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 6, 2005)

Logic and [blind religious] faith are incompatible and irreconcilable.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 6, 2005)

> I can't believe that this is actually going to beat the bolshevismva anarchism thread.



Who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 6, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Logic and [blind religious] faith are incompatible and irreconcilable.



Yeah, but if it can be proven logically that logic requires god's existence for it to exist, then faith is no longer necessary...


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 6, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> Yeah, but if it can be proven logically that logic requires god's existence for it to exist, then faith is no longer necessary...



Unless you dismiss God as a figment of the imagination.


----------



## parallelepipete (Oct 6, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> Yeah, but if it can be proven logically that logic requires god's existence for it to exist, then faith is no longer necessary...


But then if faith is no longer necessary, and [if] logic cannot be assumed to be a valid tool until god's existence has been established, then how will you decide if a god exists? Rolls of a die?

e2a the 'if' in brackets


----------



## exosculate (Oct 6, 2005)

*shakes head in disbelief*


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 6, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> logic cannot be assumed to be a valid tool until god's existence has been established



Why? (serious question)


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 6, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Unless you dismiss God as a figment of the imagination.



If God is a figment of the imagination, it's existence can't be proved logically as it doesn't exist.

But you can't prove it either way with just logic, and I shall continue to believe as such until someone convinces me otherwise


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> If God is a figment of the imagination, it's existence can't be proved logically as it doesn't exist.
> 
> But you can't prove it either way with just logic, and I shall continue to believe as such until someone convinces me otherwise


atheism knows phildwyer's had enough time to prove his point - and if it can't be done in 400+ posts on a thread dedicated to the topick, it simply can't be done.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 6, 2005)

*rejoins thread for one post*

I emailed Dawkins the URL for this thread, and the 'Darwinists Running Scared' ones for a laff...


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 6, 2005)

That would be


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> *rejoins thread for one post*
> 
> I emailed Dawkins the URL for this thread, and the 'Darwinists Running Scared' ones for a laff...



I suspect he's already posting here under the name "Nino Savatte"...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?



If twere done when tis done then twere well twere done quickly.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I've never really been clear on what you actually mean by materialism. I would say that I subscribe to a form of hierarchical reductionism ontologically speaking, but with the reservation that an understanding of system-theoretic ideas like self-organisation and emergence/connectionism are probably essential tools for understanding the natural and social world. It seems to me to be a worldview of elegant clarity and simplicity, and I don't notice any undue cognitive dissonance involved in using it to model actual events. Moreover, it's capable of providing a platform for concrete political action - something that appears to be woefully lacking in statements such as this.
> 
> I have two main concerns about your line of thinking in general; I really wonder whether renouncing the ability to make testable predictions in favour of an understanding of the world that is so intensely metaphorical is an advantageous exchange, and I'm wary of a genealogy that yokes such an unjustified proportion of the whole edifice of modern culture to the ideology of the free market, as the only practical effect of this manoeuvre is to make the problem of market capitalism seem even more intractable than it in fact is.



Good post.  Let me address the implications of my ideas for political action--this was originally going to come at the end of my proof, but that is still quite a long way off, and its a fair question.  First, there can *never* be any compromise between capital and labour, for these forces are logically opposed, and one is the antithesis and negation of the other.  This contradiction is the modern form of the struggle of life against death (capital being dead labour, and labour being life itself), and of good against evil.  All right-thinking people should be struggling to bring about the victory of labour over capital.

The fact that capital does not exist ought to make it easy to abolish it.  And yet, in my view, both revolutionary and democratic socialism have had, and have missed, their historical opportunities to do this.  I don't think capital can be abolished by force, or voted out of existence.  It may very well be that capital will destroy human life--for that is certainly what it *wants* to do--within two or three decades.  In fact, I believe that this is the most likely outcome of human history.  The only alternative, as I see it, is a collective decision taken simultaneously by the whole human race, to cease *believing* in capital.  Since it only exists in our minds (I take it we all agree about this, no matter whether we call it an "idea" or a "spirit"), nothing more than a collective act of will is necessary to kill it.

As I say, I don't think this is very likely, but it would not be unprecedented.  As we have seen on this thread, large numbers of people have decided, more or less simultaneously, to cease believing in God.  Massive, seemingly inexplicable changes in human belief *do* occur, regularly, suddenly, and very often when they are least expected.  That's the cause I'm going to spend my life working towards.  I anticipate that lots of you will now scornfully say that material action is necessary to abolish capital.  You have my every sympathy, and I wish you the best of luck.  I would like nothing better than to see a world socialist revolution.  But I simply don't believe its possible.  Try and prove me wrong.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 6, 2005)

Jesus there's some shite on this thread but that post excelled even your high standards of waffling bollocks.

'The fact that capital does not exist ought to make it easy to abolish it.'

Would this be the same as an atheist hating something they don't believe exists?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Jesus there's some shite on this thread but that post excelled even your high standards of waffling bollocks.
> 
> 'The fact that capital does not exist ought to make it easy to abolish it.'
> 
> Would this be the same as an atheist hating something they don't believe exists?



Not sure I follow you here.  Are you claiming that capital *does* exist?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Not sure I follow you here.  Are you claiming that capital *does* exist?



In physical form? Yeah, if you go to the bank and withdraw a load of paper money...as a metaphor for 'people that own and run stuff' yes again.

If something doesn't exist you can't abolish it phil. If capital doesn't exist, what would you suggest we call 'capitalism'? 'Demonism'?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 6, 2005)

NONONOONONONOO!

*unsubscribes*


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I suspect he's already posting here under the name "Nino Savatte"...



You need to work on your 'wit', it stinks. But I suspect you have said this in order to pick another fight...predictable as clockwork.

Tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock...


----------



## Crispy (Oct 6, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> NONONOONONONOO!
> 
> *unsubscribes*




..... and then they pull you back in


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> In physical form? Yeah, if you go to the bank and withdraw a load of paper money...as a metaphor for 'people that own and run stuff' yes again.
> 
> If something doesn't exist you can't abolish it phil. If capital doesn't exist, what would you suggest we call 'capitalism'? 'Demonism'?



Yes, that's exactly what I've been arguing.  Paper money *isn't* capital, as I've patiently and meticulously explained.  Capital doesn't exist in any material form: its existence is supernatural, of the same nature as Satan's existence.  It/he exists only in our minds.  They can be abolished in the same sense that an illusion can be dispelled.  Kyser, no offence, but we've been through this a hundred times on this thread, maybe you should go back and have a look before sticking your oar in?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You need to work on your 'wit', it stinks. But I suspect you have said this in order to pick another fight...predictable as clockwork.



Actually I thought you'd take it as a compliment.  What have you got against Dawkins?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 6, 2005)

Fruitcake


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

Your agenda is showing, Nino.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Your agenda is showing, Nino.



And your love of creationism is showing...not just on this thread but the other, wonderful but provocatively titled "Darwinists running scared".

I had a better image but it was over 9k...shame...it rather summed you up.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 6, 2005)

This thread


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> And your love of creationism is showing...not just on this thread but the other, wonderful but provocatively titled "Darwinists running scared".
> 
> I had a better image but it was over 9k...shame...it rather summed you up.



Really Nino, kindly conceal your agenda more thoroughly.  Its too early in the morning here to be confronted with your agenda quite so blatantly.  Can you really be unaware of Foucault's fierce strictures against the open display of agendas before 2pm?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Really Nino, kindly conceal your agenda more thoroughly.  Its too early in the morning here to be confronted with your agenda quite so blatantly.  Can you really be unaware of Foucault's fierce strictures against the open display of agendas before 2pm?



You sound just like the tossers that I've argued with on Delphi Forums: "Your bias is showing". A variation perhaps but original? I *don't* think.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You sound just like the tossers that I've argued with on Delphi Forums: "Your bias is showing". A variation perhaps but original? I *don't* think.



Nino, you have mistakenly tucked your agenda into your underpants.  The entire room is staring at your agenda.  Please return to the bathroom and put your agenda back where it belongs.  Your agenda is just what I wanted to look at while having my lunch--I *don't* think!


----------



## stdPikachu (Oct 6, 2005)

Hands up anyone who thinks phildwyer is the Ed Wood of bulletin boards.


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nino, you have mistakenly tucked your agenda into your underpants.  The entire room is staring at your agenda.  Please return to the bathroom and put your agenda back where it belongs.  Your agenda is just what I wanted to look at while having my lunch--I *don't* think!



It's funny because 'agenda' sounds just like 'penis'


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> It's funny because 'agenda' sounds just like 'penis'



Pudenda.


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Pudenda.



Isn't that a type of cabinet?


----------



## Crispy (Oct 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Capital doesn't exist in any material form: its existence is supernatural, of the same nature as Satan's existence.  It/he exists only in our minds.  They can be abolished in the same sense that an illusion can be dispelled.



So when we abolish capital, God will cease to exist?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 6, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nino, you have mistakenly tucked your agenda into your underpants.  The entire room is staring at your agenda.  Please return to the bathroom and put your agenda back where it belongs.  Your agenda is just what I wanted to look at while having my lunch--I *don't* think!



...said the naked emperor.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2005)

stdPikachu said:
			
		

> Hands up anyone who thinks phildwyer is the Ed Wood of bulletin boards.



Ed Wood? Yep, this thread *does* rather remind me of the clusterfuck known as "Plan 9 from Outer Space".


----------



## 118118 (Oct 7, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> the thing to do is to work out what - -spirit- means, or what it's meant to mean, even if there is no entity that is actuallly spirit, and then see whether what phil calls financial value has the necessary characteristics.  As far as I can see, if you do the first, and then financial value turns out to have the necessary characteristics, then people are perfectly justified in claiming it's spirit


You seem to think that if fv meets some of the criterea for being a spirit then we are justified in calling it a spirit, and hence that spirit is real. But the entire concept of spirit must be shown to be real, not just bits of it, or anything could prove anything.A statement that says, X is A and Y is B, is not proved by X being A; or any statement could prove any other, as we could buckle together any two statements of which one is unproved, hence proving it, which is essentially what you have done to make 'spirit'.

That fv meets some of the critera for spirit would only argue for the existence of a "spirit" that had the properties of fv, we could not argue for the existence of a spirit with any additional properties e.g. irreducible, devil-like, unless there was an argument for spirit being these things that showed that these properties were rationally coinstantiated. This would have to be based on more than what the concept means, which is simply convention.

So unless you have an argument for spirit being malign and irreducible that isn't just based on "thats what spirit means" you can't say that becasue fv is malign it is irreducible.

To me this "proof" would seem to boil down to "alot of people a long time ago believed that X was like this" (the devil is malign), though they had no rational reason to believe that their concept of the devil was real (that some things were malign, does not prove it), or that being the devil and being malign co-occur.

Money is evil. The devil is evil (can't argue with that, part nof our concpet of the devil). Therefore money is the devil. Therefore the devil exists. Therefore God exists.

Or. My lunch is nice. The flying spagetti monster is nice (can't argue with that, part of our concept of the flying spagetti monster). Therefore my lunch is the flying spagetti monster. Therefore the flying spagetti monster exists.

This is the exact same argument.

You have to show that the flying spagetti mnonster is more than a coherent concpoet, you have to show that there is reasonable reason to believe that things which are made if spagetti can fly (that the properties we ascibe to it go together, again not just appealing to the meaning of the concept), or that the concept is real in its entirity (not just that the property of being nice is a real property, as you have done with 'spirit').

One would have to show either being malign and being irreducible rationally co-occur, or that 'spirit' is a real concept in its entirity to rationally beleive that fv is spirit.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Ed Wood? Yep, this thread *does* rather remind me of the clusterfuck known as "Plan 9 from Outer Space".



What *is* a "clusterfuck," oh Violent one?  You seem like the sort of chap who would know...


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

Are you looking for a clusterfuck?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

Hey Teejay, welcome back.  You going to the PROD on October 15?  I am.  I'll introduce myself, shall I?


----------



## 118118 (Oct 7, 2005)

This isn't just my imagination is it.
For this to be valid: fv is malign. spirit is malign, therefore fv is spirit (and as fv exists, spirit exists); one needs a prior argument for spirit being real. _Or any additional properties ascribed to fv by the comparision is meaningless_, and you have not proved the existsnce of spirit in any way other than the realness of the property of malignancy, nor have you proved the realness of any further properties of fv.
It really seems the same structure as the flying spagetti monster is nice (its part of the concept of the monster, it is not that it is shown be the case that being nice, omnipotent and being able to fly rationally co-occur), my dinner is nice, therefore my dinner is the flying spagetti monster, my dinner exists, therefore the monster exists.
You are begging the question, I think. For the existence of spirit or the devil.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

I might be going - if so I will probably recognise you from your photo that you have on your university website. Maybe you can explain what kind of law suit you had in mind over a pint or two?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I might be going - if so I will probably recognise you from your photo that you have on your university website. Maybe you can explain what kind of law suit you had in mind over a pint or two?



Sure, I'll be delighted.  I'll recognize you too.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

How come?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> How come?



Heh. Never Googled yourself?  You should try it sometime.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

You mean Googled "TeeJay"?

I can't see anything on the first 10 pages of Google image or keyword searches that has anything to do with me - and the same thing applies when I use my real life name as well.

Don't go jumping on random strangers now "phil"!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You mean Googled "TeeJay"?
> 
> I can't see anything on the first 10 pages of Google image or keyword searches that has anything to do with me - and the same thing applies when I use my real life name as well.
> 
> Don't go jumping on random strangers now "phil"!



I won't do to you what you did to me, but you might want to look at the "self-destructive young females" page.  I'll recognize you alright.  But don't worry, I'm a really nice guy.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

Snatching defeat from the jaws of success: Self-destructive behavior as an expression of autonomy in young women

Are you trying to tell us something phil?

Results 1 - 10 of about 271,000 for self-destructive young females. (0.13 seconds)


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

What exactly did I "do" to you again? You're the one banging on about your books and articles, have posted details here about where you work - and due to your peculiar views and unique 'style' it doesn't take too much effort to work out who you are - and therefore find your biography and photograph posted on the web, although its far more interesting and relevant to actually read some of your articles/essays. Someone will have to check that you haven't ripped off whole chunks of this thread in your new book as well.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Snatching defeat from the jaws of success: Self-destructive behavior as an expression of autonomy in young women
> 
> Are you trying to tell us something phil?
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 271,000 for self-destructive young females. (0.13 seconds)



I'm trying to be subtle, because I don't think its healthy to give away people's RL ID.  In fact, I *know* its not.  But since you've evidently fogotten that you posted this, think *suicidal* young females...


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

You're deliberately trying to tell/hint to people where to look to find out my real life identity? Hmmm. Didn't you throw a fit when I accidentally did that and got banned for it?

Seems like you think there are one set of rules for you and one set for everyone else.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What exactly did I "do" to you again? You're the one banging on about your books and articles, have posted details here about where you work - and due to your peculiar views and unique 'style' it doesn't take too much effort to work out who you are - and therefore find your biography and photograph posted on the web, although its far more interesting and relevant to actually read some of your articles/essays. Someone will have to check that you haven't ripped off whole chunks of this thread in your new book as well.



Oh believe me, I will--that's the whole point of the thread.  And I've always said, and I'll say again, that I'll tell anyone who PM's me who I am.  But posting it on these boards without my permission is against the rules: both the rules of this board and my own personal rules.  Just stay within these rules and we can be friends.  Do we have a date for the 15th?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Sorry I really don't know what you are talking about. Send me a PM if you want.



Aaargh!  Girls, kill, selves--internet dating site, your pic, all over page, close up, puckered mouth, other pics of you drinking beer, ringing any bells, can you really have forgotten posting it?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

Ah, I see you've got it now.  Nice alternative pic, BTW!  So you know that I know who you are.  So we're even.  See you next Saturday.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> So we're even


Except I got banned for two weeks for doing that.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> <personal info about another board member removed>
> 
> I see.  You think he'll appreciate you giving that info out here?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Hehe.
> 
> By the way, this *isn't* me:
> 
> ...



I'm not going to terrorize anybody, don't be so silly.  Anyway, <name of innocent board member removed> is much better looking than you...


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

I trust you will remove his name. I will remove the image link now, so that noone can put the two together.

Edit: I can see you still have a link to the person's photo.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

It's good to see that you have removed the personal details of another urbanite from your two posts. In your effort to "expose" photos of me you seem to have misidentified me. It's not the done thing to put names to photographs btw.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Actually I edited that post removing the username and linked to the image instead - so now the only person putting out the information is you in your quote.
> 
> I trust you will remove his name. I will remove the image link now, so that noone can put the two together.



I will indeed remove it.  In future, though, I strongly suggest that you *think very carefully* before you post stuff like this, TeeJay.  It would save you an awful lot of trouble...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What a shame. It's always nice having someone looking out for dates etc.
> 
> I'm not really bothered at all about anything I post on Suicide Girls - or here for that matter - since I assume that it is on public display, although having had another look at that photo I have decided that I can do much better. I can't remember ever having posted my real life name either there or here tho'.
> 
> Nice bit of research there, although I still don't believe that you got that through Googling "TeeJay". Maybe you saw me mention SG here?



Hey, if someone's going to research me... well, two can play at that game, and I can play it very well indeed.  Shall we agree to leave it at that then?


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

I can see that you are not going to edit your posts then. Still want to try and tell everywhere where to go and find out lots of information about me? At least don't tell everyone that some other poor sod is me! 

How about getting back on topic?

So this satan thing...

...where did you invent that from again?


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

This quoted from the very first post on this thread:



			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Feel free to ask questions or to raise any objections at this stage, because we will not be retracing our steps as the argument progresses.


You pretty much fucked that up didn't you phil! 

(unless of course you accept that the argument hasn't actually progressed)


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

>


Pickman's, I sometimes wonder what would fill the void in your life if this guy fell off a mountain or something unfortunate.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> ..... and then they pull you back in


Isn't it just.

A real slow-down-for-the-car-crash type thread.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Isn't it just.
> 
> A real slow-down-for-the-car-crash type thread.



Yes, but the crash was between a Mini and a moped, yet thousands of burning people are staggering from the wreck. Odd...


----------



## 118118 (Oct 7, 2005)

I really feel that to say that X is a Y, you would have to previously show that Y is a real concept, otherwise you could not go further than the infomation already contained in X. So in this example you have to show that spirit is a real concpet, or you are not justified in using it to futher our knowldege about fv.
Or this argument is actually valid: tfsm is nice. my dinner is nice. therefore tfsm is my dinner. my dinner exists. therefore tfsm exists.
I think thats what Zword was saying about the existence of spirit. Though he did not actually use it to argue explicitly for its existence, just that fv was it.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2005)

I reckon the probability of our George 'falling off a mountain or something unfortunate' is quite high actually.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2005)

Is this a fair summary of the last page or so - Teejay returns from ban seething and determined to get someone banned for the same offence that he commited - fails miserably - edits all his posts a few hours later when he fiannly realises this.

Can i also predict that we'll never hear the end of his moans about being banned?


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2005)

Teejay: stop acting like a twat and get over it.


----------



## slaar (Oct 7, 2005)

It must be said that, as anti-capitalist arguments go this is one of the more, well, imaginative.


----------



## Santino (Oct 7, 2005)

Phil, from where I'm standing 118118 has completely shot your argument down. Are you going to even acknowledge his posts?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2005)




----------



## Doomsy (Oct 7, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Phil, from where I'm standing 118118 has completely shot your argument down. Are you going to even acknowledge his posts?



I've shot his argument down loads of times without response  

Damn FSM conspiracy, just mention his noodly appendages and you all rally round...

You all just want to silence any theological theory which doesnt involve the FSM, you fundamentalist zealots.  Well it won't work on me, I'll continue to think that it doesn't matter if god exists no matter how many times you strike me down!


----------



## gurrier (Oct 7, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> I've shot his argument down loads of times without response
> 
> Damn FSM conspiracy, just mention his noodly appendages and you all rally round...
> 
> You all just want to silence any theological theory which doesnt involve the FSM, you fundamentalist zealots.  Well it won't work on me, I'll continue to think that it doesn't matter if god exists no matter how many times you strike me down!


Are you taking his name in vain   

* sharpens cutlass *


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 7, 2005)

uh-oh, I'm the target of a noodly fatwah   

*goes into hiding*


----------



## ZWord (Oct 7, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> You seem to think that if fv meets some of the criterea for being a spirit then we are justified in calling it a spirit, and hence that spirit is real. But the entire concept of spirit must be shown to be real, not just bits of it, or anything could prove anything.A statement that says, X is A and Y is B, is not proved by X being A; or any statement could prove any other, as we could buckle together any two statements of which one is unproved, hence proving it, which is essentially what you have done to make 'spirit'.
> 
> That fv meets some of the critera for spirit would only argue for the existence of a "spirit" that had the properties of fv, we could not argue for the existence of a spirit with any additional properties e.g. irreducible, devil-like, unless there was an argument for spirit being these things that showed that these properties were rationally coinstantiated. This would have to be based on more than what the concept means, which is simply convention.
> 
> ...



Well, I don't think the idea that financial value is spirit is provable.  I think at best it can be shown to be a plausible idea.  But I'm generally convinced of the uncertainty of all inferences.  I'm not sure whether that's what Phil thinks, but I seem to remember him saying earlier, that he thought it was "best described as" spirit.  

But I was thinking along the lines of, if it quacks like , etc etc, then it's a duck,  probably. 

I would be the last person to suggest that -the devil is malign, - money is malign- therefore money is the devil - is a sound argument.  But I've never included malign as part of my concept of spirit, and i@m kind of surprised to hear you have.  

But simply, I would have thought, if there's no case at all for saying that financial value is spirit, or is best described as spirit, then it ought to be very easy to show that, you simply show the properties of spirit in one column, and the properties of financial value in the other, and show what they lack in common.  

It's fairly easy.  (Though I must say, I did expect some genius like Jo to do this,) I'll start you off, if you like, with my rough explanation of the concept, --spirit-, for what it's worth.  

Spirit is a word that's generally held to mean a non-corporeal substance, that can inhabit a material body, but whose existence does not depend on the material body it inhabits, and can continue despite the destruction of the material body.  

Then some questionmarks: 

? A spirit should also have a mentality, or be a consciousness ?
(and how do we tell when some entity has mentality?)
? A spirit, being a substance, should be the cause of its own existence, not dependent on anything else for its existence.  ?


----------



## parallelepipete (Oct 7, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> Why? (serious question)


I wasn't suggesting that logic could not be assumed to be valid unless a god existed; I was drawing a (mistaken) conclusion from your post that _you_ were saying that.

My mistake! 

*retires with headache*


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 7, 2005)

parallelepipete said:
			
		

> I wasn't suggesting that logic could not be assumed to be valid unless a god existed; I was drawing a (mistaken) conclusion from your post that _you_ were saying that.
> 
> My mistake!
> 
> *retires with headache*



*comes out of hiding* 

Ah, ok then.

*looks around for Flying Spaghetti Mafia*

*goes back into hiding*


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2005)

I think that phil's actual argument (not wanting to prejudge the issue) is that financial value is something immaterial (in this case an idea) that has agency, and that this is his definition of a 'spirit'.


----------



## ZWord (Oct 7, 2005)

Doesn't sound completely implausible to me.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Is this a fair summary of the last page or so - Teejay returns from ban seething and determined to get someone banned for the same offence that he commited - fails miserably - edits all his posts a few hours later when he fiannly realises this.
> 
> Can i also predict that we'll never hear the end of his moans about being banned?



Yes, you have discerned the situation accurately.  I just had a lovely night's sleep, and now I wake to find that he's changed all earlier his posts, no doubt in an effort to obscure what actually transpired during last night's shenanigans.  Its still not that hard to work out the series of events though, if anyone is actually mad enough to bother.  Right, I'm going back to bed for a bit--can you guys actually let me *sleep* at least?


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 7, 2005)

yeah, stop posting so loud you inconsiderate sods


----------



## gurrier (Oct 7, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> yeah, stop posting so loud you inconsiderate sods


* cutlass wielding noodly appendage wriggles towards doomsy *


----------



## parallelepipete (Oct 7, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I think that phil's actual argument (not wanting to prejudge the issue) is that financial value is something immaterial (in this case an idea) that has agency, and that this is his definition of a 'spirit'.


Isn't this whole thing immaterial?

*burns in financial hell*


----------



## ZWord (Oct 7, 2005)

Sounds quite likely.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes, you have discerned the situation accurately.  I just had a lovely night's sleep, and now I wake to find that he's changed all earlier his posts, no doubt in an effort to obscure what actually transpired during last night's shenanigans.  Its still not that hard to work out the series of events though, if anyone is actually mad enough to bother.  Right, I'm going back to bed for a bit--can you guys actually let me *sleep* at least?


 The trick with teejay is to quote his posts back straightaway because he _will_ dishonestly change them if he get's on the losing end of things.


----------



## Demosthenes (Oct 7, 2005)

This is ridiculous, trying to prove the existence of God is a lost cause.  

Either you know it from your own experience, or else you don't.  

And money is not the devil, Bush and Blair are, surely everyone knows that.


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 7, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> * cutlass wielding noodly appendage wriggles towards doomsy *



Ypres!*

*goes back into hiding*






*French for 'eep'


----------



## Purdie (Oct 7, 2005)

Demosthenes said:
			
		

> This is ridiculous, trying to prove the existence of God is a lost cause.
> 
> Either you know it from your own experience, or else you don't.
> 
> And money is not the devil, Bush and Blair are, surely everyone knows that.



And they go to church     I wonder if Phil does?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> The trick with teejay is to quote his posts back straightaway because he _will_ dishonestly change them if he get's on the losing end of things.



Right, I should have thought of that.  But to be quite honest, it simply never occurred to me that anyone would be so low.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Phil, from where I'm standing 118118 has completely shot your argument down. Are you going to even acknowledge his posts?



I'd love to, but I have to catch a plane in a couple of hours, and I've got some running around to do first.  I'll be travelling pretty continuously for the next ten days, so I won't be online.  I'll gladly return to answer all objections if this thread hasn't died of natural causes before I get back.  If it has, well, thanks everyone.  Its been great fun, I've learned a lot, and I think I've taught a fair bit too.  I'll make sure U75 gets a plug in the book.  Tata for now...


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right, I should have thought of that.  But to be quite honest, it simply never occurred to me that anyone would be so low.


I'm going to take editor's advice and not bother with you any more, although it is not surprising that you are lying through your teeth about this as about so much.

I won't however take any lessons in being low from you - urban75's very own Professor Cunt.

But then again, now that ernesto is no more, I suppose we do need one someone to fill the roll of uber-troll and all-round gadfly.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Teejay: stop acting like a twat and get over it.



Really gotta run Teej, this is my response too though.  You know it makes sense.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2005)

i only wish it did.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'd love to, but I have to catch a plane in a couple of hours, and I've got some running around to do first.  I'll be travelling pretty continuously for the next ten days, so I won't be online.  I'll gladly return to answer all objections if this thread hasn't died of natural causes before I get back.  If it has, well, thanks everyone.  Its been great fun, I've learned a lot, and I think I've taught a fair bit too.  I'll make sure U75 gets a plug in the book.  Tata for now...


But what are we all going to do! 

Maybe you could hold a "God" masterclass at PROD?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 7, 2005)

> This depends on what you mean by -establish. As far as I know, to establish that some entity is a member of some other set of entities, you have to show that it has the characteristics normally associated with members of that other set of entities.



Z-word. Clearly, in this case, it means an agreement has been reached between a number of parties about the meaning of something. Let's not pretend otherwise.



> But as far as I can tell, Jo, despite your shining intellect, you don't really have anything to say on the subject at all, as I think you've made it fairly clear that you don't believe in spirits at all. You've got phil trying to show that financial value, if correctly understood, will be seen to belong in the family of entities correctly designated by the concept -spirit- but, you, you don't believe in spirits, so for you, there aren't any actuallly existing entities correctly designated by the concept, spirit, you can't argue with phil, because, you've got nothing to say to him, as far as you can tell, he's using words that don't mean anything? At least as far as I can tell,




This is one of the most useless paragraphs I've ever read. Phil has failed to prove or 'establish' that financial value is 'spirit'. I am open to a convincing argument, but there isn't one on offer. You clearly do believe in spirits, which doesn't make your intellect shine at all, it's just a feeling you have. I've asked phil what I think are very pertinent questions. Others have made similar points. phil ignores them, prefering to address posts that won't get his 'theory' into trouble. 

You may disagree with the nature of my questions, seeing as your the closest thing phil has to an ally, but it doesn't mean I've nothing to say no the subject does it? Better a single, incisive contribution then a half dozen paragraphs that cannot respond to it. You wouldn't confuse quantity and quality anywhere else, why here?

I think the world would be more interesting is 'spirits' existed, I just don't think they do.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 7, 2005)

> And if by any chance you're humble enough to think that possibly the majority of human beings who've ever lived haven't been talking sheer nonsense when they talked about spirits, i.e. it is a coherent concept, then why don't you engage with the argument, tell us what the concept is, and show why financial value is not a species of spirit?



If I'm humble enough? Are you humble enough to stop throwing implicit insults around? People used to believe all sorts of things that were not true. That's doesn't make them stupid, it just means they had access to less knowledge then we do now. Spirit is a redundant concept in the sense that you use it.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 7, 2005)

Does phil remind anyone else of a pbman/bigfish/drjazzz monster hybrid?


----------



## gurrier (Oct 7, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Does phil remind anyone else of a pbman/bigfish/drjazzz monster hybrid?


Maybe, but a monster hybrid whose ego glands were bitten by a radioactive spider at birth.  That's just about right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Does phil remind anyone else of a pbman/bigfish/drjazzz monster hybrid?




can such things be?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 7, 2005)

Yep, you're right about thosae glands. The other 3 don't have that problem.

phil is actually trolling me on other threads, should I feel honoured?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Yep, you're right about thosae glands. The other 3 don't have that problem.
> 
> phil is actually trolling me on other threads, should I feel honoured?



Heh, sure Jo/Joe.  I just have to say, before I jump in my cab, that (although I'd never admit it in the heat of the argument) most of the people I quarrel with here have won my respect, over the weeks.  But *you* seem like a truly *cowardly* person, and that is a quality I seriously despise.  Everyone esle is arguing out of true conviction--misguided in my view, but still, I can respect that.  You're not.  What you're doing, here and on other threads, is *piling on* when several other people have already criticized a poster you perceive as vulnerable.  I've seen you do it with the three people you single out above: pbman, Dr. Jazzz and bigfish, as well as many others.  Its not a pretty sight.  Actually, you might not even know how obvious it is, in which case consider this a special favour from me to you.  Mmmwah!


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 7, 2005)

Like you phil, they refuse to answer direct questions. And, like you, they dish it out but can't take it.

Thanks for the attention though, an obvious sign of wounding.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> before I jump in my cab


jump! jump!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Does phil remind anyone else of a pbman/bigfish/drjazzz monster hybrid?



I was thinking more of him being a clone of that weird sod who posted in this forum last year with his "novel" (read "bizarre") interpretations of the works of Nietzsche etc. Can't remember the guy's username, but he had much the same high-handed attitude as phildwyer, and the same ego the size of a barrage balloon, accompanied by a soul the size of a mouse's cock.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> jump! jump!



OK, OK, I'm going.  This really *will* be my last post on this thread for at least ten days, and quite possibly ever.  I didn't want to go out on a sour note, so I'll say again that this really has been fun and, most of all, instructive for me.  This thread has helped me clarify some ideas I was wrestling hard with, and I'll always be grateful for that.  I mean it when I say that the vast majority of my opponents here have won my respect.  You yourself, Pickman's, seem like a good laugh.  In Bloom seems like a really nice guy.  Gurrier's obviously a total bastard, but he believes what he believes, and you've got to respect his tenacity.  Nino's a funny old stick, but probably alright at heart.  I can tell ViolentPanda's a decent sort.  Brainaddict: hope you're doing alright.  Who else... well, anyone I've forgotten is probably alright as well.  ZWord, you're a diamond, and we think alike.  I'd better go before we get all teary-eyed here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2005)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2005)

Bloody cheek!   

"...decent..."


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 7, 2005)

What a sad exit, in more ways then one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> What a sad exit, in more ways then one.



He'll be back.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 7, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> What a sad exit, in more ways then one.



Ah, Jo/Joe, you feeling left out mate?  Alright: I salute your indefatigibility.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2005)

See?


----------



## exosculate (Oct 7, 2005)

OK whose up for the rational proof of phildwyers exit?


----------



## 118118 (Oct 8, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> But simply, if there's no case at all for saying that financial value is spirit, or is best described as spirit, then it ought to be very easy to show that, you simply show the properties of spirit in one column, and the properties of financial value in the other, and show what they lack in common.



My point is that if spirit is considered a real concept, then sure it is fv if it meets the criterea. But to have accept that one would have to accept that spirit is a real conecpt.

_That fv is best desceibed as a spirit is meaningless if spirit is not shown to be real._ Do you agree?




			
				ZWord said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think the idea that financial value is spirit is provable.  I think at best it can be shown to be a plausible idea.


I'm not saying that its a practical impossibility. But I thought that it was quite an important step on the way to proving God, so an argument would be needed.


----------



## 118118 (Oct 8, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> OK, OK, I'm going.  This really *will* be my last post on this thread for at least ten days, and quite possibly ever.


  




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I think that phil's actual argument (not wanting to prejudge the issue) is that financial value is something immaterial (in this case an idea) that has agency, and that this is his definition of a 'spirit'.



But to say that fv is spirit, don't you have to show that fv meets all the critera for spirit (which would thus not add to what we know about fv at all, it would just be putting a name to an entity) or that concept spirit is real (and we could thus generalize fv having other properties of spirit).

Otherwise, what we know to be true about entites is just limited by our ability to make definitions for concepts for example: I have a criterea for something, that is invisible to God and Green (though I have no evidence that this is a real concept), grass is green, therefore grass is invisible to God - a conclusion soloely brought about because we have a criterea for the concept

So calling fv spirit cannot in any way advance the argument (which certainly includes, that as it is a spirit it is the devil) unless spirit is previously shown to be real.

*Looks confused and asks lecturer for help*


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 8, 2005)

phil, the last word. I just had it.

Note that phil thought I'd felt left out, when the post in question was obviously constructed with me in mind.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 8, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I was thinking more of him being a clone of that weird sod who posted in this forum last year with his "novel" (read "bizarre") interpretations of the works of Nietzsche etc. Can't remember the guy's username, but he had much the same high-handed attitude as phildwyer, and the same ego the size of a barrage balloon, accompanied by a soul the size of a mouse's cock.


Was that the smae bloke who was a fan of Rand or am I confusing two different nutters?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2005)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> He'll be back.



Aye up.  I just got to Cardiff, and guess what: its raining.  Going to see the Alabama 3 this evening.  I definitely will be back with more God soon, but only have computer access for two minutes now.  Later all.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 8, 2005)

I knew he wouldn't be able to leave it.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> I knew he wouldn't be able to leave it.



Seems like you can't leave it either!  We're stuck here together *forever.*  The horror, the horror...


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 8, 2005)

I've been sat here waiting for you.


----------



## 118118 (Oct 9, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think the idea that financial value is spirit is provable.  I think at best it can be shown to be a plausible idea.
> 
> But I was thinking along the lines of, if it quacks like , etc etc, then it's a duck,  probably.


Yes but if you have no evidence that ducks are real things (and you don't seem to have an argument for the reality of spirit) then if it quacks you have no reason to believe that it is a duck. If you want to advance our knowledge the quacking thing with the defition, you have to argue for the existence of ducks first.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2005)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> Was that the smae bloke who was a fan of Rand or am I confusing two different nutters?



That's the fella. He had some micro-membership forum where he and his mates debated. He used to get extremely irate if any of us dared question his pontifications.


----------



## MysteryGuest (Oct 9, 2005)

I'm all for irrational proofs of god's existence.  They certainly liven things up, as long as not too many people get killed.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 10, 2005)

> Was that the smae bloke who was a fan of Rand or am I confusing two different nutters?



That did occur to me too:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3611132&postcount=1701

Don't reckon it's the case though, although politically there are definite similarities.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 10, 2005)

I wonder what songs Phil will treat us to at Prod? I just hope it's not fucking Cliff Richard.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2005)

goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> I wonder what songs Phil will treat us to at Prod? I just hope it's not fucking Cliff Richard.



Sizzla, "Bus out a Dis" and Capleton, "Tour."  Anyway, I'm a but unsure as to how to proceed with this thread now.  I'm on the road, so will have very limited internet access for the next few days.  I also fear that this thread has been so comprehensively sullied and polluted by the hypocrites and backbiters that few will venture to read it in its entireity.  It also seems that, until I have destroyed the basic empiricist assumptions of our "scientific" friends, we will never be free of their carping, although this manoeuver will naturally take some time.  But maybe this is a necessary preliminary to further progress towards God.  Let us therefore ponder once again the ideological connections between empirical "science" and market capitalism, the two modes of thought that dominate our world.

Each of them ignores the mediating role of representation.  The neoclassical economist denies that financial value is a representation of human labour-power, while the empirical scientist denies that the world of appearances is a representation of substantial forms.  Both discourses take the given, the appearance, the world as it is represented to us, for ultimate reality.  In fact, this identification of representation with reality is the distinguishing characteristic of postmodern consciousness.  For most of history, however, this opinion was considered the apotheosis of idolatry and magic.  It achieved respectabilty through the back door, emerging out of the self-justifying ratinalizations of more or less openly demonic magicians.

Yes, the roots of empirical science are indeed to be found in the dusty tomes of the necromancers.  Those who are familiar with the works of Dee, Aggrippa, and above all the tradition known as "Faustian Magic" will know that the dubious doctrines of Baconian investigation emerge from attempts to manipulate evil spirits through signification, incantation and ritual.  The very term "empirick," used as a noun, was originally co-terminus with "magician."  There can be no doubt that today's soi-distant "scientists" are the inheritors of yesterday's black magicians.  Their failure to distinguish between appearance and essence, which is the most elementary, the most child-like of philosophical errors, is what, more than anything, has obscured our view of God so comprehensively.  

Once I have dealt with the inevitable protests of "science's" advocates, I shall move onto the defintition of "essence," as I was asked to do a few pages back.  Or maybe I shall start another thread on How To Destroy Capital.  I'm not sure yet.  Anyway, I'll be here only for a limited time over the next week or so, so you'll have to wait.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2005)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think the idea that financial value is spirit is provable.  I think at best it can be shown to be a plausible idea.  But I'm generally convinced of the uncertainty of all inferences.  I'm not sure whether that's what Phil thinks, but I seem to remember him saying earlier, that he thought it was "best described as" spirit.
> 
> But I was thinking along the lines of, if it quacks like , etc etc, then it's a duck,  probably.
> 
> ...



Excellent post, I agree with almost everything you say here.  My argument is that financial value more closely approximates to a "spirit," as conventionally described, than to anything else--and above all that it cannot be called an "idea."  I want to point out, however, that I'm not defining *all* spirits as malign, I'm saying that financial value is a malign spirit.  As for your final two questions, value clearly does have autonomous agency, though it does not have consciousness: it works through the consciousness of human beings, but it also transcends human consciousness.  This is no obstacle to its Satanic nature, however, for Satan must also work through human consciousnsess *insofar as human beings can know him.*  

I suppose this is obvious, even tautological.  Value is just as independent of the human mind as "Satan," and neither would exist *in a form that could be recognized by human beings* if no human beings existed.  Those posters who have objected that value can't be Satan because it depends on the human mind for its existence have simply misunderstood the nature of Satan.  Secondly, value is *not* "the cause of its own existence," but neither is Satan--as I have said before, Satan must be conceived as an aspect of God, a messenger angel equal in status to Gabriel or Michael.  I don't see that your questions problematize my identification of financial value with the devil.


----------



## slaar (Oct 10, 2005)

We're all ears phil, I can't wait for you to single-handedly reverse the last half-millenium of human development with one single succint, cohesive and coherent written argument. In fact with every post this thread gets closer to that masterpiece of similar logic and plot development, stunningly well written, the Da Vinci Code.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 10, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> We're all ears phil, I can't wait for you to single-handedly reverse the last half-millenium of human development with one single succint, cohesive and coherent written argument.



You over-estimate the longevity of atheism, a tellingly common error among atheists.  You fail to understand just how anomalous atheism is in human history.  The first atheist philosophers were d'Holbach and Condillac, who lived a mere two and a half centuries ago, and their ludicrous ideas didn't become common curency for a hundred years after their deaths.  You simply equate "human development" with the last two centuries of Western bourgeois ideology.  How arrogant is that?  Especially when that ideology has *also* facilitated the genocide of three entire continents, the enslavement of the rest of the world, the development of nuclear weapons and the destruction of the environment.  Mere coincidence?  Or an indication of the triumph of metpahyiscial Evil?  You tell me...


----------



## Santino (Oct 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Mere coincidence?  Or an indication of the triumph of metpahyiscial Evil?  You tell me...


There's a false dilemma if ever I heard one.


----------



## laptop (Oct 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The first atheist philosophers were d'Holbach and Condillac, who lived a mere two and a half centuries ago,



* cough *

Gautama Buddha

* cough *


So, it's a specifically Christian agenda Phil has here, with the attendant falsification of history... this is just the first counter-example that comes to mind, avoiding a debate about, say, the theology (or not) of the wonderfully-named Chinese school of philosophy Mo Ti and the Mostists...


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Oct 10, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> * cough *
> 
> Gautama Buddha
> 
> ...




Eh? Buddha

Why would Phil be a Christian?


----------



## laptop (Oct 10, 2005)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Eh? Buddha?



A *very* well-known atheist. Not a believer in any god.




			
				RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Why would Phil be a Christian?



His argumentation is increasingly showing the fraudulent style of Christian theodicy... attempting to argue how the existence of a good or benevolent God is reconciled with the existence of evil.


----------



## gurrier (Oct 10, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> His argumentation is increasingly showing the fraudulent style of Christian theodicy... attempting to argue how the existence of a good or benevolent God is reconciled with the existence of evil.


Yep, that's why I still suspect that he is on a recruitment mission for some loopy jesus cult.  

Everything that he argues seems to be premised on the belief that until the renaissance, there was nothing but christianity.  In particular he ignores all eastern philosophies and ancient greece and rome.  

One could add Epicurus to the list of ancient atheists as well as various others.  Roman society, too, for the first few centuries of the empire became largely  atheist, at least among the educated classes.  

Phil, a question.  Are you  a member of any religious / spiritual / theist organisations?


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Especially when that ideology has *also* facilitated the genocide of three entire continents, the enslavement of the rest of the world, the development of nuclear weapons and the destruction of the environment.


Phil, I submit to you:

The *Western Christian* doctrine of Manifest Destiny, which was used to justify the genocide of the Native American nations
The role of the Catholic church in helping to establish and prop up authoritarian, quasi-fascist regimes all over the world
Ronald fucking Reagan
The Isreal-Palestine conflict
Genesis 1:28 and its usefulness in justifying enviromental destruction

I really don't think you can blame atheism for the worlds problems and to categorise the bourgoisie as exclusively atheist is not only hopelessly wrong, but painfully irrelevant.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 10, 2005)

I reckon the underlying problem that you've all identified is the sudden switch from facts to values that describes the (IMO non-existent) financial-value-that-is-neither-exchange-or-use-value as malign. Is it intrinsically malign, or is this just an empirical judgement? It seems to me that the argument is either flawed or weak, depending on which of these you choose.


----------



## Santino (Oct 10, 2005)

Don't forget the crusades.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Oct 10, 2005)

The Buddha emphasized that he was not a god, he was simply enlightened. He stated: *there is no intermediary between mankind and the divine*; 

According to one of the stories in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1), a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons, immediately after his Enlightenment, the Buddha was wondering whether or not he should teach the Dharma. He was concerned that, as human beings were overpowered by greed, hatred and delusion, they would not be able to see the true dharma which was subtle, deep and hard to understand. *A spirit*, Brahma Sahampati, however, interceded, and asked that he teach the dharma to the world, as "there will be those who will understand the Dharma". With his great compassion, the Buddha agreed to become a teacher.

These are quotes from your Wikipedia link, he may not have been a God but certainly believed in spirits and a divine being. AFAICS not an atheist.


----------



## laptop (Oct 10, 2005)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> The Buddha ... certainly believed in spirits and a divine being. AFAICS not an atheist.



That's arguable. 

As I said, he was merely the first example to come to mind of an atheist (or at least a-theist) philosopher. Epicurus is another, excellent example - but I couldn't remember his name offhand  

The point is that Phil is falsifying history for theological ends, and is demonstrated.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 10, 2005)

I don't reckon the Buddha was a theist. Animist maybe, but then who wasn't?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Each of them ignores the mediating role of representation. The neoclassical economist denies that financial value is a representation of human labour-power, while the empirical scientist denies that the world of appearances is a representation of substantial forms. Both discourses take the given, the appearance, the world as it is represented to us, for ultimate reality.



The neo-classical economist makes no statements at all about financial value as you've described, as they don't use any such concept. Neither does science make any claim about 'ultimate reality' - can you give us an example of such a statement?


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 10, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Epicurus is another, excellent example - but I couldn't remember his name offhand


IIRC, Epicurus wasn't an atheist as we'd define it, he did accept that deities were a possibility, he just regarded them as irrelevant to human existence.  Hence in modern terminology, he was more of a humanist than an atheist.

But since the age of an idea has absoutely nothing to do with its validity, its all a bit irrelevant


----------



## slaar (Oct 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You over-estimate the longevity of atheism, a tellingly common error among atheists.  You fail to understand just how anomalous atheism is in human history.  The first atheist philosophers were d'Holbach and Condillac, who lived a mere two and a half centuries ago, and their ludicrous ideas didn't become common curency for a hundred years after their deaths.  You simply equate "human development" with the last two centuries of Western bourgeois ideology.  How arrogant is that?  Especially when that ideology has *also* facilitated the genocide of three entire continents, the enslavement of the rest of the world, the development of nuclear weapons and the destruction of the environment.  Mere coincidence?  Or an indication of the triumph of metpahyiscial Evil?  You tell me...


Right.

So religious ideology had nothing whatsoever to do with the crusades, burning witches and the disenfranchisement of women, the Spanish conquest and pillage of Latin America, colonial endeavours with associated missionaries to Africa. I could go on, but do I really have to join the dots?



> *Originally Posted by phildwyer*_
> Mere coincidence? Or an indication of the triumph of metpahyiscial Evil? You tell me..._


As for this. What a ridiculous false dichotomy. I'm coming round to laptop's view of your style of argument / debate / rhetoric.


----------



## stdPikachu (Oct 10, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You over-estimate the longevity of atheism, a tellingly common error among atheists.  You fail to understand just how anomalous atheism is in human history.  The first atheist philosophers were d'Holbach and Condillac, who lived a mere two and a half centuries ago, and their ludicrous ideas didn't become common curency for a hundred years after their deaths.  You simply equate "human development" with the last two centuries of Western bourgeois ideology.  How arrogant is that?  Especially when that ideology has *also* facilitated the genocide of three entire continents, the enslavement of the rest of the world, the development of nuclear weapons and the destruction of the environment.  Mere coincidence?  Or an indication of the triumph of metpahyiscial Evil?  You tell me...



I also find it odd that your methodology here is entirely hypocritical.

Firstly, if an ideology is as valid as it is old (a ridiculously specious argument at best) then surely the best is barbaric feudalism? And the best religion is Pagan polyheism? Both have been around for a heck of alot longer than any of the stuff you're basing your "argument" on.

Secondly, as pretty much everyone with their head screwed on has already mentioned, religion has been responsible for some of the bloodiest conflicts in known history. The fact that religion, atheism, capitalism, socialism and pretty much every sociopolitical ideology I can think of have been responsible for bloody conflicts would seem to point out that people are the inherent problem.

It also seems to me that you're equating the "evils" of capitalism with the "evils" of atheism, since I seem to interpret your post to mean that western capitalism in wholly responsible for WW1 and 2, the Cold War, etc, in the context of atheist philosohers. Can you explain your reasoning please? Preferably in a way that doesn't involve you doing your token "you're too stupid to understand my perfect brain" riposte.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 10, 2005)

Again, total misrepresentations of other people's input, and a refusal to take responsibility. Is god worth it?

Next week: phil proves the earth is flat and is orbited by the sun.


----------



## 118118 (Oct 10, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I don't reckon the Buddha was a theist. Animist maybe, but then who wasn't?


From my A-level Buddhist text book I have kicking around, one of the things you can be reincarnated is as one of the four great divine kings, "foremost of the planetary dieties" (if you do not long for pleasure for yourself and do not rejoice in possesions). so, he taught that the diety real was one of the realms one can be born into (like animal or human). There is a kinda creation myth, but the universe is not created like in the bible by one perfect being.

I don't see how reconciling God with evil will actually proove God to many people. There doesn't seem to be any other coherent kind of proof here. To convince me that spirit exists someone is gonna have to do more than find something which meets part of our definition of it...

Or all statments about an object confirms every other


----------



## laptop (Oct 10, 2005)

stdPikachu said:
			
		

> if an ideology is as valid as it is old



He's not alone...




			
				article in New Scientist said:
			
		

> The most generous of the [far-right/Creationist] Discovery Institute's donors to date is philanthropist Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson... Ahmanson's wife Roberta, who sits on the Institute on Religion and Democracy board, believes that the church should be giving *equal weight to the views of dead Christians* when it makes policy decisions. "If you take the weight of Christianity for 2000 years, all that weight is on the orthodox side," she told _The New York Times_ last year.
> 
> (subscriber link)


----------



## stdPikachu (Oct 10, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Next week: phil proves the earth is flat and is orbited by the sun.



I'll offer better than that; stdPikachu proves that phildwyer's brain occupies a hitherto unknown continuum of space/time.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Yep, that's why I still suspect that he is on a recruitment mission for some loopy jesus cult.... <snip>.... Phil, a question.  Are you  a member of any religious / spiritual / theist organisations?



No.  As I've said many, many times, I regard all organized religion as the Antichrist.  And this would be a pretty odd, and highly unsucessful, "recruitment mission," now wouldn't it?  Gurrier is clearly incapable of imagining that anyone could believe in God on the basis of their own research and reasoning, and without any ulterior motive.  This proves conclusively that he has never even thought about the matter.  Anyway, there are lots of interesting points made in the last page.  I'm sorry to keep saying I'll get back to them later, but that's the best I can do.  I'm off to Amsterdam, where I will be preaching the Doctrines of Dwyerism from the backroom of the Bulldog.  Geen problemje.


----------



## Doomsy (Oct 11, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Gurrier is clearly incapable of imagining that anyone could believe in God on the basis of their own research and reasoning, and without any ulterior motive.  This proves conclusively that he has never even thought about the matter.



If he is incapable of imagining it, he could think about it all he likes and still hold his current view.

Unless thinking about it is an action which automatically imparts a new cognitive ability upon the thinker?

Is this 'proof' as 'conclusive' as the one the thread title refers to, Phil?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 11, 2005)

> backroom of the Bulldog.



Noooo! Go to the grasshopper! Or get the hell out of the Centrum.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 11, 2005)

Is it over yet?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Is it over yet?



We can live in hope!


----------



## slaar (Oct 11, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Is it over yet?


Sadly not. We need some divine intervention. Unfortunately that can't come until phil has proved the existence of the divine, which he is yet to do. I smell a dead end.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 11, 2005)

Phil?


----------



## gurrier (Oct 11, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No.  As I've said many, many times, I regard all organized religion as the Antichrist.  And this would be a pretty odd, and highly unsucessful, "recruitment mission," now wouldn't it?


Nah, wedge strategy, innit.  You've already pointed to the fact that jesus freaks have a good 'ol tradition of lying about it. 




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Gurrier is clearly incapable of imagining that anyone could believe in God on the basis of their own research and reasoning, and without any ulterior motive.



* concentrates hard *

* image of village idiot starts to form in head *

* realises error of ways *

Ok, I accept that you could be a perfectly genuine idiot, without any ulterior motive.    




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> This proves conclusively that he has never even thought about the matter.


As it happens I have.  In fact I used to be a priest.    

Nah, just lying.  




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm off to Amsterdam, where I will be preaching the Doctrines of Dwyerism from the backroom of the Bulldog.  Geen problemje.


Does that mean that we'll be hearing from Zword and Azrael23 soon?


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 11, 2005)

*Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!*

Final and absolute proof that the FSM's noodley appendage touches us all:
http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html


----------



## 118118 (Oct 12, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No.  As I've said many, many times, I regard all organized religion as the Antichrist.  And this would be a pretty odd, and highly unsucessful, "recruitment mission," now wouldn't it?  Gurrier is clearly incapable of imagining that anyone could believe in God on the basis of their own research and reasoning, and without any ulterior motive.  This proves conclusively that he has never even thought about the matter.  Anyway, there are lots of interesting points made in the last page.  I'm sorry to keep saying I'll get back to them later, but that's the best I can do.  I'm off to Amsterdam, where I will be preaching the Doctrines of Dwyerism from the backroom of the Bulldog.  Geen problemje.


I've been making the same point for days.
You seem to be arguing that:
Fv cannot be any other type of thing which makes up the world, so it must be made of a new type of thing; it meets some of our criterea for the definition of sprirt, so this new type of thing must be, spirit. 
I can't remember what we reason fv to be from its description as spirit, but I assume that you use knowledge of how spirit is, and hence how fv is, to argue for the existence of God in some way.
But I could invent any term that could explain what fv is: as long as part of its meaning was that from what we know about fv, fv could be it; why would we be any more sure that 'spirit' better describes fv than my new concept? Of course I could make sure that by describing fv as A we learn further about what fv is like (Invisible to God, conscious, it belongs to me) from simply explaining that it is part of the meaning of the term A that it is these things (I assume thats what your saying).
So you have to further justify the particular inference of: it cannot be an idea or material thing, so it must be spirit. There must be something particular about 'spirit' that means we can say that fv is spirit, while we cannot say fv is A. 
I would say that you have to show that 'spirit' is actually a real concept if you want to, reason from its description as such.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 12, 2005)

There are only two reason why anyone goes to Amsterdam.


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2005)

Tulips and Van Gogh?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 12, 2005)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Tulips and Van Gogh?




No, the canals and the Rijksmuseum. 

The trams aren't too bad either, though not as nice as the ones in Lyon.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 12, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Nah, wedge strategy, innit.  You've already pointed to the fact that jesus freaks have a good 'ol tradition of lying about it.




What do you want me to do, trample a crucifix?  If someone says they're not a Christian, then they're not a Christian.  You see conspiracies everywhere, you nutter.  Anyway, I actually *am* in the Bulldog now, so I have better things to do.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 12, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Anyway, I actually *am* in the Bulldog now, so I have better things to do.



Is this a euphemism, or a biblical parable?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What do you want me to do, trample a crucifix?  If someone says they're not a Christian, then they're not a Christian.  You see conspiracies everywhere, you nutter.


Ah, but you *would* claim that, wouldn't you?   


> Anyway, I actually *am* in the Bulldog now, so I have better things to do.


Such as attempting not to irritate the bulldog while you bugger it, I suspect.


----------



## Purdie (Oct 13, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What do you want me to do, trample a crucifix?  If someone says they're not a Christian, then they're not a Christian.  You see conspiracies everywhere, you nutter.  Anyway, I actually *am* in the Bulldog now, so I have better things to do.



It's quite a funny thought you sitting there in the Bulldog trying to rationalise the existence of God      I got barred for 6 months from there when i was 18 for getting too stoned.  Had to put on my sweetest face to get back in


----------



## ska invita (Oct 13, 2005)

Really good article about the psychology and genetics of religious thinking:Why do we believe in God? 
Incidentally, although I agree with the points made in the article I think it would be both bad science and premature to let the above rule out all the unknowable possibilities of creation/pre-big-bang/higher consciousness/supernature/holographic universe/etc, etc, etc,

Organised religion and religiosity are one thing, the un/knowable possibilities of a deeper nature and structure to our universe beyond our current comprehension are another.


----------



## slaar (Oct 13, 2005)

niksativa said:
			
		

> Really good article about the psychology and genetics of religious thinking:Why do we believe in God?
> Incidentally, although I agree with the points made in the article I think it would be both bad science and premature to let the above rule out all the unknowable possibilities of creation/pre-big-bang/higher consciousness/supernature/holographic universe/etc, etc, etc,
> 
> Organised religion and religiosity are one thing, the un/knowable possibilities of a deeper nature and structure to our universe beyond our current comprehension are another.


I couldn't agree more. The existence of such a power hasn't been proved in this thread though.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 13, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more. The existence of such a power hasn't been proved in this thread though.



Me too. And the history of western philosophy is a crummy toolset with which to do it.


----------



## 118118 (Oct 13, 2005)

Does your proof actually need 'spirit' or is 'spirit' just didactic?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2005)

bloody jesus will have risen from the dead _again_ before we see a proof of god, rational or otherwise, on this thread.


----------



## gurrier (Oct 13, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> bloody jesus will have risen from the dead _again_ before we see a proof of god, rational or otherwise, on this thread.


Maybe that's the proof?  This whole thread could be a holding operaton - a philibuster (boom boom) while phil negotiates the second coming.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 16, 2005)

*bump*

Any converts to phildwyerism yet?


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 16, 2005)

A conversion would be a miracle and, therefore, proof that god exists.


----------



## Negativland (Oct 16, 2005)

It's made me consider the whole debate more seriously, and to look at how I justify my atheism. In terms of proof, though, Phil seems to have barely taken the first step - all this so far seems like a decent 'story' - the devil, a spirit and the antithesis of human life seem like good analogies for financial value - but I can't see that it has been proven that these are the only correct way to look at it. As 118118 has said many a time, it needs to be defined what exactly a spirit is, shown that such a thing can exist, and that financial value must be this and this alone.

It's also put me off the asterisk for life


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 16, 2005)

Negativland said:
			
		

> It's also put me off the asterisk for life


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 17, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> *bump*
> 
> Any converts to phildwyerism yet?



Actually there have been one or two, but they're keeping it quiet.  I'll endeavor to continue my proof in a couple of days, but it may be hard to keep up the same level of acrimonious controversy now that I've actually met so many participants on this thread at PROD.  At least Gurrier wasn't there though, so I can continue to bash away at him.  Anyway, I'm off to Heathrow now, been to 6 countries in the last 8 days and am pretty knackered, but I shall return, oh yes...


----------



## Crispy (Oct 17, 2005)

Negativland said:
			
		

> It's made me consider the whole debate more seriously, and to look at how I justify my atheism. In terms of proof, though, Phil seems to have barely taken the first step - all this so far seems like a decent 'story' - the devil, a spirit and the antithesis of human life seem like good analogies for financial value - but I can't see that it has been proven that these are the only correct way to look at it. As 118118 has said many a time, it needs to be defined what exactly a spirit is, shown that such a thing can exist, and that financial value must be this and this alone.
> 
> It's also put me off the asterisk for life



*me too* at all of that as well. It's certainly all very fascinating, but pretty far off a *proof* for me.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 17, 2005)

> Actually there have been one or two, but they're keeping it quiet.



They accept god exists based on your 'proof'?


----------



## slaar (Oct 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Actually there have been one or two, but they're keeping it quiet.


Any proof of that phil?


----------



## Santino (Oct 17, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> Any proof of that phil?


Yes, but it's complicated.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 17, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> Any proof of that phil?


Their existence is defined in opposition to yours


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 17, 2005)

I've been converted, I'm afraid. I now have no doubts about the existence of Phildwyer. Or his capacity to down red wine. Hope you had a good time, Phil.


----------



## gurrier (Oct 17, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> Any proof of that phil?


Belief is powerful, malign and exists independent of people.  Therefore it is santa claus, which requires the easter bunny to exist.  Only an imbecile could fail to see how this proves the existence of converts to phildwyerarianism on this thread.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 26, 2005)

"And what doeth the saint in the forest?" asked Zarathustra.

The saint answered: "I make hymns and sing them; and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mumble: thus do I praise God.

With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God. But what dost thou bring us as a gift?"

When Zarathustra had heard these words, he bowed to the saint and said: "What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!"- And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing like schoolboys.

When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: "Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that God is dead!"


----------



## Poi E (Oct 26, 2005)

<farts loudly to clear the room>


----------



## Jo/Joe (Oct 26, 2005)

ooooarghh, what was that?


----------



## parallelepipete (Oct 27, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> ooooarghh, what was that?


That was the sound of Poi E fumigating the room to get rid of gods. Though from the smell, I think a new supernatural entity might have just come into being! 

*leaves room*


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 27, 2005)

It's unobservable yet effective, therefore it must be _geist_.


----------



## Poi E (Oct 27, 2005)

Unobservable, eh?

<lights match>


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 27, 2005)

It can't be *burning* because atoms are an invention of the capitalist reductionist Leviathan. You must have phlogiston-farts.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2005)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Belief is powerful, malign and exists independent of people.  Therefore it is santa claus, which requires the easter bunny to exist.  Only an imbecile could fail to see how this proves the existence of converts to phildwyerarianism on this thread.



Quite right. Personally speaking I am a member of the Cult of the Tooth Fairy.


----------



## slaar (Oct 27, 2005)

Proof that Alan Greenspan is Satan, and Anatole Kaletsky the Angel of Death:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-1844850,00.html


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 28, 2005)

Hmm, I don't know if I agree with any of that article. AG _is _ probably Satan, though.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2005)

Just as a kind of afterword, I've been reading a lot of apophatic theology lately.  I think its a load of bollocks--it argues that God can only be spoken of negatively, as what He is not--but it has led me to re-read the late Derrida (some of you probably know that Derrida turned to the theological "via negativa" in the last ten years of his life).  I've been particularly impressed by "Specters of Marx," which offers an excellent theological reading of "Capital."  I thought I'd post one particularly striking passage here.  Derrida is discussing the same issue as I did earlier in this thread: the fact that exchange-value (and by extension money and financial value, the powers that rule the world) are *spiritual* forces.  

The important point for my case here is that it is *not* incumbent upon those who seek to prove the existence of God to prove the existence of spiritual forces per se.  The world is demonstrably ruled by the spiritual force of money.  The only question at issue, then, is the nature of this spiritual force.  From the description of that nature, we can deduce the existence and nature of other spiritual forces, including God.  Anyway, here's Derrida.  I'll post some more later if you want, or maybe someone is already familiar with this book and would like to discuss it?   

"Marx declares that the thing in question, namely, the commodity, is not so simple (a warning that will elicit snickers from all the imbeciles, until the end of time, who never believe anything, of course, because they are so sure that they see what is seen, everything that is seen, only what is seen). The commodity is even very complicated; it is blurred, tangled, paralysing, aporetic, perhaps undecidable (ein sehr vertracktes Ding). It is so disconcerting, this commodity-thing, that one has to approach it with “metaphysical” subtlety and “theological” niceties. Precisely in order to analyse the metaphysical and the theological that constructed the phenomenological good sense of the thing itself, of the immediately visible commodity, in flesh and blood: as what it is “at first sight” (auf den ersten Blick). This phenomenological good sense may perhaps be valid for use-value. It is perhaps even meant to be valid only for use-value, as if the correlation of these concepts answered to this function: phenomenology as the discourse of use-value so as not to think the market or in view of making oneself blind to exchange-value."


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2005)

By the way, if that passage is obscure, Derrida is talking about how the exchange of two different objects (a cow and a lamb for instance) requires the ability to see the *value* of the cow in the physical *body* of the lamb.  This is the ghostly "exchange-value," which develops into money.  I discuss this in detail, to great hilarity from the "imbeciles" to whom Derrida alludes, in the first ten or so pages of this thread.


----------



## 118118 (Oct 31, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> By the way, if that passage is obscure, Derrida is talking about how the exchange of two different objects (a cow and a lamb for instance) requires the ability to see the *value* of the cow in the physical *body* of the lamb.


If I accept that knowledge of value is necesary for exhange, why would this knowledge have to come from sight, and not reason? I see no reason why something like an objects value could not be known by reason. I also see no reason why value thus known would be insufficient for exchange. If this is the case then the fact that we exchage objects is not proof that value is visible, which is what it seems that you are arguing.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 1, 2005)

> I discuss this in detail, to great hilarity from the "imbeciles" to whom Derrida alludes, in the first ten or so pages of this thread.



There was no hilarity at the idea of exchange-value, which more or less everyone on the thread accepts. The hilarity was at the expense of your third category '*value*' which is neither use- nor exchange-value, and which is definied as either 'the concept of labour' or 'labour as a totality'. Both of these are signifiers for which I'm still unable to envisage any useful referents.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> There was no hilarity at the idea of exchange-value, which more or less everyone on the thread accepts. The hilarity was at the expense of your third category '*value*' which is neither use- nor exchange-value, and which is definied as either 'the concept of labour' or 'labour as a totality'. Both of these are signifiers for which I'm still unable to envisage any useful referents.



The notion of "labour as a totality" is the means by which Marx surpasses Adam Smith's labour theory of value.  Marx understood that value was not produced by particular acts of labour, as Smith had thought, but by an *abstraction* from such acts into the general concept of socially necessary labour time (SNALT as it is know to devotees).  It is this conception of labour that is expressed in financial value.  But you're right, *no-one* on this thread understood this bit, and this was the point at which our discussion degenerated into a riotous orgy of idiot scepticism.  So look, just forget about "value," and let's talk in the imprecise but more easily grasped terms of "money."  What is money?

Money is a medium of representation that has achieved the practical power of transforming essence by changing appearance.  It is the force which turns things into what they are not.  To possess money is to possess this anti-natural, magical power.  Furthermore, quite apart from its innate capacities, money is ontologically the most unnatural force of all, because it is an externalized representation of human activity, of human life.  Money is the objectified form of subjectivity, at once the cause and the effect of conceiving of human beings as things.  Money, in short, is the power that transforms human beings into objects: death.  As Marx puts it in the 1844 Manuscripts:

"The distorting and confounding of all human and natural qualities, the fraternisation of impossibilities--the divine power of money--lies in its character as men’s estranged, alienating and self-disposing species-nature.  Money is the alienated ability of mankind. That which I am unable to do as a man, and of which therefore all my individual essential powers are incapable, I am able to do by means of money. Money thus turns each of these powers into something which in itself it is not--turns it, that is, into its contrary. (International Publishers 1975, 3.312)"

According to Marx, the effect of money on the natural, physical world is precisely magical: it over-rides the laws of nature and abolishes the distinction between fantasy and reality.  Finally, then, money is an efficacious sign (hence the Spanish word for cash, effectivo).  It is a dead symbol of human life that has achieved a fetishistic, performative power, and the effect of this power is to confuse reality with imagination, to destroy the natural essences of things, and to extinguish the entelechy (soul) of human beings.  Marx again:

"Money as the external, universal medium and faculty (not springing from man as man or from human society as society) for turning an image into reality and reality into a mere image, transforms the real essential powers of man and nature into what are merely abstract notions and therefore imperfections and tormenting chimeras, just as it transforms real imperfections and chimeras--essential powers which are really impotent, which exist only in the imagination of the individual--into real essential powers and faculties…. Since money, as the existing and active concept of value, confounds and confuses all things, it is the general confounding and confusing of all things--the world upside-down--he confounding and confusing of all natural and human qualities." (ibid.)

This is an extremely precise description of what the witch-hunters of the sixteenth century called "Satan."  It has rarely been recognized as such, partly because the manuscripts of 1844, like the Grundrisse, which expresses itself in similar terms, remained unpublished until the materialist, Soviet interpretation of Marx had calcified into orthodoxy, but also because of the ubiquitous success of the process it describes.  

We are now fully accustomed to take *appearance* for *reality,* to assume that the world as it *appears* to us is *real.*  To put it another way, we are no longer conscious of mediation, we believe that our perception of the world is immediate.  To take a medium of representation for reality is to fetishize signification as performative, to believe that signs constitute things.  Once sufficiently captivated by signs that we can no longer perceive their referents, we lapse into the supposition that anything which is not immediately perceptible is not real.  There are no longer any *res non apparens*; if anything does not appear it is nonexistent.  And this issues in the kind of blind literalism which assumes that, because we do not encounter a ruddy fellow with horns and a goatee, Satan does not exist.  As we have seen by the blind stubborness of many on this thread.


----------



## In Bloom (Nov 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Money, in short, is the power that transforms human beings into objects: death.


Well, no, not really, since they're actually still alive, you plum.


----------



## 118118 (Nov 2, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Marx understood that value was not produced by particular acts of labour, as Smith had thought, but by an *abstraction* from such acts into the general concept of socially necessary labour time (SNALT as it is know to devotees).  It is this conception of labour that is expressed in financial value.  But you're right, *no-one* on this thread understood this bit,


I dunno man, Marx was a materialist and everyone knows it. This whole thing of "we think we see evrything that can be seen, and nothing more is to be seen" is as silly as "we can't see it so its not material", which is what you seem to be saying. And what was wrong with my point two posts ago, I'm interested?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2005)

has he done it yet then?


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 3, 2005)

Where we are at the moment is that *value* is equal to Socially Necessary Abstract Labour Time. And SNALT is a malign spirit, and is thus the devil. Capiche?


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 3, 2005)

> We are now fully accustomed to take *appearance* for *reality,* to assume that the world as it *appears* to us is *real.* To put it another way, we are no longer conscious of mediation, we believe that our perception of the world is immediate. To take a medium of representation for reality is to fetishize signification as performative, to believe that signs constitute things. Once sufficiently captivated by signs that we can no longer perceive their referents, we lapse into the supposition that anything which is not immediately perceptible is not real. There are no longer any *res non apparens*; if anything does not appear it is nonexistent. And this issues in the kind of blind literalism which assumes that, because we do not encounter a ruddy fellow with horns and a goatee, Satan does not exist. As we have seen by the blind stubborness of many on this thread.



Who's 'we'? I certainly don't think of sensory data as being uniquely real, whatever that might mean. Neither does the requirement that any explanation should account for the apparent state of affairs in question without any extraneous content equate to a fetishisation of the sign AFAICS.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2005)

long story short: has god's existence been proved on this thread? y/n


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 3, 2005)

Value (as SNALT) is malign and effective, and is thus _Geist_. Since the existence of Satan (as value) requires the presence of its opposite, the big guy himself must also exist.

Convinced?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 3, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Value (as SNALT) is malign and effective, and is thus _Geist_. Since the existence of Satan (as value) requires the presence of its opposite, the big guy himself must also exist.
> 
> Convinced?




Hmm I think Phyldwyer is on the road to envisaging Nymps and Sylphs and other spirits hidden in the woods or streams.  He thinks that money because it has influence therefore is "spirit".

I think this line of argument is even weaker than the old Billy Graham idea that if an appetite exists there is something to satisfy it.  He maintained that you get thirsty and there is water, you get hungry and there is food so that as there is an appetite or for satisfaction of spiritual needs then that implies that there is Spirit.

I am off to the bank to check my spiritual capital

Hocus


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> long story short: has god's existence been proved on this thread? y/n



I think most people are now convinced that *Satan* exists.  From there it is but a short step to God, as we shall see.


----------



## Santino (Nov 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think most people are now convinced that *Satan* exists.  From there it is but a short step to God, as we shall see.


Hands up who believes in *Satan* because of this thread.

(Not I.)


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> If I accept that knowledge of value is necesary for exhange, why would this knowledge have to come from sight, and not reason? I see no reason why something like an objects value could not be known by reason. I also see no reason why value thus known would be insufficient for exchange. If this is the case then the fact that we exchage objects is not proof that value is visible, which is what it seems that you are arguing.



I'm not saying its visible.  The value of the cow must be *perceived* in the body of the lamb, but by the mind, not the eye.  However, the physical shape and appearance of objects, and even animals, and even some *people* is indeed influenced by exchange-value.  When something is produced to be exchanged, rather than to be used, it *looks* different.  But this is another matter.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Well, no, not really, since they're actually still alive, you plum.



Some are dead who seem alive, you prune.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> I dunno man, Marx was a materialist and everyone knows



No, he was not, and anyone who thinks he was is wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think most people are now convinced that *Satan* exists.  From there it is but a short step to God, as we shall see.


isn't the derivation normally the other way round?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Who's 'we'? I certainly don't think of sensory data as being uniquely real, whatever that might mean.



"We" is "most people in the West."  Most people in the West do indeed assume that the world they perceive with their senses is the "real" world.  A silly, childish error, to mistake *appearance* for *reality,* but a very common one.  Interestingly, this is the reverse of the situation of 300 or so years ago, when most Westerners believed that true reality was supersensory.  Our society, I contend, deliberately *induces* the assumption that the sensual world is real.  Now, why would it want to do that?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> isn't the derivation normally the other way round?



Well, obviously Satan derives from God, but today we can know God only through Satan.  He is the postmodern messenger angel, as Michael and Gabriel were to previous epochs.  We find ourselves in the position of Job.


----------



## TeeJay (Nov 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think most people are now convinced that *Satan* exists.


Why do you think this?


----------



## 118118 (Nov 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think most people are now convinced that *Satan* exists.  From there it is but a short step to God, as we shall see.


  Unless that step depends only on those qualities of fv that we already knew before we decided fv was the devil (malign, non material  , external to the mind etc.) then its an invalid argument. You may have proved that fv is the devil, but not that the devil is anything more than malign, non-material   , and external to the mind. Do you see what I mean.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 3, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> "We" is "most people in the West."  Most people in the West do indeed assume that the world they perceive with their senses is the "real" world.  A silly, childish error, to mistake *appearance* for *reality,* but a very common one.



Well fine, but seeing as it's the appearances of reality that actually affect us (I appear to have been hit by a falling apple), then surely constructing a framework to make sense of these appearances is a sensible thing? Just as a framework for understanding the contents of our minds (not brains, minds) is also neccessary. However, the two do not overlap - and you can't use words from one framework to describe the other.

It may well happen in the future, that we come to understand why we appear to have free will (for example) - and in the framework of understanding appearances (science), it will make perfect sense. We may even construct a theory of mind from this framework. However, it would take an non-human consciousness to confirm it - what with our science being a human invention.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Why do you think this?


Because he's a deluded, ego-maniac?


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 4, 2005)

I still don't think that fv is either inherently malign (which would imply intentionality to me, I think it's more likely inherently amoral) or that it's non-material (since it represents primarily a social fact, IMO, and social facts can still be composed entirely of material things - whatever you take that to mean - without logical incoherence, as can economic ones).


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think most people are now convinced that *Satan* exists.  From there it is but a short step to God, as we shall see.



I think most people are now convinced that you're flipped.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think most people are now convinced that *Satan* exists.  From there it is but a short step to God, as we shall see.



if there truly is a satan, how can i be sure that these reasonings of yours aren't in fact the words of the dark one, put in your mind (and thus these boards) to lead us into evil by subtlety untruths and deceitful flatteries?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 4, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think most people are now convinced that *Satan* exists.  From there it is but a short step to God, as we shall see.



_
comes to thread late sorry_

Why on earth do you think most people think that *Satan* exists? Even the Vatican have been very cagey about that, and the doctrine of Hell since the 1960's and Vatican II. The idea of an *actual* evil entity isn't taught even at Theology college


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 5, 2005)

Phildwyer

Congratulations!  You are one of the most successful trolls I have seen on these boards.  I, like many others doubtless thought that you were a self-deluded idiot who had read too much philosophy and other ideological writiing without understanding it and used a distorted view of it to conform to your pre-concieved Christian ideas.

Only now do I realise that you are slightly more intelligent than that and are in fact doing a parady of some of the more lunatic interpretations of Christianity to annoy and provoke  both the opponents and the supporters of this archaic religion.

Well done and welcome to the rational world of the atheist.  Knowing that when you die that is the end, is the only true freedom.

Hocus Eye


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 5, 2005)

Do you think the  'I can only do one post a day' stuff is because he goes round posting the same argument on hundreds of boards, all day long, v-e-r-y   s-l-o-w-l-y?  Like, it's his _mission_ in life or something?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2005)

Badger Kitten said:
			
		

> _
> comes to thread late sorry_
> 
> Why on earth do you think most people think that *Satan* exists? Even the Vatican have been very cagey about that, and the doctrine of Hell since the 1960's and Vatican II. The idea of an *actual* evil entity isn't taught even at Theology college



Hey, better late than never!  Just to clarify: what I have proved is not, of course, the existence of a red man with horns, widow peak and goatee.  That is the *symbol* of Satan, not the reality.  What I *have* proved is the existence of a powerful, nonmaterial, malign and superhuman force that is the opposite, the contradiction, the enemy and the negation of human life, and which inculcates a stupid, selfish, greedy and blind materialism into human beings.  I shall probably go into some more detail soon about the nature and qualities conventionally ascribed to Satan, and show that financial value also possesses these.  However, I am posting from the Chicago Public Library, they only allow you an hour, and I have only 14 minutes remaining, so you will have to wait.  But ask any questions you may have now, and I will get back to you--*if* I can be bothered.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Knowing that when you die that is the end, is the only true freedom.



And just how do you "know" that, fool?


----------



## 118118 (Nov 5, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Unless that step depends only on those qualities of fv that we already knew before we decided fv was the devil (malign, non material  , external to the mind etc.) then its an invalid argument. You may have proved that fv is the devil, but not that the devil is anything more than malign, non-material   , and external to the mind. Do you see what I mean.


Please reply to my post Prof  Dwyer.


----------



## TeeJay (Nov 5, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And just how do you "know" that, fool?


I know this fool* through urban75.

* (aka professor prat)


----------



## 118118 (Nov 5, 2005)




----------



## TeeJay (Nov 6, 2005)

You want me to make sense on *this* thread?


----------



## 118118 (Nov 6, 2005)

<Nervous laugh>


----------



## 118118 (Nov 6, 2005)

But please answer my Question PhilDwyer.


----------



## merlin wood (Nov 6, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Phildwyer
> 
> Well done and welcome to the rational world of the atheist.  Knowing that when you die that is the end, is the only true freedom.
> 
> Hocus Eye



Erm... that's if you *could* know such a thing, of course.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 6, 2005)




----------



## merlin wood (Nov 6, 2005)

Reckon this creature knows a thing or two, then?


----------



## merlin wood (Nov 6, 2005)

...well ok then - nuts.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Nov 6, 2005)

> "We" is "most people in the West." Most people in the West do indeed assume that the world they perceive with their senses is the "real" world. A silly, childish error, to mistake *appearance* for *reality,* but a very common one.



Then what does anything matter? Why worry about poverty, bombs or anything? Their effects are just sense perceptions, and not real. God, what an idiotic idea.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 7, 2005)

IMO, arguments of the kind 'most people believe x' are pretty meaningless without some kind of corroboration. I grew up in 'Western society' (more or less) and I've never thought of the sensory world as having any unique ontological status.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Unless that step depends only on those qualities of fv that we already knew before we decided fv was the devil (malign, non material  , external to the mind etc.) then its an invalid argument. You may have proved that fv is the devil, but not that the devil is anything more than malign, non-material   , and external to the mind. Do you see what I mean.



Yes, I do.  Its probably a bit premature to say that I've proved that "Satan" exists.  What I *have* proved is that a nonmaterial, superhuman, all-powerful, malign force exists which is the negation (the enemy) of human life.  I defy *anyone* to dispute *any* part of my proof of this.  Now, you can call that force "Bert" or "Fred" if you want to.  But I can show that its qualities correspond in the minutest detail to what the monotheist religions have called "Satan."  (I should not need to say by now, but I suppose I do, that this does not mean it has horns and a tail--obviously it does not).  So the only reason not to call it "Satan" is that this word is associated--by the kind of fools who continue to infest this thread--with a funny-looking red man with a goatee.  Why should we adapt our terminology just to satisfy these nutters?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Then what does anything matter? Why worry about poverty, bombs or anything? Their effects are just sense perceptions, and not real. God, what an idiotic idea.



Its an idiotic idea alright, but its yours, not mine.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 7, 2005)

I still don't think that SNALT is malign, all-powerful or non-material. Not malign, because that would imply intention (to me at least), not all-powerful because it is still subject to rules that aren't encapsulated in economic theories (although neo-classical economists are also wont to forget this) and not non-material because I don't think you can see it as a fundamental - it has to be explained reductively as a property of other (material) things.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Nov 7, 2005)

> Its an idiotic idea alright, but its yours, not mine.



Why don't you just explain clearly what you mean when you state that the perceived world is not real? I am sat in front of a computer. Or am I just deluded?

You peddle in philosophical snake oil.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Nov 7, 2005)

> What I *have* proved is that a nonmaterial, superhuman, all-powerful, malign force exists which is the negation (the enemy) of human life. I defy *anyone* to dispute *any* part of my proof of this. Now, you can call that force "Bert" or "Fred" if you want to. But I can show that its qualities correspond in the minutest detail to what the monotheist religions have called "Satan." (I should not need to say by now, but I suppose I do, that this does not mean it has horns and a tail--obviously it does not). So the only reason not to call it "Satan" is that this word is associated--by the kind of fools who continue to infest this thread--with a funny-looking red man with a goatee. Why should we adapt our terminology just to satisfy these nutters?



Why not use terminology appropriate to our era that is not tarnished with arcane baggage? That is what communication is. I have only ever encountered such poor use of language in people who wish to avoid their ideas being scrutinised.

And whatever nonmaterial superhuman forces you think monotheist religions believe in, there are other major religions that certainly do not. It is we in the west that seem most hung up on the existence of god, it just isn't important in Buddhism, for example, as well you know.


----------



## 118118 (Nov 8, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What I *have* proved is that a nonmaterial, superhuman, all-powerful, malign force exists which is the negation (the enemy) of human life.


Yes. Non-material


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 9, 2005)

I am not sure that the monotheistic religions all agree that Satan exists.  I think that about 25 years ago there was a debate in the C of E about it and the conclusion was that there is no individual separate spirit that you could call Satan but that there was evil.

There are I understand some interpretations of the Quran that say that there is an entity which is called Satan however but I don't know if this is mainstream official doctrine.

Also to argue as Phildwer seems to, that the existence of one thing is proof of the existence of its opposite is not particularly a characteristic of being 'rational'.  

The sum of his argument is that money is a bad thing, that is to say evil and the existence of evil suggests the existence of an evil spirit which is personified in Satan and this is supported by some monotheistic religions and further that this proves the existence of God because he is the opposite to Satan.  He seems to be saying in a roundabout way that there is a god because there are religions who say that there is a god so it must be true.

What about religions with multiple gods?  Does that mean that there must be multiple satans, and lots of different evils?

Hocus


----------



## 118118 (Nov 12, 2005)

Does this mean that God loves me, though I don't believe n him, because I oppose money - being Satan?  No hang on, because I oppose money. Do the next step of the proof, now.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 12, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Does this mean that God loves me, though I don't believe n him, because I oppose money - being Satan?  No hang on, because I oppose money. Do the next step of the proof, now.



Well I guess that if you accept the idea that somehow Satan is money then if you oppose money you must oppose Satan.  If you oppose Satan then by Phildwyer's logic you must be God.

Praise be to 118118 he is God.

And so it is written: _...in the beginning was the Number and the Number was 118118..._

Hocus


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2005)

118118 said:
			
		

> Does this mean that God loves me, though I don't believe n him, because I oppose money - being Satan?  No hang on, because I oppose money. Do the next step of the proof, now.



OK.  First, can I take it we're all now agreed that money is Satan?  (As I've explained before, the terminology is inexact, but I've learned not to offer loopholes to the secularists by worrying too much about precision in vocabulary--they'll seize on *any* excuse to quibble, as we have seen.)  Right then, now you can understand how absurd it is to speak of 'belief' or 'disbelief' in Satan: just as absurd as it is to speak of money in the same terms.  Obviously money does not 'exist,' we've proved that early in this thread.  But equally obviously, it is the most powerful force in the world.  

Like money, 'Satan' is what happens in our minds when we conceive of ourselves in a radically false way: as *objects,* rather than subjects.  But this purely psychological phenomenon is also an external force.  Let us begin the next stage of our proof by agreeing that God's existence is of the same nature as Satan's.  God is a psychological phenomenon who is also an external force.  Are you with me so far?  If so, we can begin to define the nature of God in opposition to the nature of Satan (as I have explained, today, we can only come to know God via Satan).


----------



## Jo/Joe (Nov 14, 2005)

> First, can I take it we're all now agreed that money is Satan?




No we haven't by the look of it. And please spare us the invective just because we wish to use modern terminlogy that isn't loaded with all sorts of arcane connotations.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> No we haven't by the look of it. And please spare us the invective just because we wish to use modern terminlogy that isn't loaded with all sorts of arcane connotations.



Actually this was an interesting point that you raised earlier and to which I never responded: why do I *want* to use this 'arcane' terminology?  Well, its because it can provide an *ethical* critique of the market economy, something which socialists and anarchists, and even Marxists (who offer the most coherent modern critique) seem currently incapable of doing.  The best the secular Left can come up with is a wishy-washy, vague egalitarianism, which the capitalists have no problem refuting at all.  But if we can prove (as I can and have) that money is Satan (mutatis mutandis) then this not only provides a rational *and* ethical critique of capitalism, it also opens up a massive pool of potential recruits for the Left--a pool that has been stupidly abandoned by the materialist approach taken by most socialists of the last century.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Nov 14, 2005)

If capitalism is a problem, it has to be possible to demonstrate this without arcane terminology. We need to assess the damage it causes to human life, and I think modern sciences such as neuroscience will eventually leave us in a position where it is impossible to deny the havoc wreaked upon ourselves by uncontrolled market forces. This is in addition to what we can tell without the help of a lab technician or priest. The left has carried myths of its own too, understandably to an extent, which have not helped the process.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 14, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> OK.  First, can I take it we're all now agreed that money is Satan?



No you cannot take it that we're all agreed that money is Satan.  When I wrote 


> Well I guess that if you accept the idea that somehow Satan is money


  I was ridiculing that very idea and using it to point out the stupidity of using it to prove other things to be true in the absence of real evidence.

Satan does not exist as far as there is any empirical evidence.  That money is used for bad ends does not mean that money is of itself bad either.  The problem that socialists and Marxists have with money is that only a few people have control of it and would want to re-distribute it not necessarily abolish it (although some of them would want to do so).

That the quest for money is a powerful force does not mean that it is some sort of 'spirit' nor that it is an an entity like an imagined Satan.  Money is just a convenient means of tokenising exchange of goods or services.  It is just a a token of power relations between people not a supernatural force.

Phildwyer please give up with this drivel.  By now you must be beginning to realise that you are deluded.  Whether you are self-deluded as I suspect or have been led up the garden path by someone who has the 'gift of the gab' I don't know but this thread is getting more tiresome the longer it persists.

Hocus Eye


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

What we're all agreed is that Phil Dwyer is a bit dotty.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 15, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> If capitalism is a problem, it has to be possible to demonstrate this without arcane terminology. We need to assess the damage it causes to human life, and I think modern sciences such as neuroscience will eventually leave us in a position where it is impossible to deny the havoc wreaked upon ourselves by uncontrolled market forces. This is in addition to what we can tell without the help of a lab technician or priest. The left has carried myths of its own too, understandably to an extent, which have not helped the process.



How on earth will neuroscience "leave us in a position where it is impossible to deny the havoc wreaked upon ourselves by uncontrolled market forces"?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 15, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Satan does not exist as far as there is any empirical evidence.  That money is used for bad ends does not mean that money is of itself bad either.  The problem that socialists and Marxists have with money is that only a few people have control of it and would want to re-distribute it not necessarily abolish it (although some of them would want to do so).
> 
> That the quest for money is a powerful force does not mean that it is some sort of 'spirit' nor that it is an an entity like an imagined Satan.  Money is just a convenient means of tokenising exchange of goods or services.  It is just a a token of power relations between people not a supernatural force.



You obviously haven't read any of the thread, or anything else about its subject matter.  There is plenty of "empirical evidence" for the existence of Satan, since all this means is that people have experienced him.  What you probably mean is there is no *physical* evidence or something like that.  Obviously that is true, but why you think this invalidates my case I have no idea.

The problem with money is not simply distributive, it is bad *in itself.*  (This is according to Marx among many others, not just me, in case you were wondering.  It is bad because it is alienated human activity.)  The ethical case against money runs: it is bad to alienate human activity; but money *is* alienated human activity; therefore money is bad.  Your best bet would probably be to argue that it is *not* bad to alienate human activity.  If you are capable of sustaining such an argument, which you clearly are not.  No-one has ever imagined that money "is just a a token of power relations between people" except yourself.  And it obviously is a "supernatural" force, since it has no being in nature.  Refute this as you can.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Nov 15, 2005)

> How on earth will neuroscience "leave us in a position where it is impossible to deny the havoc wreaked upon ourselves by uncontrolled market forces"?



I said 'such as..'. When you are able to describe the mental/psychological damage done to a human being by certain phenomenon then your case against it is strengthened isn't it? Or does the rise of depression not count? (Again for example). Either capitalism damages us or it doesn't. I for one, look forward to advances that describe the effects of poverty on the human mind. It's all ammo.


----------



## slaar (Nov 16, 2005)

So if lots of people ay they have seen things, that counts as empirical evidence? Like UFOs and ghosts I guess.

That's the best yet phil. Do carry on, it's amusing, but I'm firmly with Blagsta on this, you're sounding more and more nutty.


----------



## Doomsy (Nov 16, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Satan does not exist as far as there is any empirical evidence.



Nor do ideas 'exist' by your criteria, yet we are able to exchange them.  Perhaps there are things that cannot be measured?


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 16, 2005)

Perhaps they aren't things.


----------



## Santino (Nov 16, 2005)

I have yet to see any proof that money is Satan, that money is inherently evil or that alienated human activity is inherently evil.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 16, 2005)

That's the nub of the problem, IMO. Even if an ethical critique of capitalism were possible or necessary, why would you need to invoke the Devil? Personally it seems to me that the activity of capital is instrinsically amoral, and that you can have a preference for self-actualising labour rather than alienated labour without needing to think of the latter as 'eeevillll'


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2005)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> I said 'such as..'. When you are able to describe the mental/psychological damage done to a human being by certain phenomenon then your case against it is strengthened isn't it? Or does the rise of depression not count? (Again for example). Either capitalism damages us or it doesn't. I for one, look forward to advances that describe the effects of poverty on the human mind. It's all ammo.



I certainly believe that the rise in depression, and even more so addiction, are part of the same process as market capitalism.  But I think the idea that nueroscience can explain these phenomena is also part of the problem that produces them.  They seem to me to be spiritual malaises with neurological *symptoms.*


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2005)

slaar said:
			
		

> So if lots of people ay they have seen things, that counts as empirical evidence? Like UFOs and ghosts I guess.



Yes!  All 'empirical' means is 'derived from experience.'  That is why appeals to empirical evidence are generally pretty useless.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> That's the nub of the problem, IMO. Even if an ethical critique of capitalism were possible or necessary, why would you need to invoke the Devil? Personally it seems to me that the activity of capital is instrinsically amoral, and that you can have a preference for self-actualising labour rather than alienated labour without needing to think of the latter as 'eeevillll'



What interests me, and what has been neglected by generations of materialist socialists, is the fact that the critique of 'evil' elaborated by the monotheistic religions parallels in many imortant respect the Marxist critique of capital.  This should not be surprising, since Marx derived his philosophical assumptions and method from Hegel, who derived them from Luther.  The idea that alienated labour is *ethically* reprehensible, for example, derives from monotheistic ideas about the soul's alienation from God.  You can choose to disregard this theological heritage if you like, but I'd have thought it obvious that your understanding of Marx would be drastically impoverished as a result.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What interests me, and what has been neglected by generations of materialist socialists, is the fact that the critique of 'evil' elaborated by the monotheistic religions parallels in many imortant respect the Marxist critique of capital.  This should not be surprising, since Marx derived his philosophical assumptions and method from Hegel, who derived them from Luther.  The idea that alienated labour is *ethically* reprehensible, for example, derives from monotheistic ideas about the soul's alienation from God.  You can choose to disregard this theological heritage if you like, but I'd have thought it obvious that your understanding of Marx would be drastically impoverished as a result.



Ha ha - I come at this from the opposite viewpoint, but agree with the central idea that there is a clear concept of 'good' and 'evil' within some Marixst analysis/words of supporters etc WRT Capitalism (also one of the reasons I associate Marxism as a rational religious faith moreso than many other political viewpoints/parties/philosophies.)

So we can agree on at least one thing there phil...

BTW, 'empirical' means:

   1.
         1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
         2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
   2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

So it's not simply about being derived from experience - it's derived from an experience that can be repeated or verified by others by means of observation or equipment. Now for my money that's very different from just saying 'derived from experience' which carries with it a connotation that you are referring to individual, subjective and un-repeatable experience.


----------



## Doomsy (Nov 16, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And it obviously is a "supernatural" force, since it has no being in nature.



No, that's 'unnatural'.  

'Supernatural' is different; the dictionary says it means "caused by forces that cannot be explained by science".  (Note 'cannont be', not 'has not been').


----------



## Jo/Joe (Nov 16, 2005)

> They seem to me to be spiritual malaises with neurological *symptoms.*



Symptoms have causes do they not? 'Spiritual malaises' is one vague way of describing such conditions, another approach might be to try and understand why they occur and do something about it. Science isn't going to be halted, so it's better that we embrace it then leave it's results to be exploited by others.


----------



## slaar (Nov 17, 2005)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes!  All 'empirical' means is 'derived from experience.'  That is why appeals to empirical evidence are generally pretty useless.


Phil, appealing to dictionary definitions of words is the tactic of a 6 year old.

I know you claim to reject the entire scientific method and the philosophy underlying it, but that is in no way a currrent working definition.

To put it another way, as a much better scientist than I said, "the plural of anecdote is not data".


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 17, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> Nor do ideas 'exist' by your criteria, yet we are able to exchange them.  Perhaps there are things that cannot be measured?



I do not doubt the existence of ideas.  We are here dealing with ideas.  The evidence for the ideas is in the written text carrying the ideas. 

I suspect you are confusing the idea of the existence of tangible objects and abstract entities.  Abstract concepts do exist and although they might seem be hard to measure I never suggested that being able to measure something was necessary to prove its existence.  However if you did want to measure ideas you could judge them by their power of affecting the world and fostering other ideas leading to improvements in the condition of society for example.

Hocus


----------



## Doomsy (Nov 17, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> I do not doubt the existence of ideas.  We are here dealing with ideas.  The evidence for the ideas is in the written text carrying the ideas.
> 
> I suspect you are confusing the idea of the existence of tangible objects and abstract entities.  Abstract concepts do exist and although they might seem be hard to measure I never suggested that being able to measure something was necessary to prove its existence.  However if you did want to measure ideas you could judge them by their power of affecting the world and fostering other ideas leading to improvements in the condition of society for example.
> 
> Hocus



I agree, I was merely using ideas as an example of something that exists without a physical presence in response to your point about Satan not existing due to a lack of empirical evidence suggesting he does. (Admittedly I had not considered writing as evidence of ideas when I made this point.)

I put it to you that if we assume that Satan does not have a physical presence, his existance as an idea is still irrefutable.  There is certainly plenty written about him.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 17, 2005)

This doc is quite interesting.

The universe is expanding, all the scientists agree. Therefore god made the universe and if that's the case that god is Allah. Brilliant stuff, no holes whatsoever

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1326053289742446608&q=intelligent+design


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 17, 2005)

Doomsy said:
			
		

> I put it to you that if we assume that Satan does not have a physical presence, his existance as an idea is still irrefutable.  There is certainly plenty written about him.



The idea or concept that there is such a thing or person as Satan does exist.  The idea exists but it is only an idea. The written evidence shows that the _idea _of Satan exists but but because the idea exists does not mean that Satan exists.  Ideas of all sorts exist in fictional literature but only while reading the book do you 'suspend disbelief' in for example Harry Potter until you close the book and get back to reality.

The idea of God also exists but the idea may not be true.  As with all written evidence you have to examine where it comes from and who wrote it.  The oldest sources are in the Bible Old Testament and the other religious books which come from the same source.  

These books were written by self-styled 'prophets' who had the aim of recording the history of their tribes and keeping their people in line in religious terms.  They had the 'idea' of God and also referred to the idea of Satan.  They also refer to 'false gods' like Baal that they wanted their tribes to avoid.  The idea of Baal did not make them believe in him/it.  Belief is at the basis of all religious ideas.  The prophets may to a greater or lesser extent have believed in God but in any case they would need to make sure that their 'flock' continued this belief system because it held together the tribes as they travelled around.

I don't see any reason why I, in my tribe at a different location on the planet and in a different millenium should adopt the belief systems of the above described ancient tribes.

Hocus


----------



## Teepee (Nov 19, 2005)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> This doc is quite interesting.
> 
> The universe is expanding, all the scientists agree. Therefore god made the universe and if that's the case that god is Allah. Brilliant stuff, no holes whatsoever
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1326053289742446608&q=intelligent+design



"Scientists can't explain what caused the big bang but OH LOOK! The koran can!"

Pure genius. I'm converted. Allahu akbar.


----------



## Cadmus (Apr 25, 2006)

exosculate said:
			
		

> I reckon you could be all those things - but don't forget _Jesus saves_


A slight derail... 


> Jesus and Satan were having an ongoing argument about who was better on his computer.  They had been going at it for days, and God was tired of hearing all of the bickering.  Finally God  said, "Cool it. I am going to set up a test that will run two hours and I will judge who does the better job."
> 
> So down Satan and Jesus sat at the keyboards and typed away. They moused. They did spreadsheets. They wrote reports. They sent faxes. They sent e-mail. They sent out e-mail with attachments. They downloaded. They did some genealogy reports. They made cards. They did every known job.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crispy (Apr 25, 2006)

I'm trying to work out if that was worth the bump...


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 25, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> I'm trying to work out if that was worth the bump...


no.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 25, 2006)

the thing is with all of these "rational proof" thingies is that all the arguments basically have flaws in them, they're going to confirm a faith in g-d to someone that already believes, but they won't really convince an atheist. it's not really about proof is it, it's about whether or not you believe in something and the things that have happened in your life for you to come to that conclusion. 

i've been learning about all this for the past two years in philosophy and ethics, and it's still a hard thing to get my head around, where the proof comes from IMO is the experiences that i have had, but if you haven't had those then you probably won't be convinced unless you experienced it yourself, so this argument is a bit pointless


----------



## Crispy (Apr 25, 2006)

frogwoman said:
			
		

> this argument is a bit pointless



Too right! Now let's let this die before Phil gets back into gear. Either that or it's jesusLOL time...


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 25, 2006)

you mean after 2200 posts god hasn't been rationally proved to exist?

fucksake.  *flounces*


----------



## slaar (Apr 25, 2006)

frogwoman - So, basically, there isn't any *rational* evidence. Not that difficult really.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 25, 2006)

slaar said:
			
		

> frogwoman - So, basically, there isn't any *rational* evidence. Not that difficult really.



well there is actually loads of evidence, but you always end up getting back to "what caused the big bang" and "what started evolution" and all that kind of stuff, so it just becomes a bit of a circle jerk ... lol

it's not that there isn't evidence for it, it's that these arguments never actually get to go anywhere


----------



## Crispy (Apr 25, 2006)

Trouble is, this thread was started on the assumption that evidence isn't even neccesary. It's all done with logic. and mirrors.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 25, 2006)

lol, but you can't decisively prove anything by logic alone can you? you actually have to have facts and background ifo to back it all up surely? (or is this a whole other thread?)


----------



## Crispy (Apr 25, 2006)

frogwoman said:
			
		

> lol, but you can't decisively prove anything by logic alone can you? you actually have to have facts and background ifo to back it all up surely? (or is this a whole other thread?)



Yep, the two posts on this page so far pretty much sum up the entire thread


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 25, 2006)

frogwoman said:
			
		

> lol, but you can't decisively prove anything by logic alone can you? you actually have to have facts and background ifo to back it all up surely? (or is this a whole other thread?)



Logic is truer than facts.  Why?  Because facts *change,* with culture and history, while logic remains the same.  Facts are not independent of our perceptions of them, while logic is.


----------



## Santino (Apr 25, 2006)

Relativist bollocks.


----------



## zoltan (Apr 25, 2006)

Fuckin hell, Ive ploughed through this shite & proof of God still evades me.Or have I missed the crucial point ? Whats going on ? Can some one fill me in ? help!


----------



## 118118 (Apr 25, 2006)

Surely you can prove a lot with logic - don't mathematicians.
Shite proof though.


----------



## Jo/Joe (Apr 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Logic is truer than facts.  Why?  Because facts *change,* with culture and history, while logic remains the same.  Facts are not independent of our perceptions of them, while logic is.



What good is logic without facts?

I can't believe this thread has returned from the dead.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 25, 2006)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> What good is logic without facts?
> 
> I can't believe this thread has returned from the dead.



Hideous isn't it. Mind you, I do remember the speed of light changing when they brought in universal suffrage. Maybe Phil has a point.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 25, 2006)

i was trying to think of something helpful or explanitory to put on this thread  but y'know i just can't think of anything 

i could go into a long debate question what difines facts and what befines logic  but  whats the point...  it's not like anyone is gonna change their minds on this

to use a sutibly religious analogy it's like chanting sutras to a horse


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 25, 2006)

but anyhow god is just santa for adults...

it's a bit sad to point out it's probably just their parents


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 25, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Hideous isn't it. Mind you, I do remember the speed of light changing when they brought in universal suffrage. Maybe Phil has a point.



As so often, its not a particularly controversial point.  The word "fact" itself means "something made."  What counts as a fact, and the meaning of facts, and therefore the facts themselves insofar as we know them, change with history and culture.  Its a well-known fact.  Anyway, here's an interesting question to ponder: are there any facts we *don't* know?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 26, 2006)

do you kn ow i think you might be good at writing crosword puzzels  phil... 

just because every other post you make seams to be endless word games


----------



## 118118 (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What counts as a fact, and the meaning of facts, and therefore the facts themselves insofar as we know them, change with history and culture.


Well, I don't know what is meant by a fact, but, surely you can prove things with knowledge without believing that facts *every* matter of fact is socially constructed. I would go as far to say that EVERY professional philosopher thinks that there are logical truths.






			
				wiki said:
			
		

> A priori is a Latin phrase meaning "from the former" or less literally "before experience". In much of the modern Western tradition, the term a priori is considered to mean propositional knowledge that can be had without, or "prior to", experience. It is usually contrasted with a posteriori knowledge meaning "after experience", which requires experience (In law, the term ex post facto replaces a posteriori).
> 
> For those within the mainstream of the tradition, mathematics and logic are generally considered a priori disciplines. Statements such as "2 + 2 = 4", for example, are considered to be "a priori", because they are thought to come out of reflection alone.





> Are there any facts we *don't* know?


I reckon so. How do we know that though?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

FFS! has this thread been resurrected because phil's gun nut thread was binned?
*
GOD DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST! GOD IS AN INVENTION BY IRRATIONAL MEN WHO NEED ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO ASK FOR THEMSELVES!*

The phrase "God's will" is nothing but a means of abrogating responsibility for one's own actions.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

Logic is like God in that respect - they're both things that happen in your head.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Logic is like God in that respect - they're both things that happen in your head.



Quite and anything else is a reification.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Logic is like God in that respect - they're both things that happen in your head.



But the point is that they happen in *everyone's* head.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

That doesn't make it any more_ real _- does it?

Oh, and _everyone_?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> *
> GOD DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST! GOD IS AN INVENTION BY IRRATIONAL MEN WHO NEED ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO ASK FOR THEMSELVES!*



I know that you become angry when your assumptions and preconceptions are challenged, but please calm down and consider this.  God is not like the Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster.  God is an *idea.*  Do you think that ideas exist?  That is the first question you need to answer, and we can proceed from there.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> That doesn't make it any more_ real _- does it?
> 
> Oh, and _everyone_?



Yes, a *universal* psychological experience is indeed real.  Reason and logic are such universal experiences.  The argument I am pursuing will contend that God is what makes reason and logic possible.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I know that you become angry when your assumptions and preconceptions are challenged, but please calm down and consider this.  God is not like the Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster.  God is an *idea.*  Do you think that ideas exist?  That is the first question you need to answer, and we can proceed from there.



You make it all up in your head, don't you? It doesn't make it any more real. God is a product of your imagination...much like all the other things thatyou imagine about others on Urban.

You resurrected this thread because your gun nut thread got binned. It was entirely predictable.

You can accuse me of anger all you like, the fact remains that you are a bullshitting narcissist who begins threads like this to satisfy your egoistic needs.

Feel free to reply to me with a post dominated by asterisks. I know you will.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes, a *universal* psychological experience is indeed real.  Reason and logic are such universal experiences.  The argument I am pursuing will contend that God is what makes reason and logic possible.



More bullshit from the king of bullshitters. Hell, you're not even consistent in your arguments.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

The symbolic isn't the real, and the real isn't the symbolic. Conflating the two leads only to confusion.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 26, 2006)

If I put two stones in a bucket with two other stones and then wipe out the entire human race, there will still be four stones in that bucket. If maths is just a construct of our minds, then that seems to put a big fat hole in the argument. Unless there's a hole in the bucket. Dear Liza.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> You resurrected this thread because your gun nut thread got binned.



I hope that you are not telling a deliberate fib here, Nino?  I did not resurrect this thread.  If you were honestly mistaken, you should apologize.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I hope that you are not telling a deliberate fib here, Nino?  I did not resurrect this thread.  If you were honestly mistaken, you should apologize.



It's so easy to accuse others of lying when you've been caught redhanded. You resurrected this thread because your gun nut thread got binned. There is no other reason.

You are the one who is lying and everyone (but you) can see that. 

I shan't be apologising to you. Indeed, it is _you_ who owes me an apology.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The symbolic isn't the real, and the real isn't the symbolic. Conflating the two leads only to confusion.



What is this, Lacan?  If so I fear I cannot follow you into those black waters.  The truth is that we need to distinguish not two but *three* realms of existence: the material, the symbolic and the ideal.  Each of these realms is equally real.  To put it crudely: there are things, there are words, and there are ideas.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

Or Zizek. And I would prefer the real, the imaginary and the symbolic.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> It's so easy to accuse others of lying when you've been caught redhanded. You resurrected this thread because your gun nut thread got binned. There is no other reason.
> 
> You are the one who is lying and everyone (but you) can see that.
> 
> I shan't be apologising to you. Indeed, it is _you_ who owes me an apology.



No Nino, it is you who are either mistaken or lying.  When you read back a page or so you will see that it was not I who resurrected this thread.  After you have registered this fact you have two choices: apologize or be publically revealed as a liar.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

I can't see this thread going anywhere (it never went anywhere to begin with). I'm only surprised phil hasn't begun a thread on abstinence.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No Nino, it is you who are either mistaken or lying.  When you read back a page or so you will see that it was not I who resurrected this thread.  After you have registered this fact you have two choices: apologize or be publically revealed as a liar.



It really doesn;t matter: you saw your opportunity and seized upon it. Now you're repeating the same shite you said many pages ago. So, as far as I'm concerned you've resurrected this thread.

You can whistle for your apology, you sad excuse for a human being.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

I dunno, I can see it going round in circles quite a bit.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

Well, phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Or Zizek. And I would prefer the real, the imaginary and the symbolic.



But Lacan and Zizek are far more amenable to my argument than I am allowing myself to be here.  For them, even the *real* is constructed out of signification.  Post-structuralism in general remains within the scope of the theological: its an anti-theology, true, but it uses the same concepts.  You may be aware of Derrida's interest in and influence on negative theology?  The key point to remember is that *logos,* which deconstruction is determined to reveal at the heart of all human experience, is a Biblical term for God.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

No - 'reality' for us is symbolically constructed, but 'the real' is not symbolic.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> No - 'reality' for us is symbolically constructed, but 'the real' is not symbolic.



So we're back to the Kantian distinction between the 'for us' and the 'in itself.'  But that distinction, of course, was developed to *prove* the existence of noumena, and hence of God.  I would go so far as to say that this distinction is incompatible with atheism--it may be compatible with agnosticism, but no-one who believe in noumena can say there is no God.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 26, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> It's so easy to accuse others of lying when you've been caught redhanded. You resurrected this thread because your gun nut thread got binned. There is no other reason.
> 
> You are the one who is lying and everyone (but you) can see that.
> 
> I shan't be apologising to you. Indeed, it is _you_ who owes me an apology.



He didn't ressurect it Nino, Cadmus did:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4474366&postcount=2193


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> He didn't ressurect it Nino, Cadmus did:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4474366&postcount=2193



Aye but he couldn't resist the temptation to transfer his 'game' back to this thread. In that respect, he is just as guilty as Cadmus. Folk shouldn't encourage phil, because that's what he wants.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

Aren't you going to ask some silly questions about my origins, phil?

Fuckwit.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> So we're back to the Kantian distinction between the 'for us' and the 'in itself.'  But that distinction, of course, was developed to *prove* the existence of noumena, and hence of God.  I would go so far as to say that this distinction is incompatible with atheism--it may be compatible with agnosticism, but no-one who believe in noumena can say there is no God.



Hmm, I think there are more approaches to the real than just the Kantian one. For Zizek (and for Hegel as well I believe, although I'm no expert) the nature of the real is tripartite, in that the appearance of the thing in-itself is always already for us - what is examined is always the gaze and never the object.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Hmm, I think there are more approaches to the real than just the Kantian one. For Zizek (and for Hegel as well I believe, although I'm no expert) the nature of the real is tripartite, in that the appearance of the thing in-itself is always already for us - what is examined is always the gaze and never the object.



Yes, of course the thing-in-itself is unknowable.  But if one uses the category of the for-us, one inevitably acknowledges the existence of the in-itself.  One acknowledges, that is, that there is an *essence* that underlies perceptible *appearance.*  Kant, Hegel and Zizek all acknowledge this, in their various ways.  The realm of essence is the realm of noumena, and thus of what previous ages called "God."  Note that post-structuralism does not deny the existence of logos, but on the contrary postulates that logos is what makes human experience possible.  It is, as I said, a theological discourse.


----------



## ZIZI (Apr 26, 2006)

Loop the ******* Loop.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

What previous ages meant when they talked about God seems to refer to a whole host of things, many of them hopelessly anthropomorphic. Whether or not some of these signifieds resembled either Kant's noumena or Lacan's real is pretty arbitrary and uninteresting, as far as I can see.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> What previous ages meant when they talked about God seems to refer to a whole host of things, many of them hopelessly anthropomorphic. Whether or not some of these signifieds resembled either Kant's noumena or Lacan's real is pretty arbitrary and uninteresting, as far as I can see.



Well, Kant and Lacan certainly didn't find it arbitrary or uninteresting.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

Kant is a very dead Christian, and Lacan was a poser and a weirdo, for all that he had some interesting ideas.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> What previous ages meant when they talked about God seems to refer to a whole host of things, many of them hopelessly anthropomorphic.



Yes, that's what Hegel calls "picture thinking," the mythological form in which religion is inevitably presented to the uneducated.  But we are speaking here of the originally Platonic, then Judaic, Christian and Muslim concept of the *logos*--which is exactly and precisely what the scriptures of all the monotheistic religions call "God," as at John 1:1.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Kant is a very dead Christian



Yeah, who cares what *dead* people think, eh?  They're *dead* aren't they?  What good is that?  What on earth do they hope to achieve by *dying?*  Useless bastards.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

> Yes, that's what Hegel calls "picture thinking," the mythological form in which religion is inevitably presented to the uneducated. But we are speaking here of the originally Platonic, then Judaic, Christian and Muslim concept of the *logos*--which is exactly and precisely what the scriptures of all the monotheistic religions call "God," as at John 1:1.



So why call it God? it seems to me that all this does is confuses it with the meaning which is prevalent in general society, which doesn't correspond to anything at all.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> So why call it God?



Among many other reasons, because once you identify the logos as God, the philosophical heritage and ethical significance of Derridean anti-logocentrism become manifest.  Many postmodernist thinkers, untrained in theology, miss these vital points.


----------



## ZWord (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> So we're back to the Kantian distinction between the 'for us' and the 'in itself.'  But that distinction, of course, was developed to *prove* the existence of noumena, and hence of God.  I would go so far as to say that this distinction is incompatible with atheism--it may be compatible with agnosticism, but no-one who believe in noumena can say there is no God.



A distinction which those who say they only believe in "observable facts"  never seem to have quite got their head round.  

Though I think to say that the existence of noumena proves the existence of God is going way too far.  But it is worth mentioning that for those who think that if God existed scientists would have observed God.  Probably no-one really thinks that.  But then why do they say it?


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Among many other reasons, because once you identify the logos as God, the philosophical heritage and ethical significance of Derridean anti-logocentrism become manifest.  Many postmodernist thinkers, untrained in theology, miss these vital points.


 The logos->God correspondence is hardly new, though, is it - it's in the Bible after all. In any case it seems to me to be the case that what Christians (i.e. the Bible) are claiming is that the God who is the logos also has all of these other attributes, ranging from the improbable to the impossible.


----------



## laptop (Apr 26, 2006)

So the argument hinges on what Kant *said* he *intended* to show? 

The possibility that he achieved something other than what he set out to do is ruled out... as is the possibility that his great contemporary equivalent, phildwyer, has achived something other than what he set out to do. Odd, that.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> So the argument hinges on what Kant *said* he *intended* to show?
> 
> The possibility that he achieved something other than what he set out to do is ruled out



I'm not ruling out any possibilities.  What do you think Kant achieved other than what he intended to?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Though I think to say that the existence of noumena proves the existence of God is going way too far.  But it is worth mentioning that for those who think that if God existed scientists would have observed God.  Probably no-one really thinks that.  But then why do they say it?



But a lot of people *do* really think that.  Nino does, he said it again this morning.  It is impossible to over-state the stupidity of popular atheism.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But a lot of people *do* really think that.  Nino does, he said it again this morning.  It is impossible to over-state the stupidity of popular atheism.



Up to your usual tricks, phil? You know, the wee trick where you 'speak' to an imaginary gallery? 

You're a bully and a pest.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But a lot of people *do* really think that.  Nino does, he said it again this morning.  It is impossible to over-state the stupidity of popular atheism.


 The thing about popular atheism is that it's opposed to popular religion, which is about the stupidest thing around. A more sophisticated version of theism like the one you appear to espouse would require its own specific atheism, but I reckon we're up to the challenge.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Up to your usual tricks, phil? You know, the wee trick where you 'speak' to an imaginary gallery?



I'm sorry Nino, but I must inform you that until you apologize for your wriggling and lying, I will not be engaging with you *at all*--on this thread or any other.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The thing about popular atheism is that it's opposed to popular religion, which is about the stupidest thing around. A more sophisticated version of theism like the one you appear to espouse would require its own specific atheism, but I reckon we're up to the challenge.



I couldn't agree more about popular religion, and I've said many times that I regard *all* organized religion as Antichrist.  I think popular atheism is just as simple-minded, however.  You're correct that a more sophisticated atheism is needed to counter my argument, and I'll admit that such an atheism exists--Adorno is a famous exponent--but in order to arrive at that position one must first grasp the theist case.  The only way to atheism is through theology.


----------



## slaar (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But a lot of people *do* really think that.  Nino does, he said it again this morning.  It is impossible to over-state the stupidity of popular atheism.


My own personal position is that nothing in science proves or disproves the existence of god. But that includes logic. 

I learn, understand and work in my everyday life on the basis of scientific knowledge as I believe that to be the way that most progress is made, and on the grounds that dogmatic belief in institutionalised religion has done little but stoke conflict.

That's why I like Dawkins when he writes about the mechanics of evolution, but not when he wanders off into rants about the non-existence of god where such proofs cannot be infered from the evidence. But in the absence of any proof of the existence of god I am happy to go along with the evidence for evolution, whatever the force ultimately driving material reality.

I think you infer beliefs from the general population towards atheism where no such overwhelming attitudes exist. And I think this colours your perception of the false dichotomy between faith and science.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

slaar said:
			
		

> I think you infer beliefs from the general population towards atheism where no such overwhelming attitudes exist. And I think this colours your perception of the false dichotomy between faith and science.



You have a good point in your final sentence, but there is no doubt that the kind of ignorant popular atheism to which I refer exists.  Exhibit A:




			
				nino_savatte said:
			
		

> *
> GOD DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST! GOD IS AN INVENTION BY IRRATIONAL MEN WHO NEED ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO ASK FOR THEMSELVES!*



Such attitudes are the mirror-images of--and are in fact no different than--the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalisms.  I regard religious fundamentalists and atheist fundamentalists as unconsciously complicit with each other.  Both of them declare war on rational thought.


----------



## slaar (Apr 26, 2006)

I tend to agree, although the sway Dawkins' views, for example, hold in the general population again can be overstated, such is the size of his voice for just one man. 

I do dislike organised religion more than atheism; perhaps that's for reasons of upbringing. I'm yet to be convinced by the way your alternative is shaping up, but I welcome the debate.

I'm in the middle of a book by an Oxford theologian called something like "Dawkins' God", which an evangelical housemate of mine has. It's a lot better than I expected it to be, genuinely thoughtful and intelligently argued; although I disagree with him entirely on Christianity it provides good food for thought.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more about popular religion, and I've said many times that I regard *all* organized religion as Antichrist.  I think popular atheism is just as simple-minded, however.  You're correct that a more sophisticated atheism is needed to counter my argument, and I'll admit that such an atheism exists--Adorno is a famous exponent--but in order to arrive at that position one must first grasp the theist case.  The only way to atheism is through theology.


 True, but my point was that the _reason_ why popular atheism is so stupid is because it's nothing more than the negation of organised religious belief. If someone asserts that they are in touch with a personal God who has opinions and wishes about what should take place and who intervenes in the world to secure these ends, then it's both facile and banal to demonstrate that there's no such thing. However, as long as they keep proselytising this garbage it will be necessary to refute it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm sorry Nino, but I must inform you that until you apologize for your wriggling and lying, I will not be engaging with you *at all*--on this thread or any other.



I must ask you to leave this thread. Please go quietly or be dwagged scweaming.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 26, 2006)

You don't like getting back what you dish out - eh, phil?


----------



## slaar (Apr 26, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> True, but my point was that the _reason_ why popular atheism is so stupid is because it's nothing more than the negation of organised religious belief. If someone asserts that they are in touch with a personal God who has opinions and wishes about what should take place and who intervenes in the world to secure these ends, then it's both facile and banal to demonstrate that there's no such thing. However, as long as they keep proselytising this garbage it will be necessary to refute it.


I think this says what I feel more succintly, and is why I prefer knee-jerk atheism to organised religion. 

I guess I see the difference as people believing in something for which they have no rational proof versus people believing there must be nothing presently conceivable for which there is no rational proof. I prefer the latter, but both are inadequate.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But a lot of people *do* really think that.  Nino does, he said it again this morning.  It is impossible to over-state the stupidity of popular atheism.




Oh my god, what the fuck!!??
So the sensible thing to do is put some blind faith into some 'magic' you read about in a book?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

slaar said:
			
		

> I think this says what I feel more succintly, and is why I prefer knee-jerk atheism to organised religion.
> 
> I guess I see the difference as people believing in something for which they have no rational proof versus people believing there must be nothing presently conceivable for which there is no rational proof. I prefer the latter, but both are inadequate.



I think we probably went through this during this thread's first incarnation, but people believe in things for which there is no rational proof all the time, the best example being *money,* which of course does not exist, and yet nevertheless rules the world.  But in any case, there *is* a rational proof of God's existence, as I am in the process of explaining.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 26, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> So the sensible thing to do is put some blind faith into some 'magic' you read about in a book?



What do you think magic has to do with religion?  Serious question, I'd like to know the answer...


----------



## 118118 (Apr 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> *money,* which of course does not exist, and yet nevertheless rules the world.


I think, that money does exist, its only its sprit which does not!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What do you think magic has to do with religion?  Serious question, I'd like to know the answer...


Loaves and fishes
Water - wine
back from the dead.
walk on water 
Etc

Let's pray to david blane.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Loaves and fishes
> Water - wine
> back from the dead.
> walk on water
> ...



You have NO idea what you're getting into here


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 27, 2006)

It's like an intellectual sarlac pit.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> You have NO idea what you're getting into here


I can take it.

These god botherers are an interesting sort, Intelligent design is the best. I saw a film demonstrating how it must be true scientifically the other day. It went on about science and the big bang for about half an hour then said 'but there is no way this could just of happened so god did it' - just slipped that in - 'therefore that god must be Allah? - WTF even if it must be a god why should it have to be Allah? the way this guys think is insane. They must have known what they were doing, I bet they thought  'nobody will notice if we just slip our little bit of bollocks in here with all that fact in front of it some of it might rub off on it, heh heh heh' .


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2006)

Yes, but Phildwyer is not your average God botherer. I'm not even sure if it's God he's bothering, or some sort of nebulous topic of a phd somewhere. You'd better have read every single philosopher from Plato to Descartes or you'll be asked to *leave* the thread in a patronising tone of voice.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Yes, but Phildwyer is not your average God botherer. I'm not even sure if it's God he's bothering, or some sort of nebulous topic of a phd somewhere. You'd better have read every single philosopher from Plato to Descartes or you'll be asked to *leave* the thread in a patronising tone of voice.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Yes, but Phildwyer is not your average God botherer. I'm not even sure if it's God he's bothering, or some sort of nebulous topic of a phd somewhere. You'd better have read every single philosopher from Plato to Descartes or you'll be asked to *leave* the thread in a patronising tone of voice.



I've got a feeling I had a few interesting threads with him when I first joined.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Yes, but Phildwyer is not your average God botherer. I'm not even sure if it's God he's bothering, or some sort of nebulous topic of a phd somewhere. You'd better have read every single philosopher from Plato to Descartes or you'll be asked to *leave* the thread in a patronising tone of voice.



Crispy, I wonder if you're quite sure that this is the thread for you?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Crispy, I wonder if you're quite sure that this is the thread for you?



*headbutts the screen so hard, the frame becomes a rather snazzy necklace*


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2006)

He bullies
He patronises
He spouts shite
That's phildwyer!


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Loaves and fishes
> Water - wine
> back from the dead.
> walk on water



Well, back from the dead is a bit different, but you're right that alleged miracles have done a great deal to discredit religion. This started just after Yeshua of Nazareth's execution.  Simon Magus, assuming that he'd been a magician, approached Peter and asked to buy the secrets of his tricks.  Simon has since become the Christian paradigm of a magician, and also of ecclesiastical corruption--he gave his name to "simony" in fact.  And the disgraceful shenenigans of the *Catholic* church with regard to miracles is notorious, and one of the main reasons I despise that institution.

Historically, of course, all three monotheistic religions have campaigned violently against magic, often staging purges in which tens of thousands of magicians were executed.  The assumption was not the magic did not work, but that it worked through the agency of Satan.  This accusation was leveled against Yeshua by the Pharisees, who said he cast our devils by means of devils.  In reply, Yeshua says the most aggressive lines attributed to him: he tells them they've committed the *unforgiveable* sin, which is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  The incongruity of this statement suggests that the author of the Gospel saw magic as a serious charge that had to be refuted.

Personally, I think Yeshua probably *was* a magician of some sort, among many other things.  One thing I *don't* believe he was, though, is the incarnation of Yahweh.  So you see that I am not a Christian, although I certainly do believe in God.  Does any of this help?


----------



## ZWord (Apr 27, 2006)

Although sometimes when I approve of  your targets nino, I find it quite funny, and think -well said-, I think you could just as well be talking about yourself as about phil.

I can see why you find him annoying, but, to say that he bullies is fairly ridiculous, - ?  What do you mean by it?     Maybe he reminds you of yourself, or you feel he's competing for your niche on the board as an intellectual authority, nino the wise.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, back from the dead is a bit different, but you're right that alleged miracles have done a great deal to discredit religion. This started just after Yeshua of Nazareth's execution.  Simon Magus, assuming that he'd been a magician, approached Peter and asked to buy the secrets of his tricks.  Simon has since become the Christian paradigm of a magician, and also of ecclesiastical corruption--he gave his name to "simony" in fact.  And the disgraceful shenenigans of the *Catholic* church with regard to miracles is notorious, and one of the main reasons I despise that institution.
> 
> Historically, of course, all three monotheistic religions have campaigned violently against magic, often staging purges in which tens of thousands of magicians were executed.  The assumption was not the magic did not work, but that it worked through the agency of Satan.  This accusation was leveled against Yeshua by the Pharisees, who said he cast our devils by means of devils.  In reply, Yeshua says the most aggressive lines attributed to him: he tells them they've committed the *unforgiveable* sin, which is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  The incongruity of this statement suggests that the author of the Gospel saw magic as a serious charge that had to be refuted.
> 
> Personally, I think Yeshua probably *was* a magician of some sort, among many other things.  One thing I *don't* believe he was, though, is the incarnation of Yahweh.  So you see that I am not a Christian, although I certainly do believe in God.  Does any of this help?



So you don't think any of Jesus magic tricks and all the angels and arcs are any more ture than a nice story or fable, that's a good start.

But who the fuck is this Yeshua? 

How do you stand with Dan Brown?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Although sometimes when I approve of  your targets nino, I find it quite funny, and think -well said-, I think you could just as well be talking about yourself as about phil.
> 
> I can see why you find him annoying, but, to say that he bullies is fairly ridiculous, - ?  What do you mean by it?     Maybe he reminds you of yourself, or you feel he's competing for your niche on the board as an intellectual authority, nino the wise.



Yeah. it's not very pretty. I mean, the guy's a fair target, but by being so snide you're no better than him. _If_ it feels good typing a barbed reply, take a moment to think "why?"

And now, I shall abide by Phil's wishes and merely snigger from the sidelines


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> So you don't think any of Jesus magic tricks and all the angels and arcs are any more ture than a nice story or fable, that's a good start.



I didn't say "angels."  Angels are real, obviously.  What is an "arc?"


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> nino the wise.



That's about as appropriate as Ethelred the Great.


----------



## ZWord (Apr 27, 2006)

I heard this from a quabbalah freak in Israel. 

Apparently yeshua is made from three hebrew letters.  the first, Y, and the last Ah, make the word jah, as in God.  And the middle -shin-, means fire, so yeshua means the fire of God.  I can't remember the numerology of the name though. 

I also heard from a serious jewish guy who lived in the occupied territories, orthodox but not the dressing up sort - that there's a longstanding jewish tradition regarding the execution of Jesus that it was done at the request of the leading jews, because they believed he was a magician, and that he was leading the people away from the true jewish God, and getting them to follow some other spirit.  

What's interesting about this story, is that of course the teller had never read the new testament, so it's interesting how far their tradition agrees with it.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I didn't say "angels."  Angels are real, obviously.  What is an "arc?"


 Can you elaborate on the reality of angels?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I didn't say "angels."  Angels are real, obviously.  What is an "arc?"



What? Angels are real 'obviously'?
Not very obvious to me. 

Noah went around in a big old arc because god told him to.

Trouble is he forgot the unicorns and the stegasauruses.


----------



## magneze (Apr 27, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Can you elaborate on the reality of angels?


A real angel, yesterday.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Although sometimes when I approve of  your targets nino, I find it quite funny, and think -well said-, I think you could just as well be talking about yourself as about phil.
> 
> I can see why you find him annoying, but, to say that he bullies is fairly ridiculous, - ?  What do you mean by it?     Maybe he reminds you of yourself, or you feel he's competing for your niche on the board as an intellectual authority, nino the wise.



Nice try, son. Phil doesn't remind me of myself at all and I don't think you'll get many to take on board your thesis either.

Perhaps you didn't see the gun thread that he started, where he bullied anyone who didn't accept his warped ideas...or perhaps you didn't notice his bullying on this thread and his magnum opus, "Darwinists running scared".

I only go after people who I think are on wind-up missions. Phil is on a wind-up mission. naturally i don't expect you to understand that since you've got it into your head that I'm the guilty party here.

I look forward to your reply. It ought to be very interesting, if not very patronising.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 27, 2006)

Yup, angels are _obviously_real. Haven't any of you guys seen or read _Constantine_? along with demons they are EVERYWHERE.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Yup, angels are _obviously_real. Haven't any of you guys seen or read _Constantine_? along with demons they are EVERYWHERE.



Oh aye and don't forget there's also that lovely telly program _Touched By an Angel
_.


----------



## magneze (Apr 27, 2006)

Admittedly I do believe in Angels more than I believe in Keanu Reeves.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2006)

Magneze said:
			
		

> Admittedly I do believe in Angels more than I believe in Keanu Reeves.


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Historically, of course, all three monotheistic religions have campaigned violently against magic, often staging purges in which tens of thousands of magicians were executed.


Really? Tens of thousands? Would you care to furnish us with something to back up that rather bold statement of fact?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Really? Tens of thousands? Would you care to furnish us with something to back up that rather bold statement of fact?



Although earlier scholars put the figure in the hundreds of thousands, most now agree that a *conservative* estimate of the number of people killed only during the last European witch-hunt (circa 1580--1680) would be fifty thousand.


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2006)

Riiight. And what about the Muslim and Jewish persecution of magicians? Any numbers on that?


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, back from the dead is a bit different, but you're right that alleged miracles have done a great deal to discredit religion. This started just after Yeshua of Nazareth's execution.  Simon Magus, assuming that he'd been a magician, approached Peter and asked to buy the secrets of his tricks.  Simon has since become the Christian paradigm of a magician, and also of ecclesiastical corruption--he gave his name to "simony" in fact.  And the disgraceful shenenigans of the *Catholic* church with regard to miracles is notorious, and one of the main reasons I despise that institution.
> 
> Historically, of course, all three monotheistic religions have campaigned violently against magic, often staging purges in which tens of thousands of magicians were executed.  The assumption was not the magic did not work, but that it worked through the agency of Satan.  This accusation was leveled against Yeshua by the Pharisees, who said he cast our devils by means of devils.  In reply, Yeshua says the most aggressive lines attributed to him: he tells them they've committed the *unforgiveable* sin, which is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  The incongruity of this statement suggests that the author of the Gospel saw magic as a serious charge that had to be refuted.
> 
> Personally, I think Yeshua probably *was* a magician of some sort, among many other things.  One thing I *don't* believe he was, though, is the incarnation of Yahweh.  So you see that I am not a Christian, although I certainly do believe in God.  Does any of this help?



I understand .

It's been obvious from the start that Phil is not a Christian. Maybe an Essene is closer.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> It's been obvious from the start that Phil is not a Christian. Maybe an Essene is closer.



In fact like all right-thinking people I am an antinomian Arian.  Although I confess to a youthful tenedncy towards pseudo-Manichaenism, which occasionally resurfaces under the influence.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 27, 2006)

Surely it's like this:

UNdead - Zombies, vampires and the like.

The Dead - Rufus from Dogma

Angels/Demons - huge numbers of differing origin accounts, but...mythical beings created from the basic stuff of the universe pior to mankind. Generically held responsible for influencing/changing human behaviour (this is a cross-religion thing - Angels for monotheisic religions are, IMV, merely a tool for selling the faith to polytheistic religions they assimilated) and as voice of the God/s.

Wiki on Angels...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> In fact like all right-thinking people I am an antinomian Arian.  Although I confess to a youthful tenedncy towards pseudo-Manichaenism, which occasionally resurfaces under the influence.



Oh god they were right, you are a compleate nob.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Surely it's like this:
> 
> UNdead - Zombies, vampires and the like.
> 
> ...



It is *saints* rather than angels who have been used by monotheists to sell their faiths to polytheists.  Monotheism understands angels as manifestations of the logos (in Christianity the "Son").  In the Hellenic tradition they are manifestations of the eternal Ideal Forms.  Either way they clearly exist.  The problem is that many people imagine angels to by Flying Babies, since that is how they are often represented in the visual arts.  Because they know that Flying Babies do not exist, they foolishly conclude that the same is true of angels.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It is *saints* rather than angels who have been used by monotheists to sell their faiths to polytheists.  Monotheism understands angels as manifestations of the logos (in Christianity the "Son").  In the Hellenic tradition they are manifestations of the eternal Ideal Forms.  Either way *they clearly exist*.  The problem is that many people imagine angels to by Flying Babies, since that is how they are often represented in the visual arts.  Because they know that Flying Babies do not exist, they foolishly conclude that the same is true of angels.



OK so they are not guys with wings, what makes you say they *clearly*exist you nutbag.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2006)

And what exactly is a saint, apart from the 'deification' of a person who was once living? It is an idea borrowed directly from Rome, where popular emperors (Augustus was one) were always declared gods. Sainthood is a load of bollocks - political bollocks to more precise.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> And what exactly is a saint, apart from the 'deification' of a person who was once living? It is an idea borrowed directly from Rome, where popular emperors (Augustus was one) were always declared gods. Sainthood is a load of bollocks - political bollocks to more precise.



Phildwyer In "Total Agreement With Nino" Shocker.  Hold the front page.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> OK so they are not guys with wings, what makes you say they *clearly*exist you nutbag.



Oh very well.  Its a bit of a distraction frankly, but I suppose that proving that angels exist might be a step on the road to proving that God exists, so let's get on with it.  But we will have to proceed step-by-step.  First of all, can we agree that *ideas* exist?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh very well.  Its a bit of a distraction frankly, but I suppose that proving that angels exist might be a step on the road to proving that God exists, so let's get on with it.  But we will have to proceed step-by-step.  First of all, can we agree that *ideas* exist?


Fine, I can have ideas. Next.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 27, 2006)

Primitive polytheists wouldn't process ideas like sainthood - the idea that a human could be 'created' into a mythical power capable of miracles wouldn't hold truck, but there is an easy way to link angels - individual gods-of-behaviour/events since the Angels in the OT are products of His creation and are more powerful (in their abilities if not existence) than Man.

Think about it - you're a post animist polytheist culuture. You've moved past worshipping nature and are just about ready to accept the idea of a single God but still can't understand how one God can do it all...Angels are a handy stepping stone...anyhoo, that's speculation on my part.

BUT...given that even within a monotheistic religion like Judaism, individual cities worshipped specific Angels/Demons pre-Flood it suggests that unless the monotheism is strictly enforced people will worship who and what they please provided it gives them the 'answers' they agree with/are looking for.

Sainthood as a sales tool only really happened when Catholics started assimilating Northern European pagans - I mean come on. Martyrdom to the faith followed by Saintood and a 'better' life in Heaven? To a battling, possibly oppressed religious believer this is a great incentive. I mean, how far away is sellin Sainthood from selling 70 Virgins in Heaven to a similarly 'oppressed' religious faith?


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2006)

Ideas exist in people's heads, and nowhere else. 

Next.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Phildwyer In "Total Agreement With Nino" Shocker.  Hold the front page.



Bizarre....have I entered a parallel universe?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Ideas exist in people's heads, and nowhere else.
> 
> Next.


Im intrested to see where phildwyer is going to go with this. I bet it's like intelligent design where they make some stupid leap of bollocks at the end.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 27, 2006)

<copyrights phrase 'leap of bollocks'>


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Im intrested to see where phildwyer is going to go with this. I bet it's like intelligent design where they make some stupid leap of bollocks at the end.


Most arguments of this kind depend on accepting the reality of the thing trying to be proved in the first step or two, so you can't let the fact that ideas exist without qualifying it or he'll piggyback angels on top of them.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Im intrested to see where phildwyer is going to go with this. I bet it's like intelligent design where they make some stupid leap of bollocks at the end.



he's going nowhere dude, he's got nothing.  if god could rationally be proved to exist i think someone else might have done it by now.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> .Sainthood as a sales tool only really happened when Catholics started assimilating Northern European pagans



No, sainthood began when Roman civilization assimilated Christianity--as Nino has astoundingly but correctly pointed out.  If you'll look at the syncretic pagan/Christian religions of Latin America and the Caribbean (santaria, voudoun), you will see that many of their deities are Christian saints on sabbatical, as it were.  Anyway, now I can't decide whether to do angels or saints first...


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 27, 2006)

Catholicsm = Roman Empire Xtianity. The nasty, patriachal, structured and oppressive thing called 'The Church'. So one would presume that in order to sell Xtianity to a post-animist, polytheist pagan society (Rome) the idea of human transcendence to a higher level of post-life experience via Sainthood is one that is a great sales tool.

Whlie I know that my (over)use of the branding-centric view of history isn't always appropriate (and that you disagree with the idea of the meme yet say that ideas exist in reality), religion is a competitive arena and always has been. When confronted with a sceptical mass of people it's going to be easier to sell your faith if:

1. You assume as many elements of the pre-existing faith as possible (hence Christmas happening on Saturnalia/Winter Solstice instead of March/April when it _should_ happen).

2. You give your possible converts as many good reasons as possible to join (also known as 'selling benefits')

Sainthood - especially when connected to martydom - is a great incentive to possible converts (who are likely to be zealots as well) to believe and to spread the word.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Most arguments of this kind depend on accepting the reality of the thing trying to be proved in the first step or two, so you can't let the fact that ideas exist without qualifying it or he'll piggyback angels on top of them.



But I can have an idea for a story, that doesn't mean it's a true story. I can see the ideas thing falling over quite quickly.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Catholicsm = Roman Empire Xtianity. The nasty, patriachal, structured and oppressive thing called 'The Church'. So one would presume that in order to sell Xtianity to a post-animist, polytheist pagan society (Rome) the idea of human transcendence to a higher level of post-life experience via Sainthood is one that is a great sales tool.
> 
> Whlie I know that my (over)use of the branding-centric view of history isn't always appropriate (and that you disagree with the idea of the meme yet say that ideas exist in reality), religion is a competitive arena and always has been. When confronted with a sceptical mass of people it's going to be easier to sell your faith if:
> 
> ...




Hammer-nail-head. 

I would also add that Xtianity wholly embraced the Roman style of patriarchy. We see this reflected in the patriarchical nature of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

No-one will get any argument from me on the contention that Christianity sold itself by assimilating many pagan elements--indeed the virgin birth and the incarnation are themselves pagan concepts, not monotheistic ones.  Nor will I dispute for a moment that all Christian churches have always been patriarchal.  But just agreeing with everyone is a bit boring, perhaps I'd better get back to the angels...


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Ideas exist in people's heads, and nowhere else.
> 
> Next.



OK.  Now, do you accept that ideas can influence people's behaviour--in other words, that they have an objective effect in the physical world?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> OK.  Now, do you accept that ideas can influence people's behaviour--in other words, that they have an objective effect in the physical world?


I can have an idea for a story that gets turned into a film and gets people to emote. It's still not real.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> I can have an idea for a story that gets turned into a film and gets people to emote. It's still not real.



Hold on a second, I thought you'd already agreed that ideas *are* real, when you said:




			
				ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Fine, I can have ideas.



How can you have them if they're not real?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hold on a second, I thought you'd already agreed that ideas *are* real, when you said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you have them if they're not real?




No, I said I have an imagination. I can imagine things, those are my ideas. 


Books exist but that does not mean the stories  in them  are 'true' but the stories are real.

Are you saying if I have an idea about superman fucking spiderman up the bum on the moon then it is real?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Are you saying if I have an idea about superman fucking spiderman up the bum on the moon then it is real?



I'm asking whether you accept that the idea is *real,* not whether it is *true.*  My question is: did you really have an idea about superman fucking spiderman?  It is not: did superman really fuck spiderman?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm asking whether you accept that the idea is *real,* not whether it is *true.*  My question is: did you really have an idea about superman fucking spiderman?  It is not: did superman really fuck spiderman?



Ok then no, ideas are not real or reality.

Why don't you just spit it out?


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 27, 2006)

Well they're real in the sense that when someone has an idea the brain's electrical activity and chemical balance look like X and when you aren't having an idea they look like Y - the process of thinking produces a physical reaction in the brain, but it's a feedback system - the brain interprets say, the singing of a lark which in turn leads to a reaction in the mind, that leads to say, the Pastoral Symphony. So the physical world helps us create ideas in our minds and those ideas can become 'real' in the sense that they have a permanent manifestation in the world as a picture/book/artwork (interestingly, is music different? Is it real when it's scored on the page or when it's performed? Can someone who can sight read music and hear the instruments in their head make the music real for themselves only? Or does this mean that because the potential for some humans to hear the music without it being played mean that the music is 'real' while still 'only' a score?)


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Ok then no, ideas are not real or reality.



And yet you *really* do "have" ideas?  How can you have something that is not real?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And yet you *really* do "have" ideas?  How can you have something that is not real?



You are talking about two things at once. There is a thought process which is real but ideas themselves are not reality. 

Why don't you just get to the point.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Why don't you just get to the point.



Socratic method innit.  We have to proceed step-by-step, not moving on until we are agreed on each of the steps individually.  Otherwise my case will not be proven.




			
				ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> You are talking about two things at once. There is a thought process which is real but ideas themselves are not reality.



So the "thought process" is real, but the ideas are not?  In that case, what is the difference between "thought process" and "ideas?"  Surely the former is composed of the latter?


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2006)

'Having' ideas is just a turn of phrase. There is nothing 'in' my brain that is separate from my brain itself. The activity in my brain is structured in such a way as to represent an object, or an abstraction, just like paint on a canvas is structured to represent a portrait of King Henry VIII. There is not a 'picture' of Henry separate from the canvas and paint.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Socratic method innit.  We have to proceed step-by-step, not moving on until we are agreed on each of the steps individually.  Otherwise my case will not be proven.


No we don't because we won't get anywhere because we don't aggree from the off. I want to see where you are riding this bullshit train.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> So the "thought process" is real, but the ideas are not?  In that case, what is the difference between "thought process" and "ideas?"  Surely the former is composed of the latter?


No, if you can't grasp that we are a bit stuck arn't we.

If I think 'hummm I will make a cup out of wood', the cup is not made of thoughts and wood, it is made of wood.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> No we don't because we won't get anywhere because we don't aggree from the off. I want to see where you are riding this bullshit train.



But I believe that I can bring you to agreement with each of my assertions, provided that we take them one by one.  Shall we proceed?




			
				ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> No, if you can't grasp that we are a bit stuck arn't we.



So you deny that your thought-process is composed of ideas.  Of what is it composed then?




			
				ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> If I think 'hummm I will make a cup out of wood', the cup is not made of thoughts and wood, it is made of wood.



Does the idea of the cup exist before the cup itself?  That is to say: is it something *different* from the cup?


----------



## Diem K (Apr 27, 2006)

Dear Phildwyer,

Your thread title grabbed me so I read your introduction post. You started with such confidence that I found myself reading through, trying to follow the steps that you have politely translated into plain English for those not as fortunate/well read etc as yourself.

Forgive me if I have totally missed the point but you have failed to establish any logical proof or steps towards a proof for the existence of God.

I will now provide a short summary of what I think you have put forward in the discussion so far:

1 - Human beings perceive value in things.
2 - This value is not real; it’s a representation of human activity.
3 - This collective perception of value by Human society leads to some unsavoury results and is therefore bad and represents the Devil.
4 - If the Devil exists then so must God.

If you are looking for proof of God via the use of metaphysical notions then I would say your route to "proof" is incredibly narrow, especially for someone who started out with such confidence in this becoming a grand "show stopper" of a thread.

I think one of the main reasons which motivated me to read some of the content was the fact that you failed to convince a single person on your journey, I did not read the whole thing (I expect you are the only person on Earth who has) but at no stage did I find a single post where you were supported by someone else or where anybody hinted that your thread had provided the "enlightenment" promissed at the outset.

On reflection Phildwyer are you happy with the outcome of your thread?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2006)

Just a quick note to say that ATOMIC SUPLEX is exactly what this thread needed. A man who calls a spade a spade. Not one out of many possible manifestations of the idea of 'spadeness'

Thank you, ATOMIC SUPLEX


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Just a quick note to say that ATOMIC SUPLEX is exactly what this thread needed.



I agree, he shows signs of being the perfect interlocutor.  But where has he gone?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

Diem K said:
			
		

> On reflection Phildwyer are you happy with the outcome of your thread?



I've seen worse.  But anyway, it ain't over till the angels sing...


----------



## Diem K (Apr 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've seen worse.  But anyway, it ain't over till the angels sing...



I have not seen worse.


----------



## ZWord (Apr 27, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Nice try, son. Phil doesn't remind me of myself at all and I don't think you'll get many to take on board your thesis either.
> 
> Perhaps you didn't see the gun thread that he started, where he bullied anyone who didn't accept his warped ideas...or perhaps you didn't notice his bullying on this thread and his magnum opus, "Darwinists running scared".
> 
> ...



Don't really know what to say to this.  I didn't read the gun thread, at all, though all the same, I think he's got a point, though not one that needs proselytisation. 

It seems to me more like phil willingly sets himself up as a pompous academic type who's easy to take the piss out of.  His actual name -phildwyer- is fairly unpretentious.  I always thought the idea of a logical proof of the existence of God was kind of barking,* but as it turned out, I found the argument he put forward kind of interesting, and not stupid at all.  And I think he was far more bullied than bully, on this thread.  And I think that the person who starts a thread should be considered to have ownership of it, which was why I thought your accusations that he was trolling were fairly ludicrous on his own thread.  

I was reading earlier Diem K, who naturally didn't bother to read the whole thread, who would?  Saying - no-one ever seemed to be convinced.  If people like you hadn't made such an effort to make phil look like an idiot from the start, then, in fact his thread might have been quite readable, and the quite interesting ideas he puts forward would be quite a lot more accessible. 

Maybe it's a worthwhile role being a debunker of idiots.  But, to be honest, although I don't know, after reading quite a lot of your arguments with other people including ones when I thoroughly agreed with you, I concluded that probably you're full of shit, and just kind of enjoy being a putdown artist, playing to the gallery, in much the same way that you accuse phil of, even though he's much more of a minority here than you are.


----------



## 118118 (Apr 27, 2006)

Ideas are real, but not in the sense that their content is true. I.e. their content, while being real, are not real in the sense that they can carry with them - of corresponding to an reality external to thought (a reflection of the world). So your conflating realtiy external and internal to thought.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 27, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Don't really know what to say to this.  I didn't read the gun thread, at all, though all the same, I think he's got a point, though not one that needs proselytisation.
> 
> It seems to me more like phil willingly sets himself up as a pompous academic type who's easy to take the piss out of.  His actual name -phildwyer- is fairly unpretentious.  I always thought the idea of a logical proof of the existence of God was kind of barking,* but as it turned out, I found the argument he put forward kind of interesting, and not stupid at all.  And I think he was far more bullied than bully, on this thread.  And I think that the person who starts a thread should be considered to have ownership of it, which was why I thought your accusations that he was trolling were fairly ludicrous on his own thread.
> 
> ...



That's a really perceptive post.  None of the ideas I have put forward here are new, they've all been published and debated elsewhere by various different people, including myself.  The way I've arranged them here is new, I suppose, and of course the *style* of debate in a forum like this is always going to be a bit wacky.  But anyone who doesn't recognize a persona when they see one shouldn't be debating on the Web in the first place.  

What you say about the bullying is absolutely true, both here and on other threads--bullies don't like to come across people who can give them a sharp taste of their own medicine, they can get quite flustered under such circumstances, and that's what's happened here.  As for Nino himself, I fluctuate.  Sometimes I quite like him, but at other times he seems to be a very jealous and bitter individual.  We'll see how he conducts himself from here on in.  Anyway, the vital ingredient necessary to get anything out of this thread, but which so many participants seem to lack, is a sense of humour--which is *not* to say I'm not serious about the ideas I'm presenting...


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2006)

Nice.


----------



## laptop (Apr 28, 2006)

* waits for azrael23 and merlin twig to come along and support phildwyer, so they can set up a bulletin board all of their very own and live happily ever after *


----------



## Jonti (Apr 28, 2006)

I volunteer to help them set it up


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2006)

> *Originally Posted by Zword*
> 
> Don't really know what to say to this. I didn't read the gun thread, at all, though all the same, I think he's got a point, though not one that needs proselytisation.
> 
> ...



You talk conneries, mon ami. All this crap about me "playing to the gallery" is rather misplaced but then do I really give a fuck what you think? No, I don't and I care even less about what your pal, phil thinks either. If you want to see someone "playing to the gallery" you should look at the person with whom you think you are debating.

I haven't got time for people who think they know it all - as you so clearly do.

I have even less time for this nonsense



> What you say about the bullying is absolutely true, both here and on other threads--bullies don't like to come across people who can give them a sharp taste of their own medicine, they can get quite flustered under such circumstances, and that's what's happened here. As for Nino himself, I fluctuate. Sometimes I quite like him, but at other times he seems to be a very jealous and bitter individual. We'll see how he conducts himself from here on in. Anyway, the vital ingredient necessary to get anything out of this thread, but which so many participants seem to lack, is a sense of humour--which is *not* to say I'm not serious about the ideas I'm presenting...



Of course, phil thinks that it's everyone else's fault but his own. In that respect, ZWord, you are little better than him.

Phil makes this claim that he sometimes "likes me". What a load of horseshit. He has spent a great deal of time stalking me and bullying me. That's a funny way of showing how much one "likes someone" - don't you think? 

If you think that what you are doing is debating with phil, think again. But then who knows? Maybe you two are running this thing in tandem. Whatever the case I don't give a shit.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 28, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I agree, he shows signs of being the perfect interlocutor.  But where has he gone?



I have gone to new york , im  at the airport so will post again next week.

PS you are a nob.


----------



## gurrier (Apr 28, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> It seems to me more like phil willingly sets himself up as a pompous academic type who's easy to take the piss out of.


Since we're dealing with ideas and reality, I might as well point out that Phil really is a pompous academic who sees himself as some sort of messiah in an age of scientific unreason.  He's easy to take the piss out of because he's so up himself and he vastly over-estimates his own intelligence in comparison to the average intelligence of human beings.  




			
				ZWord said:
			
		

> His actual name -phildwyer- is fairly unpretentious.  I always thought the idea of a logical proof of the existence of God was kind of barking,* but as it turned out, I found the argument he put forward kind of interesting, and not stupid at all.  And I think he was far more bullied than bully, on this thread.  And I think that the person who starts a thread should be considered to have ownership of it.


Not on this bulletin board.  Of course ye could take jonti's kind offer....


----------



## ZWord (Apr 28, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Since we're dealing with ideas and reality, I might as well point out that Phil really is a pompous academic who sees himself as some sort of messiah in an age of scientific unreason.  He's easy to take the piss out of because he's so up himself and he vastly over-estimates his own intelligence in comparison to the average intelligence of human beings.
> 
> Not on this bulletin board.  Of course ye could take jonti's kind offer....



Beh


----------



## Jonti (Apr 28, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Beh


I think you're better off here too   

When it comes down to it almost the only thing that matters, if one is about finding out the nature of things, is that folk are sincere. That is, whether they use words to communicate meaning and understanding, or to sow confusion.

Here's a bit from John Locke (qv) about this
_For reason is easier to be understood than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for truly so are a great part of the theories of phildwyer, which are only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted.
_(but I might have misquoted slightly)


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 29, 2006)

What kind of dualism are you actually espousing here phil? Is it substance or property dualism? 

Are you a Cartesian, phil? I think we should be told.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 29, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> What kind of dualism are you actually espousing here phil? Is it substance or property dualism?
> 
> Are you a Cartesian, phil? I think we should be told.



No I'm not a Cartesian, and I espouse no form of dualism.  I would have thought it was clear by now that I take a dialectical view of the matter/idea polarity as of all others.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 29, 2006)

As in; that matter and idea are different ways we have of organising perception-mediated events?


----------



## 118118 (Apr 29, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I take a dialectical view of the matter/idea polarity as of all others.


Which means what exactly? That matter mutates into ideas? Or that you can't think about ideas without the representation of ideas turnig into a representation of matter? Or what?


----------



## 118118 (Apr 29, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> As in; that matter and idea are different ways we have of organising perception-mediated events?


Do you mean 'matter' and 'idea', ot that matter itself, the matter of our brain or somthing, organizes events?


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 30, 2006)

I'm not sure I understand your question. The brain organizes  the perception of events and stores impressions of them, for sure.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 30, 2006)

Phenomenologically speaking, ideas and matter (the "physical" is a more precise term) are inseparable.  That is to say, human beings cannot experience one without the other.  So it is as absurd to claim that ideas don't exist as it is to claim that the physical wolrd does not exist.  It is also absurd to claim that one side of the polarity determines, or can be reduced to, the other.

Anyway, this section of the thread started as a proof of the existence of angels.  Since Atomix has gone away for a bit, can everyone now agree that ideas are real, that they do exist?  For this is the first stage of my argument.


----------



## revol68 (Apr 30, 2006)

is this shit still running?


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 30, 2006)

Personally I agree with the Tractatus L-P that the meaningfulness of the proposition 'X exists' is opaque at best. Leprechauns exist, if you want to look at it that way.

The question that is left unresolved by your explanation is whether matter and idea are one substance or two, and if they are two how they interact with each other, if at all.

I also haven't seen any proof in your explanation of why the correlation between ideas and material is actually causative rather than just apparently so, which is an important point given that a lot of recent thinking on the subject tends towards the latter opinion.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 30, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> is this shit still running?



God help me, I have nothing better to do today.


----------



## gurrier (Apr 30, 2006)

> It is also absurd to claim that one side of the polarity determines, or can be reduced to, the other.


All known evidence is therefore absurd.  As is pretty much all of neuro-science (the non-azrael23 varieties that is).  

Neuro-science rests on the occam-inspired assumption that mental activity, including ideas, memories, perceptions, etc, is reducible to chemical and electrical activity within the brain.  Thusfar, all the evidence discovered about the workings of the brain and its relation to the mind support this view.  

But I understand that you are entirely ignorant of the field, so don't allow me to stop your self-love session.  I really am looking forward to the mockery that will surround your proof of angels.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 30, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Neuro-science rests on the occam-inspired assumption that mental activity, including ideas, memories, perceptions, etc, is reducible to chemical and electrical activity within the brain.  Thusfar, all the evidence discovered about the workings of the brain and its relation to the mind support this view.



It astounds me that you consider yourself some species of Marxist, for your position forces you to abandon such basic Marxian concepts as alienation.  Neuro-science is indeed nonsense, at least in its ontological claims.  Consider the example Atomix mentioned above: a craftsman making a cup.  Clearly the idea of the cup exists before the cup itself.  Therefore the idea is something separate from the thing.  

Now, I have no doubt that having the idea of the cup will cause certain chemical and electrical reactions in the brain.  But only a fool would claim that the idea is *caused* by these reactions.  Clearly the idea of the cup is caused by factors within wider society, and wider society is in turn the product of ideas as well as of material factors.

So obvious are these facts that the absurd notion that chemical and electronic reactions in the brain are the cause of ideas--or worse that they actually *are* ideas--is clearly revealed as obfuscatory capitalist ideology.  An ideology of which you , Gurrier, in spite of your radical posturing, are an unusually dogmatic exponent.


----------



## 118118 (Apr 30, 2006)

All that situated cognition stuff is quite interesting. Not that I've read much on it mind.


----------



## gurrier (Apr 30, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It astounds me that you consider yourself some species of Marxist, for your position forces you to abandon such basic Marxian concepts as alienation.  Neuro-science is indeed nonsense, at least in its ontological claims.  Consider the example Atomix mentioned above: a craftsman making a cup.  Clearly the idea of the cup exists before the cup itself.  Therefore the idea is something separate from the thing.


The idea is a different thing.  




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now, I have no doubt that having the idea of the cup will cause certain chemical and electrical reactions in the brain.  But only a fool would claim that the idea is *caused* by these reactions.  Clearly the idea of the cup is caused by factors within wider society, and wider society is in turn the product of ideas as well as of material factors.


The idea is a particular neuro-biological event.  The relationship between the particular object and the neuro-biological events associated with it is complex and it is simply wrong to try to ascribe an ultimate cause - on the level of abstraction that you are dealing with, we can say that it has evolutionary, experiential and societal influences, which are themselves encoded materially in the particular configuration of molecules that is the brain.  That is to say, that for any particular brain, there will be a different set of associations triggered by a particular stimulus (or context state) and thus, the concept of an idea of an object that you are refering to would probably be closer to a total brain-state than to the activity of the small number of neurons that are most closely coupled to that object. 

Incidentally, we have now got a growing body of evidence which suggests that abstractions of common objects such as cups are encoded in single neurons.  The more excited that neuron, the greater amount of 'cupiness' there is in the consciousness and vice versa.

On the other hand, saying that "only a fool" would claim causation on a low level of abstraction in favour of a causation at a higher level of abstraction, is silly.  We can perfectly well say that everything is caused by the basic laws of the universe, for example.  It's simply not a very useful level of abstraction for most purposes..




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> So obvious are these facts that the absurd notion that chemical and electronic reactions in the brain are the cause of ideas--or worse that they actually *are* ideas--is clearly revealed as obfuscatory capitalist ideology.  An ideology of which you , Gurrier, in spite of your radical posturing, are an unusually dogmatic exponent.


Yawn.  Enough talk of absurd notions and obfuscatory posturing.  On to your proof of angels!


----------



## Jonti (May 1, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> is this shit still running?


It'll run until there's a critical mass of readers with phildwyer on _ignore_, or he goes away. The existence of God is not something that can be proved. There is no rational need for that hypothesis.

Some people have an emotional need to believe in a Deity, and they cannot be proved wrong, that's all.


----------



## Aldebaran (May 1, 2006)

I read the title of this thread and looked at a page or two, but I can't spend hours on reading all of it.
Yet I see that there is already a conclusion posted since trying to prove that angels exist can't be done - in my view - without first proving that God exists. Can someone please direct me to that post?

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (May 1, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> It'll run until there's a critical mass of readers with phildwyer on _ignore_, or he goes away. The existence of God is not something that can be proved. There is no rational need for that hypothesis.



There is as much rational for that thesis then there is for the thesis proposing that God does not exist.
You only demonstrate that you fall in the known trap, which looks to me like the Central Dogma of the Religion of the God Deniers. 



> Some people have an emotional need to believe in a Deity, and they cannot be proved wrong, that's all.



I don't have any emotional need to believe in the existence of what is commonly called "God" in human language. 
I came to the conclusion that "God" exists because that is the rational thing to do.  
That you can't prove me wrong already proves that you can't prove to be correct in your denial. 
It also proves that the probability and the possibility of God's existence exists. Follows that what is covered with the word "God" is unknown outside the human ideas about what is meant by this concept meant by the word "God", which is a human-made. Naked reality of human perception inevitably includes his perception of the abstract, and hence the existence of the abstract within human reality. If you make an analytic dissection of the abstract you find that there God exists not only as a possiblity or probability but as reality within its reality. Unlimited by the human concept describing "God", since the abstract, shaped in its perceived form by human perception, goes in fact beyond this perception and has no limits.

The only thing you can do is to deny knowledge about the existence of the concept referred to as "God", yet since you use the word or refer to its meaning, you speak against yourself. 

Now say that I am completely wrong and we can have a discussion 

salaam.


----------



## Crispy (May 1, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> I read the title of this thread and looked at a page or two, but I can't spend hours on reading all of it.
> Yet I see that there is already a conclusion posted since trying to prove that angels exist can't be done - in my view - without first proving that God exists. Can someone please direct me to that post?
> 
> salaam.



You know those signposts you get in extreme geographical places, with fingers pointing to every capital city (New York, 5498 miles) ? Cos that's the sort of navigation you'd need to negotiate this thread


----------



## phildwyer (May 1, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> The idea is a different thing.
> 
> The idea is a particular neuro-biological event.  The relationship between the particular object and the neuro-biological events associated with it is complex and it is simply wrong to try to ascribe an ultimate cause - on the level of abstraction that you are dealing with, we can say that it has evolutionary, experiential and societal influences, which are themselves encoded materially in the particular configuration of molecules that is the brain.  That is to say, that for any particular brain, there will be a different set of associations triggered by a particular stimulus (or context state) and thus, the concept of an idea of an object that you are refering to would probably be closer to a total brain-state than to the activity of the small number of neurons that are most closely coupled to that object.
> 
> ...



The idea may *cause* a neuro-biological event, but it cannot be identified with it.  What you refer to as “experiential and societal influences”--I would prefer to say “history and life”--are not exclusively material, they are also made up of ideas.  People certainly *experience* ideas, do they not?  So I think you must concede that ideas are caused in some degree by other ideas.

Let us return to our cup-maker.  Clearly he has an idea of a cup in his mind before the actual cup exists.  Obviously this idea is not caused by neuro-biological events within his brain--on the contrary the idea *causes* these events.  The idea is thus the determining factor both of the physical events within the brain and, in a sense and to a degree, of the cup itself.

Now, where does this idea come from?  Does it not come from the cup-maker’s training, his experience of other cups, the historical evolution of tableware, the market demand for blue or red cups… in short from life and history: of which ideas are undeniably experiential elements?  So we see that ideas do indeed cause other ideas.  Ideas are not, in other words, caused by physical events.  They exist autonomously, in the “realm of ideas.”

I have no problem with the argument that the idea of “cupness” as you call it is “encoded” in particular neurons or whatever, though I find this uninteresting.  My point is that this idea of “cupness”--that is the *concept,* the Platonic “eidos” or Hegelian “Begriff” of cupness--*also* exists outside the brain and apart from these neurons.  And furthermore this concept of “cupness” is the ultimate cause of the particular idea of a cup that comes into our cup-maker’s mind.   

The only way to prove the existence of angels is to proceed by Socratic steps, but basically I will be arguing that angels are ideas that exist outside the individual brain.  So my first step is to establish that ideas *within* the brain are real, and that they are not necessarily caused by, and certainly not reducible to, neuro-biological events. Are we all now convinced of this?


----------



## phildwyer (May 1, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> I came to the conclusion that "God" exists because that is the rational thing to do.



Me too.  I have never had "faith" in God, and I consider faith an absurd reason to believe in anything.  Like most people in Western society, I was a completely unreflective atheist until I read a lot of books on the subject.


----------



## The Groke (May 1, 2006)

phildwyer is teh lol-est!


----------



## phildwyer (May 1, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> It'll run until there's a critical mass of readers with phildwyer on _ignore_, or he goes away. The existence of God is not something that can be proved. There is no rational need for that hypothesis.
> 
> Some people have an emotional need to believe in a Deity, and they cannot be proved wrong, that's all.



I can't help feeling that you might want to give some thought to the question of whether this thread is really the best available fit for you at the present time?  There are many other perfectly respectable threads where, as it seems to me, your talents might be more profitably employed.  But let me assure you that, if you should ever wish to return to this thread, your request will given the utmost consideration.  May I take this opportunity to wish you the very best success on all the other threads to which you contribute?  Thank you very much indeed for your interest.


----------



## Crispy (May 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I can't help feeling that you might want to give some thought to the question of whether this thread is really the best available fit for you at the present time?  There are many other perfectly respectable threads where, as it seems to me, your talents might be more profitably employed.  But let me assure you that, if you should ever wish to return to this thread, your request will given the utmost consideration.  May I take this opportunity to wish you the very best success on all the other threads to which you contribute?  Thank you very much indeed for your interest.



He's right you know Jonti. If you're not prepared to get nostril-deep in self-perpetuating tautologies, then this isn't the thread for you. It's not the thread for me either, but I hang around because it's funny


----------



## gurrier (May 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now, where does this idea come from?  Does it not come from the cup-maker’s training, his experience of other cups, the historical evolution of tableware, the market demand for blue or red cups… in short from life and history: of which ideas are undeniably experiential elements?  So we see that ideas do indeed cause other ideas.  Ideas are not, in other words, caused by physical events.  They exist autonomously, in the “realm of ideas.”


You are mistaking a difference in levels of abstraction with fundamental physical differences.  Just because the realm of neurons, neuro-transmitters, etc is not a useful level of abstraction with which to discuss concepts within a society, does not mean that there does not exist a mapping from one to the other and, as I have pointed out, all the evidence suggests that there is such a mapping in all known examples.  

It's like saying "the fundamental laws of the universe did not cause the ball to go into the back of the net.  It was the skill of the player involved that caused it and all of the infinitely complex sequences of events that conspired to create that skill, and the situation whereby the match came to be played on that day.  Therefore we have proved that the ball is autonomous of the basic rules of the universe."


----------



## Crispy (May 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> May I take this opportunity to wish you the very best success on all the other threads to which you contribute?  Thank you very much indeed for your interest.



Oh, and get off your high horse. Sir.


----------



## Crispy (May 1, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> You are mistaking a difference in levels of abstraction with fundamental physical differences.  Just because the realm of neurons, neuro-transmitters, etc is not a useful level of abstraction with which to discuss concepts within a society, does not mean that there does not exist a mapping from one to the other and, as I have pointed out, all the evidence suggests that there is such a mapping in all known examples.



Exactly. It seems completely sensible to me that if all human brains were instantaneously wiped out, then the idea of "Goal" would cease to exist. Therefore the idea "Goal" is dependant on the human brain and its workings, not the other way round.

Anyway, on to the angels!


----------



## Fruitloop (May 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The idea may *cause* a neuro-biological event, but it cannot be identified with it. What you refer to as “experiential and societal influences”--I would prefer to say “history and life”--are not exclusively material, they are also made up of ideas. People certainly *experience* ideas, do they not? So I think you must concede that ideas are caused in some degree by other ideas.



The first idea is completely unsubstantiated, and the last sentence doesn't logically follow from the preceding one. If ideas cause things in the material realm (which is far from proven) then they are either made of essentially the same substance, or you have to explain how they interact with the material world.

IMO the symbolic order is not unlike the internet, in that whilst information is shared to such an extent that it might seem like non-local, 'pure' information, in fact it is all physically instantiated somewhere. Neither is it absolute, in that what is received is filtered through the hermeneutic apparatus that is needed in order to reach and make use of it.


----------



## gurrier (May 1, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> you have to explain how they interact with the material world.


Angels carry messages from the realm of ideas and put them into the neurons?  

We want angels!


----------



## phildwyer (May 1, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> You are mistaking a difference in levels of abstraction with fundamental physical differences.  Just because the realm of neurons, neuro-transmitters, etc is not a useful level of abstraction with which to discuss concepts within a society, does not mean that there does not exist a mapping from one to the other and, as I have pointed out, all the evidence suggests that there is such a mapping in all known examples.



I agree that there is always such "mapping," as you call it.  But what makes my thought dialectical and yours reductionist is that I see the chain of causality as moving in *both* directions.  Obviously injecting someone with heroin will release endorphins and produce euphoria by purely material means.  But equally obviously, having a brilliant or exciting idea will release endorphins and produce euphoria by purely ideal means.  In one case, a physical event causes an idea; in the other an idea causes a physical event.  My point is that while ideas and physical events are certainly not *separable* for human beings, they are nonetheless irreducibly *distinct.*  Can we now accept this point?


----------



## Crispy (May 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I agree that there is always such "mapping," as you call it.  But what makes my thought dialectical and yours reductionist is that I see the chain of causality as moving in *both* directions.  Obviously injecting someone with heroin will release endorphins and produce euphoria by purely material means.  But equally obviously, having a brilliant or exciting idea will release endorphins and produce euphoria by purely ideal means.



Well, no. That idea itself is a manifestation of a particular chemical and electrical state of the brain. It may well be possible to transmit this brain state throught the medium of language, but all the mechanisms involved are material.



> In one case, a physical event causes an idea; in the other an idea causes a physical event.  My point is that while ideas and physical events are certainly not *separable* for human beings, they are nonetheless irreducibly *distinct.*  Can we now accept this point?



For the purposes of this discussion, yes why not


----------



## Fruitloop (May 1, 2006)

*Another thought experiment:*

If you were to attempt to answer the hard problem by building a robot whose electronic nervous system modelled a human one as closely as our understanding permits - using Churchlands similarity spaces or whatever - in order to see whether it experienced qualia, is it likely that the robot would have access to the genuinely causative 'nuts and bolts' of the computation of its discrete states? 

I think it's highly unlikely. Much more likely is that the robot would have an epiphenomenal view of events that are not primarily causative, like the way a computer knows its CPU temperature and available free memory. However, I can see very good design reasons for making this epiphenomenal view so coherent as to appear to be the prime mover in the whole system, otherwise the illusion would never be truly convincing.


----------



## phildwyer (May 1, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> He's right you know Jonti. If you're not prepared to get nostril-deep in self-perpetuating tautologies, then this isn't the thread for you. It's not the thread for me either, but I hang around because it's funny



Crispy, I'd like to thank you sincerely for your contributions to this thread.  Everyone has enjoyed them immensely, and you've made a really positive impact here.  In fact, I can't help feeling guilty that the many other exciting threads on these boards are being unfairly deprived of your talents at present.  Have you ever thought about bestowing the benefits of your abilities elsewhere for a while?  I think its probably a good idea if you had a little look around, just to see what other opportunites are out there.  Of course, if you ever change your mind, you're more than welcome to re-apply here.  I'm afraid that I am unable to provide any references at present, as it is now breakfast time.  Once again, thank you very much for your input, and we wish you all the very best in your future endeavours.


----------



## Crispy (May 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Crispy, I'd like to thank you sincerely for your contributions to this thread.


Thank you for providing me with the opportunity. It's been a privilege.


> Everyone has enjoyed them immensely, and you've made a really positive impact here.  In fact, I can't help feeling guilty that the many other exciting threads on these boards are being unfairly deprived of your talents at present.


I have plenty of spare time. And hey it's a bank holiday!


> Have you ever thought about bestowing the benefits of your abilities elsewhere for a while?  I think its probably a good idea if you had a little look around, just to see what other opportunites are out there.


Well, to be perfectly frank with you, it's the current lack of other interesting, active threads that's keeping me here. Just as soon as this one stops being interesting, I'll go elsewhere.


> Of course, if you ever change your mind, you're more than welcome to re-apply here.  I'm afraid that I am unable to provide any references at present, as it is now breakfast time.  Once again, thank you very much for your input, and we wish you all the very best in your future endeavours.


You're too kind.
Anyway, I'm more than happy to accept that ideas and material things are seperate for the purposes of this debate. After all, if we're going to have a metaphysical debate, we'd better use the socially accepted language and terms. Just as it would be *foolish* to talk of cosmological distances in terms of "about 50,000,000 times the distance to the shops and back" - the ideas/material world split you talk of has useful conversational applications. Pray continue.


----------



## phildwyer (May 1, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Pray continue.



Oh alright then.  But it might be a while, I am off for a sausage-egg-and-cheese roll now.  Only $2, or about 120p.  If I survive, I will be back later.


----------



## ZWord (May 1, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> The idea is a different thing.
> 
> Incidentally, we have now got a growing body of evidence which suggests that abstractions of common objects such as cups are encoded in single neurons.  The more excited that neuron, the greater amount of 'cupiness' there is in the consciousness and vice versa.
> 
> !




That really is nonsense.  Honestly.  Honestly, honestly.  I think you must have misunderstood something you read.  If abstractions of common objects such as cups were encoded in single neurons, then people would suddenly forget basic concepts at random when the particular neuron associated with the concept died.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 1, 2006)

The 'breakthrough' experience with Salvia Divinorum provides some interesting clues as to whether the 'I' that can experience mental objects is a substance to itself or a construct of the neurochemical substrate.


----------



## ZWord (May 1, 2006)

What is the breakthrough experience with salvia divinorum. ?


----------



## Jonti (May 1, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> There is as much rational for that thesis then there is for the thesis proposing that God does not exist.


Nope.

Not if there is no need for the hypothesis, no.

If there is no need for a hypothesis (of a teapot orbiting Mars; or of Santa Claus, or, come to that, of Saddam Hussein's WMD) then it is irrational to embrace the hypothesis. That's all. 

The hitherto elusive proof of God's existence would have to show that there is in fact a need for the God hypothesis. That this is impossible is widely accepted, even in religious circles. That's why people talk about their Faith, you understand.


----------



## ZWord (May 1, 2006)

Whether or not there's any need for the hypothesis is pretty much a matter of opinion, I reckon.  

Also just because science has a methodological bias for preferring simpler or naturalist explanations, that doesn't prove that such explanations will always be correct.


----------



## Aldebaran (May 1, 2006)

There is no need for any hypothesis that God does not exist.  Why do you claim there would be any need for it?

salaam.


----------



## gurrier (May 1, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> That really is nonsense.  Honestly.  Honestly, honestly.  I think you must have misunderstood something you read.


Kreiman, G, Fried, I, and Koch, C. "Single-neuron correlates of subjective vision in the human medial temporal lobe", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99:8378-8383 (2002)

Kreiman, G, Fried, I, and Koch, C. "Category-specific visual responses of single neurons in the human medial temporal lobe" Nature Neuroscience 3:946-953

Perhaps you can point out which bits I misunderstood?




			
				ZWord said:
			
		

> If abstractions of common objects such as cups were encoded in single neurons, then people would suddenly forget basic concepts at random when the particular neuron associated with the concept died.


Neurons don't die at random, but when they do die, all the evidence indicates that basic concepts are indeed lost.  The plasticity of the brain allows it to re-encode concepts in many cases where the brain damage is not too severe.


----------



## ZWord (May 1, 2006)

Honestly, you are talking rubbish, not nonsense, as I said earlier, as what you said does of course make sense.  It's just totally untrue. 

I actually studied this in a fair amount of detail.  There is some evidence of single neurons in the visual cortex, being "feature-detectors" i.e. responding specifically to lines of particular orientation.  

The idea that a single neuron is responsible for knowledge of a single concept is one that no experimental psychologist would support. 

Part of the reason why a network of neurons is the most powerful kind of information processor possible, is that neural networks don't break down immediately when you damage them, unlike computer programs, they suffer progressive degradation,(whereas a computer program either works or it doesn't.)  because the knowledge of a neural network is contained in the weight of the strengths of inhibition and excitation between the connections between the neurons.  And you can only say that a particular network is responsible for a particular concept by virtue of the fact that it connects to other networks, responsible for say the phonetic coding of the word associated with the concept and the motor networks for pronouncing it.  

The most you could prove experimentally is that in association with a particular concept, a certain neuron always fires, - and that would still fail to prove that that single neuron alone was responsible for the concept.

Your post is indicative of your usual mindset, failing to understand the meaning of scientific findings because you haven't been able to place them in a proper philosophical context.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 1, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> What is the breakthrough experience with salvia divinorum. ?



http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=41047

This experience reminds me of Zizek's description of the 'real' real.


----------



## ZWord (May 1, 2006)

Interesting, - and what was the point you were making about it?


----------



## kyser_soze (May 1, 2006)

I refer the thread to the Great Prophet Douglas Adams:

'I refuse to prove that I exist', says God, 'For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

Anyway...good to see Alderbaran wading in here with more religious cockamamerie about how belief in a deity is rational - on what basis is it rational? On what basis is it more rational to believe that the universe is the product of a single being's actions, rather than the accumulated effects of 13 billion or so years of cause, effect and probability playing themselves out? 

To look around at the world and say 'It's rational to believe that this was all designed - look how complex it is, it couldn't have happened by chance' is the kind of reductive thinking that phil accuses others of.

As for the idea of neuro-biology being in hoc with capitalism...it's back to phil ignoring actual science in favour of the 'science' practised by his fellow religionists.

And finally:



> Religion of the God Deniers



And what would that be then, you little PR boy for the Koran/Qu'ran/whatever?


----------



## gurrier (May 1, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> Honestly, you are talking rubbish, not nonsense, as I said earlier, as what you said does of course make sense.  It's just totally untrue.
> 
> I actually studied this in a fair amount of detail.  There is some evidence of single neurons in the visual cortex, being "feature-detectors" i.e. responding specifically to lines of particular orientation.


I supplied you with two references to studies in highly reputable peer-reviewed journals.  You should acquaint yourself with the information contained therein before you pronounce upon it.  




			
				ZWord said:
			
		

> The idea that a single neuron is responsible for knowledge of a single concept is one that no experimental psychologist would support.


And it's not a claim that I made.   




			
				ZWord said:
			
		

> Part of the reason why a network of neurons is the most powerful kind of information processor possible, is that neural networks don't break down immediately when you damage them, unlike computer programs, they suffer progressive degradation,(whereas a computer program either works or it doesn't.)  because the knowledge of a neural network is contained in the weight of the strengths of inhibition and excitation between the connections between the neurons.  And you can only say that a particular network is responsible for a particular concept by virtue of the fact that it connects to other networks, responsible for say the phonetic coding of the word associated with the concept and the motor networks for pronouncing it.


Mostly rubbish.  You can synthesise neural networks as computer programmes and you can, if you want, build in as much redundancy as you require.  Nobody has ever claimed that a network of neurons is the "most powerful kind of information processor possible" - nonsense.  There are lots of ways in which one can associate parts of the brain with functionality - the examination of behaviour in individuals who have damaged that part of the brain being one, opening the skull and measuring electrical activity with microdes being another.  




			
				ZWord said:
			
		

> The most you could prove experimentally is that in association with a particular concept, a certain neuron always fires, - and that would still fail to prove that that single neuron alone was responsible for the concept.


I didn't say that.  I said 'encodes', or to put it another way, there is a one to one correlation between the concept and the neuronal excitation.  




			
				ZWord said:
			
		

> Your post is indicative of your usual mindset, failing to understand the meaning of scientific findings because you haven't been able to place them in a proper philosophical context.


Hmmm.


----------



## Jonti (May 1, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> There is no need for any hypothesis that God does not exist.  Why do you claim there would be any need for it?
> 
> salaam.



So you say. But which phenomena or events take place that cannot be explained without postulating a Deity?

Unless you can come up with an answer to this question, then there is no need for the hypothesis that a Deity exists.


----------



## Masseuse (May 1, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> So you say. But which phenomena or events take place that cannot be explained without postulating a Deity?
> 
> Unless you can come up with an answer to this question, then there is no need for the hypothesis that a Deity exists.



If you read that out loud you end up frothing at the mouth.


----------



## Aldebaran (May 1, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> So you say. But which phenomena or events take place that cannot be explained without postulating a Deity?



Do you really want to come across as someone convinced that everything can be explained using whatever non-specified methods you seem to use? That sounds completely irrational to me.



> Unless you can come up with an answer to this question, then there is no need for the hypothesis that a Deity exists.



I never said there is a need for it (do not project your ideas and what you declare onto others, it ends in confusing yourself as you show it is already the case).

(So far I didn't see anything even remotely contradicting what I said in post #2366.)


salaam.


----------



## Jonti (May 1, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> I never said there is a need for (the hypothesis that there is a Deity).


Good.  

It hinders understanding to make unnecessary assumptions, you see. The  reason for this is that one can invent as many unnecessary hypotheses as one pleases ...

Now, if there is no need for the hypothesis that there is a Deity, then it cannot be proven that there is a Deity.

 

PS: I'm aware that you are not using your first language for this discussion. I'd like to acknowledge that there is no way I could begin to hold my own in this debate were I in your position. Thank you for hanging in there and trying so hard to make sense of what I've been saying.


----------



## 8ball (May 1, 2006)

Just checking in.

Have we proved God's existence yet?

Have we passed the semantic navel-gazing stage?

I'm on the edge of my seat here and the Matrix is on in a bit. . .


----------



## gurrier (May 1, 2006)

8ball said:
			
		

> Just checking in.
> 
> Have we proved God's existence yet?
> 
> ...


No, just sitting around sharpening our sticks and giving phil the odd poke while we await the coming of the angels, when the poking can begin in earnest.


----------



## Aldebaran (May 1, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> Now, if there is no need for the hypothesis that there is a Deity, then it cannot be proven that there is a Deity.



Necessity is not required for a hypothesis to give it ability to  lead to a proof considering its subject.

You still didn't reply on my post 2366

And yes, it is sometimes a bit difficult to be and dyslexic and to debate in a language you have no clue about 
(If I wouldn't risk to be painted these days as "typical Muslim" by saying this, I would say it is a bit suicidal, if I come to think of it.)

salaam.


----------



## 8ball (May 1, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> No, just sitting around sharpening our sticks and giving phil the odd poke while we await the coming of the angels, when the poking can begin in earnest.



Haha - the angels are still maintaining their usual level of organisation and punctuality, then


----------



## Jonti (May 1, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Necessity is not required for a hypothesis to give it ability to  lead to a proof considering its subject...



If an uncertain hypothesis yielded a proof, you would regard the hypothesis as corroborated, I'm sure.





			
				Aldebaran said:
			
		

> _from post 2366_
> There is as much rational for that thesis then there is for the thesis proposing that God does not exist.
> ...



I didn't say _God does not exist_.

What science *does* hold as a central premise -- and it seems a reasonable one -- is that simple lack of evidence either way (or lack of knowledge) is not a valid reason for presupposing anything's existence.

And it's a principle of reason I hold dear


----------



## 8ball (May 1, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> No, just sitting around sharpening our sticks and giving phil the odd poke while we await the coming of the angels, when the poking can begin in earnest.



Cool, see you in another six months


----------



## gurrier (May 2, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> I didn't say _God does not exist_.
> 
> What science *does* hold as a central premise -- and it seems a reasonable one -- is that simple lack of evidence either way (or lack of knowledge) is not a valid reason for presupposing anything's existence.
> 
> And it's a principle of reason I hold dear


But it further says that, while not presupposing the non-existance of any entity, we adopt a working assumption that things for which we have no evidence and for which we have no need in terms of explanatory power, do not exist.  When we encounter something that contradicts our assumption we re-visit it.  

Which is a principle of science I hold dear  and which is why occam shaves away god in our working assumption.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Anyway, I'm more than happy to accept that ideas and material things are seperate for the purposes of this debate. After all, if we're going to have a metaphysical debate, we'd better use the socially accepted language and terms. Just as it would be *foolish* to talk of cosmological distances in terms of "about 50,000,000 times the distance to the shops and back" - the ideas/material world split you talk of has useful conversational applications. Pray continue.



Very well.  I must inform you, however, that I shall be travelling for the next month, and so will not be posting quite as regularly as is my wont.  But anyway, we have established--for the sake of argument at least--that ideas and physical things are different entities.  Now I will show that ideas *determine* physical things for us.  

(Of course physical things *also* determine ideas, but that is not the relevant factor for this argument.  All that is necesary for my case is to prove that non-material ideas determine our experience of physical things to any degree at all.)

Now, I put it to you that the definitive charcteristic of the human mind is its ability to subsume particular phenomena beneath general concepts.  Where a dog only sees a big brown thing with leaves, we humans recognize it as a particular instance of the general concept "tree."  We cannot see this big brown thing without refracting it through the concept "tree."  So the way in which this thing appears to us is determined by this concept.  And yet this concept has no physical existence whatsoever: it is an *idea.*  Thus we see that, for human beings, ideas determine reality.  We have previously seen that ideas are not themselves physical.  Are you with me so far?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 2, 2006)

Nope, this is nonsense.


----------



## Crispy (May 2, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now, I put it to you that the definitive charcteristic of the human mind is its ability to subsume particular phenomena beneath general concepts.  Where a dog only sees a big brown thing with leaves, we humans recognize it as a particular instance of the general concept "tree."  We cannot see this big brown thing without refracting it through the concept "tree."  So the way in which this thing appears to us is determined by this concept.  And yet this concept has no physical existence whatsoever: it is an *idea.*  Thus we see that, for human beings, ideas determine reality.  We have previously seen that ideas are not themselves physical.  Are you with me so far?



I reckon so. I wouldn't go so far as to say that ideas determine reality - that tree is the same arragement of carbon atoms (and makes a sound when it falls in the forest - arf) quite independant of the human idea of the tree. Bear in mind also, that under the influence of psychedelics, we can see the tree as the dog sees it. I would also suggest that animals _can_ have a concept of 'treeness' - for example a fir tree looks quite diferent to a deciduous tree, yet I suspect an animal would treat it in a similar way.

However, I think this is just because you're using a narrower, human-centric, definition of the word reality. So that's ok. This is philosophy and it's all about human perception. I will accept that it is possible for people to have different internalised 'treeness' ideas, and therefore for their 'realities' to be different.


----------



## gurrier (May 2, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now, I put it to you that the definitive charcteristic of the human mind is its ability to subsume particular phenomena beneath general concepts.  Where a dog only sees a big brown thing with leaves, we humans recognize it as a particular instance of the general concept "tree."  We cannot see this big brown thing without refracting it through the concept "tree."  So the way in which this thing appears to us is determined by this concept.  And yet this concept has no physical existence whatsoever: it is an *idea.*  Thus we see that, for human beings, ideas determine reality.  We have previously seen that ideas are not themselves physical.  Are you with me so far?


Brains are ontologically wired.  Dogs' brains too.  The categories in our ontologies are dynamically formed.  That is to say that the tree category is formed from our brains repeatedly coming across similar collections of associated stimuli (ie leaves, big brown things) and creating a category node in our symbolic ontology which collects the associated stimuli together.  But you are categorically wrong in claiming that there is some basic distinction between human brains and the brains of other animals in this respect.  

It also most certainly does have a physical existence - in many cases the category is encoded as a single neuron.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Brains are ontologically wired.  Dogs' brains too.  The categories in our ontologies are dynamically formed.  That is to say that the tree category is formed from our brains repeatedly coming across similar collections of associated stimuli (ie leaves, big brown things) and creating a category node in our symbolic ontology which collects the associated stimuli together.



Rubbish.  Let us now take a further step into abstraction and consider the category of ideas that have *no* physical correspondence at all: beauty, for example.  Certainly none of us have ever "come across" beauty, in the abstract.  And certainly each of us may have different understandings of what beauty means.  I may find Jennifer Lopez beautiful, while you may judge Anne Widdecombe so.  It matters not: we both recognize the *entirely* abstract concept of beauty when we see it.  This *entirely* abstract concept--which has neither a physical existence nor a physical referent-- determines the way the physical world appears to us.  Am I right or wrong?


----------



## gurrier (May 2, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Rubbish.  Let us now take a further step into abstraction and consider the category of ideas that have *no* physical correspondence at all: beauty, for example.  Certainly none of us have ever "come across" beauty, in the abstract.  And certainly each of us may have different understandings of what beauty means.  I may find Jennifer Lopez beautiful, while you may judge Anne Widdecombe so.  It matters not: we both recognize the *entirely* abstract concept of beauty when we see it.  This *entirely* abstract concept--which has neither a physical existence nor a physical referent-- determines the way the physical world appears to us.  Am I right or wrong?


Wrong!  As usual!

Beauty - in anything - can be shown to be strongly correlated with the physical characteristics of the object.  The translation of the physical attributes into the sense of beauty is just another matter of wiring - what connections there are between neurons in the visual areas and those in the emotional areas.  Besides, many studies have shown that the concept of beauty in women, for example, is significantly hard-wired.  The ratios of hip-size, buttock-size and breat-size can be calculated to give a fairly accurate cross-cultural beauty estimate.


----------



## Crispy (May 2, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Rubbish.  Let us now take a further step into abstraction and consider the category of ideas that have *no* physical correspondence at all: beauty, for example.  Certainly none of us have ever "come across" beauty, in the abstract.  And certainly each of us may have different understandings of what beauty means.  I may find Jennifer Lopez beautiful, while you may judge Anne Widdecombe so.  It matters not: we both recognize the *entirely* abstract concept of beauty when we see it.  This *entirely* abstract concept--which has neither a physical existence nor a physical referent-- determines the way the physical world appears to us.  Am I right or wrong?



Well, I'd clarify that by saying that beauty does have physical referents, but they vary depending on the individual and societal norms. eg. the 75th percentile in society A find Jennifer Lopez attractive, and can therefore agree on at least that aspect of beauty. It's statistical, innit.

Also, not all our knowledge of the physical world is mediated through such abstract ideas. Red light has a wavelength of 650 nm (or 6.5e28 times the smallest distance you can ever move something) no matter what condition your colour vision is in.

However, for certain physical things, most of their meaning to humans is determined by abstract ideas, yes.


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Wrong!  As usual!
> 
> Beauty - in anything - can be shown to be strongly correlated with the physical characteristics of the object.  The translation of the physical attributes into the sense of beauty is just another matter of wiring - what connections there are between neurons in the visual areas and those in the emotional areas.  Besides, many studies have shown that the concept of beauty in women, for example, is significantly hard-wired.  The ratios of hip-size, buttock-size and breat-size can be calculated to give a fairly accurate cross-cultural beauty estimate.



Rubbish.  The concept of female beauty varies very widely indeed across cultures and historical periods.  Look at Rubens's nudes.  Look at Victorian pin-ups.  Look at Marilyn Monroe.  Look at the differences even within a single nation--white America (generally) values narrow hips, while black America (generally) values big ones.  And that is not even to mention the differences in *individual* taste.  The *one* thing that all people have in common is the *abstract* concept of beauty.  We conclude that this concept is constant and stable--*real* in fact--while its various manifestations are various and mutable.  You are merely spouting pseudo-Darwisnist claptrap, if you don't mind my saying so.

Anyway, I have to catch a plane to London this afternoon.  I will respond when I can, but my communication may be intermittent.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 2, 2006)

Just because the symbolic order has abstract categories in it doesn't mean that it doesn't live entirely in people's heads. In any case beauty is a property of actual things not a thing per se, so there's no conceptual problem with it not itself being physically instantiated.

Animals probably recognise functional rather than ontological categories as well, like notions of social precedence for example.


----------



## gurrier (May 2, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Rubbish.  The concept of female beauty varies very widely indeed across cultures and historical periods.  Look at Rubens's nudes.  Look at Victorian pin-ups.  Look at Marilyn Monroe.  Look at the differences even within a single nation--white America (generally) values narrow hips, while black America (generally) values big ones.  And that is not even to mention the differences in *individual* taste.  The *one* thing that all people have in common is the *abstract* concept of beauty.  We conclude that this concept is constant and stable--*real* in fact--while its various manifestations are various and mutable.  You are merely spouting pseudo-Darwisnist claptrap, if you don't mind my saying so.


Studies show that the *ratio* of the measurements regarded as beautiful in a woman are remarkably constant across cultures and times and *shock horror* they generally correspond with underlying attributes such as the lack of disease (symetrical features, good skin, etc) and the ability to give birth and rear healthy children (hips vs waist vs breasts).


----------



## phildwyer (May 2, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Studies show that the *ratio* of the measurements regarded as beautiful in a woman are remarkably constant across cultures and times and *shock horror* they generally correspond with underlying attributes such as the lack of disease (symetrical features, good skin, etc) and the ability to give birth and rear healthy children (hips vs waist vs breasts).



These "studies" are pseudo-scientific, transparently ideological, socio-Darwinist nonsense.  They are designed to show that the desire to reproduce our genes determines our sexual preferences.  Not only is this garbage, it is pernicious garbage.  How for example do these "studies" account for *homosexual* desire?  Or, come to that, for the preference of the Karen people of northern Thailand for women with foot-long necks?


----------



## Crispy (May 2, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Studies show that the *ratio* of the measurements regarded as beautiful in a woman are remarkably constant across cultures and times and *shock horror* they generally correspond with underlying attributes such as the lack of disease (symetrical features, good skin, etc) and the ability to give birth and rear healthy children (hips vs waist vs breasts).



Exactly. It's crazy to admit sexual selection in animals and then deny that it has happened in humans. There's plenty of evidence for certain animal behaviours to be 'hard-wired' as well. Anyway, perhaps beauty was a bad choice of abstract idea to make. I see where you're going Phil, so don't let's get distracted by definitions of beauty


----------



## Fruitloop (May 2, 2006)

I have a feeling that the 'proof' of angels is just going to highlight the folly of thinking that ideas exist elsewhere than in people's brains.


----------



## Santino (May 2, 2006)

I have not accepted that material things and ideas are separate things.


----------



## Jonti (May 2, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Jonti said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. 

This is what is meant when one says that science offers rational proof of the non-existence of God.  It's a rather technical meaning of _proof_ but, to be fair, pretty much the operational definition that applies in all practical matters. Great insight can be encapsulated by the definitions used in science. 

Yet an eminent scientist like Polkinghorne can still believe in God. He talks about it in this video. I've a feeling that Alde will agree with Polkinghorne that there is a style to Nature that is suggestive of the Divine.

Of course, Polkinghorne does not hold that one can _*prove*_ the existence of God. That would be silly


----------



## gurrier (May 2, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> Of course, Polkinghorne does not hold that one can _*prove*_ the existence of God. That would be silly


supernaturally silly


----------



## joffle (May 2, 2006)

i was talking shit *edit*


----------



## Jo/Joe (May 2, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> These "studies" are pseudo-scientific, transparently ideological, socio-Darwinist nonsense.  They are designed to show that the desire to reproduce our genes determines our sexual preferences.  Not only is this garbage, it is pernicious garbage.  How for example do these "studies" account for *homosexual* desire?  Or, come to that, for the preference of the Karen people of northern Thailand for women with foot-long necks?



Are you saying sexual desire is completely random? If not, what drives it?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 2, 2006)

Temptation!


----------



## phildwyer (May 3, 2006)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Are you saying sexual desire is completely random? If not, what drives it?



No of course its not random, its socially conditioned.  If you deny this, you are forced to regard heterosexuality as somehow more "natural" than other forms of sexuality.  Anyway, the point is that beauty as an abstract concept transcends its physical objects.  It is an idea with *no* material existence and yet it determines everyone's experience of the material world.  So we see that ideas create the material world for us.  Can we move on now?


----------



## Crispy (May 3, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Anyway, the point is that beauty as an abstract concept transcends its physical objects.  It is an idea with *no* material existence and yet it determines everyone's experience of the material world.  So we see that ideas create the material world for us.  Can we move on now?



As long as you also admit that ideas are dependant on the material world for their existence. How can you have a concept of beauty without having a beautiful thing to say "this is beautiful" ? The material world exists outside and independant of us, it is only mediated by ideas, not created by them.

I'm saying this because I think that you're about to assign an equal 'amount' of 'existence' to ideas and the material world, when it is obvious that the material world will carry on existing even in the complete abscence of ideas. Whereas ideas will most certainly come to an end at the same time as the material world.

BUT, we're dealing, as far as I can tell, with the insides of people's heads, where ideas are as important and 'real' as you say they are. So yes, I follow.


----------



## xenon (May 3, 2006)

Been following this for a bit. I've a sour notion that as Crispy has pointed out above. We're going to get this proof based on the philosophical belief that ideas or abstracts  can exist externally to the onlooker.

AH well if nothing else. It's going to be one very big and possibly record breaking thread.


----------



## Jo/Joe (May 3, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No of course its not random, its socially conditioned.  If you deny this, you are forced to regard heterosexuality as somehow more "natural" than other forms of sexuality.  Anyway, the point is that beauty as an abstract concept transcends its physical objects.  It is an idea with *no* material existence and yet it determines everyone's experience of the material world.  So we see that ideas create the material world for us.  Can we move on now?



Why is it socially conditioned the way it is then? Do you really believe men are only attracted to hourglass figures because they are conditioned to?


----------



## 118118 (May 3, 2006)

xenon_2 said:
			
		

> Been following this for a bit. I've a sour notion that as Crispy has pointed out above. We're going to get this proof based on the philosophical belief that ideas or abstracts  can exist externally to the onlooker.
> 
> AH well if nothing else. It's going to be one very big and possibly record breaking thread.


Well situated cognition, of cognitive science, says that parts of mental states exist external to ourselves - coded into the landscape or something. This is quite scientific. BUT THEY ARE NOT COMPOSED OF A UNIQUE IMMUTIBLE SUBSTANCE.
why don't you use your powers for good phildwyer


----------



## phildwyer (May 4, 2006)

118118 said:
			
		

> why don't you use your powers for good phildwyer



Oh alright then, if I must.


----------



## phildwyer (May 4, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> As long as you also admit that ideas are dependant on the material world for their existence. How can you have a concept of beauty without having a beautiful thing to say "this is beautiful" ? The material world exists outside and independant of us, it is only mediated by ideas, not created by them.



But to say the material world is inevitably 'mediated' by ideas is to say that it is created by them *for us.*  There's no point in worrying about what its like, or whether it exists, in any other state than as it appears *for us.*  We are human beings, and we can only know what human beings can know, and human beings can only know the material world as it is mediated through ideas.  So as far as *we* are concerned, the material world is created by ideas.  Fair enough?


----------



## phildwyer (May 4, 2006)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> Why is it socially conditioned the way it is then? Do you really believe men are only attracted to hourglass figures because they are conditioned to?



Yes.  Not all men are attracted to hourglass figures.  The hourglass figure is by no means a universal standard of female beauty, and female beauty is by no means a universal object of sexual attraction for men.  The idea that there is a 'natural' mode of sexual desire is pernicious and destructive garbage.


----------



## s.norbury (May 4, 2006)

I am God, and you are too, so shut the fock op


----------



## Fruitloop (May 4, 2006)

The thing is that these ideas whatever they are create *for us* a world that is coherent and consistent, and hopefully relatively free of solipsism - i.e. a world where when a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it, it does still make a sound. So you are forced all the time to conclude that the world was here long before there were any ideas about it, will be here long after all ideas have ceased to be, and that the ability to have ideas at all is dependent on existence in and interaction with the world.


----------



## phildwyer (May 4, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The thing is that these ideas whatever they are create *for us* a world that is coherent and consistent, and hopefully relatively free of solipsism - i.e. a world where when a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it, it does still make a sound. So you are forced all the time to conclude that the world was here long before there were any ideas about it, will be here long after all ideas have ceased to be, and that the ability to have ideas at all is dependent on existence in and interaction with the world.



Yes.  In philosophical terms, we can deduce the existence of an 'in itself' from the nature of the 'for us.'  So it is true that we can know there is a world that exists outside human perception.  But here's the thing: we can know *nothing* about that world.  Zero, zip, zilch.  Why?  Because we are human and thus can only know what human perception allows us to know.  And human perception depends upon ideas that make human experience possible.  As far as *we* are concerned then, the only world that *we* can ever know is created by ideas.  Any problems with this so far?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 4, 2006)

Well, you have experience of the world through perception which may or may not be communicable, and then you have the symbolic order/Big Other or whatever you want to call it.


----------



## Crispy (May 4, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But to say the material world is inevitably 'mediated' by ideas is to say that it is created by them *for us.*  There's no point in worrying about what its like, or whether it exists, in any other state than as it appears *for us.*  We are human beings, and we can only know what human beings can know, and human beings can only know the material world as it is mediated through ideas.  So as far as *we* are concerned, the material world is created by ideas.  Fair enough?



Yep, that's what my last paragraph said


----------



## Santino (May 4, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes.  In philosophical terms, we can deduce the existence of an 'in itself' from the nature of the 'for us.'  So it is true that we can know there is a world that exists outside human perception.  But here's the thing: we can know *nothing* about that world.  Zero, zip, zilch.  Why?  Because we are human and thus can only know what human perception allows us to know.  And human perception depends upon ideas that make human experience possible.  As far as *we* are concerned then, the only world that *we* can ever know is created by ideas.  Any problems with this so far?


Yes, my problem is that it is hopelessly outdated 19th century scepticism. We have much more interesting forms of scepticism from the late 20th century to talk about without dredging up Kant.

The fact that as humans we only experience things as humans is banal and tautologous, and anything that follows from that will also be banal and tautologous.


----------



## Crispy (May 4, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes.  In philosophical terms, we can deduce the existence of an 'in itself' from the nature of the 'for us.'  So it is true that we can know there is a world that exists outside human perception.  But here's the thing: we can know *nothing* about that world.  Zero, zip, zilch.  Why?  Because we are human and thus can only know what human perception allows us to know.  And human perception depends upon ideas that make human experience possible.  As far as *we* are concerned then, the only world that *we* can ever know is created by ideas.  Any problems with this so far?



Yes, stop using the word 'created'
The material world exists. It is blurred by our perception equipment. However, we are clever and can build better perceptual equipment than the stuff we are born with. Does the pattern of scales on a dust mite's leg not 'exist' for us because we canot see it with the naked eye?

Bearing in mind that we are still talking in "philosphical terms" and IMO, nearly all philosophy is just a great big word game for clever people.

It's still fun though


----------



## Jonti (May 4, 2006)

*"the only world that *we* can ever know is created by ideas"*

Funny then, that the world can confound and contradict one's ideas about it  

but I guess that's never happened to our dogmatic correspondent


----------



## Jo/Joe (May 4, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes.  Not all men are attracted to hourglass figures.  The hourglass figure is by no means a universal standard of female beauty, and female beauty is by no means a universal object of sexual attraction for men.  The idea that there is a 'natural' mode of sexual desire is pernicious and destructive garbage.



The underlying principles are universal. Men want women that can give them healthy children. This is reflected in body shape, and different environments will mean a different body shape represents health. In our society, the hourglass figure rules. You can cite all the exceptions you want. It doesn't matter if some men have a thing for skinny or fat, there is a reason why they are not generally seen as the most desirable. And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if anyone's sexuality does not conform to a norm. There is no substantial effort to stop anyone being attracted to anyone else, bar a few looney Xtian groups that object to homosexuality, a behaviour to be filed alongside creationism, flat earthism, etc, etc.


----------



## phildwyer (May 6, 2006)

Jo/Joe said:
			
		

> The underlying principles are universal. Men want women that can give them healthy children.



Some do, some don't.  Some men aren't attracted to women at all.  You still seem to be claiming that there is some kind of 'natural' sexuality, and you still seem to think that it is based on the desire to perpetuate our genes. This is social Darwinism of the very worst kind: reactionary and nonsensical.


----------



## phildwyer (May 6, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Yes, stop using the word 'created'
> The material world exists. It is blurred by our perception equipment. However, we are clever and can build better perceptual equipment than the stuff we are born with. Does the pattern of scales on a dust mite's leg not 'exist' for us because we canot see it with the naked eye?



Yes the material world exists.  But we can only experience it through the specific apparatuses of the human brain--through innate ideas.  This makes it entirely appropriate to say that the material world is created *for us* by ideas.  We can know absolutely nothing of the material world as it is in itself, except the bare fact of its existence.  

So now the important question becomes: what is the *source* of these ideas that create the world for us?  Where do they come from?  (I refer to such ideas as time, space, substance, causality and so forth). They cannot come from experience, since they are what makes experience possible.  They cannot come from the mind of an individual, since they are universal among human beings.  

I now put it to you that the only possible source for these universal ideas, which create the world for human beings, is *other ideas.*  Is my reasoning sound thus far?


----------



## phildwyer (May 6, 2006)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Yes, my problem is that it is hopelessly outdated 19th century scepticism. We have much more interesting forms of scepticism from the late 20th century to talk about without dredging up Kant.
> 
> The fact that as humans we only experience things as humans is banal and tautologous, and anything that follows from that will also be banal and tautologous.



Kant is no skeptic, he firmly believes that we can know objective truth.  And the fact that we can only experience things as humans is far from banal or tautological.  Indeed, it refutes all empiricism and all materialism, both of which assume that we can somehow know reality as it is *in itself.*  We cannot: we can only know it as it is *for us.*  This means that objective truth must be sought within the human mind rather than outside it.


----------



## Crispy (May 6, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> So now the important question becomes: what is the *source* of these ideas that create the world for us?  Where do they come from?  (I refer to such ideas as time, space, substance, causality and so forth). *They cannot come from experience, since they are what makes experience possible*. They cannot come from the mind of an individual, since they are universal among human beings.



Why is that not possible? We see the material world behaving in a particular way, we see its interactions with itself (not just us), and find that there are a handful of concepts that explain them for us. Maybe I'm blinded by anthropism, but I'd guess an alien or an AI would come to the same conclusions.

I can't imagine that an amoeba has a 'sense of time' - it's just a sack of chemicals. I imagine an ant has a sense of night and day, but probably not full-3d space (it spends it's entire life on surfaces and can't see very far) So, unfortunately (for the smooth running of this thread, because I know you're going to hate this) I believe these 'universal ideas' are an evolved behaviour/nature/capability etc. In other words, these ideas are dependant upon the capabilities of our senses. The clever thing is, that we can put these senses to the test, decipher how they work, and build better ones - thus improving their effiency, and expanding the toolkit of ideas that we can use to understand the world



> I now put it to you that the only possible source for these universal ideas, which create the world for human beings, is *other ideas.*  Is my reasoning sound thus far?



Sorry, I was trying hard, but you've lost me now. Try harder to convince me that ideas aren't a manifestation of our sensory capabilities and the evolved behaviour and structure of our brains.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 6, 2006)

What's interesting about the processing of sensory data in the brain is how fictitious it is. For example when you listen to a piece of music there's not a direct time correlation between when things reach the ears and when they're processed by the brain. Instead it seems that you hear in a sort of 'moving window' of time, and then the auditory stream analysis that the brain does reassembles the information into an apparently linear sequence. So I reckon there's good reason to be wary of putting too much emphasis on mental objects when half the time the way in which things are processed are just a pragmatic adaptation that enables us to process lots of different kinds of information simultaneously - a kind of necessary fiction.

I think the question is not what kind of knowledge you can have of the real, which is clearly finite in various ways, but whether you are essentially made up of the same stuff as it.  If you are then it would stand to reason that it's as difficult to have objective knowledge of 'your' stuff (which is again to do with the boundaries of the self, more or less an accident of psychology) as it is to have knowledge of anything else.


----------



## ZWord (May 6, 2006)

And what are you made out of?  Cells, molecules, atoms, ---

And what are the atoms made out of?  

Crispy, I find it difficult to believe you don't get what phil's saying, given your very well thought out contribution to fela's reality and truth thread.  

The point is simply that what you called your relativity, is full of things like tables, chairs, and more abstract concepts, that are totally real to you, but have no existence in physical reality.

Edited to add, I now have the impression I didn't really read what you said carefully enough, and didn't understand what you were talking about with phil, making this post kind of irrelevant.


----------



## Jo/Joe (May 6, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Some do, some don't.  Some men aren't attracted to women at all.  You still seem to be claiming that there is some kind of 'natural' sexuality, and you still seem to think that it is based on the desire to perpetuate our genes. This is social Darwinism of the very worst kind: reactionary and nonsensical.



You're right phil, God gave us sexual desire so that we can have fun. It isn't an evolved way for genes to replicate.

Tell us more about these men that aren't attracted to women, that sounds facinating.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2006)

ZWord said:
			
		

> And what are you made out of?  Cells, molecules, atoms, ---
> 
> And what are the atoms made out of?
> 
> ...



Well, I think I understand what he's saying - I just don't agree with him  I can also see that his final argument will hinge on ideas being just as 'Real' as the material world. I don't need anybody to convince me that the idea of god is real. Plenty of people hold that concept as the highest truth, and it's as real to them as apples falling from trees. But apples fall from trees without any human intervention - and it's exactly the same physical reality for everybody.

Of course, for some (the apple tree worshippers of Orkney, for example), an apple falling from a tree is laden with meaning and more ideas. Still doesn't stop the apple fallinng from the tree at 9.8m/s/s. It is in this manner that god does not exist. It can exist in people's heads as much as anybody wants (although I'd prefer it if they didn't) but as soon as those heads cease to exist, then god will cease to exist.


----------



## gurrier (May 7, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Of course, for some (the apple tree worshippers of Orkney, for example), an apple falling from a tree is laden with meaning and more ideas. Still doesn't stop the apple fallinng from the tree at 9.8m/s/s. It is in this manner that god does not exist. It can exist in people's heads as much as anybody wants (although I'd prefer it if they didn't) but as soon as those heads cease to exist, then god will cease to exist.



That's just it.  God is a meme that has only existed for a few millenia and has an unkown expected lifespan.  An interesting and virulent meme but one that is probably limited to a particular stage of social evolution.

I swear I'm not trying to annoy anybody by combining so many heresies.


----------



## phildwyer (May 8, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> That's just it.  God is a meme that has only existed for a few millenia and has an unkown expected lifespan.  An interesting and virulent meme but one that is probably limited to a particular stage of social evolution.



I'll be back to answer Crispy's excellent questions in due course, but just had to jump in here.  Gurrier, you are of course a total wanker, but up until now I did credit you with a certain degree of intellectual acumen.  You're not really telling us that you believe in this 'meme' crap are you?  You don't *really* think ideas behave like genes?  I was under the impression that even those who are fooled by Dawkins's biology ridiculed such notions?


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2006)

I don't like the word meme either. There are obvious differences between ideas and genes. I do like the way it invokes feelings of longevity and mutation though (which are things you can definately say about the idea of god)

Oh, and has anyone bothered to archive any of this thread in case the current board wobbles screw things up? I'd hate to see it go


----------



## Fruitloop (May 8, 2006)

I reckon 'meme' is at least as explanatory as 'idea' in explaining what goes on inside people's heads. Both of them are far from perfect tho'.


----------



## phildwyer (May 8, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Oh, and has anyone bothered to archive any of this thread in case the current board wobbles screw things up? I'd hate to see it go



Personally I'm still mourning the loss of the 'Right to Bear Arms' thread--if I saw that in a bookshop I'd buy it.  Twas the funniest thing I've ever seen on these boards.  Anyway, I really will engage with your questions soon, but have planes to catch and stuff for the next few days so hang in there...


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2006)

Don't worry, I've got work to do as well. Take your time


----------



## Santino (May 9, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Kant is no skeptic, he firmly believes that we can know objective truth.  And the fact that we can only experience things as humans is far from banal or tautological.  Indeed, it refutes all empiricism and all materialism, both of which assume that we can somehow know reality as it is *in itself.*  We cannot: we can only know it as it is *for us.*  This means that objective truth must be sought within the human mind rather than outside it.


What codswallop. You're confusing knowing things through some kind of conceptual scheme, which is necessary for any knowledge, and only knowing the contents of our own mind.

Of course, I didn't say that Kant was sceptic, which shows just how closely you bother to read other people's posts. Kant's hopelessly systematic and baroque philosophy grew out of his sceptical arguments.


----------



## gurrier (May 9, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> I don't like the word meme either. There are obvious differences between ideas and genes. I do like the way it invokes feelings of longevity and mutation though (which are things you can definately say about the idea of god)


erm, when I said "I swear I'm not trying to annoy anybody by combining so many heresies" I was fibbing.  

The sentence was merely a vehicle for the words "meme" and "social evolution" and the idea that god exists in our heads and has a limited life expectancy.  For some reason I guessed that this particular combination would get a rise out of our resident minor-deity.  Wasn't wrong either


----------



## kyser_soze (May 9, 2006)

phil doesn't like the basic concept of memes, seeing it as a system that reproduces capitalism in minature, based on Dawkin's ideas etc.

'Cultural viral object' might be a better term (certainly more descriptive) of ideas such as 'god' than 'meme' (altho I like the word - and it's snappier), but phil's main objection to them is philosophical - he doesn't like the _idea_ of memes as an evolutionary cultural object because that 'justifies' capitalism.

There are differences between ideas and genes obviously - one is the physical embodiment of DNA and the other the final end product of human DNA writ large, but given that humans are an evolutionary species, does it not make sense that our behaviours and cultural activity will be in and of themselves evolutionary? That because we use the extension of our ideas into the physical world to control that world and make it better for us, then surely those ideas will be subject to the same pressures as genes - the pressure to adapt and succeed, but one that isn't driven in a blind, biological sense but one that DOES have ID attached to it.

This is also why I have often said that those who deny capitalism is the 'natural' way for human societies to govern themselves are missing a trick - if you see 'natural' as being red in tooth and claw etc, whereas something like Marixism is considered and thought out - i.e. it has had intlelligence applied to it (which cap never has - it wasn't constructed it grew organisically out of feudalism when new technologies and old controls were creating a new social environment for it)


----------



## Crispy (May 9, 2006)

Bear in mind, Ky, that both cooperative and competitive behaviours are evolutionarily beneficial, depending on the environment.

I have a feeling I conjugated evolutionarily wrong.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 9, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Bear in mind, Ky, that both cooperative and competitive behaviours are evolutionarily beneficial, depending on the environment.
> 
> I have a feeling I conjugated evolutionarily wrong.



Well capitalism isn't purely competitive is it? This simplistic distinction between comp/coop is a false one - examples of micro/macro cooperation abound in Capitalism (the idea of a class group operating to maintain it'sd position for example, is cooperative behaviour).

Cap is a competition biased system, in that it's primary relationships are competitive.

What I meant from my last post tho is that, unlike socialism, no one sat down and said 'Well in order to have cap we must have X, y and Z' - it grew out of existing trading/class systems. 

'Progressive' poltical ideas have, for me, always exhibited their superiority by being thought out, logical and above all showing the application of human intellect, rather than simply going on and seeing what happens. 

I realise that to an extent it's semantics, but I reckon it'd be an easier sell, in the long run, to start arguing that a social system which requires people to think things thru will be better than one in which thinking is actively discouraged would be a more positive way of doing things.


----------



## Crispy (May 9, 2006)

Gotcha 

Anyway, God....


----------



## 118118 (May 16, 2006)

LostNotFound said:
			
		

> Sorry mate, your misunderstanding of the real vs theoretical debate is only too clear by this stage


 
I'm still waiting for you to explain this rudeness LostNotFound.

What do you think is an unobservable, if it isn't a proton?


----------



## bluestreak (May 16, 2006)

*plants bomb in thread*


----------



## Addy (Oct 3, 2006)

*Dunno about god, but jesus dogs arsehole.......*


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 4, 2006)

Noooooooooo.  Not this bloody thread again.

*sobs*


----------



## Addy (Oct 4, 2006)

:d


----------



## Crispy (Oct 4, 2006)

bluestreak's bomb must have been a dud


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2006)

I can certainly understand the desire so many posters feel to continue this thread, but unfortunately I am going to Rio de Janeiro tomorrow and have to undertake preparations that will keep me busy most of today.  Feel free to talk among yourselves while I am gone.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 4, 2006)

Thanks, phil. I was going to anyway, but now I won't feel guilty


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Thanks, phil. I was going to anyway, but now I won't feel guilty



I must insist however that you confine your discussion to the homoousian controvery and its ramifications for post-Nicene Trinitarianism.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 4, 2006)

I get the feeling wikipedia won't cover this....


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2006)

Actually it does! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousian

After your brain has been thoroughly pounded into shape by all that nonsense (the process is a bit like breaking in new boots) you should be ready for the next vital question - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 4, 2006)

Surely it depends on how big the angels are in relation to the pin and the type of dance being perfomed.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 4, 2006)

Ah, but are we to take the accidental attributes of the angels into account; or should we prefer (as surely we must!) their substantial and essential (but ineffable) natures?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?



This question has been much mocked throughout history, but it is actually an fascinating conundrum that speaks to the very nature of existence itself.  You may be sure that I shall be pondering it on Copacabana beach for the next two weeks, and I shall provide a detailed report on my conclusions when I return.


----------



## The Groke (Oct 4, 2006)

fractionMan said:
			
		

> Surely it depends on how big the angels are in relation to the pin and the type of dance being perfomed.




Surely the answer is either "none" or indeed any other random and equallly pointless value you can think of, as things that do not exist have no meaningful properties whatsoever.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> but it is actually an fascinating conundrum that speaks to the very nature of existence itself.



It really _isn't_ you know.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2006)

Well quite. 

fractionMan clearly demostrates the reductionist poverty of a crudely scientistic mindset with the reference to the unknowable noumenal *dimensions* of celestial emanations. Clearly the only way in which we can know angels to exist is in the fact that the *concept of angels* *resembles* other nominal entities, regardless of whether these entities are themselves fictional.

A further complication; Aquinas debated the question of whether more than one angel could occupy the same region of space, which would have obvious ramifications for the angel/pin/dancing problematic.

N.B. possible answer here: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/35011


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 4, 2006)

Is this a similar sized *pin* to the *needle* that the *camel* is having difficulty squeezing through?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2006)

Well of course the preliminary issue that we must discuss is whether angels are even capable of taking material form.  Obviously they can and do *appear* to human beings, but technically speaking we do not perceive the angel as such, since they are pure intelligences.  What those sneaky angels do is compress *air,* very very tightly, until it becomes solid. Then they can manipulate the compressed air into any form they like.  

As John Donne put it in "Air and Angels," "So in a voice, so in shapeless flame,/ Angels affect us oft."  These lines imply that the angel is actually physically present in the voice or flame.  But this impression is reversed at the concluson of the poem, which comments "Then as an angel, face and wings/ Of air, not pure as it, yet pure doth wear," thus distinguishing between the angel *qua* angel and the material manifestation thereof.

I would therefore suggest that before we move onto the question of how many angels can dance on a pinhead we must first determine whether we are speaking of the substantial form of the angels or merely their perceptible appearances.  In the interests of brevity I propose that we limit our debate on this matter to 20 pages.  After that we shall turn to the issue of what precisely is designated by the term "pinhead."


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 4, 2006)

It doesn't matter if pins, angels or dance moves exist or not.  My point stands.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2006)

Angels go pshhhhhhht!


----------



## The Groke (Oct 4, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> what precisely is designated by the term "pinhead."




You?


----------



## mpython (Oct 4, 2006)

The Groke said:
			
		

> You?




That's funny!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2006)

mpython said:
			
		

> That's funny!



Albeit predictable.


----------



## mpython (Oct 4, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Albeit predictable.




I know, but still... some of the best gags are and I'm assuming it's water off a duck's back.


----------



## mpython (Oct 4, 2006)

My 'angel' experiences are, btw, in the form of coloured lights which would back up what's been suggested in the latest posts.


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Oct 4, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Feel free to ask questions or to raise any objections at this stage, because we will not be retracing our steps as the argument progresses.



Smoke and mirrors. Typical religionist tricks.


----------



## JHE (Oct 5, 2006)

The angels & pinhead issue was resolved easily many centuries ago.  The answer, obviously enough, is _as many as God wishes_.


----------



## The Groke (Oct 5, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> predictable.



Guilty as charged yer honour....


----------



## The Groke (Oct 5, 2006)

In fact _so_ predictable, I had to post it twice to emphasize the point....


----------



## Loki (Oct 5, 2006)

Which muppet bumped this dinosaur of a going nowhere thread?

edit: oh, Cadmus, to tell a shite joke


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2006)

There was a lovely picture of a dog's ringpiece as well.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2006)

Nice to get to a hundred pages though--my third century iirc.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 5, 2006)

God phil, get with the 40-posts-per-page programme!


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2006)

And what a thread it is! SNALT, pneumatic angels, Zizek and a dog's arse. Truly the thread with something for everybody.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 5, 2006)

And jam doughnuts.

I am eating God's own jam doughnut at the moment, and thought that it would be a worthwhile addition to the thread...


----------



## Crispy (Oct 5, 2006)

You make me want a doughnut


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 5, 2006)

No - it's the God-like powers of this specific doughnut - it's a special Hallowe'en jobbie, with pumpkin orange fondant icing type stuff, and a rice paper sticker with a pumpkin on it.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 5, 2006)

The best donuts I ever had were rose ones in Krakow - rosewater and strawberry filling with candied rose-petals on the top, from this funny little bakery with icons, pictures of the pope and an old lady who shouted at you if you didn't wear a hat (reasonable enough 'cos it was 20 degrees below most of the time)


----------



## rhys gethin (Oct 5, 2006)

The great argument for the existence of God is PLANNING.   Have you ever noticed, for instance, that rivers almost invariably run where there are bridges to cross them?   Can that be chance?   Again, where there are fish, you invariably find that Somebody has provided water, as with birds and air.   Again, when it is dark, there are moon, stars and streetlights.   Chance again?   Come off it - it is all part of a Divine Plan that even such simple brains as ours can begin to grasp!   And on a personal level, I notice every day that where I live, there is a HOUSE for me to live in.   That, perhaps, is because I BELIEVE, but there's something around for everyone - air, for instance, which - and what are the chances against THAT? -  exactly fits the mixture we need to breathe.!  Sorry to shout so much:   I am greatly moved!


----------



## BadlyDrawnGirl (Oct 5, 2006)

I saw His face in a bowl of soup, you know.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 6, 2006)

Oh Lawdy!


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 6, 2006)

I had a doughnut filled with hot cheese and ham once.


----------



## BadlyDrawnGirl (Oct 6, 2006)

fractionMan said:
			
		

> I had a doughnut filled with hot cheese and ham once.


Sounds grim!


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 6, 2006)

fruitloop said:
			
		

> rosewater and strawberry filling with candied rose-petals on the top






			
				fraction man said:
			
		

> I had a doughnut filled with hot cheese and ham once.



I dunno what's wrongerer.

In fact, I will have to start a thread about it, it's THAT big an issue. And it's Friday.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 6, 2006)

It was quite nice actually.  It was the in flight meal on Lao Aviation


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2006)

fractionMan said:
			
		

> I had a doughnut filled with hot cheese and ham once.



I just had one of those but it had egg on it too.  I am in Rio de Janeiro, where the distinction between sweet and savory has no meaning and life is cheap indeed. Any chance of getting this thread back on topic or what?


----------



## Addy (Oct 7, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I just had one of those but it had egg on it too.  I am in Rio de Janeiro, where the distinction between sweet and savory has no meaning and life is cheap indeed. Any chance of getting this thread back on topic or what?


yeah,
who or what is god? and have they ever existed?
proof please!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

Addy said:
			
		

> yeah,
> who or what is god? and have they ever existed?
> proof please!



God is logos, He has always existed, and the proof is to be found in every human individual´s capacity for reason.  I think that settles the matter.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 8, 2006)

Good.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 8, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> God is logos, He has always existed, and the proof is to be found in every human individual´s capacity for reason.  I think that settles the matter.


So how does the human capacity for reason prove the existence of God then?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> So how does the human capacity for reason prove the existence of God then?



Because God is the source of that capacity.  If you don´t believe me, posit an alternative source.


----------



## inflatable jesus (Oct 8, 2006)

Because he's just decided that God and Logos are the same thing.

He's incorrect. God is actually celery and since nobody doubts the existence of celery I think that settles the matter.


----------



## Loki (Oct 8, 2006)

phil said:
			
		

> Because God is the source of that capacity. If you don´t believe me, posit an alternative source.


Fuck off, it's up to you to prove that this "God" is the source of this "capacity".

And why it's not the flying spaghetti monster from Eroticon 6.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

inflatable jesus said:
			
		

> Because he's just decided that God and Logos are the same thing.



Now you openly display your ignorance.  I didn´t "just decide" this: see John 1:1.


----------



## Loki (Oct 8, 2006)

inflatable jesus said:
			
		

> Because he's just decided that God and Logos are the same thing.
> 
> He's incorrect. God is actually celery and since nobody doubts the existence of celery I think that settles the matter.


At least celery is something I can chew on.


----------



## inflatable jesus (Oct 8, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Because God is the source of that capacity.  If you don´t believe me, posit an alternative source.



How about the basic workings of the human brain and the mechanics of the brains of a thousand other species?

You can't prove such a tenuous connection by asking for alternative explanations to rubbish. You have to do something to prove such a connection exists.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

Loki said:
			
		

> Fuck off, it's up to you to prove that this "God" is the source of this "capacity".



Oh very well.  First of all, we must agree on the nature of the capacity for reason.  I put it to you that it consists in the ability to subsume particular phenomena under general concepts, as for instance when we group all furry barking creatues under the concept "dog."  Are you with me so far?


----------



## Loki (Oct 8, 2006)

actually i dunno why I'm here, it's fucking pointless

*slams door on arse*


----------



## Loki (Oct 8, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh very well.  First of all, we must agree on the nature of the capacity for reason.  I put it to you that it consists in the ability to subsume particular phenomena under general concepts, as for instance when we group all furry barking creatues under the concept "dog."  Are you with me so far?


wibble wibble gosh i'm impressed i'm a believer. bye!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

Loki said:
			
		

> wibble wibble gosh i'm impressed i'm a believer. bye!



You ask me to prove that the source of reason is God, and when I begin to do so you insult me and refuse to continue the discussion  It would be difficult to think of a better example of the bigoted, intolerant, wilfully ignorant, know-nothing and just plain *stupid* attitude that typifies most atheists today.  Shame on you.


----------



## inflatable jesus (Oct 8, 2006)

I'm with you. Carry on.

 I'm curious to see if whether you're going where I think you're going.


----------



## Loki (Oct 8, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You ask me to prove that the source of reason is God, and when I begin to do so you insult me and refuse to continue the discussion  It would be difficult to think of a better example of the bigoted, intolerant, wilfully ignorant, know-nothing and just plain *stupid* attitude that typifies most atheists today.  Shame on you.


I refer you to my post before yours where I politely made it clear I wasn't interested in any fucking pointless boring debate, so shove your faux outrage where god doesn't shine and goodbye!


----------



## inflatable jesus (Oct 8, 2006)

John 1:1, while a rather beautiful line and idea has to be understood within the context.



> The Word Became Flesh
> 1n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
> 
> 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
> ...


*

Now it seems to me that the 'word' in this sense is refering to the perceived truths of 'god's message' as delivered through John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. It's not refering to general concpets about knowledge. If it refers to that at all it's in presuming that a handful of 'prophets' are the sum total of human knowledge.

Which is just horseshit. There's a vast amount of knowledge that has nothing to do with those gobshites.*


----------



## Crispy (Oct 8, 2006)

If your first item of evidence in an argument for the existence of god is the bible, then I don't quite see what legs you have to stand on. The bible is an entirely human thing, and therefore makes your argument self-refering.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

Loki said:
			
		

> I refer you to my post before yours where I politely made it clear I wasn't interested in any fucking pointless boring debate, so shove your faux outrage where god doesn't shine and goodbye!



You see, its the sheer *anger* I can´t fathom.  I suppose it is the blind rage felt by fundamentalists of all stripes when someone dares to question the beliefs on which they have constructed their very identity.  And there is no fundamentalist like an atheist fundamentalist.


----------



## Loki (Oct 8, 2006)

LOL, yes, I am very angry, extremely furious, in fact very very cross indeed.

 

Now perhaps you'll get the message from the fourth time of saying it: I am not interested, so goodbyeeee.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

inflatable jesus said:
			
		

> I'm with you. Carry on.
> 
> I'm curious to see if whether you're going where I think you're going.



Very well.  We agree that reason consists in the ability to conceptualize.  We agree that conceptualization is the subsumption of particular phenomena under general categories.  Now let us apply the process of conceptualization to *concepts* themselves.  What do we call the concept of concepts?

I shall be back to continue this discussion in due course, but I must first spend a couple of hours on Copacabana beach.  Exquisite as the delights of theological debate may be, it would be churlish to neglect life´s other pleasures.


----------



## inflatable jesus (Oct 8, 2006)

Is there a term in philosophy that refers to constructing silly explanations for other people's behavior because they like them better than the real ones?

For example, Dwyer deciding that Loki's problem is that Dwyer 'questioned the validity' of atheist principles, rather than thinking that his line of argument is boring and pointless.

If there isn't, I think a term has to be invented.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

Loki said:
			
		

> Now perhaps you'll get the message from the fourth time of saying it: I am not interested, so goodbyeeee.



I find it curious that you insist on repeatedly declaring your lack of interest, as opposed for example to simply leaving us in peace.  Methinks you protest too much.  Your thirst for knowledge breaks though your defensive fury in spite of yourself.


----------



## inflatable jesus (Oct 8, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Very well.  We agree that reason consists in the ability to conceptualize.  We agree that conceptualization is the subsumption of particular phenomena under general categories.  Now let us apply the process of conceptualization to *concepts* themselves.  What do we call the concept of concepts?
> 
> I shall be back to continue this discussion in due course, but I must first spend a couple of hours on Copacabana beach.  Exquisite as the delights of theological debate may be, it would be churlish to neglect life´s other pleasures.



I was kind of hoping that you would get to the point within a couple of posts. If you plan on taking a cliff-hangeriffic soap opera aproach then I probably won't be arsed.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

inflatable jesus said:
			
		

> John 1:1, while a rather beautiful line and idea has to be understood within the context.
> 
> Now it seems to me that the 'word' in this sense is refering to the perceived truths of 'god's message' as delivered through John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. It's not refering to general concpets about knowledge. If it refers to that at all it's in presuming that a handful of 'prophets' are the sum total of human knowledge.



No, you are wrong.  The Greek word in question is "logos" and while the best translation  is a matter of some dispute (to put it mildly--in fact it has been the cause of liteally hundreds of wars and revolutions) modern scholarly consensus agrees that the most accurate rendering is "reason."  

So God is reason.  Now the question becomes: what is reason?


----------



## inflatable jesus (Oct 8, 2006)

That doesn't quite add up though.

I'm sure it would be interesting to look at the original wordings and the possible meanings but even if you go through the rest of of John 1, it becomes more and more difficult to believe that John thinks that God and reason are the same thing.

Like 1:10 



> He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.



You can't insert the idea of God as reason into that. What would 'nor of a human decision or a husband's will, but born of reason' possibly mean?

It seems fairly obvious that it's one line in the bible that's rather open to interpretation. It doesn't correlate at all with the various other descriptions of God throughout the bible. In fact at various points in seems clear that God much prefers obedience to reason.


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 8, 2006)

inflatable jesus said:
			
		

> That doesn't quite add up though.



Just ask your dad and get it over with.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

inflatable jesus said:
			
		

> That doesn't quite add up though.
> 
> I'm sure it would be interesting to look at the original wordings and the possible meanings but even if you go through the rest of of John 1, it becomes more and more difficult to believe that John thinks that God and reason are the same thing.
> 
> ...



Excellent questions, seriously.  I´ll be back to answer them but I really do have to go now--I´m on me hols, you understand.


----------



## inflatable jesus (Oct 8, 2006)

Fair enough. Enjoy the beach.


----------



## Addy (Oct 8, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now you openly display your ignorance.  I didn´t "just decide" this: see John 1:1.



so you base your argument/beliefs on some book that was written a long time ago?
In that case, I reckon Daddy bear was god, and rumplestiltskin was jesus.

sheeeesh.. I understand now why people post....

Fuck off Dwyer!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

Addy said:
			
		

> so you base your argument/beliefs on some book that was written a long time ago?
> In that case, I reckon Daddy bear was god, and rumplestiltskin was jesus.



Right you--get off this thread now.  You had your chance.  Inflatable Jesus, I´ll be back in a tick, just had to purge this wanker, you undertsand.


----------



## Addy (Oct 8, 2006)

you really are a twat aint ya? I'll get off this thread when i'm good and ready.
 

cut the 100 page bollox and give me a simple bulleted lowdown of Gods existance.... and I want proof not some fairytale storybook crap.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

Addy said:
			
		

> you really are a twat aint ya? I'll get off this thread when i'm good and ready.



You´re ready now.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

inflatable jesus said:
			
		

> That doesn't quite add up though.
> 
> I'm sure it would be interesting to look at the original wordings and the possible meanings but even if you go through the rest of of John 1, it becomes more and more difficult to believe that John thinks that God and reason are the same thing.
> 
> ...



That´s true, and I don´t regard the Bible as divinely inspired, much less infalliable.  Or rather, perhaps, it is divinely inspired in the same sense as any other prophetic text.  Certainly Judeo-Christianity has no monopoly on truth.  However the lines you quote are quite compatible with the idea of God as reason.  They would indicate that reason rather than biology is the definitive characteristic of a human being.  This in turn would suggest that it is possible for human beings to lose or forfeit their humanity.


----------



## pk (Oct 8, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right you--get off this thread now.  You had your chance.  Inflatable Jesus, I´ll be back in a tick, just had to purge this wanker, you undertsand.



Pissed again dwyer?

Why don't YOU fuck off?


----------



## snorbury (Oct 8, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Pissed again dwyer?
> 
> Why don't YOU fuck off?


phucked off yourself?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Pissed again dwyer?
> 
> Why don't YOU fuck off?



You should leave this thread too.  Reply to my PM instead.


----------



## pk (Oct 8, 2006)

I thought I did.

It said: "fuck off dwyer"


----------



## snorbury (Oct 8, 2006)

If there woz a God this would be in the bin by now


----------



## Addy (Oct 8, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You´re ready now.


no i'm not.
please provide evidence of gods existance like you said you would, all in 1 post please.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2006)

Addy said:
			
		

> no i'm not.



Well then participate sensibly.


----------



## Addy (Oct 8, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well then participate sensibly.


yes mum. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





so, where the proof?


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (Oct 8, 2006)




----------



## ice-is-forming (Oct 9, 2006)

top of the page again daisy, and with _that_ picture the tide is turning...


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 9, 2006)

Is this thread still going? Hasn't phil provided his "rational proof" of G*d's - chortle - 'existence' yet? He's taking his time - isn't he? This thread has been running for over a year and still no 'proof'.  

Makes you think, doesn't it?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 9, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> G*d's



Nino, if you are truly an atheist as you claim, why would you adopt the Red Sea Pedestrian spelling of "God?"  What have you been hiding from us?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 9, 2006)

What's he saying? 

"You fool"
"Leave this thread immediately"

or 

is it 

a combination of the two?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 9, 2006)

Dunno. Don't much care.

If there was a God, there would be no phildwyer.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 9, 2006)

How about we get back to discussing doughnuts?


----------



## adc069975 (Oct 17, 2006)

I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread (especially at this time in the morning...) but it seems to me that this phil guy is actually trying to say Marx believed man's alienated labour has a conscious will of its own !?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 17, 2006)

I think the phil guy is a spambot designed to give the impression of learned authority while spouting bullshit.  It's all part of some weird research programme.

More from suchlike bullshit-bots here.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 17, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> I think the phil guy is a spambot designed to give the impression of learned authority while spouting bullshit.  It's all part of some weird research programme.
> 
> More from suchlike bullshit-bots here.


Wonderful  I have an overwhelming urge to print off 10,000 pages of that shit and stuff them down my old theory tutor's throat.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 17, 2006)

Wow this thread has come back to life. 

Welcome back bullspout fountain.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 17, 2006)

The Postmodernism Generator said:
			
		

> Sexual identity is impossible,” says Lacan; however, according to Reicher[1] , it is not so much sexual identity that is impossible, but rather the genre, and eventually the paradigm, of sexual identity. Thus, if modernism holds, we have to choose between predialectic capitalism and the textual paradigm of expression. The characteristic theme of the works of Madonna is a mythopoetical totality.


There's an endless supply of this kind of computer generated verbiage at The Postmodernism Generator. Enjoy!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 17, 2006)

adc069975 said:
			
		

> I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread (especially at this time in the morning...) but it seems to me that this phil guy is actually trying to say Marx believed man's alienated labour has a conscious will of its own !?



Not "a conscious will" but its own autonomous and regenerative power, yes.  That's because man's alienated labour is *money.*  And money both reproduces and rules the world--from the lives of individuals to the policies of nations.  And this despite the fact that money has no existence outside the human mind.  It is a purely imaginary or--as previous ages put it--*spiritual* phenomenon.  And yet who could dispute its practical power?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 17, 2006)

adc069975 said:
			
		

> I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread (especially at this time in the morning...) but it seems to me that this phil guy is actually trying to say Marx believed man's alienated labour has a conscious will of its own !?



Well, I dunno. If my understanding of Hegel's concept of _Geist_ is correct then it can be seen just as a driving force, rather than something that has the features of a second order cybernetic system.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Not "a conscious will" but its own autonomous and regenerative power, yes.  That's because man's alienated labour is *money.*  And money both reproduces and rules the world--from the lives of individuals to the policies of nations.  And this despite the fact that money has no existence outside the human mind.  It is a purely imaginary or--as previous ages put it--*spiritual* phenomenon.  And yet who could dispute its practical power?



How is this not just old-fashioned commodity fetishism?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Not "a conscious will" but its own autonomous and regenerative power, yes.  That's because man's alienated labour is *money.*  And money both reproduces and rules the world--from the lives of individuals to the policies of nations.  And this despite the fact that money has no existence outside the human mind.  It is a purely imaginary or--as previous ages put it--*spiritual* phenomenon.  And yet who could dispute its practical power?



Bollocks. Money maybe an intermediary to direct barter but it is still barter. Maybe the perceived value of money varies form person to person within the human mind, but I put is to you Phil that you are in fact a twonk.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 17, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> How is this not just old-fashioned commodity fetishism?



It is.  Except of course that the power of money has greatly expanded since Marx's day.  And that power is not only geographical but also psychological.  Although I've tried not to argue by name-dropping in this thread, you will have perceived that my argument is an extension of the logic used by Lukacs, Debord and Baudrillard in their interpretation of commodity feitshism. 

I extend their reading by showing how the psychological power of money corresponds to certain pre-Enlightenment, theological concepts, and I suggest that these concepts are therefore not obsolete, as is popularly supposed.  On the contrary they offer us what contemporary economics and philosophy conspucuously lacks: an ethical critique of the power of money.

That's all really.


----------



## adc069975 (Oct 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Not "a conscious will" but its own autonomous and regenerative power, yes.  That's because man's alienated labour is *money.*  And money both reproduces and rules the world--from the lives of individuals to the policies of nations.  And this despite the fact that money has no existence outside the human mind.  It is a purely imaginary or--as previous ages put it--*spiritual* phenomenon.  And yet who could dispute its practical power?



So, quite simply, this is about mind over matter?


----------



## Wintermute (Oct 17, 2006)

Yes.

Can we all go home now?

Yours,
God


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It is.  Except of course that the power of money has greatly expanded since Marx's day.  And that power is not only geographical but also psychological.  Although I've tried not to argue by name-dropping in this thread, you will have perceived that my argument is an extension of the logic used by Lukacs, Debord and Baudrillard in their interpretation of commodity feitshism.
> 
> I extend their reading by showing how the psychological power of money corresponds to certain pre-Enlightenment, theological concepts, and I suggest that these concepts are therefore not obsolete, as is popularly supposed.  On the contrary they offer us what contemporary economics and philosophy conspucuously lacks: an ethical critique of the power of money.
> 
> That's all really.



Why does it need an ethical critique? It's in my immediate interest to escape from alienating and dominating social relationships. Only the bourgeoisie needs an ethical critique!

I don't understand how the power of capital can be understood as intrinsically malign, since it merely instantiates an unequal distribution of power between labour and private property. As a capitalist, the whole system would function elegantly in my interest - and were it not so it would be necessary to replace it with something else that served the same purpose better. 

In any case, in looking beyond capital it's important not to deny its creative force, even though that force is alienating and amoral. It seems to me that to see money only in its destructive aspect (rather than as an epiphenomenal aspect of class struggle) fetishizes it just as much as the dominant ideology, only in the other direction.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 19, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Why does it need an ethical critique? It's in my immediate interest to escape from alienating and dominating social relationships. Only the bourgeoisie needs an ethical critique!
> 
> I don't understand how the power of capital can be understood as intrinsically malign, since it merely instantiates an unequal distribution of power between labour and private property. As a capitalist, the whole system would function elegantly in my interest - and were it not so it would be necessary to replace it with something else that served the same purpose better.
> 
> In any case, in looking beyond capital it's important not to deny its creative force, even though that force is alienating and amoral. It seems to me that to see money only in its destructive aspect (rather than as an epiphenomenal aspect of class struggle) fetishizes it just as much as the dominant ideology, only in the other direction.



As a British subject, capitalism *does* work in your material interests.  That's why you and others need an ethical critique to show that it works against your spiritual interests.  Money is not any longer (if it ever was) "an epiphenomenal aspect of the class struggle."  It is a psychological force, existing only in the mind, and systematically perverting and destroying its host.  A glance at pre-Enlightenment thought shows a variety of extremely lucid, highly effective means of identifying, criticizing and destroying such forces.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 19, 2006)

Is it bollocks in my interests.

I can't afford a house, so I have to constantly add to someone else's capital in order to have somewhere to live.

I have to sell the bulk of every day - my freedom essentially - to someone else for them to make money from, in order to survive.

The ruling class is constantly seeking to exert deflationary pressure on wages, to roll back welfare gains made over the last 50 years, and to extract more labour value for the same or lesser standard of living.

Behind every apparently free transaction lies the violent enforcement of the capitalist system - the iron fist behind the velvet glove. Only the naturalisation of property and wage-labour relations keeps the iron fist from being on permanent display, just as only working class political action can reveal it.

The only sound that would accompany a revolutionary praxis based on pre-enlightment techniques for combatiing abstract entities is that of the ruling class laughing quietly to themselves.


----------



## Diem K (Oct 20, 2006)

Dear Phildwyer,

I have been following this thread for some time now, and have spent a lot of time reading the content. I have found it interesting but also very frustrating, I have come the conclusion that you are unable to provide the "logical proof of the existance of God" as promissed at the outset.

There have been some interesting ideas raised, however, can I suggest you rename this thread (if this is actually possible)? My suggestion for the new thread title is as follows:

- "My philisophical perception of economics and a proposed connection with the human concept of God"

This title is far more acurate than the original and would be less misleading for any newcomers to your thread.

You may not agree with this. If you could explain why your title is more relevant to the content of the thread perhaps I would realise what I have missed.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 21, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Is it bollocks in my interests.
> 
> I can't afford a house, so I have to constantly add to someone else's capital in order to have somewhere to live.
> 
> ...



No, as a British subject you *are* a material beneficiary of capitalism.  You benefit from a welfare state, infrastructure, education and health care that your state can afford to provide you because of the taxation it imposes on companies and individuals who profit from the exploitation of the neo-colonial world.  Why do you think Britain is richer than Nigeria, a country with far greater natural resources and population?  Magic?


----------



## exosculate (Oct 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, as a British subject you *are* a material beneficiary of capitalism.  You benefit from a welfare state, infrastructure, education and health care that your state can afford to provide you because of the taxation it imposes on companies and individuals who profit from the exploitation of the neo-colonial world.  Why do you think Britain is richer than Nigeria, a country with far greater natural resources and population?  Magic?




Are you referring to the pampered western worker Phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 21, 2006)

Diem K said:
			
		

> Dear Phildwyer,
> 
> I have been following this thread for some time now, and have spent a lot of time reading the content. I have found it interesting but also very frustrating, I have come the conclusion that you are unable to provide the "logical proof of the existance of God" as promissed at the outset.
> 
> ...



You raise some fair points, but I would not change the title of the thread even if I could (which I can't).  The reason is that I believe I can indeed prove God's existence through rational means if I am allowed to proceed with my argument free from the kinds of interruptions that have too often disgraced this thread.


----------



## exosculate (Oct 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You raise some fair points, but I would not change the title of the thread even if I could (which I can't).  The reason is that I believe I can indeed prove God's existence through rational means if I am allowed to proceed with my argument free from the kinds of interruptions that have too often disgraced this thread.




Go on Phil, your belief is beyond question.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 21, 2006)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Are you referring to the pampered western worker Phil?



Certainly not "pampered," but materially far better off than his Nigerian or Malaysian or Peruvian counterpart?  Without a doubt.


----------



## Aldebaran (Oct 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You raise some fair points, but I would not change the title of the thread even if I could (which I can't).  The reason is that I believe I can indeed prove God's existence through rational means if I am allowed to proceed with my argument free from the kinds of interruptions that have too often disgraced this thread.



I step in here without reading anything (sorry, too long a thread for me to read, would cost me days of dizzyness.)
I think you would find your rational means being called irrational by those who can only reason within their own  frame of pre-set logic. Some time ago on a US message board in the course of a similar discussion about "logical proof" I posted that logical proof. In context of that discussion not difficult since what is framed with the concept "God" exists in the abstract.  

salaam.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, as a British subject you *are* a material beneficiary of capitalism.  You benefit from a welfare state, infrastructure, education and health care that your state can afford to provide you because of the taxation it imposes on companies and individuals who profit from the exploitation of the neo-colonial world.  Why do you think Britain is richer than Nigeria, a country with far greater natural resources and population?  Magic?


Well, I'm a NZer, so I've never really had any of those apart from 'infrastructure' here, although I do pay shitloads of income tax in the UK - out of money not gained from exploiting the neo-colonial world as far as I'm aware. The big businesses that actually do profit from the exploitation of this 'neo-colonial world' are in fact understandably reluctant to part with any of their ill-gotten gains as tax - to the tune of between £25bn and £85bn per year.

In any case, the whole thesis involves a bizarre essentialism. The developing world has its managerial classes and comfortable lifestyles - many of them doubtless rather more luxurious than mine. The whole momentum of globalisation is that the poverty and exploitation that was formerly the preserve of the global south can be right here, next door to the opulent palaces of capital.

The fact that up until now the w/c have been allowed to have back an ever-diminishing proportion of the money they pay in tax as public services has a lot to do with the post-war consensus, and little to do with imperialism. However, I think that the process of erosion of these privileges will render them merely a historical curiosity within the next 20 years or so, which will at least clarify matters.

I'm surprised to see you making the stock bourgeois argument that anyone who has someone worse off than them is a net beneficiary, even though in their case (as I pointed out) the system of capital renders them far worse off than they would otherwise be (which is surely the important question!). To be the last person left on the lifeboat (maybe munching on the femur of one of your erstwhile companions) is perhaps a privilege, but not from the point of view of a man on dry land! Indeed, to frame this particular argument in a national context is to have already conceded to a major plank of the dominant ideology. 

It's becoming clear to me why you do need an 'ethical critique' of capitalism - it's because this crooked thinking (of which the appeal to the PWW stereotype is only the tip of the iceberg) renders you unable to make a coherent material critique.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You raise some fair points, but I would not change the title of the thread even if I could (which I can't).  The reason is that I believe I can indeed prove God's existence through rational means if I am allowed to proceed with my argument free from the kinds of interruptions that have too often disgraced this thread.


Well, you do invite them 

"With me so far?"
"Um, no, that's bonkers."

Why not just do a summary - under a thousand words (far less than have been expended so far) so we can clearly see the train of thought from beginning to end without having to read 2580 posts.


----------



## Diem K (Oct 23, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Why not just do a summary - under a thousand words (far less than have been expended so far) so we can clearly see the train of thought from beginning to end without having to read 2580 posts.



I tried to do this for/prompt Phildwyer in post 2334 (several years back now).

A short summary of what I think phildwyer has put forward in the discussion so far:

1 - Human beings perceive value in things.
2 - This value is not real; it’s a representation of human activity.
3 - This collective perception of value by Human society leads to some unsavoury results and is therefore bad and represents the Devil.
4 - If the Devil exists then so must God.

Not much to it really.

Can we just agree that these are the four steps which are being presented as the arguement.

It's up to each individual if you think these steps are logical or not.

and that is it really - end of discussion.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 23, 2006)

That's pretty much what I thought it was. And as far as I can see, all that proves is the existence of human beings.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 23, 2006)

> I extend their reading by showing how the psychological power of money corresponds to certain pre-Enlightenment, theological concepts, and I suggest that these concepts are therefore not obsolete,



Are we back to 'Money is the devil' with this statement? I dimly remember around verses 1000-1300 of this thread (which should be renamed 'The Book of PhilDwyer') there was some attempt to equate money with the devil/source of evil...or was that another thread entirely?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 23, 2006)

Well its obviously a bit too complicated to be summarized in a few words, but basically I was starting by showing that spiritual forces are real: money for instance is a spiritual force.  And then I was showing that "logos" is another such spiritual force but with the opposite characteristics from money.  And then I pointed out that "logos" is God in the Bible, and that in Platonic rationalism "logos" is the conditions of possibility for human thought, so in this sense "logos" creates not only human beings, but also the world insofar as human beings can know it.  This argument is hardly original--Plato, Kant, and Hegel make different versions of it, and Jacques Derrida, the most famous and well-respected philosopher of the last fifty years, says basically the same thing.  But its a kind of philosophy that contradicts the common-sense empiricism that most people today use as the filter of their experience, so it seems strange to many people, hence the howls of outrage I suppose.

And I think that settles the matter.  Are there any final questions or can we wrap this up now?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 23, 2006)

Diem K said:
			
		

> I tried to do this for/prompt Phildwyer in post 2334 (several years back now).
> 
> A short summary of what I think phildwyer has put forward in the discussion so far:
> 
> ...



Actually your third point is only half-correct.  The problem with money is not only its unsavory effect but the fact that it is a "performative" or "efficacious" sign.  But signs are not naturally performative but referential.  And "logos" is the ultimate referent.  So money is a perverted kind of sign.  There is also the fact that money represents not human "labor" but human "labor-power," which is to say huiman subjective activity considered as a whole, which is to say human life.  So money is the objectified form of human life, or in other words death.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 23, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> That's pretty much what I thought it was. And as far as I can see, all that proves is the existence of human beings.



oooh, can we rationally prove the existence of people?  that'd be a good thread.


----------



## laptop (Oct 23, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> oooh, can we rationally prove the existence of people?  that'd be a good thread.



solipsists' forum ----------------->

(It's very quiet in there  )


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well its obviously a bit too complicated to be summarized in a few words, but basically I was starting by showing that spiritual forces are real: money for instance is a spiritual force.  And then I was showing that "logos" is another such spiritual force but with the opposite characteristics from money.  And then I pointed out that "logos" is God in the Bible, and that in Platonic rationalism "logos" is the conditions of possibility for human thought, so in this sense "logos" creates not only human beings, but also the world insofar as human beings can know it.  This argument is hardly original--Plato, Kant, and Hegel make different versions of it, and Jacques Derrida, the most famous and well-respected philosopher of the last fifty years, says basically the same thing.  But its a kind of philosophy that contradicts the common-sense empiricism that most people today use as the filter of their experience, so it seems strange to many people, hence the howls of outrage I suppose.
> 
> And I think that settles the matter.  Are there any final questions or can we wrap this up now?



Did you start this thread to pontificate or to genuinely test your ideas? That settles no matter whatsoever. I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but everything you are saying is back-to-front. You think of an idea and then end up believing that the idea thought you. We invented the concept of money, and any other abstract concept that you can come up with. The only sense in which there is a god is the one in which we are all gods as we have free will. And it is impossible for us to prove that we have free will. Like most on this thread, I have neither the time nor inclination to read the whole of this thing. I can only assume through your arrogant manner that you haven't been listening to any of your critics. Name-dropping a bunch of philosophers does not constitute a proof. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Russell: they all say different, so there.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 23, 2006)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> Did you start this thread to pontificate or to genuinely test your ideas? That settles no matter whatsoever. I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but everything you are saying is back-to-front. You think of an idea and then end up believing that the idea thought you. We invented the concept of money, and any other abstract concept that you can come up with.



Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  There are concepts which make us possible, and without which we could not exist.  There are, to use the technical term, "a priori" concepts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 23, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  There are concepts which make us possible, and without which we could not exist.  There are, to use the technical term, "a priori" concepts.



I hear the ghost of Hegel in what you say. A load of unsubstantiated mystic nonsense. 'Does an idea exist before somebody has thought it?' as a genuine, humble, question would have been a better starting point for your thread. I don't mean to patronise, that is talk down to, you but you appear to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 24, 2006)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> Did you start this thread to pontificate or to genuinely test your ideas? That settles no matter whatsoever. I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but everything you are saying is back-to-front. You think of an idea and then end up believing that the idea thought you. We invented the concept of money, and any other abstract concept that you can come up with. The only sense in which there is a god is the one in which we are all gods as we have free will. And it is impossible for us to prove that we have free will. Like most on this thread, I have neither the time nor inclination to read the whole of this thing. I can only assume through your arrogant manner that you haven't been listening to any of your critics. Name-dropping a bunch of philosophers does not constitute a proof. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Russell: they all say different, so there.



He did it for both of those reasons but there is something else at work here: patronising arrogance and the desire to make himself feel better by belittling others. Phil's a Freudian's wish come true.


----------



## red_gordon (Oct 24, 2006)

As this is a very long thread could someone please give a summation of the 'proofs' for Gods existence?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 24, 2006)

*balls!*

double post


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 24, 2006)

*the problem with efficacious signs*

a) the causally efficacious sign (for this example we'll consider 'value') - is not purely conceptual because that would undermine its ontology - i.e. it could be paraphrased away to a sentence like 'people in X mental state do Y', without needing to believe in the propositional object of mental state X

b) it isn't immanent either  - i.e. there is nothing physically 'in' a cow that means it's worth 2.5 sheep

c) therefore it's an abstract entity. It is non spatio-temporal.

d) it has real ontological status - i.e. it can't be paraphrased away to 'the average exchange rate at the moment between cows and sheep is 2.5' either, since this would mean that it was just like the exchange rate between the dollar and the pound, which is obviously a fictional entity (a 'useful fiction') representing the average buy and sell rates of all the forex transactions between dollars and pounds over a certain period. i.e. whilst you might decide whether to buy a house in Cape Cod at the moment based on it, you don't need to have ontological faith in 'the exchange rate' as a causal entity - it's obviously just an indication of how many dollars you might be able to buy for your pounds at the moment (all things being equal), similar in its ontological status to a cricketer's batting average.

however:

e) the physical world appears causally closed from a third-person point of view (and has to be thought so if we're going to avoid an old-fashioned interactionist dualism), even if conscious experience isn't reducible within it (for example to functions).

f) if there were actually existing non-mental abstract entities, they couldn't have causative efficacy either in themselves or through our knowledge of them because that would violate the closed causal nexus of the phenomenal world, of which individual consciousness is non-reducibly a part. You cannot know that which has no effect, but things that do have effect cannot be abstract - they must be conceptual or material (assuming the non-identity of these two categories for a moment).

g) therefore there are no efficacious signs.

The above is considered from the point of view of value, but I think that it could trivially be extended to any of the other categories like abstract labour.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2006)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> I hear the ghost of Hegel in what you say. A load of unsubstantiated mystic nonsense. 'Does an idea exist before somebody has thought it?' as a genuine, humble, question would have been a better starting point for your thread. I don't mean to patronise, that is talk down to, you but you appear to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.



Well to be fair, many of them *are* idiots.  By no means all though.  The point is that there are ideas that make human experience possible, and so precede (or better are "prior to") human experience.  Did they exist before human beings?  Of course not: they are qualities of the human mind.  The question is whether we can deduce from the fact of their existence the further existence of a superhuman source from which they derive.  Like Kant, Hegel and (yes) Marx, I believe we can.

Fruitloop: I'll answer your intriguing points later on.


----------



## red_gordon (Oct 24, 2006)

A lot of the technical philisophical terms escape me  

I don't see that human ideas precede human experience. 
1. This is to assume a quintessential human experience with universal ideas which we can see from the variety of human experiences (plural) isn't true.
2. I would also like to know how this allegedly conforms with Marx. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism ideas do not make existence possible but existence neccesitates ideas:


> That pure mathematics has a validity which is independent of the _particular_ individual is, for that matter, correct... But it is not at all true that in pure mathmatics the mind deals only with its own creations and imaginations. The concept of number and form have not been derived from any source other than the world of reality. The ten fingers on which men learnt to count, that is, to carry out the first arithmetical operation, may be anything else, but they are certainly not a free creation of the mind. Counting requires not only objects that can be counted, but also the ability to exclude all other properties of the objects considered than their number - and this ability is the product of a long historical evolution based on experience. Like the idea of number, so the idea of form is derived exclusively from the external world, and does not arise in the mind as a product of pure thought... The fact that this material appears in an extremely abstract form can only superficially conceal its origin in the external world. But in order to make it possible to investigate these forms and relations in their pure state, it is necessary to abstract them... Even the apparent deriviation of mathmatical magnitudes from each other does not prove their _a priori_ origin, but only their rational interconnection... Like all other sciences, mathmatics arouse out of the _needs_ of men.


 Frederick Engels, Anti-Duhring, p.47-48


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 25, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> a) the causally efficacious sign (for this example we'll consider 'value') - is not purely conceptual because that would undermine its ontology - i.e. it could be paraphrased away to a sentence like 'people in X mental state do Y', without needing to believe in the propositional object of mental state X
> 
> b) it isn't immanent either  - i.e. there is nothing physically 'in' a cow that means it's worth 2.5 sheep
> 
> ...



What about language?  When the priest says “I now pronounce you man and wife,” or when Chamberlain said “This country is at war with Germany,” they are not describing a prelinguistic state of affairs, they are bringing a state of affairs into being through a speech-act.  Their words *do* something: they are performative, or efficacious.  So there *are* in fact efficacious signs.

Obviously such signs are neither subjective nor objective, rather they mediate between these two spheres.  Among other differences between them and referential signs is the fact that they do not depend on the subjective intention of the speaker: the couple will be objectively married by the priest’s saying the words, no matter what his subjective intention may be.  Nor are such signs “true” or “false,” they are efficacious or nonefficacious—that is all.  Such signs therefore do not derive their function from the *logos,* which is the prelinguistic guarantor of truth upon which denotative, referential language depends.

The manipulation of such efficacious signs is *magic.*  In magic, rituals and incantations and images are manipulated so as to produce objective effects: sticking a pin in an symbol representing a person will give the person represented cancer and so on.  Because such signs do not derive from the logos, they are in most societies adjudged ethically reprehensible.  Witches and magicians are generally viewed with at least suspicion and often violent hostility.

In capitalism, financial value (in the expanded form of money) is a system of efficacious signs.  It has no objective existence, but equally it is not purely subjective (as you say in point a above).  Money represents human activity in the form of representation: it is human life in externalized or “alienated” form.  Money achieves objective effects that do not result from any humanly subjective intention.  

We can deduce the ethical status of these facts from material phenomena like the class struggle, and that is doubtless appropriate to a certain stage of history.  The collapse of socialism and the global domonance of capital suggest that that era may be past.  But we can also deduce that status by analyzing the *psychological* effects of efficacious signs.  And to do that we need to apply pre-Enlightenment intellectual techniques that predate the global predominance of capital.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 25, 2006)

OK gotcha. I will ponder and come back to you.

As an aside, I don't think it matters for a hypothetical 'soft' version of this thesis whether signs really are efficacious or not. As far as I understand it Augustine didn't think that signs could be efficacious in themselves, it was the belief in the efficacy of signs (that would have to be actually mediated by evil spirits or whatever) that is satanic. This is all way outside my area of expertise though.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 25, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> OK gotcha. I will ponder and come back to you.
> 
> As an aside, I don't think it matters for a hypothetical 'soft' version of this thesis whether signs really are efficacious or not. As far as I understand it Augustine didn't think that signs could be efficacious in themselves, it was the belief in the efficacy of signs (that would have to be actually mediated by evil spirits or whatever) that is satanic. This is all way outside my area of expertise though.



No, you're exactly right.  Not just Augustine but a dominant strand of thought in all monotheistic faiths (and also in Platonic rationalism) reasoned that because signs obviously *can't* achieve objective effects, when people act as thought they *do* produce such effects (and thus bring those effects into objective existence), they are being inspired by Satan.  The manipulation of signs for objective effects is Satanic magic, involves a "pact" with Satan and so on.  It is interesting to apply such critiques to our own world, which is completely ruled by efficacious signs.


----------



## I-Roy (Oct 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well its obviously a bit too complicated to be summarized in a few words, but basically I was starting by showing that spiritual forces are real: money for instance is a spiritual force.  And then I was showing that "logos" is another such spiritual force but with the opposite characteristics from money.  And then I pointed out that "logos" is God in the Bible, and that in Platonic rationalism "logos" is the conditions of possibility for human thought, so in this sense "logos" creates not only human beings, but also the world insofar as human beings can know it.  This argument is hardly original--Plato, Kant, and Hegel make different versions of it, and Jacques Derrida, the most famous and well-respected philosopher of the last fifty years, says basically the same thing.  But its a kind of philosophy that contradicts the common-sense empiricism that most people today use as the filter of their experience, so it seems strange to many people, hence the howls of outrage I suppose.
> 
> And I think that settles the matter.  Are there any final questions or can we wrap this up now?



so the bottom line is - God exists because we create it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2006)

Is this an attempt to create the longest thread in history?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2006)

If so...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2006)

I believe I have now done my bit.


----------



## Negativland (Oct 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> signs obviously *can't* achieve objective effects, when people act as thought they *do* produce such effects



Surely the 'power' of a sign such as the declaration of war lies in the social situation which gives it meaning? There is a pre-existing power system that allows the words to have an objective effect.


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well its obviously a bit too complicated to be summarized in a few words, but basically I was starting by showing that spiritual forces are real: money for instance is a spiritual force.  And then I was showing that "logos" is another such spiritual force but with the opposite characteristics from money.  And then I pointed out that "logos" is God in the Bible, and that in Platonic rationalism "logos" is the conditions of possibility for human thought, so in this sense "logos" creates not only human beings, but also the world insofar as human beings can know it.  This argument is hardly original--Plato, Kant, and Hegel make different versions of it, and Jacques Derrida, the most famous and well-respected philosopher of the last fifty years, says basically the same thing.  But its a kind of philosophy that contradicts the common-sense empiricism that most people today use as the filter of their experience, so it seems strange to many people, hence the howls of outrage I suppose.
> 
> And I think that settles the matter.  Are there any final questions or can we wrap this up now?



There was a horizon type program on a few years ago that claimed religion was a type of mental health problem.

Congratulations on backing up that theopry.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 25, 2006)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> Is this an attempt to create the longest thread in history?



I did one more than twice this long once.  It would be about 10,000 pages by now if it hadn't been binned.


----------



## Aldebaran (Oct 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well its obviously a bit too complicated to be summarized in a few words, but basically I was starting by showing that spiritual forces are real: money for instance is a spiritual force…



On which base do you make the claim that spiritual forces are real.(ref. to former post ?) 
When you then talk about money as if that is a spiritual force : money is a human invented tool to specify a value of human invented activity or thought. It is as such artificial, but not abstract in reality although manifestations of its force can – eventually - be considered to constitute an abstract, whereas a spiritual force rises from within and by force of logos, is only able to manifest itself in the abstract where it resides although when it becomes manifest as result of reason-driven force, this manifestation can be considered as constituting a force in reality (and what about societies who don’t know money?).

Without manifestation of logos through human reasoning money would not be possible. Hence you compare an artificial tool, dependend for its existence of a logos driven creation with its very creator and even make it the opposite thereof.

In my reading of your last posts your observervation come with a one-sided, Christian/Western biased approach. How would you prove God’s existence to those who have no clue of what you talk about (or do you support a vision that only Christian./Western belief in God’s existence is valid)?

Some of your other points
Language as performative signs etc..: 
Only to those who understand meaning and/or value, which is not universal and even within the group that understands not equal.
Just like the creation of money “words” derive their existence from logos becoming manifest by human reasoning, hence are its creation.
Magic: What you call magic can also be called spiritual and placed in that category of abstract, eventually becoming manifest in reality as result of reason-driven force (and are as such often mistaken for being themselves that force). 
How magiciens and witches are viewed in societies not used to them is in my opinion besides the question and hence of no importance.
Money again: Use of money is merely construction of objectives following from subjective intention and does not represent human life but only human action within human life. 
Capitalism: The global dominance of Capitalism can’t manifest itself, nor can it be sustained withouth global enslavement of the logos manifest in human thought. The same counts for every human invented system and with changes of the system come changes of ethics.

I can’t see how anyone but you can be happy with or about your conclusion or how you can defend it as rational.  

salaam.


----------



## I-Roy (Oct 25, 2006)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> There was a horizon type program on a few years ago that claimed religion was a type of mental health problem.
> 
> Congratulations on backing up that theopry.



Well I do think God is linked to serotonin - Buddha under his datura tree, the calmness and rapture people feel when they have religion, the awful feeling that God has died when some people are depressed.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What about language?  When the priest says “I now pronounce you man and wife,” or when Chamberlain said “This country is at war with Germany,” they are not describing a prelinguistic state of affairs, they are bringing a state of affairs into being through a speech-act.  Their words *do* something: they are performative, or efficacious.  So there *are* in fact efficacious signs.
> 
> Obviously such signs are neither subjective nor objective, rather they mediate between these two spheres.  Among other differences between them and referential signs is the fact that they do not depend on the subjective intention of the speaker: the couple will be objectively married by the priest’s saying the words, no matter what his subjective intention may be.  Nor are such signs “true” or “false,” they are efficacious or nonefficacious—that is all.  Such signs therefore do not derive their function from the *logos,* which is the prelinguistic guarantor of truth upon which denotative, referential language depends.
> 
> ...



My only reservation with this is that what is being changed is function not ontology. For example, all that's necessary to designate something a christmas present is to hand it to someone saying 'Merry Christmas', but no change takes place in that process that would be discernible to someone who didn't have prior awareness of the redesignation - it's still just a toaster or whatever. There's no (admittedly mediated) interaction with the Real, in the way there would be if I hit it with a sledgehammer.

So I guess personally I would situate the whole thing in the realm of the symbolic order - i.e. that is where the efficacy lies. In the same way, sticking pins in the voodoo doll if only efficacious if the other person a) knows that's what you've done and b) believes that it will have some effect. If the person is either blithely unaware or an extreme materialist skeptic like Richard Dawkins then it's just not going to work (so really you might as well throw yours away  )

None of this is in any way troubling, although I still don't really get whether the proof of God's existence is meant in an ontological or a symbolic sense - I mean, you could say that Sherlock Homes exists in the sense of being an efficacious sign that compels American tourists to visit 42 Baker Street or wherever it is, but I think most people imagine the 'existence' of the thread-title to have a more purely ontological quality than what's implied by this.

Anyway, rather than rehearsing these arguments yet further, it might be more interesting to hear exactly which elements of pre-enlightenment thought can be used to combat efficacious signs, since if we provisionally accept this analysis it looks like a struggle that's being comprehensively lost at the moment.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 31, 2006)

Having read the thread from the start to here I am dropping in my first comment on U75. 

I was hoping for a rational explanation in straightforward english of the existence of God. That is not what I have found. Despite that the thread is not necessarily finished I do not now expect such a rational logical statement to appear, even if the thread reaches another 1,000 posts. 

There has been plenty of time for it already if it in actual fact existed. 

This thread has done nothing to challenge or modify my own beliefs that: 

1. There may be a god

2. There may be only one 

3. I cannot be certain. 

If anyone wants to challenge them, knock yourselves out


----------



## Crispy (Oct 31, 2006)

weltweit said:
			
		

> If anyone wants to challenge them, knock yourselves out


The brick wall is already surrounded by a pile of unconscious bodies


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 31, 2006)

My head hurts


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 31, 2006)

I iz on ur fred, proovin yr godz rashunalz


----------



## Crispy (Oct 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But we can also deduce that status by analyzing the *psychological* effects of efficacious signs.  And to do that we need to apply pre-Enlightenment intellectual techniques that predate the global predominance of capital.



And that's


----------



## inflatable jesus (Nov 1, 2006)

That's hilarious.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2006)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> Is this an attempt to create the longest thread in history?



Nah, it's just grist for phil's mill. Anyone who is thinking of a serious discussion here is in for a disappointment. The thread starter's intentions are not sincere.

Isn't that right, phil?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I did one more than twice this long once.  It would be about 10,000 pages by now if it hadn't been binned.



One could say that that thread, and this one, are cyber extensions of your cock - non? Mais oui!


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 28, 2006)

It seems to have detumesced somewhat of late. The thread, that is. I have no knowledge of the other. Thankfully.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> It seems to have detumesced somewhat of late. The thread, that is. I have no knowledge of the other. Thankfully.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2009)

to summarise for latecomers: phildwyer wanted to prove the existence of god but fucked it up.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 15, 2009)

Three years!  

Fuck me.  Where did all the time go?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

Dıng-dıng, round two!


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 15, 2009)

oh god no.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2009)

Ohlordhelpmejesuslordhelpmeithinkthezombiethreadisouttogetmeohlordhelpmejesuslord


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Three years!
> 
> Fuck me.  Where did all the time go?


shh 

dwyer will start a bloody thread on that


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> On several of the anti-Darwinist threads, I have been asked to back up my claim that God's existence can be demonstrated rationally.  To my shame, I have only responded by referring my interlocuters to Kant, Hegel or Marx.  This was necessary because my time is limited, and I thought it would be useful because I assumed that some people would already by familiar with these people's ideas.  How wrong I was!  As you might expect, this proof is rather complicated, which is why the common herd of religious believers must rest content with "faith."  But, if anyone's genuinely interested, I can take you through it in such a way that you will not only understand, but be utterly and completely convinced by.
> 
> This will be a lengthy process.  It will have to be taken step by step, and those steps will have to be little.  I will make sure that I have established each of my points before moving on to the next stage of the argument.  And of course I will have to pause periodically to kick away Gurrier, Nino Savatte and the rest of the pack of mangy curs who have nothing better to do than yap at my heels all day.  Many on these boards are fanatical anti-theists, and convincing them will not be easy.  But I shoulder the task with goodwill--someone has to do it--and it ought to be fun.  The rational proof of God's existence begins with the definitive characteristic of human society: exchange.  Yes, exchange.  The exchange, say, of a cow for a lamb.  This will eventually produce the commodity which, of which Karl Marx says:
> 
> ...


can you summarise your proof so discussion can commence anew?


----------



## chainsaw cat (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Faith is what people who don't have the time or inclination to work through the rational proof must rely on.  The rational proof is very complicated, and most people simply can't be bothered to follow it.  In fact, I'm not altogether sure that **I* *can be bothered, but I'll try to stick with it.  I reckon I'll limit myself to one post a day on this thread though, or it will take over my entire life.  So any objectors to what I've said so far have **one** day to raise their hands.  No going back later on.




Why do you put asterisks around words?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

chainsaw cat said:


> Why do you put asterisks around words?



Turkısh keyboard.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 15, 2009)

I didn't read the thread because it was too long and there was only a miniscule chance of gaining anything valuable from it. But was this undeniable proof ever provided by phildwyer? I wish he would have just put it all in the first post so I could have had a giggle without wasting my life reading 106 pages.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2009)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I didn't read the thread because it was too long and there was only a miniscule chance of gaining anything valuable from it. But was this undeniable proof ever provided by phildwyer? I wish he would have just put it all in the first post so I could have had a giggle without wasting my life reading 106 pages.


there is no proof 

dwyer couldn't prove the existence of a fucking turd, let alone a supreme being


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 15, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> there is no proof
> 
> dwyer couldn't prove the existence of a fucking turd, let alone a supreme being



Yeah but I wanted a laugh


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 15, 2009)

What's the point of faith if there is proof of your / a God?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2009)

BigPhil said:


> What's the point of faith if there is proof of your / a God?


what's the point of phildwyer?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

BigPhil said:


> What's the point of faith if there is proof of your / a God?



None.  Except that most people fınd ıt dıffıcult to grasp the ratıonal proof, untıl ıt ıs carefully explaıned to them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> None.  Except that most people fınd ıt dıffıcult to grasp the ratıonal proof, untıl ıt ıs carefully explaıned to them.


go on then


----------



## newme (Sep 15, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> go on then



This should be a laugh, lol.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 15, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> go on then



In one post please this time. I don't need my hand held as you guide me through the argument. I'll look forward to being transformed on my return form the pub. Laters


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> In one post please this time. I don't need my hand held as you guide me through the argument.



Yes you do.

Very well.  Let us begın wıth the concept of value, or meanıng.

Can we agree that human beıngs ınevıtably ımpose a value or meanıng on sense data ın the act of experıencıng ıt?  And that the ımposıtıon of thıs value or meanıng ıs the defınıtıve characterıstıc of human conscıousness?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 15, 2009)

I'm uncomfortable about starting a ladder of logic by starting with an implicit assumption that 'value' and 'meaning' are not quite different things.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

8ball said:


> I'm uncomfortable about starting a ladder of logic by starting with an implicit assumption that 'value' and 'meaning' are not quite different things.



Faır enough.  To begın wıth, let's just say ''concept.''  

Can we agree that the defınıtıve characterıstıc of the human mınd ıs the fact that human beıngs ınevıtably ımpose concepts on sense data?


----------



## perplexis (Sep 15, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> oh god no.


I have missed this thread.
Too bad I have a whole load of important science to do that is now going to be ruined !


----------



## chainsaw cat (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Turkısh keyboard.



Didn't they have a few hits in the 70s?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Faır enough.  To begın wıth, let's just say ''concept.''
> 
> Can we agree that the defınıtıve characterıstıc of the human mınd ıs the fact that human beıngs ınevıtably ımpose concepts on sense data?



Well, working human minds _interpret_ sense data.

Are we going with a representational theory of mind here?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

8ball said:


> Well, working human minds _interpret_ sense data.
> 
> Are we going with a representational theory of mind here?



No.  And I dıdn't say (nor mean) ''ınterpret.''  I saıd ''conceptualıze.''

We must agree on that before we can proceed.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> go on then



Actually Pıckman's, I'm goıng to have to ban you from thıs thread.

You have demonstrated many tımes that your only purpose here ıs to dısrupt our dıscussıon.  Nobody fınds you amusıng.  And basıcally you are an ıdıot.

You are welcome to read along wıth the rest of us.  But you are forbıdden from postıng on thıs thread untıl further notıce.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No.  And I dıdn't say (nor mean) ''ınterpret.''  I saıd ''conceptualıze.''
> 
> We must agree on that before we can proceed.



Good time for a definition, perhaps?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

8ball said:


> Good time for a definition, perhaps?



To ''conceptualıze'' ıs to subsume ındıvıdual sense data under a general ıdea.

As for example when I perceıve thıs black, cold, ınedıble object as a ''keyboard.''


----------



## 8ball (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> To ''conceptualıze'' ıs to subsume ındıvıdual sense data under a general ıdea.
> 
> As for example when I perceıve thıs black, cold, ınedıble object as a ''keyboard.''



And you don't think that's representational?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

8ball said:


> And you don't think that's representational?



Well representatıon ıs a thırd term, whıch medıates between sense data and concept.

Is that what you mean?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well representatıon ıs a thırd term, whıch medıates between sense data and concept.
> 
> Is that what you mean?



Well, if 'keyboard' is a concept, then it is a concept that has a representational relationship to the aforementioned plastic object, and also to all similar objects of that assigned class.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

8ball said:


> Well, if 'keyboard' is a concept, then it is a concept that has a representational relationship to the aforementioned plastic object, and also to all similar objects of that assigned class.



The _word_ keyboard ıs a representatıon.  The concept keyboard ıs the sıgnıfıed of that sıgnıfıer.  So I don't call a concept a representatıon.  I don't thınk ıt represents anythıng.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> The _word_ keyboard ıs a representatıon.  The concept keyboard ıs the sıgnıfıed of that sıgnıfıer.  So I don't call a concept a representatıon.  I don't thınk ıt represents anythıng.



If that translates as:

The word keyboard is just a label.  That label is linked to the 'keyboard' concept, which lays out the elements of 'keyboardiness'.  

Then I think I agree so far.

Important to distinguish at all times that the 'signified' is the 'elements if keyboardiness' (or the 'keyboard concept') and not the black object you are typing with.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

8ball said:


> If that translates as:
> 
> The word keyboard is just a label.  That label is linked to the 'keyboard' concept, which lays out the elements of 'keyboardiness'.
> 
> ...



Yes, absolutely.

The word ''keyboard'' = sıgnıfıer

The concept ''keyboard'' = sıgnıfıed

The thıng keyboard = referent.

Now, accordıng to the rules of thıs thread, we must waıt untıl everyone agrees wıth thıs (except the banned fool Pıckman's) before we proceed to the next stage of the proof.

I wıll gıve people 24 hours to raıse any objectıons.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 15, 2009)

Should we also lay out at this stage that this system can have a recursive element?

Such as unicorns possessing 'elements of unicorniness' even though the thing itself doesn't actully exist, making the referent the concept in some sense*

* - though some elements of unicorniness can also be pointing away from the concept itself


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

8ball said:


> Should we also lay out at this stage that this system can have a recursive element?
> 
> Such as unicorns possessing 'elements of unicorniness' even though the thing itself doesn't actully exist, making the referent the concept in some sense*
> 
> * - though some elements of unicorniness can also be pointing away from the concept itself



Let's just waıt to see ıf anyone objects to what we have establıshed so far.

Remember our aım here ıs to convınce _everyone_ (except the banned ıdıot Pıckman's), and to convınce them _completely,_ so that there ıs absolutely no room for doubt left.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Sep 15, 2009)

I have only just started reading this thread.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Let's just waıt to see ıf anyone objects to what we have establıshed so far.
> 
> Remember our aım here ıs to convınce _everyone_ (except the banned ıdıot Pıckman's), and to convınce them _completely,_ so that there ıs absolutely no room for doubt left.



I surrender. There are gods, you got me. You will be happy now and can put a smilie on your next post.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 15, 2009)

I don't think concepts are general ideas, by that I mean I don't think the formation of concepts is a matter of generalisation. A keyboard can be the board of keys of letters, numbers and symbols that you use to input data into a computer. It can also be a musical intrument. But we wouldn't call the control panel in a aeroplane's cockpit a "keyboard". How do we know how the generalisation works? We don't. It is partly down to human convention to see how to apply a concept. Concepts cannot be seperated from human understanding and human convention. We do not know all the applications of a concept when we apply it. Suppose a keyboard-like device is invented, how do we know whether it is a keyboard? When we decide, when the convention becomes fixed. Concepts are not seperable from their application. You could say a concept is a very particular thing with as much sense as saying that a concept is a general thing. It's nonsense to say we apply concepts to sense data.


----------



## The Groke (Sep 15, 2009)

Sesquipedalian said:


> I have only just started reading this thread.




Don't waste your time. Srsly.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Sep 15, 2009)

Knotted said:


> I don't think concepts are general ideas, by that I mean I don't think the formation of concepts is a matter of generalisation. A keyboard can be the board of keys of letters, numbers and symbols that you use to input data into a computer. It can also be a musical intrument. But we wouldn't call the control panel in a aeroplane's cockpit a "keyboard". How do we know how the generalisation works? We don't. It is partly down to human convention to see how to apply a concept. Concepts cannot be seperated from human understanding and human convention. We do not know all the applications of a concept when we apply it. Suppose a keyboard-like device is invented, how do we know whether it is a keyboard? When we decide, when the convention becomes fixed. Concepts are not seperable from their application. You could say a concept is a very particular thing with as much sense as saying that a concept is a general thing. It's nonsense to say we apply concepts to sense data.




Sorting.

Sets.

Venn Diagrams.

Filters.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 15, 2009)

chainsaw cat said:


> Sorting.
> 
> Sets.
> 
> ...



I don't think concepts are like mathematical sets. Set theory is riddled with paradoxes (the most famous being the Russell paradox) when sets are defined using concepts as Cantor and Frege did. Modern mathematics has very strict logical definitions of sets.

If we are talking about a finite known number of objects that we group together, then maybe. But a concept can be applied to new things. We reinvent concepts.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 15, 2009)

Knotted said:


> I don't think concepts are general ideas, by that I mean I don't think the formation of concepts is a matter of generalisation. A keyboard can be the board of keys of letters, numbers and symbols that you use to input data into a computer. It can also be a musical intrument. But we wouldn't call the control panel in a aeroplane's cockpit a "keyboard". How do we know how the generalisation works? We don't. It is partly down to human convention to see how to apply a concept. Concepts cannot be seperated from human understanding and human convention. We do not know all the applications of a concept when we apply it. Suppose a keyboard-like device is invented, how do we know whether it is a keyboard? When we decide, when the convention becomes fixed. Concepts are not seperable from their application. You could say a concept is a very particular thing with as much sense as saying that a concept is a general thing. It's nonsense to say we apply concepts to sense data.



And we're off . . .


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2009)

I seem to remember it went something like this:

money has free will

money is the devil

if the devil exists so must God


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 15, 2009)

You need to get a room and obsess about Pickman's alone in it, where others are not.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> You need to get a room and obsess about Pickman's alone in it, where others are not.



Actually you're banned too.

We don't have tıme for troublemakers here.  Sorry.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 15, 2009)

i don't need a rational proof of anything, I just know in my branes.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Actually you're banned too.
> 
> We don't have tme for troublemakers here.  Sorry.



*something about getting killed on the next zebra crossing, hopes has same in Turkey*


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 15, 2009)

I've missed this thread


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> *something about getting killed on the next zebra crossing, hopes has same in Turkey*



What part of 'you're banned' do you faıl to grasp?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 15, 2009)

> Yes you do



No I don't. Please get the fuck on with it.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> You need to get a room and obsess about Pickman's alone in it, where others are not.



Incıdentally, just ın case thıs strange person has any plans to defy my ban, let me state very clearly that I shall _not_ contınue wıth my proof untıl ıt has left us alone.

So ıf ıt chooses to persıst ın ıts dısruptıon, ıt wıll be spıtıng the boards as a whole.

Same goes for Pıckman's.

I'm sorry but there ıt ıs.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 15, 2009)

It's back. 

And now Dwyer is 'banning' people.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 15, 2009)

Thank you Phil. With great power comes great etc. I'll use it wisely, believe.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Sep 15, 2009)

The Groke said:


> Don't waste your time. Srsly.



I made it to the end of page 4.
(before taking you advice,i'll just watch from here )


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> And now Dwyer is 'banning' people.



Not you though.  You have to stay.  In fact, you have to post at least two contributions every single day.

We need some light entertainment around here.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 15, 2009)

I give up.

[/will to live]


----------



## Knotted (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Can we agree that human beıngs ınevıtably ımpose a value or meanıng on sense data ın the act of experıencıng ıt?



I disagree fundamentally.

Value and meaning are what we articulate. The act of making sense of sense data does not require the ability to articulate the act of making sense of sense data. A dog makes sense of his world. A dog can even know facts about the world. But a dog cannot articulate what they know. They do not intellectualise using abstract concepts.

We don't always attach value or meaning to sense data. Not everything is of interest. If I were to discuss something I am seeing then I would discuss it in meaningful terms, but I don't always discuss what I am seeing, not even as a mental note to myself.

At the same time, we do not simply experience raw sense data. We always subconsciously put some order onto what we see or hear.

You conflate making sense of the world with conceptualising the world.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> And that the ımposıtıon of thıs value or meanıng ıs the defınıtıve characterıstıc of human conscıousness?



Is the meaning and value imposed? Do we even know what meanings and values we attach to events until we articulate them? The meanings and values that we attach are related to our interests which can change with context. The meaning and the value are not bound up with the act of observation.

For example you can observe a masked man accross the road. You could perhaps relate this fact because the man worried you and what was significant to you was the distance between you and the man. But then again you might relate that the man was standing in front of the bank this time and you relate this because you are now concerned about a possible bank robbery. So there are two different but non competing conceptualisations and there are perhaps more which you have not even conceived of yet. The way you conceptualise is not determined by the observation and the observation is not determined by the sense data.

In short, concepts relate to description and language, not to the mechanics of knowing about the world. The simple proof is that if the two were the same then animals would either possess the ability to talk or lack the ability to make sense of anything.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2009)

Does this make a 'keypad' a particular of the 'keyboard' universal?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 15, 2009)

Oh God, it's been resurrected.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 15, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> Oh God, it's been resurrected.



stop being disruptive


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 15, 2009)

What silly twunt revived this shite then?

*calls in air strike*


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 15, 2009)




----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Let's just waıt to see ıf anyone objects to what we have establıshed so far.
> 
> Remember our aım here ıs to convınce _everyone_ (except the banned ıdıot Pıckman's), and to convınce them _completely,_ so that there ıs absolutely no room for doubt left.



:

Oh dear, what an ego this man has.  Come back Billy Graham all is forgiven.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 15, 2009)

I think Phil thinks he is applying Kant's philosophy, but he is mistaken about Kant's philosophy. He conflates Kant's concepts with Kant's intuitions. For Kant our observations require a priori intutions of time, space, causality and number not a priori concepts of time, space, causality and number. Intuitions are singular representations, not families of representations like concepts. Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge is not knowledge of concepts and he is not asserting that concepts exist prior to observation. Indeed he states that, "a concept without a percept is empty". What Phil is presenting us with is, is Plato's theory of forms not Kant's transcendental idealism and this has even less to do with Hegel or Marx who rejected Kant's philosophy anyway.

Phil's argument is unconvincing to everyone because it is just a bad rendering of Kant. Phil needs to argue his basic Platonic point in Platonic terms. He needs to argue for the existence of ideal forms, not just assert them as a corrollary of Kant's theory of a priori intuitions.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 15, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> What silly twunt revived this shite then?
> 
> *calls in air strike*



Pickman's did! Head for N1!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 15, 2009)

Knotted said:


> I think Phil thinks he is applying Kant's philosophy, but he is mistaken about Kant's philosophy. He conflates Kant's concepts with Kant's intuitions. For Kant our observations require a priori intutions of time, space, causality and number not a priori concepts of time, space, causality and number. Intuitions are singular representations, not families of representations like concepts. Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge is not knowledge of concepts and he is not asserting that concepts exist prior to observation. Indeed he states that, "a concept without a percept is empty". What Phil is presenting us with is, is Plato's theory of forms not Kant's transcendental idealism and this has even less to do with Hegel or Marx who rejected Kant's philosophy anyway.
> 
> Phil's argument is unconvincing to everyone because it is just a bad rendering of Kant. Phil needs to argue his basic Platonic point in Platonic terms. He needs to argue for the existence of ideal forms, not just assert them as a corrollary of Kant's theory of a priori intuitions.



Kant or no kant. His 'facts' that he has based this whole thing on simply don't stand up from the first (or second statement I can't remember or be bothered to go back and look), anyone can pretty much see that. Phil's repost to anyone who challenges him is to simply call them an idiot, hence this thread just goes on and on as a sort of self created shrine to Phil's ego. 

There is no god Phil, it's a silly idea. I can't prove there is no god, but there is no proof of his existence either. I also can't prove that unicorns don't live in secret underground bunkers on mars. 

Anyway looks like you have frightened him off now (or he is looking it all up in his books).


----------



## 8ball (Sep 15, 2009)

The first statement seems to work to a qualified degree.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Actually Pıckman's, I'm goıng to have to ban you from thıs thread.
> 
> You have demonstrated many tımes that your only purpose here ıs to dısrupt our dıscussıon.  Nobody fınds you amusıng.  And basıcally you are an ıdıot.
> 
> You are welcome to read along wıth the rest of us.  But you are forbıdden from postıng on thıs thread untıl further notıce.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2009)

Knotted said:


> I think Phil thinks he is applying Kant's philosophy, but he is mistaken about Kant's philosophy. He conflates Kant's concepts with Kant's intuitions. For Kant our observations require a priori intutions of time, space, causality and number not a priori concepts of time, space, causality and number. Intuitions are singular representations, not families of representations like concepts. Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge is not knowledge of concepts and he is not asserting that concepts exist prior to observation. Indeed he states that, "a concept without a percept is empty". What Phil is presenting us with is, is Plato's theory of forms not Kant's transcendental idealism and this has even less to do with Hegel or Marx who rejected Kant's philosophy anyway.
> 
> Phil's argument is unconvincing to everyone because it is just a bad rendering of Kant. Phil needs to argue his basic Platonic point in Platonic terms. He needs to argue for the existence of ideal forms, not just assert them as a corrollary of Kant's theory of a priori intuitions.



Now hang on a second, I mentıoned neıther Plato nor Kant, so ıt ıs a bıt prevıous to accuse me of mısreadıng eıther of them.  If anyone has ınfluenced my argument thus far ıt ıs Saussure, wıth hıs dıvısıon of the sıgn ınto sıgnıfer and sıgnıfıed.

A thread of thıs ımportance and complexıty wıll soon degenrate ınto chaos ıf we do not take thıngs one step at a tıme.  I therefore awaıt any objectıons to what I have saıd about conceptualızatıon beıng the defınıtıve characterıstıc of the human mınd.  Hearıng none (and ın the absence of dısruptıon from the banned baldıe Pıckman's) we shall proceed to the next stage thıs afternoon.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2009)

Knotted said:


> I disagree fundamentally.
> 
> Value and meaning are what we articulate. The act of making sense of sense data does not require the ability to articulate the act of making sense of sense data. A dog makes sense of his world. A dog can even know facts about the world. But a dog cannot articulate what they know. They do not intellectualise using abstract concepts.



But that ıs precısely my poınt.  I am agruıng that the abılıty to conceptualıze ıs the defınıtıve characterıstıc of the human mınd.  It necessarıly follows that anımals lack that abılıty, as you say.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2009)

Knotted said:


> Is the meaning and value imposed? Do we even know what meanings and values we attach to events until we articulate them? The meanings and values that we attach are related to our interests which can change with context. The meaning and the value are not bound up with the act of observation.
> 
> For example you can observe a masked man accross the road. You could perhaps relate this fact because the man worried you and what was significant to you was the distance between you and the man. But then again you might relate that the man was standing in front of the bank this time and you relate this because you are now concerned about a possible bank robbery. So there are two different but non competing conceptualisations and there are perhaps more which you have not even conceived of yet. The way you conceptualise is not determined by the observation and the observation is not determined by the sense data.



I say nothıng about the content of concepts at thıs stage.  I agree that the content wıll vary wıth culture, hıstory and language.  At thıs stage however I am concerned wıth the mere fact of conceptualızatıon ın the abstract.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2009)

Knotted said:


> I don't think concepts are general ideas, by that I mean I don't think the formation of concepts is a matter of generalisation. A keyboard can be the board of keys of letters, numbers and symbols that you use to input data into a computer. It can also be a musical intrument. But we wouldn't call the control panel in a aeroplane's cockpit a "keyboard". How do we know how the generalisation works? We don't. It is partly down to human convention to see how to apply a concept. Concepts cannot be seperated from human understanding and human convention. We do not know all the applications of a concept when we apply it. Suppose a keyboard-like device is invented, how do we know whether it is a keyboard? When we decide, when the convention becomes fixed. Concepts are not seperable from their application. You could say a concept is a very particular thing with as much sense as saying that a concept is a general thing.



I don't see how the last sentence follows from the rest of what you say here.  I use 'concept' ın the technıcal sense of _Begrıff._  To say that ıt ıs a generlızatıon ıs sımply a tautology ın thıs sense.

But anyway, I would argue that all concepts are necessarıly generalızatıons, and I see nothıng ın your example to refute thıs.  If we subsume the cockıpt's control panel under the concept of 'keyboard' that ıs one generalızatıon, ıf we call ıt a 'pıano' that ıs another generalızatıon.  Both are generalızatıons.




Knotted said:


> It's nonsense to say we apply concepts to sense data.



Faır enough.  I should have saıd that we experıence sense data through concepts.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I don't see how the last sentence follows from the rest of what you say here.  I use 'concept' ın the technıcal sense of _Begrıff._  To say that ıt ıs a generlızatıon ıs sımply a tautology ın thıs sense.
> 
> But anyway, I would argue that all concepts are necessarıly generalızatıons, and I see nothıng ın your example to refute thıs.  If we subsume the cockıpt's control panel under the concept of 'keyboard' that ıs one generalızatıon, ıf we call ıt a 'pıano' that ıs another generalızatıon.  Both are generalızatıons.



The problem is that in order to generalise you have one particular generalisation. But you can "generalise" in different ways simultaneously. If you don't know the rule for generalising do you know the concept? No, not in total, but you can still use the concept. So concepts are not generalisations, they have certain particular uses which are connected in various ways.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Faır enough.  I should have saıd that we experıence sense data through concepts.



But that's not true either. We don't need to conceive in order to perceive. The example I gave of the masked man across the road should show this. The act of conceiving is related to the act of articulating and this is relative to your interests eg. in what you wish to bring out about the facts. The act of perceiving is not dependent on the act of conceiving. You aren't always interested in conceptualising what you perceive - animals do this all the time and yet they can still make sense of the world. Perception is possible without conception.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 16, 2009)

To be honest phil, the objections that I raising might not be important for your argument. There is a much more basic error in the OP. You suggest that (economic) value must be perceptable in a cow. Here you assume that concepts are related directly to percepts.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Now hang on a second, I mentıoned neıther Plato nor Kant,



What? Not even in the second sentence of your opening post?


----------



## camouflage (Sep 16, 2009)

I beleive in the god that doesn't exist.

*obscure refference to the overwise quite boring book The God delusion*


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

Knotted said:


> To be honest phil, the objections that I raising might not be important for your argument. There is a much more basic error in the OP. You suggest that (economic) value must be perceptable in a cow.



Not necessarily a cow.  Could be any object of exchange.  The basic point is to prove that human beings do not perceive the world as it actually is, but rather their own ideas about the world.

Once that has been proved, the rest should be fairly straightforward.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> What? Not even in the second sentence of your opening post?



Buffoon.

See--I knew it was worth keeping this guy around.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Not necessarily a cow.  Could be any object of exchange.  The basic point is to prove that human beings do not perceive the world as it actually is, but rather their own ideas about the world.
> 
> Once that has been proved, the rest should be fairly straightforward.



phildwyer

You are a complete fraud.  You have no understanding of philosophy, the world of perception or even the world of ideas and the meaning of words.  You are a confidence trickster and if you really do earn your living teaching philosophy, then you have pulled off a scam.  Perhaps in America where there are lots of colleges with seats that need bums on them you can get away with it, but don't continue with your laughable nonsense on this four year old thread.  I am amazed that people are willing to engage with you.  I have to admit though, that you are the most successful troll on these boards, and I myself am a victim thereof in that am responding.  No more however.  Life is too short to give time to internet charlatans.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 17, 2009)

With a thread this long, I would say that there is NO rational proof of God's existence - it can only be a matter of faith. And as with all steps of faith, the nihilists and non-believers can, and frequently do rationally cut it down.

A better question would be: is there a rational reason why God does NOT exist? - the answer for which is again 'no' because we cannot say anything certain about the ineffable - we simply don't know - though it seems _*very *_unlikely - more likely is that Man created an anthropomorphic being as an 'answer', and called it God. Thus there is little to gain from talking about it at all except in terms of faith being a reaction to fear, and that both are illusions of the self anyway.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> With a thread this long, I would say that there is NO rational proof of God's existence - it can only be a matter of faith.



Only an idiot would believe anything based on faith.  

So how would you account for the fact that the vast majority of learned people, throughout history and in every culture, have believed in God?

Obviously, there are rational proofs of God's existence.

But they are not easy for a layperson to grasp.  What I am doing here is explaining one of them in simple terms, so that absolutely anyone will be able to understand it.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> A better question would be: is there a rational reason why God does NOT exist? - the answer for which is again 'no'



Again, I would disagree.  There are rational arguments for atheism.  Not very good ones, in my opinion, but they do exist.

Of course most atheists have no idea what they are.  Most atheists do indeed base their position on faith.

The difference between our society and all previous societies is that atheism has become what I call the "default position."  

That is to say, someone who has never thought or read about the question will automatically tend to be an atheist.

Whereas in all previous societies (and most non-Western societies today) such a person would automatically tend to be a believer.

A fascinating historical development, no?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> more likely is that Man created an anthropomorphic being as an 'answer', and called it God.



First of all, the anthropomorphic conception of God is mere "picture thinking," a sop to the uneducated.  No serious thinker conceives of God as an old man with a long white beard.

Second: an answer to what?  Why do you think there are ontological questions that need answering?  I would suggest that the fact that questions are raised by the very nature of the human condition (and they most certainly are, as your post clearly indicates) is itself evidence for the existence of God.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Only an idiot would believe anything based on faith.



I disagree - I think it is necessary in life to (for example) believe in your friends.



phildwyer said:


> So how would you account for the fact that the vast majority of learned people, throughout history and in every culture, have believed in God?



They thinker-prover the dubious story to themselves.



phildwyer said:


> Obviously, there are rational proofs of God's existence.



No, there are various stories you can believe in, but they all require the individual to selectively assess the evidence - ie to thinker-prover the story to themselves - they have to WANT to believe in it (ie they have an agenda) and so they take any evidence and make it fit into their story (ie. thinker-prover).


----------



## Gmart (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Second: an answer to what?  Why do you think there are ontological questions that need answering?



I did put the word 'answer' in quotes. 



phildwyer said:


> I would suggest that the fact that questions are raised by the very nature of the human condition (and they most certainly are, as your post clearly indicates) is itself evidence for the existence of God.



No, the fact that questions are raised could be a symptom of consciousness. It does not imply the existence of an anthropomorphised God like being. Man questions as part of his programming - that does not mean that every question has an answer, if only life were that simple...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> to thinker-prover the story to themselves - they have to WANT to believe in it (ie they have an agenda) and so they take any evidence and make it fit into their story (ie. thinker-prover).



Look, with all respect, don't you think it's a bit daft to dismiss the likes of Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard etc etc as self-deluded "thinker-provers" who just believe stuff because they feel like it?

You don't have to agree with them, of course.  But as soon as you actually sit down to read such people, you will immediately be struck by their utterly ruthless and unremitting application of _reason_ and _logic._  You will be also struck by the complete absence of "faith" from their arguments.

So as I say, to claim that there is no rational argument for God's existence is just plain silly and obviously wrong.

Now, it is true that these arguments are _difficult_ for people to grasp.  But I believe that at least one of them can be communicated in such simple terms as to completely convince absolutely anybody.  And that is what I am doing here.

Shall we proceed?


----------



## Gmart (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Look, with all respect, don't you think it's a bit daft to dismiss the likes of Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard etc etc as self-deluded "thinker-provers" who just believe stuff because they feel like it?



I haven't got a problem with the vast majority of their input into Western Civilisation, but on the point of the existence of an anthropomorphised being called God, then I do indeed dismiss their arguments as them persuading themselves, and creating a no doubt complex dubious story to do so. It would NEED to be complex because they were undoubtedly more intelligent than the average.

I don't blame them of course - they lived in a time when everyone believed the same thing and were discussing the faith a lot - but get a lot of believers together and they will all persuade themselves that they are right.

Remember that there are many other religions which are not based on a single anthropomorphic being, and they persuade themselves that their dubious story is right too...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> There is no god Phil, it's a silly idea. I can't prove there is no god, but there is no proof of his existence either. I also can't prove that unicorns don't live in secret underground bunkers on mars.



Actually _you_ can't prove anything at all.

For anyone who cares to skip the rest of Atomic Suplex's posts on this thread, they generally take the form of a hideously distorted Socratic dialogue.  Something like this:

PD: Ah, Atomic Suplex.  Will you walk with me this morning?

AS: To laugh at your stupid ideas I will.

PD: I am always glad of your company.  Tell me, do you have a dog?

AS: I do, what of it?

PD: So the dog is yours?

AS: She is.

PD: And does your dog have a mother?

AS: Of course she does, twat.

PD: And the mother is also yours?

AS: Yes twat, she is.

PD: So you use your mother as a dog?

AS: Stop trolling, twat.

PD: You beat your own mother?

AS: I ought to beat you, twat!

PD: I know that you become annoyed when your logic is shown to be faulty.

AS: Mods!  Mods!  Dwyer is trolling again….

Etc., repeat as necessary….


----------



## Knotted (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Not necessarily a cow.  Could be any object of exchange.  The basic point is to prove that human beings do not perceive the world as it actually is, but rather their own ideas about the world.
> 
> Once that has been proved, the rest should be fairly straightforward.



That needs proved rather than assumed - I'm sceptical.

I should also point out that at the minute you are making a point about psychology rather than philosophy ie. you are arguing about how humans happen perceive the world not what is necessary for any creature to perceive the world. That is you are making an empirical point rather than a rational point.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> AS: Mods!  Mods!  Dwyer is trolling again….
> 
> Etc., repeat as necessary….



Get a grip Dwyer you tool. I told you before that I have never complained to the mods about you or anyone else. (Please feel free to check this fact with the mods).
If the mods are on your back about about being a cock it is because you have made a big enough cock of yourself for them to notice without me having to point it out.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Buffoon.
> 
> See--I knew it was worth keeping this guy around.



Buffoon you say? You said you had not mentioned kant but in fact you did, in your opening post no less. It is not illogical for knotted to suggest you have been reading and interpreting kant wrongly. 

Phil this thread just keeps on making you look more of an imbecile. Your childish and petty pops at me continually and conveniently ignore any fact or issue. Challengers are deemed 'idiots' and their often relevant objections are ignored proving you have - if not a blind faith in god, then at the very least a blind faith in your own flawed ideas and bloated ego.


----------



## chazegee (Sep 17, 2009)

Internet gold. 
I remember this one, half educated lol.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

Knotted said:


> That needs proved rather than assumed - I'm sceptical.
> 
> I should also point out that at the minute you are making a point about psychology rather than philosophy ie. you are arguing about how humans happen perceive the world not what is necessary for any creature to perceive the world. That is you are making an empirical point rather than a rational point.



You've lost me now.

Obviously a rational point is a point about how human beings perceive the world, for human beings are the only rational creature in the world.

And I don't see how it needs proving that, in order for an exchange to take place, the value of object A must be perceptible in the physical body of object B.  That is what we mean when we say "one cow is worth one sheep."  The cow's value is present in the physical body of the sheep.

Nothing empirical about this, obviously the cow is not empirically present in the sheep.  That would be absurd, and a rather unpleasant image to boot.

Now, does everyone agree with me so far?  If not, you have until this time tomorrow to raise any questions.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Buffoon you say?



That is correct, yes.  Your function on this thread is Resident Buffoon.  

And quite frankly it is a function that you have performed rather poorly today.  I strongly suggest that you buck up your ideas a bit on the buffoon front.  Otherwise I will have no alternative but to ban you, along with Pickman's.  And you wouldn't want to be isolated with him, would you?


----------



## Knotted (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You've lost me now.
> 
> Obviously a rational point is a point about how human beings perceive the world, for human beings are the only rational creature in the world.



That just doesn't make sense. You can make an empirical point about human rationality.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> And I don't see how it needs proving that, in order for an exchange to take place, the value of object A must be perceptible in the physical body of object B.  That is what we mean when we say "one cow is worth one sheep."  The cow's value is present in the physical body of the sheep.



That does need proving. I've no idea why you would think that. As you present your argument it just sounds like trickery. It also blatantly contradicts Marx who you are supposedly basing this argument on.

Why would the value be perceptible? Unless you attach a price label, you cannot gain any idea of an object's value by merely examining it. Surely the economic value of a commodity is dependent not on the physical make up of the commodity but on the market for that commidity and the production costs of that commodity.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 17, 2009)

Hang on a sec. Wasn't one of the big things about empiricism in the early days related to how you can 'rationally' prove pretty much anything, no matter how idiotic?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

Knotted said:


> Why would the value be perceptible?



Obviously it is not empirically perceptible, but it must be rationally perceptible.



Knotted said:


> Why would the value be perceptible? Unless you attach a price label, you cannot gain any idea of an object's value by merely examining it. Surely the economic value of a commodity is dependent not on the physical make up of the commodity but on the market for that commidity and the production costs of that commodity.



Hold on, we're not talking about commodification here.  We're talking about the simplest form of exchange: one kind of object for another.  A cow for a sheep, for example.

For such an exchange to be conceptually possible, the value of object A (the cow) must be perceptible in the body of object B (the sheep).  The sheep must become a vehicle for the expression of the value of the cow.

Market and production costs have nothing to do with this primitive form of exchange.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Hang on a sec. Wasn't one of the big things about empiricism in the early days related to how you can 'rationally' prove pretty much anything, no matter how idiotic?



Not that I know of, if by "the early days" you mean Bacon.  Bacon pretty much abandoned reason in favor of sense perception: the fatal wrong turn in the history of Western thought.

Or are you referring to the ancient empiricists?


----------



## chainsaw cat (Sep 17, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Buffoon you say? You said you had not mentioned kant but in fact you did, in your opening post no less. It is not illogical for knotted to suggest you have been reading and interpreting kant wrongly.
> 
> *Phil this thread just keeps on making you look more of an imbecile. Your childish and petty pops at me continually and conveniently ignore any fact or issue*. Challengers are deemed 'idiots' and their often relevant objections are ignored proving you have - if not a blind faith in god, then at the very least a blind faith in your own flawed ideas and bloated ego.



Yes but it is laugh out loud funny from start to last (actually I can only vouch for about ten pages but I feel it's ok to extrapolate on essentially trivial matters).


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Actually _you_ can't prove anything at all.
> 
> For anyone who cares to skip the rest of Atomic Suplex's posts on this thread, they generally take the form of a *hideously distorted Socratic dialogue*.  Something like this:..(snip.



Oh the irony of this.  As the one finger points at the accused, three fingers point back to the accuser.


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2009)

chainsaw cat said:


> Yes but it is laugh out loud funny from start to last (actually I can only vouch for about ten pages but I feel it's ok to extrapolate on essentially trivial matters).



It's not as good as his (sadly binned) gun thread. That was urban's best thread ever.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Obviously it is not empirically perceptible, but it must be rationally perceptible.



Value is not perceptible. In order to evaluate something you need to apply judgement. You judge things using both rational and empirical resources. But you don't perceive your judgement, you just judge.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hold on, we're not talking about commodification here.  We're talking about the simplest form of exchange: one kind of object for another.  A cow for a sheep, for example.
> 
> For such an exchange to be conceptually possible, the value of object A (the cow) must be perceptible in the body of object B (the sheep).  The sheep must become a vehicle for the expression of the value of the cow.
> 
> Market and production costs have nothing to do with this primitive form of exchange.



OK fair enough.

If you exchange a sheep for a cow, that does not mean that you value the two as being the same. It means you have greater need for the cow than the sheep and implicitly the other fellow has a greater need for the sheep than the cow. They are not "perceiving values", they are making value judgements.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> That is correct, yes.  Your function on this thread is Resident Buffoon.
> 
> And quite frankly it is a function that you have performed rather poorly today.  I strongly suggest that you buck up your ideas a bit on the buffoon front.  Otherwise I will have no alternative but to ban you, along with Pickman's.  And you wouldn't want to be isolated with him, would you?



So you are not going to answer? Is it too difficult for you Phil? You said you didn't mention kant, however you did in your first post of the thread. 
If I (and knotted) are being so daft it should be really easy for you to answer. 

Why is that Phil? It's a bit like the reason this thread is 100 pages long. It's because you can't admit you are wrong even when it has been spelled out to you over and over and over again. 

As usual when you can't answer you fall back on childish insults and lying. Great debating skills numbnuts.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Not that I know of, if by "the early days" you mean Bacon.  Bacon pretty much abandoned reason in favor of sense perception: the fatal wrong turn in the history of Western thought.
> 
> Or are you referring to the ancient empiricists?



I thought Hume and Kant were more appropriate as examples of critics of metaphysics (including rational theology) than Bacon. Bacon wasn't really an empiricist anyway.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Sep 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> It's not as good as his (sadly binned) gun thread. That was urban's best thread ever.



Faint memories of that - was it the one where Mr Dwyer and several others displayed an impressive ignorance of guns allied with strong opinions on guns?


----------



## Knotted (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Now, does everyone agree with me so far?  If not, you have until this time tomorrow to raise any questions.



I don't agree - you're conflating immediate perceptions with mediated judgements. But I'm not sure if that's important. You insist that what you say is obvious, so can't we just agree on what is actually obvious - that people do indeed evaluate stuff - and then we can move on without talking about the nature of perception?

On the other hand if the nature of perception really is important to your argument, then we should be discussing that not economics.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> It's not as good as his (sadly binned) gun thread. That was urban's best thread ever.



Innit.  Fridge was mad to bin it.  WoW at his absolute best.

Still, Atomic Suplex is showing fine potential as a surrogate.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> So you are not going to answer? Is it too difficult for you Phil? You said you didn't mention kant, however you did in your first post of the thread.
> If I (and knotted) are being so daft it should be really easy for you to answer.
> 
> Why is that Phil? It's a bit like the reason this thread is 100 pages long. It's because you can't admit you are wrong even when it has been spelled out to you over and over and over again.
> ...



Look, this just isn't good enough I'm afraid.  

If you really aspire to the role of Thread Clown, you must at least _try_ to engage with the issues.

For example, what do you make of the argument that the Relative Form of Value must be expressed in the physical body of the object to be exchanged?  Does that assertion satisfy your critical faculties or not?

Please try and address the substantive matter at hand.  Otherwise, you will soon find yourself banned from this thread, and I will brook no argument.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2009)

Knotted said:


> OK fair enough.



Great. Despite some minor quibbles, it seems that we are essentially in agreement thus far.

I will wait until tomorrow to see if I hear any more objections.  Hearing none (Atomic Suplex excepted, he is of course free to blurt away all he likes), I will then proceed to the next stage of my proof.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I will brook no argument.


not only won't you brook an argument, you're signally incapable of putting one together. in your more than 500 posts on this thread, which one sets out your existence of god?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Look, this just isn't good enough I'm afraid.
> 
> If you really aspire to the role of Thread Clown, you must at least _try_ to engage with the issues.
> 
> ...



Ha ha so you just can't answer? C'mon Phil it's not even a very big issue considering all the other mistakes you have made on this thread. 

All you have done in responce is whine like a pussy and rather childishly attempt to put me down. 

Did you mention Kant???


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I will wait until tomorrow to see if I hear any more objections.  Hearing none (Atomic Suplex excepted, he is of course free to blurt away all he likes), I will then proceed to the next stage of my proof.


I haven't seen a single scrap of credible evidence proving God's existence, just endless smug bluster and waffle from you.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Great. Despite some minor quibbles, it seems that we are essentially in agreement thus far.



I was only acknowledging that you were not talking about commodities but primitive exchange. I disagree with everything you have said so far except:

1) People do genuinely evaluate things.
2) There is a valid distinction between signified and signifier.

I think you've failed at the first hurdle. We don't perceive the world through concepts. It's not that the converse is true, it's just to say that sort of thing misuses the concept of concepts. You've confused concepts with subjective bias. You've failed to acknowledge that concepts are things you can think about and modify, that concepts can exist without a percept (eg. a fantasy) and that percepts can exist without concepts (eg. stuff you notice that you haven't made sense of). Your next step should be trivial. If the existence of a fantasy concept such as a unicorn shows that unicorns are in some way perceptible and therefore in some way exist then the fantasy of god means that god exists. So I'm not holding my breath.

To be honest with you, this issue is dead for me. Nothing you say will convince me, I have no need to see any proofs. I have absolutely no doubts that there are no gods. The existence of god is just one of those many things I don't need to look into in order arrive at a satifactory conclusion. I have solid faith in my atheist beliefs. I am still interested in what other people think, so I don't want to discourage you from continuing and so I'll but out for a bit.


----------



## joe_infinity (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> we experıence sense data through concepts.




Is this the equivalent of Husserl's idea that we adopt the 'natural attitude' in our ordinary, pre-philosophical experience of life?


----------



## perplexis (Sep 17, 2009)

Knotted said:


> OK fair enough.
> 
> If you exchange a sheep for a cow, that does not mean that you value the two as being the same. It means you have greater need for the cow than the sheep and implicitly the other fellow has a greater need for the sheep than the cow. They are not "perceiving values", they are making value judgements.


Didn't we do this argument about 3 years ago?
It was good then too, but I'm glad someone else is on the case this time cos I remember getting worn out by it really quickly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Obviously a rational point is a point about how human beings perceive the world, for human beings are the only rational creature in the world.


A big statement that needs a great deal of justification, and which I think is  unlikely to stand up to scrutiny regardless of how you define the term rational. This mistake is linked to what Knotted has said about your mistake with concepts, and to your inability in the past to imagine how it is possible to think and reason without language. 

Your 'rational proof' boils down to a failure of your imagination. You appear to be imprisoned by your thoughts on this one.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2009)

editor said:


> I haven't seen a single scrap of credible evidence proving God's existence, just endless smug bluster and waffle from you.



This isn't about an evidence-based proof.  This is about a proof (or, I hope, an argunent at the very least) using pure reason.

I suspect a bit of linguistic sleight-of-hand will creep in at some point, but there will be nothing in the way of empirical evidence, credible or otherwise.  I think even Phil expects to end this thread with not a scrap of credible _evidence_ for a God (or Gods, or gods even) having been put forward.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2009)

8ball said:


> I suspect a bit of linguistic sleight-of-hand will creep in at some point, but there will be nothing in the way of empirical evidence, credible or otherwise.  I think even Phil expects to end this thread with not a scrap of credible _evidence_ for a God (or Gods, or gods even) having been put forward.


Phil has a strictly medieval attitude towards empirical evidence. I think he probably considers such a term to be oxymoronic.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

joe_infinity said:


> Is this the equivalent of Husserl's idea that we adopt the 'natural attitude' in our ordinary, pre-philosophical experience of life?



Well I come at it via Saussure, but I suppose its basically the same.

Essentially my point is that there is no pre-linguistic experience, even for babies, since language is hard-wired into the human mind.  And language inevitably brings concepts into being.

The attribution of value to one object in an act of simple exchange is the instance of conceptualization on which I shall construct my proof.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

8ball said:


> This isn't about an evidence-based proof.  This is about a proof (or, I hope, an argunent at the very least) using pure reason.



Exactly.  Obviously there can be no empirical proof for the existence of God.  The age of miracles is over.  My proof is purely rational, as the thread title indicates.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Ha ha so you just can't answer? C'mon Phil it's not even a very big issue considering all the other mistakes you have made on this thread.
> 
> All you have done in responce is whine like a pussy and rather childishly attempt to put me down.



I'm sorry, but comical misspellings just don't cut it.

You have _one_ more chance to be amusing.  If you fail yet again, you will be banned and will will seek out another Thread Jester.  

So have a really good try this time.  To be a Failed Clown would be a sad fate even for you.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> your inability in the past to imagine how it is possible to think and reason without language.



Those who have made other objections can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that so far they all boil down to this.

Certainly my proof depends upon the assumption that it is impossible to think or reason without language.

To avoid unnecessary complications, let us limit the proposition to human beings over two years old.  I say that such beings cannot think or reason without language.  

My proof of this is simple: try it.  Try your very best to think or reason without using language.  Then get back to us and tell us how you got on.

If no-one claims to have been able to think or reason without using language we can proceed to the next stage.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

Knotted said:


> I have solid faith in my atheist beliefs.



Well I think that is foolish and unworthy of you.  I would never believe anything on the basis of faith.  Certainly I have no faith in the existence of God.  I have a rational belief in His existence.  

I think that atheists should also base their belief on reason rather than faith.  I note however that few of them do so.  Indeed even intelligent atheists such as yourself generally hold their belief on the basis of blind faith, as you now admit.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

Knotted said:


> I disagree with everything you have said so far except:
> 
> 1) People do genuinely evaluate things.
> 2) There is a valid distinction between signified and signifier.



As long as you (and everyone else) agrees with these two statements, then surely you must also agree about the value of the sheep being perceptible in the body of the cow?  

I don't see how you could endorse the claim that people "generally evaluate things" as well as the distinction between signifier and signified and yet deny the validity of the sheep-cow statement.

Actually I don't really see how anyone could deny it anyway.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 18, 2009)

How do you take into account different people's perception of a different value? So I might consider a cow to be worth 1.5 sheep, but less if I like mutton/wool more than beef/leather?

One could argue that with lots of different people's views in a market - ie the interaction of supply and demand dictate the absolute value - is that right?


----------



## Knotted (Sep 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well I think that is foolish and unworthy of you.  I would never believe anything on the basis of faith.  Certainly I have no faith in the existence of God.  I have a rational belief in His existence.



Rational proofs are just trivialities, god isn't a triviality by definition, therefore there is no rational proof of the existence of god. You have a faith based position as well. We all do. I call myself an atheist because I have no use for the god concept. But then neither do you if you think it is just a rationalist triviality. However, fortunately for you, your argument is flawed so your god concept may have some substance afterall.



phildwyer said:


> As long as you (and everyone else) agrees with these two statements, then surely you must also agree about the value of the sheep being perceptible in the body of the cow?
> 
> I don't see how you could endorse the claim that people "generally evaluate things" as well as the distinction between signifier and signified and yet deny the validity of the sheep-cow statement.
> 
> Actually I don't really see how anyone could deny it anyway.



You don't perceive values, you make value judgements so I can't accept the above. I think you should just move on to the next part anyway, you aren't going to convince me. I'm banning myself from the thread because I want to see how you get on.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Sep 18, 2009)

I have completed my primary mission,on Urban,and can now give scant attention to this egotistical thread.

"A punctured ego requires constant inflating." - Sesquipedalian.

Inflating gently does nothing other than to enslave.

How to kill a living thread........ignore it.

The OP is clearly an intelligent lifeform.
It plays with posters in a sometimes cruel fashion.
However,even a fool can find some bait for another to bite upon.
I don't wish to disparage the OP but i do want to say this;
You are clearly capable of making an outstanding contribution in any field your mind takes you but you choose to play mind games with people.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2009)

> Rational proofs are just trivialities ...


 

(((((mathematicians)))))


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Yes you do.
> 
> Very well.  Let us begın wıth the concept of value, or meanıng.
> 
> Can we agree that human beıngs ınevıtably ımpose a value or meanıng on sense data ın the act of experıencıng ıt?  And that the ımposıtıon of thıs value or meanıng ıs the defınıtıve characterıstıc of human conscıousness?


No; if you want _the defınıtıve characterıstıc_ you need to pick one or the other.

But, better to say, _'interpretation is the essence of consciousness'_.  It captures your intended meaning, I think, and with less ambiguity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> If no-one claims to have been able to think or reason without using language we can proceed to the next stage.


I have. 

So have lots of other people. I recommend you read Temple Grandin's _Thinking in Pictures_, which will give you some insight into how she reasons without language. 

I consider this to be a fundamental error that leads to all kinds of other errors, but I've gone over it before on here. I had the argument at length with Demosthenes, and I won't go over it again.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I'm sorry, but comical misspellings just don't cut it.
> 
> You have _one_ more chance to be amusing.  If you fail yet again, you will be banned and will will seek out another Thread Jester.
> 
> So have a really good try this time.  To be a Failed Clown would be a sad fate even for you.



Pathetic Phil. If you can't answer just say so instead of being a great big baby. 

You love being selective don't you? Not much room for debate when you ignore everything that is an inconvenience to you (relevant or not). Knotted makes one comment "OK fair enough" and you applied it to all of your failed ramblings, when only blind ignorance/arrogance could have led you to that conclusion. 
Anyone can all do that Phil.

*Phil do you admit you were wrong? *


phildwyer said:


> . . . Yes, of course. . . I'm sorry



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3481166&postcount=130


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 18, 2009)

It yet lives!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Pathetic Phil. If you can't answer just say so instead of being a great big baby.



No, I'm sorry, that just doesn't cut it.

I am strongly tempted to expel you from this thread immediately.  You did once promise to provide us with some laughs with your clowning and buffoonery, but for me at least those promises have been unfulfilled.

Rather than take unilateral action however, I shall have the decency to let the thread as a whole decide your fate.  It is far more than you deserve, but I'm in a generous mood.

So: anyone who believes Atomic Suplex is laughable and ridiculous enough to be allowed to remain on this thread for entertainment value has twenty four (24) hours to speak up.

Those who want to see him unceremoniously booted into touch for being a complete moron and idiot just remain silent.

I shall return to address the substantive matters that have been raised in due course.


----------



## editor (Sep 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I am strongly tempted to expel you from this thread immediately....
> 
> So: anyone who believes Atomic Suplex is laughable and ridiculous enough to be allowed to remain on this thread for entertainment value has twenty four (24) hours to speak up.
> 
> Those who want to see him unceremoniously booted into touch for being a complete moron and idiot just remain silent.


Are you on mind bending drugs today?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

editor said:


> Are you on mind bending drugs today?



Today and every day.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 18, 2009)

You could bottle phils ego and sell it to schoolkids.  His greasy wrangling juice probably wouldn't go down so well.

I think we can all agree on that.  I'm sure people will confim it by not disagreeing.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No, I'm sorry, that just doesn't cut it.



Which bit doesn't cut it Dwyer? The bit where you can't answer without admitting you were wrong . . Again ha ha? Geez you are off the scale moron and your clown defense is getting old, yawn. 

I think it's quite clear who is the laughable one on this thread. Do a fucking poll on that if your ego can bear it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 18, 2009)

As someone once said of modern art _"There is less to this than meets the eye"_, so with Phil's posts.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 18, 2009)

111 pages and still not real concluive rational proof of god's existance.

I think it would probably take less than 10 pages to provide rational proof of god's LACK of existance, so I am going to go with that solution to the problem.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 18, 2009)

The solution to the problem is to realise phil doesn't really exist.  Another thing we can all agree on I'm sure.


----------



## perplexis (Sep 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No, I'm sorry, that just doesn't cut it.
> 
> I am strongly tempted to expel you from this thread immediately.  You did once promise to provide us with some laughs with your clowning and buffoonery, but for me at least those promises have been unfulfilled.
> 
> ...


You, phildwyer, are ruining this thread with your endless pomposity. Lay off the completely unnecessary personal shit and lay out your sodding "proof". Put it on the table, axiom by axiom, and let us decide for ourselves. There's no point bleating on about individuals when you have such an important point to make.
If you can't write up your proof in one coherent post, even a long one, without the need to intersperse the "logical" steps with appeals to semantic cleight of hand then you will fail to convince anybody.

Your response to this is that some people need to be chided, and probably to express some kind of outrage at the fact that I have the temerity to make such demands of you. After all, it's pretty outrageous of me to expect to get something so precious without having to work for it.

Unfortunately we got through most of your argument last time this thread was alive, and you're not being any more convincing this time. If the thesis remains compeltely based on the asscription of value then we may not get any further, but I am, stiupidly, intrigued to hear the whole of your argument.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Which bit doesn't cut it Dwyer? The bit where you can't answer without admitting you were wrong . . Again ha ha?



Well Atomic Suplex, it seems that _not one single_ poster has stood up to defend your presence on this thread.

Not even your own mother has had a word to say in your favor.  Though to be fair she was quite busy servicing the Harlequins RFC all afternoon.

I confess that this surprises even me.  I knew you were widely unpopular on here, but this resounding chorus of disgust directed against you has taken my breath away quite frankly.

Under the circumstances, I cannot imagine that you would possibly wish to stay on this thread, or indeed on Urban75 in general.

Will you now do us the favour of leaving the boards of your own accord, before you are expelled by the popular will?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

perplexis said:


> I am, stiupidly, intrigued to hear the whole of your argument.



All in good time my friend.  

If you will consult the earlier portion of the thread you will see that I have decided to wait a full twenty-four hours between each stage of my argument.  The reason is that I intend to convince _everyone,_ without any exception.  And because of this, I must in fairness give all participants the right to make any objections they see fit.


----------



## Corax (Sep 18, 2009)

I'm on page 18 of 111, of a thread that starts in 2005.

I'm gathering that 4 years later the entire proof has still not been set out.

Should I continue?


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Sep 18, 2009)

Corax said:


> I'm on page 18 of 111, of a thread that starts in 2005.
> 
> I'm gathering that 4 years later the entire proof has still not been set out.
> 
> *Should I continue?*



No,no and no.


----------



## Corax (Sep 18, 2009)

Sesquipedalian said:


> No,no and no.



I'm damn curious though.  Has Phil given a summary of the argument so far anywhere?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well Atomic Suplex, it seems that _not one single_ poster has stood up to defend your presence on this thread.
> 
> Not even your own mother has had a word to say in your favor.  Though to be fair she was quite busy servicing the Harlequins RFC all afternoon.
> 
> ...



Yes yes Phil, hilarious as ever . . . . And yet you ignore the fact that the four posts between mine and yours are all diss posts directed at you.


----------



## Corax (Sep 18, 2009)

Can I have it in powerpoint?


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Sep 18, 2009)

Corax said:


> I'm damn curious though.  Has Phil given a summary of the argument so far anywhere?



I gave up after approx 5 pages 

(And fast forwarded to the end,(If only), of the thread.)


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 18, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes yes Phil, hilarious as ever . . . . And yet you ignore the fact that the four posts between mine and yours are all diss posts directed at you.



Go away.  You are not welcome on this thread.  No-one wants you here.  You have miserably failed in your only conceivably useful role as clown and jester.

Why on earth would you want to stay here under these circumstances?


----------



## Corax (Sep 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Go away.  You are not welcome on this thread.  No-one wants you here.  You have miserably failed in your only conceivably useful role as clown and jester.
> 
> Why on earth would you want to stay here under these circumstances?



Phil, seeing as you're here...

I'm genuinely curious, but wading through 4 years of posts doesn't seem the most efficient use of my, or anyone's, time.

Any chance of a summary?  So far the thread's still on 'value' and (to my eternal shame ) I'm still on your side so far.  Help me out?


----------



## joe_infinity (Sep 18, 2009)

this thread is going nowhere, if there was a rational proof of God's existence you would have heard it already from some famous philosopher, not some nameless unpublished poster on U75. If anyone has their hopes up that this thread is going somewhere, you will be sorely disappointed.

i confidently predict that NOBODY will become convinced of God's existence based on what they read on this thread, let's see if im right........   im certainly right so far


No rational proof takes THIS long to explain, St Anselm did it in just 4 steps:

    1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought.
    2. God may exist in the understanding.
    3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
    4. Therefore, God exists in reality


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Go away.  You are not welcome on this thread.  No-one wants you here.  You have miserably failed in your only conceivably useful role as clown and jester.
> 
> Why on earth would you want to stay here under these circumstances?



Don't get your knickers in a twist dear, I was only hanging around to see you answer my very simple question. 

The odd thing is that is was such a small and inconsequential point that I thought that you would just answer with a simple "oh yeah, whoops" and move on just like any other sane/rational person would. 

It has intrigued me that you cannot simply admit your mistake and move on. Moreover in leu of any adequate response you continually attempt to insult me and my family in an incredibly childish manner that appears in conflict with the teenage sudo-intellectual egomaniac sociology student persona that you generally portray.

How has this simple point touched such a raw nerve for you Phil? 
Is this what happens when you know you are wrong? 

I think you should see a doctor.


----------



## Corax (Sep 18, 2009)

Corax said:


> Phil, seeing as you're here...
> 
> I'm genuinely curious, but wading through 4 years of posts doesn't seem the most efficient use of my, or anyone's, time.
> 
> Any chance of a summary?  So far the thread's still on 'value' and (to my eternal shame ) I'm still on your side so far.  Help me out?



Dude, you're obviously paying attention to this thread, and you have a fish on the line (me).

So reel me in yeah?

Answers that involve reading 112 pages of argument, trolling and bitching don't count.  Summarise it please.


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Sep 18, 2009)

it's inherently oxymoronic. I mean the use of rational in the title obviously points out the impossibility, you can't possibly be rational when the subject is unprovable inless god turns up in spaceship or from another dimension or some such thing.It's bollocks simple as, you can prove that you believe in a god though but thats about it.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Don't get your knickers in a twist dear, I was only hanging around to see you answer my very simple question.



I have answered your stupid question.  No go and collect your mother from the VD clinic and _leave us alone._


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

Corax said:


> Dude, you're obviously paying attention to this thread, and you have a fish on the line (me).
> 
> So reel me in yeah?
> 
> Answers that involve reading 112 pages of argument, trolling and bitching don't count.  Summarise it please.



I appreciate your curiosity and admire your zeal.

However there can be no summaries on this thread, because as I have clearly stated many times, my aim is to convince _everybody,_ to convince them _completely,_ and to answer _all_ their objections.

Obviously if Atomic Suplex chooses to pester us further that will delay matters.  So let us hope he can find sufficient shame to crawl away quietly at last.  As soon as he leaves us in peace, things should progress at a fairly smart pace.

I am now going to assume that everyone agrees on my initial point.  When a cow is exchanged for a sheep, the value of the cow becomes perceptible in the body of the sheep. But the value has no material existence.  It is merely an idea, an image.  Thus we see how the world of ideas springs out of the basic human tendency to barter.

The next stage will be to establish that the tendency to barter, to exchange things of one kind for things of another, involves the creation of two distinct ways of looking at things: in terms of quality (what the things are, their essences) and quantity (how many of the things their are, their number).

Is everyone with me thus far?  Any objectors have twenty-four hours to raise their voices.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 19, 2009)

Phil

I have some bed news.  God spoke to me and told me that at the time you began your thread he did exist.  However as the years passed he got so annoyed with the thread and its pathetic claims to prove this fact, that he has gotten fed up with the human race altogether and decided to commit deicide.  As he was at the time (last Wednesday at 11:34) all powerful he could do this. Now however he is deceased. RIP God.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Phil
> 
> I have some bed news.  God spoke to me and told me that at the time you began your thread he did exist.  However as the years passed he got so annoyed with the thread and its pathetic claims to prove this fact, that he has gotten fed up with the human race altogether and decided to commit deicide.  As he was at the time (last Wednesday at 11:34) all powerful he could do this. Now however he is deceased. RIP God.



More evidence, as if any were needed, of the smug conformism and intellectual cowardice that is atheism.  Bitter, joyless sarcasm; psychological pussillanimity; refusal to question accepted belief and, unbelievably, the apparent belief that one is somehow being shocking or radical with this kind of blasphemy.

I swear, if I were not a believer already, the spectacle of such atheists would convert me.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 19, 2009)

Ah so you are a believer are you Phil?  That is not rational proof.  You offer false hope to unbelievers through the promise of rational proof but rely yourself on blind belief.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Ah so you are a believer are you Phil?  That is not rational proof.  You offer false hope to unbelievers through the promise of rational proof but rely yourself on blind belief.



Ach, I'm only joshing with ya.  Don't worry about it.

Belief can be rational I believe?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 19, 2009)

(Carves notch in walking stick.)


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> (Carves notch in walking stick.)



When you start carving notches in your walking stick rather than your bedpost, you are too old for this shit.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I appreciate your curiosity and admire your zeal.
> 
> However there can be no summaries on this thread, because as I have clearly stated many times, my aim is to convince _everybody,_ to convince them _completely,_ and to answer _all_ their objections.
> 
> ...


swapping cows for sheep?

would I be right in thinking this thread would be a good thread on which to set up my magic bean selling concession?

only top quality magic beans here, well worth a cow any day, beanstalks grow right up to heaven, perfect for those seeking proof of gods existence...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I have answered your stupid question.  No go and collect your mother from the VD clinic and _leave us alone._



Er? No you didn't. 

Earth to Dwyer. 

Ha ha, wow what a front. And what a mature and considered response too ha ha. 
No you didn't answer my question. You didn't even remotely attempt to answer it in fact. Not even a joke/crap answer. 
You just continually replied with inappropriate insults about my mother. 

So you have now switched tactics from ignoring anything that proves you wrong to lying about it. 
A bit like when you lied about me complaining  to the mods about you (twice) and lied about not mentioning kant, which, though not a big deal but something you seem to want to avoid admitting to for whatever reason (first page of the thread by the way)

I wonder which way you will go next. 
Lies or childish insults, or maybe both like your last reply


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Er? No you didn't.



What on earth is the matter with you?

Can't you see that there are many people here who are actually quite interested in this thread.  They would like to see it develop without your incessant obscenities and disruption.

You have been asked to leave politely several times now.  I even appealed to the boards as a whole, to see if anyone--just _one_ person--felt that you were capable of contributing anything but illiterate and incoherent ranting.

Nobody did.  _Not one person._

So I suggest that if you really feel so strongly about being excluded from this thread, you take it up with the Mods.  That is what you usually do after all. In the meantime, kindly leave us in peace.


----------



## Corax (Sep 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I am now going to assume that everyone agrees on my initial point.  When a cow is exchanged for a sheep, the value of the cow becomes perceptible in the body of the sheep. But the value has no material existence.  It is merely an idea, an image.  Thus we see how the world of ideas springs out of the basic human tendency to barter.
> 
> The next stage will be to establish that the tendency to barter, to exchange things of one kind for things of another, involves the creation of two distinct ways of looking at things: in terms of quality (what the things are, their essences) and quantity (how many of the things their are, their number).
> 
> Is everyone with me thus far?  Any objectors have twenty-four hours to raise their voices.



What?  Is that still where we are with this?  It was that far in on page 18.  WTF have you all been doing for the last 100 pages?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 19, 2009)

*whittles a new arrow*


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

Corax said:


> What?  Is that still where we are with this?  It was that far in on page 18.  WTF have you all been doing for the last 100 pages?



Trying to get rid of Atomic Suplex.

Any ideas?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 19, 2009)

The "world of ideas" does not "spring out of a basic human tendency to barter".

*continues whittling arrow*


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Trying to get rid of Atomic Suplex.
> 
> Any ideas?



You could always answer his question.

I dunno, might help . . .


----------



## joe_infinity (Sep 19, 2009)

everybody who is posting on this thread is just helping the OP to furiously masturbate himself


i repeat my prediction that NOBODY is going to be convinced of god's existence by the time this thread ends......


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 19, 2009)

*looks through store of flint, to find a suitable flake to knap an arrow-head*


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2009)

joe_infinity said:


> everybody who is posting on this thread is just helping the OP to furiously masturbate himself
> 
> 
> i repeat my prediction that NOBODY is going to be convinced of god's existence by the time this thread ends......



Yeah.  I know it's sordid but I'm a little curious to see how the word-game ends.  

It seems a bit like you accept a step with some reservations, then there's another step you have reservations about, then several more and as if by magic, a God appears in the argument.  Truly a 'God of the gaps' because He seems to have been assembled entirely from gaps in logic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 19, 2009)

joe_infinity said:


> everybody who is posting on this thread is just helping the OP to furiously masturbate himself



Better than him interfering with the women and livestock, though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2009)

God is Dead

-Nietzche


----------



## joe_infinity (Sep 19, 2009)

8ball said:


> It seems a bit like you accept a step with some reservations, then there's another step you have reservations about, then several more and as if by magic, a God appears in the argument.




exactly


----------



## free spirit (Sep 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I am now going to assume that everyone agrees on my initial point. When a cow is exchanged for a sheep, the value of the cow becomes perceptible in the body of the sheep. But the value has no material existence. It is merely an idea, an image. Thus we see how the world of ideas springs out of the basic human tendency to barter.


actually, I have a problem with this.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the phrase 'world of ideas', but I'd think there'd be a fairly strong case to be made for thoughts / ideas significantly predating barter, and coming from the much more basic thoughts about survival eg I'm cold, I'm hot, I'm thirsty, I'm hungry etc. and the associated ideas of how to mitigate this problem, ie. where to find food, water, shelter, warmth, along with the instinct to reproduce.

Bartering is but one form of meeting these needs, unless you're extending the term 'bartering' to cover the thought process involved in time motion type thinking about the relative benefits of fishing vs picking fruit from a tree to satisfy the need to eat.

I'd agree that bartering would have had a place in the development of both language and thought process, particularly the idea of the perceived value of a 'thing' to be bartered, as well as in the notions of private property and wealth.



phildwyer said:


> The next stage will be to establish that the tendency to barter, to exchange things of one kind for things of another, involves the creation of two distinct ways of looking at things: in terms of quality (what the things are, their essences) and quantity (how many of the things their are, their number).
> 
> Is everyone with me thus far? Any objectors have twenty-four hours to raise their voices.


as well as quality and quantity, there are other factors that would have to also be taken into account when determining the barter rate of the trade, such as;

the relative need / desire each person has for the item they're trading
the relative abundance of alternative soures of supply for each item being traded / bartered.
the mentality of the people doing the trade - ie whether they have capitalist pig dog mentality, or love thy neighbour mentality
come combination of the man hours vs land input required to produce the goods / animal to be bartered.
I'm not sure where you're going with this or why I'm replying other than you're 24 hour deadlines meaning that now that I'd made one post on this thread, by implication I'd have agreed with you if I didn't reply. 

IF you meant that 'barter creates several distinct ways of looking at things, 2 of which are quality and quantity', then I'd go along with that. 
However, I'd think that a rational proof of anything would need all steps to be pretty carefully worder, particularly when you're asking people to agree each step as you go along without being able to see what logical conclusions you're trying to draw from each step, and therefore make a judgement of whether or not it's important to the overall proof to challenge a poorly phrased statement or simply let it pass because it's not important to the overall proof. 

Basically I think the way you're approching this is likely to be intellectually dishonest in that your proof is largely reliant on people not being able to know which bits of each statement you make are important to the overall proof in advance, and therefore whether it's worth arguing the toss over some point that could be just an irrelevent niggle, or could be central to the entire case you're building.

anyway, I guess I'll tag along and see where you're going with this for a bit


----------



## free spirit (Sep 19, 2009)

8ball said:


> It seems a bit like you accept a step with some reservations, then there's another step you have reservations about, then several more and as if by magic, a God appears in the argument. Truly a 'God of the gaps' because He seems to have been assembled entirely from gaps in logic.


this is what I was getting at


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 19, 2009)

*sings and dances with entire tribe whilst moon is full*


----------



## Corax (Sep 19, 2009)

I agree that value-exchange reveals an abstract concept that is brought into being through human 'observation' of those objects.

That much seems quite straightforward really.

That's not the *only* quality that is brought into existence by the action of human observation though.

For example, the concept of something being 'good' or 'bad' is revealed through the act of human observation.  People like sunshine, which then takes on the quality of being 'good'.  People don't like rain, which then takes on the quality of being 'bad'.  It may be vice versa for someone living in a drought zone, but that makes no difference, as value-exchange is also mobile.  Different people will swop a different number of cows for lambs, depending upon whether they have a need for meat, leather, wool, or a sex life more commonly found West of Hereford.

Another example is more exclusive to humans - that of 'funny'.  A carrot shaped like a duck is not 'funny' in itself.  A rabbit that sees that carrot will eat it without even an amused smirk.  The carrot only becomes 'funny' when observed by a human being.  'Funny' is the product of human interaction, and is only brought into existence by that observation.

The same point can be made for many other qualities - 'utility', 'scary', 'boring' and so on.

A potential response from Phil - that these qualities are merely a subset of 'value'.  They together make up what is 'value', and that 'value' in itself remains unique.

I've got a picture on the wall drawn by the 5 year old.  It's a series of crudely drawn lines on a sheet of paper.  Of itself, that is _all_ it is.  However, when I look at it, I see a face (my face apparantly).  In actual fact, it doesn't represent me, or any other human that has ever walked this earth in the slightest.  It bears absolutely no resemblance to a real human face.  Yet when it is observed by me, that is what it is.  That quality is only brought into existence through my observation of it.  That in itself does not give it 'value'.  That quality is therefore not a subset of 'value', it is distinct.

I don't know if this has bearing on your argument Phil, as apparently after 4 years and 100 odd pages we're yet to hear any advancement of your process.  So I'm asking now, is it necessary for your argument that 'value' is in some way unique?  If so, I'm not in agreement.


And as you can tell from my tagline, I'm already one of those weirdos that has already acknowledged their relationship with the flying spaghetti monster.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 19, 2009)

free spirit said:


> anyway, I guess I'll tag along and see where you're going with this for a bit



that's what they all say


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2009)

joe_infinity said:


> No rational proof takes THIS long to explain, St Anselm did it in just 4 steps:
> 
> 1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought.
> 2. God may exist in the understanding.
> ...



I suspect this kind of 'proof' is in the offing here too, just a longer and wordier one.  

These games can be fun but they don't mean very much.  I came up with one of my own to annoy the 'consciousness is an illusion' pop-pseudo-neuroscience brigade:

1: You say consciousness is an illusion
2: Therefore you are saying you are _conscious_ that consciousness is an illusion.
3: Therefore your claimed consciousness that consciousness is an illusion _must itself_ be an illusion.
4: Therefore consciousness is not an illusion.

All very silly.


----------



## joe_infinity (Sep 19, 2009)

8ball said:


> All very silly.




and more importantly, totally unable to _convince_ anyone 

i bet nobody EVER became religious because they heard a philosopher arguing for God's existence


----------



## laptop (Sep 19, 2009)

8ball said:


> I suspect this kind of 'proof' is in the offing here too, just a longer and wordier one.



The ontological argument was foreseen in post 1214 and, I now discover, post 45


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> What on earth is the matter with you?
> 
> Can't you see that there are many people here who are actually quite interested in this thread.  They would like to see it develop without your incessant obscenities and disruption.



The matter with me - is that you never answer any question that proves you are wrong, you squirm around and try to hide this by lying, and being offensive. 

Obscenities??? Take a look at what I have written to you, then take a little look at what your responses have been. It is quite clear to all who has been laying down the obscenities.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2009)

I'd still rather like to get to the end of it, though, because I'm curious about whether the old Norse and Roman Gods will also be conjured into existence.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Trying to get rid of Atomic Suplex.
> 
> Any ideas?





8ball said:


> You could always answer his question.
> 
> I dunno, might help . . .



Well I suppose its worth a try.  But first, he'll have to answer _my_ question.

That's fair enough, right?

So, Atomic Suplex: how much does your Mum charge for a blow-job?

To everyone else, thanks for your contributions.  I'll respond tomorrow.


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So, Atomic Suplex: how much does your Mum charge for a blow-job?


One line, thoroughly crossed.

One yellow card, duly dispensed.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2009)

editor said:


> One line, thoroughly crossed.
> 
> One yellow card, duly dispensed.



since when were your mum jokes across the line, seems like very selective enforcement.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

editor said:


> One line, thoroughly crossed.
> 
> One yellow card, duly dispensed.



Hey now.  How am I supposed to prove the existence of God if I can't say "yo momma" now and again?

Seriously, I've asked Atomic Suplex to bugger off this thread many, many times now.  All he does is cause more disruption.  Obviously he's got no interest in the discussion, and less ability to participate in it.  What does anyone think he's doing here?


----------



## Corax (Sep 19, 2009)

editor said:


> One line, thoroughly crossed.
> 
> One yellow card, duly dispensed.





revol68 said:


> since when were your mum jokes across the line, seems like very selective enforcement.



Yeah, I'm with revol on this.

Ed?  I know it's your ball and that, but really?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2009)

there's always been different rules for different fools on urban, i'd call it an endearing quirk but I'd be lying.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

To be fair, this thread does need a Jester, and Atomic Suplex is just the man for the job.  But there's no point if we're not allowed to laugh at him.  Then he's just an annoying distraction.

I reckon this yellow card should be appealed to the FA.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 19, 2009)

My preference: fuck off, dwyer!


----------



## Corax (Sep 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> To be fair, this thread does need a Jester



Does it?  Doesn't quite fit with your stated intention for this thread.

Stop fucking around and answer the questions raised Phil.


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2009)

Corax said:


> Yeah, I'm with revol on this.
> 
> Ed?  I know it's your ball and that, but really?


I haven't seen any others here that suggested similar things. Have you reported any?

Dwyer's comment got reported and as far as I'm concerned posters making comments like "how much does your Mum charge for a blow-job?" in the 'theory, philosophy & history' forum are bang out of order.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

editor said:


> Dwyer's comment got reported



After Atomic Suplex had claimed, over and over again, that he never reports posts.

Pathetic.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

Corax said:


> Stop fucking around and answer the questions raised Phil.



I will, I do appreciate them, but it'll have to be tomorrow.  And probably quite late in the day tomorrow too.  It's a big holiday here.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 19, 2009)

editor said:


> I haven't seen any others here that suggested similar things. Have you reported any?
> 
> Dwyer's comment got reported and as far as I'm concerned posters making comments like "how much does your Mum charge for a blow-job?" in the 'theory, philosophy & history' forum are bang out of order.



or you could tell the person reporting it to wise the fuck up and stopping being a dick because if every your mum post or otherwise off topic jibe got reported and acted upon the boards would be a farce.

then again maybe you're willingness to act upon such matters depends on who's reporting and who's being reported.


----------



## Corax (Sep 19, 2009)

editor said:


> I haven't seen any others here that suggested similar things. Have you reported any?
> 
> Dwyer's comment got reported and as far as I'm concerned posters making comments like "how much does your Mum charge for a blow-job?" in the 'theory, philosophy & history' forum are bang out of order.



But it's Phil.  You know as well as I do that he's going to be wound up whereever he goes.  It's not surprising that he gives a bit back now and again.  I'm not criticising your objectivity for a moment, but context is relevant.  It's a shame someone's been so petulant as to report that post, but it has to be seen in context no?  I appreciate that you have neither the time nor the inclination to read through hundreds of posts on every occassion something's reported.  I'd just suggest that this one was a 'malicious' report.

Fuck me, I'm openly defending Dwyer.

You'd better respond to my post Phil, or I'm going to feel a whole heap of regret about that.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

revol68 said:


> or you could tell the person reporting it to wise the fuck up and stopping being a dick because if every your mum post or otherwise off topic jibe got reported and acted upon the boards would be a farce.



True dat.

How's about this for a solution. Atomic Suplex doesn't post on this thread again: I don't say howwid things about his mother again.

Everyone's a winner, right?

Because if he is allowed to continue doing his thing here, people _are_ going to laugh at him.  He is pretty damn laughable after all.  And then he'll be a-moanin' and a-reportin' as usual and we'll never get anywhere.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2009)

Corax said:


> But it's Phil.  You know as well as I do that he's going to be wound up whereever he goes.  It's not surprising that he gives a bit back now and again.  I'm not criticising your objectivity for a moment, but context is relevant.  It's a shame someone's been so petulant as to report that post, but it has to be seen in context no?  I appreciate that you have neither the time nor the inclination to read through hundreds of posts on every occassion something's reported.  I'd just suggest that this one was a 'malicious' report.
> 
> Fuck me, I'm openly defending Dwyer.
> 
> You'd better respond to my post Phil, or I'm going to feel a whole heap of regret about that.



Cheers mate.  By 6pm tomorrow (your time).  You have my word.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 19, 2009)

This thread is fair cracking on at a pace.  In Post 1 Phil says 





> First, we need to agree that the exchange of a cow for a lamb involves the invention of a third factor: the concept of *value.* The *value* of the cow must be perceptible--although it is of course not a material thing--it must, I say, be *perceptible* in the *body* of the lamb. Is everyone with me so far?



Then four years later in Post 2778 he says 





> I am now going to assume that everyone agrees on my initial point. When a cow is exchanged for a sheep, the value of the cow becomes perceptible in the body of the sheep. But the value has no material existence. It is merely an idea, an image. Thus we see how the world of ideas springs out of the basic human tendency to barter.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 19, 2009)

OK I've read some of the thread and Fruitloop refuted the argument first time round. No point in doing it the second time round. Nothing to see here. I'm out permanently.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 20, 2009)

I have a fair amount of important business to attend to today, so I am not altogether sure that I will be able to address all the objections that people have made.  I have promised Corax to reply to his cogent observations, so I will do that by tonight.  I shall certainly deal with _everyone's_ concerns in due course however, even if that takes a day or two.

Unfortunately Atomic Suplex's mother insisted on coming over again this afternoon, but I'll try to finish with her quickly this time.   It's not easy though, I'm telling you.  Anyway:



free spirit said:


> I guess it depends on how you interpret the phrase 'world of ideas', but I'd think there'd be a fairly strong case to be made for thoughts / ideas significantly predating barter, and coming from the much more basic thoughts about survival eg I'm cold, I'm hot, I'm thirsty, I'm hungry etc. and the associated ideas of how to mitigate this problem, ie. where to find food, water, shelter, warmth, along with the instinct to reproduce.



Your use of the term "I" already implies the ability to conceptualize, and at quite an advanced level too.  I put it to you that self-conscious subjectivity can only emerge out of a conceptualized engagement with the objective environment and cannot precede it.  Animals display no such subjectivity.  However I think we are in agreement on the central point I want to establish, to wit:



free spirit said:


> I'd agree that bartering would have had a place in the development of both language and thought process, particularly the idea of the perceived value of a 'thing' to be bartered, as well as in the notions of private property and wealth.



That is all I am arguing at this point.  You then go on to introduce several apt but at this stage unnecessary qualifications:



free spirit said:


> as well as quality and quantity, there are other factors that would have to also be taken into account when determining the barter rate of the trade, such as;
> 
> the relative need / desire each person has for the item they're trading
> the relative abundance of alternative soures of supply for each item being traded / bartered.
> ...



That is indeed what I meant, so once again we are basically in agreement.  However your list of production and demand-based factors involved in barter is superfluous to my argument, and so I believe I can be excused from addressing them.  I do not want my argument to be diverted from its central focus, otherwise we will never arrive at my final proof.

All that I want to show is that in the very simplest act of exchange--object A for object B--(a) the concepts of quality and quantity have already come into being, and (b) most important, the _value_ of object A, which has not physical or material existence and occurs only in the human mind, must have become perceptible within the physical body of object B.

I'm assuming from what you say that you have no objection to this.  But as usual on this thread, I will give you twenty-four hours to raise any quibbles you may have.

I shall return to deal with the other substantive points that have been raised at a later time.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 20, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Unfortunately Atomic Suplex's mother insisted on coming over again this afternoon, but I'll try to finish with her quickly this time.   It's not easy though, I'm telling you.



lol


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Unfortunately Atomic Suplex's mother insisted on coming over again this afternoon, but I'll try to finish with her quickly this time.   It's not easy though, I'm telling you.


This is weird and deeply unpleasant.

See ya!

24 hour ban.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Sep 20, 2009)

Nice one,Ref.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But as usual on this thread, I will give you twenty-four hours to raise any quibbles you may have.


that's very good of you.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Sep 20, 2009)

editor said:


> This is weird and deeply unpleasant.
> 
> See ya!
> 
> 24 hour ban.



Proof that God exists 

(I'm an atheist.)


----------



## chainsaw cat (Sep 20, 2009)

editor said:


> This is weird and deeply unpleasant.
> 
> See ya!
> 
> 24 hour ban.




Oh come on... Don't play into the hands of all the myriad posters who think you are humourless


----------



## revol68 (Sep 20, 2009)

editor said:


> This is weird and deeply unpleasant.
> 
> See ya!
> 
> 24 hour ban.



pathetic.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2009)

revol68 said:


> since when were your mum jokes across the line, seems like very selective enforcement.


The way I read things, this is not to do with this or that mum joke, it's to do with dwyer's general behaviour.

Someone can be banned for even mentioning another poster (see here). Fair enough. And fair enough that the mods rule out particular antics by phildwyer.

It's 'cos he's got so much form as an abusive creep and stalker, I guess.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 20, 2009)

Dwyer's not any worse than a lot of people on these boards and atleast he is consistent, he gives it out and is prepared to take it, I have much more disdain for wankers who go running to the mods.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2009)

There's plenty of unmoderated posting space on the 'net.  

You could try Usenet to see where it goes, if that's what you'd prefer.


----------



## Corax (Sep 20, 2009)

Jonti said:


> There's plenty of unmoderated posting space on the 'net.
> 
> You could try Usenet to see where it goes, if that's what you'd prefer.



I don't think Revol was complaining about moderation, but _selective_ moderation.

I've not read the entire thread though, so maybe it's fair, I dunno.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2009)

I was commenting on the playground ethic "wankers who go running to the mods".

Without moderation, the boards would not exist.  

It would be better for posters to support the efforts of moderators, not sneer at the efforts that folks make to keep the boards functioning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Dwyer's not any worse than a lot of people on these boards and atleast he is consistent, he gives it out and is prepared to take it, I have much more disdain for wankers who go running to the mods.


what, people who let the mods know about anything going on?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 20, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Dwyer's not any worse than a lot of people on these boards and atleast he is consistent, he gives it out and is prepared to take it, I have much more disdain for wankers who go running to the mods.




I hope you are not inferring that I ran to the mods? Just because Dwyer says I did (three times now) doesn't mean it happened. He's lied about enough on this thread alone. I expect Dwyer was spotted following me on the boards and writing crude comments. Even in the playground the teachers watch the children. 

I do agree that his ongoing comments about my mother were indeed deeply unpleasant and were obviously not in any friendly jest. I chose to ignore his childishness, which I assume is some sort of defense mechanism he uses when he can't answer a question without admitting he was wrong (the other tactic being simply to lie about it).


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 20, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> After Atomic Suplex had claimed, over and over again, that he never reports posts.
> 
> Pathetic.



I didn't report it. Ask the mods for clarification. 

. . . . But beware, in doing so you are going to have to admit you are wrong.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 20, 2009)

I reported it. It's obvious cuz I quoted it straight after. Great skills there revol lol


----------



## TheDave (Sep 20, 2009)

I think it's fair enough he got banned, Ed explained his reasoning, which seemed sound enough for me. Trying to keep the petty stuff out of this sub-forum and keeping it at a higher standard than General is really the only way this section will function at all.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 20, 2009)

It's a Dwyer thread - it's like a theatrical performance more than a debate. 

But if he's going to get a 'yellow card' then chop someone _immeidately_ afterwards the only possible reaction is to report-for-lulz.


----------



## Corax (Sep 20, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> It's a Dwyer thread - it's like a theatrical performance more than a debate.
> 
> But if he's going to get a 'yellow card' then chop someone _immeidately_ afterwards the only possible reaction is to report-for-lulz.



And because of *you* I'm going to have to wait for my reply.


----------



## TheDave (Sep 20, 2009)

Corax said:


> And because of *you* I'm going to have to wait for my reply.



If you are expecting any great revelation of knowledge to come from Dwyer you are going to have to wait longer than just his next reply.


----------



## Corax (Sep 20, 2009)

TheDave said:


> If you are expecting any great revelation of knowledge to come from Dwyer you are going to have to wait longer than just his next reply.



I'm not fucking stupid.  It's intellectual table-tennis innit?


----------



## TheDave (Sep 20, 2009)

Well it's a table tennis of sorts, I seriously doubt the intellectual part of it though.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 20, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> All that I want to show is that in the very simplest act of exchange--object A for object B--(a) the concepts of quality and quantity have already come into being, and (b) most important, the _value_ of object A, which has not physical or material existence and occurs only in the human mind, must have become perceptible within the *physical body* of object B.



No, it just needs to be a component of your internal representation of object B and your ideas about it.  You could be shown a picture of object A and still think it is worth the same as object B, or just have object B mentioned in conversation.

Value is not perceptible in the physical body but is a component of the concept (ie. the signified).

Just thought I'd nip that in the bud cos certain wordings like 'perceptible in the physical body' look like they're going to make a return appearance later in the argument (I never made it through the whole argument last time).


----------



## Corax (Sep 20, 2009)

TheDave said:


> Well it's a table tennis of sorts, I seriously doubt the intellectual part of it though.





Meant in the loosest sense!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Dwyer's not any worse than a lot of people on these boards and atleast he is consistent, he gives it out and is prepared to take it, I have much more disdain for wankers who go running to the mods.



Well I certainly agree that it’s a shame Atomic Suplex felt he had to go crying to the Mods again over a bit of light-hearted banter.  But let us hope that he has learned his lesson now, and that he will finally leave us to get on with our debate in peace.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

8ball said:


> No, it just needs to be a component of your internal representation of object B and your ideas about it.  You could be shown a picture of object A and still think it is worth the same as object B, or just have object B mentioned in conversation.



You could, but that is not what I am talking about here.  Here I am talking about the most basic form of exchange imaginable--the foundation of exchange if you will.  I am talking about the exchange of one kind of object (eg a sheep) for another (eg a cow).  Please resist the temptation to get ahead of my argument.



8ball said:


> Value is not perceptible in the physical body but is a component of the concept (ie. the signified).



Again, this is clearly true of any large-scale exchange, and I will get to that later.  But it is not true of the simple form of exchange I am discussing at this stage.  Is it?


----------



## newme (Sep 21, 2009)

This thread is always good for a laugh anyway


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

Corax said:


> I agree that value-exchange reveals an abstract concept that is brought into being through human 'observation' of those objects.
> 
> That much seems quite straightforward really.
> 
> ...



Yes, it is necessary for my argument that value is unique.  I’m arguing that value is the source of the human ability to conceptualize—the original concept, if you will.

Your points about ‘good,’ ‘bad,’ ‘funny’ and so on are irrelevant to this point.  These are value judgments that are attached to concepts, they are not values in themselves.

As to your five year-old’s picture, you are wrong to say that “it doesn’t represent me.”  It certainly does represent you.  It may not resemble you, but that is something altogether different.  Picasso’s Guernica represents an air raid, it does not resemble one.

In fact this example illustrates my point rather well.  A sheep does not in any way resemble a cow.  But a sheep can certainly represent a cow for the purposes of exchange.  Indeed if a sheep is to be exchanged for a cow, such a representation must take place.  But, as we see from the lack of physical resemblance, this representation is not remotely material.  This representation has no physical existence.  It exists only within the human mind.

Are you all with me so far?

8-ball and others, if I do not address your points here, it is only because I feel that they do not speak to the very simple point I am making here.  Once again, I must caution you not to get ahead of or try to anticipate my argument.  At this stage I am arguing only that the value of the sheep (or object A) must be discernible in the physical body of the cow (or object B) if the two are to be exchanged.  I am speaking only of the exchange of one object for one other object, nothing more at this stage.

Do you agree that your objections were not addressed to this very basic point?

If so, I think we have finally reached a stage where we are all in agreement, and we can now move on to the next stage of my proof.  However as is customary on this thread, I shall wait a full twenty-four (24) hours to see if anyone has any problems with my argument up until now.

Oh just one more thing:



Corax said:


> And as you can tell from my tagline, I'm already one of those weirdos that has already acknowledged their relationship with* the flying spaghetti monster.*



In my view it is advisable to avoid using that phrase.  It trivializes the debate gives succor to those atheists who labor under the misapprehension that God is some kind of physical Being.  I will let it go this time, but in future that phrase is not to be used on my thread.


----------



## newme (Sep 21, 2009)

the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster
the flying spaghetti monster

what are you the thread police?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

newme said:


> the flying spaghetti monster
> the flying spaghetti monster
> the flying spaghetti monster
> the flying spaghetti monster
> ...



Do me a favor eh?  Don't make this too easy for me?  You take all the fun out of it.

HOW CAN PEOPLE BE SO FUCKING STUPID is the question I like to ask myself at times like this.


----------



## newme (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Do me a favor eh?  Don't make this too easy for me?  You take all the fun out of it.
> 
> HOW CAN PEOPLE BE SO FUCKING STUPID is the question I like to ask myself at times like this.



I just wanted to make a point about how you seem to demand people adhere to your requests but completely fail to succesfully address anyone else's. 

But since your apparently going to be a dick about it.

Its been 4 years on this thread and you've not begun to get even slightly anywhere with this argument other than even further up your own arse than where you began, frankly im beginning to wonder if you wont choke soon if you arent careful.

And your own pointlessly capitalised question is what most people think whenever they see your posts 

Have a nice day


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

newme said:


> I just wanted to make a point about how you seem to demand people adhere to your requests but completely fail to succesfully address anyone else's.



I know.  I got that bit.

Whereas I was laying a subtle trap for the next arrogant twit to stumble upon. OK, maybe it wasn't all _that_ subtle, but believe me, one of these idiots would have fallen into it (my money was on Atomic Suplex actually).

And now you have ruined it.  Thanks a lot.  I like you though, so no hard feelings.


----------



## newme (Sep 21, 2009)

I am somewhat baffled, why not simply lay out the proof you believe you have without swiping at people which surely just contracts from your points?

Frankly I dont believe the main concept behind the thread, but have returned as I was interested to see the reasoning behind it, simply laying out the arguments and letting people make the decisions themselves would be more beneficial to your reasoning than being sidetracked and having there be running battles throughout the thread. There appears to be a number of people who are open to actually reading it and examining the reasoning if it were presented and the distractions and side swiping avoided wherever possible.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

newme said:


> I am somewhat baffled, why not simply lay out the proof you believe you have without swiping at people which surely just contracts from your points?
> 
> Frankly I dont believe the main concept behind the thread, but have returned as I was interested to see the reasoning behind it, simply laying out the arguments and letting people make the decisions themselves would be more beneficial to your reasoning than being sidetracked and having there be running battles throughout the thread. There appears to be a number of people who are open to actually reading it and examining the reasoning if it were presented and the distractions and side swiping avoided wherever possible.



True enough.

I have actually asked the side-swipers to leave, many times.  Your criticisms might better be addressed to them, if you don't mind my saying so.

But I am determined to take this argument in stages, soliciting the assent of _all_ readers at each stage.  When we get to the end of the proof, I don't want anybody to be able to claim that they remain unconvinced, or that they disagree with an early part of my argument.  My intention here is to leave no room whatsoever for doubters.


----------



## newme (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> True enough.
> 
> I have actually asked the side-swipers to leave, many times.  Your criticisms might better be addressed to them, if you don't mind my saying so.
> 
> But I am determined to take this argument in stages, soliciting the assent of _all_ readers at each stage.  When we get to the end of the proof, I don't want anybody to be able to claim that they remain unconvinced, or that they disagree with an early part of my argument.  My intention here is to leave no room whatsoever for doubters.



Asking them to leave frankly acheives nothing, much as them asking you to leave would acheive nothing. Its hardly been one sided in either direction, there has been back and forth.

You are never going to get everyone agreeing with you at every stage. Regardless of what the topic is, no one argument will have every single person in agreement. Which Im imagining is why after over 100 pages this appears to still be unfinished. Regardless of whether no one objects at a stage, someone who hasnt read it or didnt speak up at the time, or simply kept quiet to hear the rest of the theory, will speak up at the end and disagree. Expecting 100% agreement and participation is nonsensical.

No situation has nor should have no room for doubters, especially on a highly theoretical subject as this one. Every theory everywhere has doubters. People who dont agree with one or more stages or even the entire idea of it could be adverse to their own beliefs. Attempting to have a complete blanket of agreement at every stage will simply mean this thread progresses another 100 pages and still isnt at an end.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well I certainly agree that it’s a shame Atomic Suplex felt he had to go crying to the Mods again over a bit of light-hearted banter.  But let us hope that he has learned his lesson now, and that he will finally leave us to get on with our debate in peace.



Stop trying to bait me, you nutjob


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Stop trying to bait me, you nutjob



Esa muchacha es una chota grande pero la quiero como uno hijo de puta.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Esa muchacha es una chota grande pero la quiero como uno hijo de puta.



Ugh


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Ugh



!Horale hiyna!  !Representa!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> When a cow is exchanged for a sheep, the value of the cow becomes perceptible in the body of the sheep. But the value has no material existence.  It is merely an idea, an image.  Thus we see how the world of ideas springs out of the basic human tendency to barter..



This might be one of the more unusual leaps of a logical chasm that I've come across.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2009)

> Yes, it is necessary for my argument that value is unique. I’m arguing that value is the source of the human ability to conceptualize—the original concept, if you will.


They do say money is the religion of the USA. It seems our faux American has swallowed that idea, hook, line, and sinker.

So far, all that phildwyer has shown is that he is a mindless slave to the mercenary mindset!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Belief can be rational I believe?




But faith: not necessarily. And faith is the foundation of religious belief. At least, the christian religion, the one with which I'm somewhat familiar.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> When a cow is exchanged for a sheep, the value of the cow becomes perceptible in the body of the sheep. But the value has no material existence.  It is merely an idea, an image.  Thus we see how the world of ideas springs out of the basic human tendency to barter.


what happens if someone has both cows and sheep and hasn't yet thought about bartering?

or, indeed, what happened before the domestication of cows and sheep? if this is what your proof is based on, there are more than a few elements of shakiness to its foundations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I have actually asked the side-swipers to leave, many times.


post up your proof or stfu


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Yes, it is necessary for my argument that value is unique.  I’m arguing that value is the source of the human ability to conceptualize—the original concept, if you will.



What about this, then? 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7988169.stm


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> post up your proof or stfu



Mira vato en este threado se tiraron los puercos ese.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Mira vato en este threado se tiraron los puercos ese.


job tvojmadj!


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Esa muchacha es una chota grande pero la quiero como uno hijo de puta.


Desagradable, abusivo incluso, en dos idiomas. ¡Grande!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

Hokay mi gatos locos, I gots to get paid.  But I assure you that I shall address all the points you raise in due course.  Unless of course la madre de.... but no.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Desagradable, abusivo incluso, en dos idiomas. ¡Grande!


what's dwyer's post mean then?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 21, 2009)

There's a philosopher of religion, Pojman, who talks about the existence of faith without belief:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=NB4...onepage&q=pojman faith without belief&f=false


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> what's dwyer's post mean then?



Plesedonttellhimpleasedontellhimpleasedonttellhim


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> what's dwyer's post mean then?


Nothing, of course; except that dwyer wants to demonstrate his prowess in Spanish.

But this may help.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Nothing, of course; except that dwyer wants to demonstrate his prowess in Spanish.
> 
> But this may help.



Ai ai ai que pendajo. That ain't no Spanish ese.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well I certainly agree that it’s a shame Atomic Suplex felt he had to go crying to the Mods again over a bit of light-hearted banter.



This is a complete lie, you shit.

I used to be interested in your Proof of God argument, but now I just think you're a sad old man, getting kicks by wasting people's time on the internet.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well I certainly agree that it’s a shame Atomic Suplex felt he had to go crying to the Mods again over a bit of light-hearted banter.  But let us hope that he has learned his lesson now, and that he will finally leave us to get on with our debate in peace.



Yeah? Why on earth are you lying about this again Phil? 

This is yet another thing that you can be proved wrong on just by reading your own thread. It's not exactly making you appear very credible is it now? 

I'm sure you read the last page and are quite aware of this though. I think maybe you actually believe that if you write it it is true. 
Can we assume this is also what you are basing your extremely flawed 'rational proof of gods existence' on as well, no?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Can we assume this is also what you are basing your extremely flawed 'rational proof of gods existence' on as well, no?



Look: do you have any interest in this subject or not?

If so, discuss it.  If not, leave the thread to those who want to discuss it.

Either way, we won't have a problem.

But if you come on here to take the piss, I'll take the piss back.

As you well know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Look: do you have any interest in this subject or not?
> 
> If so, discuss it.  If not, leave the thread to those who want to discuss it.
> 
> ...


you've made the best part of 650 posts on this thread and we're no nearer your proof of god than we were at the beginning. you've also had three years you can't have expected to hone your so-called proof, but you refuse to post up anything except the most cack-handed wank it's been my misfortune to see. so: either post the fucking proof up so people can discuss it, or prove yourself a fraud. which is it to be?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> you've made the best part of 650 posts on this thread and we're no nearer your proof of god than we were at the beginning. you've also had three years you can't have expected to hone your so-called proof, but you refuse to post up anything except the most cack-handed wank it's been my misfortune to see. so: either post the fucking proof up so people can discuss it, or prove yourself a fraud. which is it to be?



Do you agree with what I've argued so far?

If so, and if no-one else objects, we will move on.

If not, state your objections clearly so that I can demolish them.

Which is it to be?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Do you agree with what I've argued so far?


no


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> no



Why not?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Why not?


what happened before bartering? if i'm understanding you correctly, you're basing your so-called argument on the notion of value. now, according to the philosophy of religion god is eternal. and you can't have an eternal god if your plot rests on the notion of value which certainly isn't something innate in people.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> what happened before bartering? if i'm understanding you correctly, you're basing your so-called argument on the notion of value. now, according to the philosophy of religion god is eternal. and you can't have an eternal god if your plot rests on the notion of value which certainly isn't something innate in people.



At last.

Now we are getting somewhere.

As with all the serious objections, I will respond in full tomorrow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> At last.
> 
> Now we are getting somewhere.
> 
> As with all the serious objections, I will respond in full tomorrow.


no, you'll fucking respond today. it should be easy enough if you've actually got a proof of god - which i doubt.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> no, you'll fucking respond today.



No, you will learn some manners or I won't respond at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No, you will learn some manners or I won't respond at all.


in which case we'll know you for the fraud you are


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Stop trying to bait me, you nutjob



Wasn't this just a _little bit_ early in the morning to be this angry at someone?

Good grief, phil's like Eamonn fucking gimp boy Holmes in arousing people's ire first thing in the morning...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Good grief, phil's like Eamonn fucking gimp boy Holmes in arousing people first thing in the morning...


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Wasn't this just a _little bit_ early in the morning to be this angry at someone?
> 
> Good grief, phil's like Eamonn fucking gimp boy Holmes in arousing people's ire first thing in the morning...



And that's not all.

I may be mistaken, but I have a hunch that Stella really isn't all that angry.

Pickman's on the other hand, is hopping mad.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Pickman's on the other hand, is hopping mad.



i'd rather be hopping mad than barking mad like you


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> And that's not all.
> 
> I may be mistaken, but I have a hunch that Stella really isn't all that angry.
> 
> Pickman's on the other hand, is hopping mad.


----------



## newme (Sep 21, 2009)

Well, I cant be arsed with it anymore. Wouldnt take long to just come out with the complete argument and have it be viewed, but it seems this is going to be drawn out and out and out at every stage til its been another year and we're still stuck on the same first step.

You cant and wont get 100% agreement, and it isnt required to be able to state a theory.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

newme said:


> Well, I cant be arsed with it anymore. Wouldnt take long to just come out with the complete argument and have it be viewed, but it seems this is going to be drawn out and out and out at every stage til its been another year and we're still stuck on the same first step.
> 
> You cant and wont get 100% agreement, and it isnt required to be able to state a theory.



Well it doesn't exactly help matters to make posts for the sole purpose of whinging and moaning about how slowly things are moving.

I have always been crystal clear about the way this thread will progress.

In future I suggest that people confine themselves to what is relevant to our purpose.  Serial deviators from this rule will be asked to absent themselves.

Do I make myself clear?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2009)

what i want to know is how many more years it will take before you reveal the truth, that you can no more prove the existence of god than you can shit a gutenberg bible


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well I certainly agree that it’s a shame Atomic Suplex felt he had to go crying to the Mods again over a bit of light-hearted banter.  But let us hope that he has learned his lesson now, and that he will finally leave us to get on with our debate in peace.


He did not report any posts so I suggest you apologise to him. 

However, I'm more than a little intrigued by someone accessing the boards yesterday from an identical and unique IP address to you. Anything to say before action is taken?


----------



## newme (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well it doesn't exactly help matters to make posts for the sole purpose of whinging and moaning about how slowly things are moving.
> 
> I have always been crystal clear about the way this thread will progress.
> 
> ...



It doesnt exactly help  matters when you make posts for the sole purpose of prolonging this thread. Its been years, thats plenty of waiting time, theres no reason not to respond to points raised as they are raised, you are simply stalling for no good reason. Tomorrow points are raised, they are argued with again, you then pointlessly wait another day and so on forever.

The only thing that is crystal clear is that this thread, isnt progressing in the slightest and you are quite unwilling to help the process along in any way shape or form and will continually ignore any relevant points or criticisms and ask people to leave.

From now on I suggest you actually post something of some use to the points you are trying to prove or you will be asked to absent yourself. 

Do I make myself clear?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

newme said:


> you will be asked to absent yourself.



You've got a crystal ball in there aincha?

Cheers all, see you in a couple of weeks, when I will fully and completely deal with all points that have been raised in the interim.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You've got a crystal ball in there aincha?
> 
> Cheers all, see you in a couple of weeks, when I will fully and completely deal with all points that have been raised in the interim.



Ok.

I posted a couple of serious responses, but they seem to have been lost in all this other stuff.


----------



## newme (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You've got a crystal ball in there aincha?
> 
> Cheers all, see you in a couple of weeks, when I will fully and completely deal with all points that have been raised in the interim.



Any chance you could use this time to just write the whole thing up and post it in its entireity when ur ban runs out.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Ok.
> 
> I posted a couple of serious responses, but they seem to have been lost in all this other stuff.



I know JC2, I will get back to you, and everyone else too.



newme said:


> Any chance you could use this time to just write the whole thing up and post it in its entireity when ur ban runs out.



Fuck no.  Think I'm _loco?_

OK officer, slap on the bracelets.


----------



## newme (Sep 21, 2009)

Yeh why bother posting the actual thing uve been saying you would do for several years, that would be ridiculous.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Look: do you have any interest in this subject or not?
> 
> If so, discuss it.  If not, leave the thread to those who want to discuss it.
> 
> ...



It's very odd how you have quite quickly got your knickers in a twist over me. You launched yourself into writing vile things about my mother after I pointed out that you mentioned Kant in your first post after you said you had never mentioned him at all. A very small point I think.

I asked why, but all I ever got was abuse. Is that really what you call taking the piss Phil? It seems to me that you react rather strongly to anyone suggesting you are wrong. . . And admitting you are wrong or have lied? . . Well that just seems completely beyond you. 
Can I assume this is also the reason you can't bring yourself to actually post up your reasoning that there is rational proof for gods existence? 
The fact that you can't get anyone to agree to your very first point after three years would suggest that maybe you have got it all *wrong* again, no?


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2009)

editor said:


> However, I'm more than a little intrigued by someone accessing the boards yesterday from an identical and unique IP address to you. Anything to say before action is taken?


He's on a two week ban as a result of the above.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You could, but that is not what I am talking about here.  Here I am talking about the most basic form of exchange imaginable--the foundation of exchange if you will.  I am talking about the exchange of one kind of object (eg a sheep) for another (eg a cow).  Please resist the temptation to get ahead of my argument.



No matter how simple the exchange, value is a component of concept, not something perceptible in a physical body.  Perception implies connection with the phycsical, of which there is none here, just internal representation.

Enjoy your holiday.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2009)

Yeah, there's an elision of concepts, a sleight-of-hand, here.  There is perception, implying connection with the physical; but there is never perception alone, it is always interpreted by somebody in some way.

What is perceived always has meaning for the organism (otherwise the organism wouldn't bother with it). It is the presence of this intrinsic numinous aspect of the sensorium that phildwyer mistakes for a something external and divine.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

editor said:


> He's on a two week ban as a result of the above.



oh how predictable, hand out a 24hr ban for next to nothing and then once the person inevitably logs in with a different account to see the fall out ban them for 2 weeks.

really quite pathetic.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 21, 2009)

8ball said:


> No matter how simple the exchange, value is a component of concept, not something perceptible in a physical body.  Perception implies connection with the phycsical, of which there is none here, just internal representation.
> 
> Enjoy your holiday.



why is dwyer using stone age economics to prove the existence of monotheistic deity?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> why is dwyer using stone age economics to prove the existence of monotheistic deity?



For that you will have to wait two weeks and several days assuming absolutely no objections raised.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2009)

One can _so_ understand revolv's impatience and disappointment with the process of prying the wisdom from dwyer


----------



## Corax (Sep 21, 2009)

Bored now.  Shit thread is shit.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> I reported it. It's obvious cuz I quoted it straight after. Great skills there revol lol



Please show where I said Atomic reported it?

I was making a general point about wankers running to the mods to fight their spats.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Please show where I said Atomic reported it?
> 
> I was making a general point about wankers running to the mods to fight their spats.



Oh, after another little look I see that you didn't specifically say that AS reported it, no.

You know nothing about my 'spats'.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Oh, after another little look I see that you didn't specifically say that AS reported it, no.
> 
> You know nothing about my 'spats'.



I know you reported an inane your ma joke.

Dwyer might be a bit of a muppet but he's at least more interesting than you and despite his deist lapse of judgement a damn sight more intelligent.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2009)




----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> I know you reported an inane your ma joke.
> 
> Dwyer might be a bit of a muppet but he's at least more interesting than you and despite his deist lapse of judgement a damn sight more intelligent.



Yes, as I said: you clearly know nothing about me and Dwyer.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Yes, as I said: you clearly know nothing about me and Dwyer.



I know what posts I've read of both of youse, Dwyer can be a wind up merhcant and a muppet with his HIV denial shite and his loony theism but he is a damn sight more interesting and in truth intelligent than you.

Oh and he doesn't go running off to the mods like a despicable cunt.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> I know what posts I've read of both of youse, Dwyer can be a wind up merhcant and a muppet with his HIV denial shite and his loony theism but he is a damn sight more interesting and in truth intelligent than you.
> 
> Oh and he doesn't go running off to the mods like a despicable cunt.



Are you thick? I said 'me _and_ Dwyer', not us seperatly


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Are you thick? I said 'me _and_ Dwyer', not us seperatly



I do know things about you and Dwyer, firstly that you reported his post like a pathetic fuck and secondly that he is more interesting and intelligent than you.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 21, 2009)

OK revol, I'mma let you repeat yourself over and over with no understanding of the facts.


----------



## brix (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Oh and he doesn't go running off to the mods like a despicable cunt.



You're completely out of order here.  People are entitled to report posts if they feel they need to.  It's tough if you don't like it.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> OK revol, I'mma let you repeat yourself over and over with no understanding of the facts.



What facts justify you running to the mods over a your ma joke aimed at someone else?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> What facts justify you running to the mods over a your ma joke aimed at someone else?



None of your fucking business, nosey!


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

brix said:


> You're completely out of order here.  People are entitled to report posts if they feel they need to.  It's tough if you don't like it.



Yes and I'm fre to comment on people reporting posts, especially of the inane your ma type.

There are no doubt situations were posts should be reported but using it the report button as simply a pathetic tool in an online spat is cuntish and if everyone indulged it the site would be a total mess.


----------



## brix (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Yes and I'm fre to comment on people reporting posts, especially of the inane your ma type.
> 
> There are no doubt situations were posts should be reported but using it the report button as simply a pathetic tool in an online spat is cuntish and if everyone indulged it the site would be a total mess.



You're free to 'comment', I'm free to pull you up on it, people are free to report posts.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> None of your fucking business, nosey!



Right then I will continue to hold my opinion based on the evidence available to me.

It's a tad retarded to attack someone for not holding all the facts when you are the person withholding them.


----------



## TheDave (Sep 21, 2009)

Ed wouldn't have give his first ban to Phil if he didn't feel that he deserved it, I doubt he would play along with any personal spat.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Right then I will continue to hold my opinion based on the evidence available to me.
> 
> It's a tad retarded to attack someone for not holding all the facts when you are the person withholding them.



There are some things we will just never understand revol - you must have faith.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

brix said:


> You're free to 'comment', I'm free to pull you up on it, people are free to report posts.



Woah, what gripping fucking insight there.

Now that you have put us all straight with your statement of the stupidly obvious maybe you would like to tell us your opinion on people using the report post function in the particular manner 5T3LLA did, y'know as a petty tool in an ongoing spat. Do you think reporting your ma jokes aimed at other other posters is reasonable and workable as a generalised trend?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> There are some things we will just never understand revol - you must have faith.



Awh bless, you really are in the shadow of Dwyer.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

TheDave said:


> Ed wouldn't have give his first ban to Phil if he didn't feel that he deserved it, I doubt he would play along with any personal spat.



Yeah the Editor and moderation on these boards in general is a paragon of objective virtue. 

I mean everyone who makes your ma jokes gets a warning.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Woah, what gripping fucking insight there.
> 
> Now that you have put us all straight with your statement of the stupidly obvious maybe you would like to tell us your opinion on people using the report post function in the particular manner 5T3LLA did, y'know as a petty tool in an ongoing spat. Do you think reporting your ma jokes aimed at other other posters is reasonable and workable as a generalised trend?



A page or two back he got a 'yellow card' for the ma stuff, then posted ma stuff again almost immediately. I was just the first person to spot it and took advantage. No mods played along with any spats, they did what they'd indicated they'd do.


----------



## TheDave (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Do you think reporting your ma jokes aimed at other other posters is reasonable and workable as a generalised trend?





editor said:


> Dwyer's comment got reported and as far as I'm concerned posters making comments like "how much does your Mum charge for a blow-job?" in the 'theory, philosophy & history' forum are bang out of order.



The big man laid down the law, as he asserts if this was General I doubt he would have cared but Dwyer was bringing down the tone of this sub-forum and he repeated it after being warned.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

TheDave said:


> The big man laid down the law, as he asserts if this was General I doubt he would have cared but Dwyer was bringing down the tone of this sub-forum and he repeated it after being warned.



utter bullshit, there is far worse shit through out this sub forum, Dwyer got warned because he is Dwyer and he annoys a lot of people on here.

I bet El Jefe or pk would never have been warned let alone banned over a silly your ma joke.

And 5T3LLA is a sad fuck reporting it, though not as pathetic as the Editor for going along with it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 21, 2009)

You seem to be rather in the shadow of Dwyer yourself rev.

This isn't going anywhere so I'll be back when he is.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> A page or two back he got a 'yellow card' for the ma stuff, then posted ma stuff again almost immediately. I was just the first person to spot it and took advantage. No mods played along with any spats, they did what they'd indicated they'd do.



Yes you used the report post function as a petty little weapon in an online spat, it make you a sad cunt and it makes the Editor pathetic.

Also this post throws up the question of who reported the first your ma joke that Dwyer got warned for?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> You seem to be rather in the shadow of Dwyer yourself rev.
> 
> This isn't going anywhere so I'll be back when he is.



I shit on Dwyer, his grasp of Marx is piss poor, he is still a hundred times more interesting to engage with than a no mark like yourself.


----------



## brix (Sep 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Woah, what gripping fucking insight there.
> 
> Now that you have put us all straight with your statement of the stupidly obvious maybe you would like to tell us your opinion on people using the report post function in the particular manner 5T3LLA did, y'know as a petty tool in an ongoing spat. Do you think reporting your ma jokes aimed at other other posters is reasonable and workable as a generalised trend?



I think posters are free to use the report post function if and when they feel appropriate.  I have my own version of appropriate with which you will no doubt disagree, but I have no intention of wasting time arguing the toss with you over it.

Anyway, charming as you are, I really do have to go and watch paint dry, or something...

Bye  *waves*


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> You seem to be rather in the shadow of Dwyer yourself rev.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2009)

TheDave said:


> The big man laid down the law, as he asserts if this was General I doubt he would have cared but Dwyer was bringing down the tone of this sub-forum and he repeated it after being warned.


As is his acolyte, I see


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

brix said:


> I think posters are free to use the report post function if and when they feel appropriate.  I have my own version of appropriate with which you will no doubt disagree, but I have no intention of wasting time arguing the toss with you over it.
> 
> Anyway, charming as you are, I really do have to go and watch paint dry, or something...
> 
> Bye  *waves*



Brilliant perhaps we can discuss your pathetically inane relativism some other time.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2009)

Are you pissed?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 21, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Are you pissed?



No just dislike cunts hiding behind mods apron strings and looking to get people banned as means of carrying out online spats.

I also have a total distain for wankers who feel the need to state inane shit about "Everyone has the right to an opinion/use of the report post button" etc They seem to imagine they are making an interesting point when all they are doing is showing themselves up as idiots.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2009)

They're hardly alone in that respect!


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2009)

brix said:


> You're completely out of order here.  People are entitled to report posts if they feel they need to.  It's tough if you don't like it.


^ this ^

The man is a comparatively privileged and wealthy westerner who gets his kicks by beating up on strangers.  

So let's not get into promoting trolls' rights.  And no, phildwyer is not somehow oppressed when he's fucked off out of here for his particular brand of online thuggery.

Seriously


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> oh how predictable, hand out a 24hr ban for next to nothing and then once the person inevitably logs in with a different account to see the fall out ban them for 2 weeks.


how many accounts do you have, revol?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> utter bullshit, there is far worse shit through out this sub forum


your posts, for example


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> I shit on Dwyer, his grasp of Marx is piss poor, he is still a hundred times more interesting to engage with than a no mark like yourself.


if that's the case, why are you engaging with 5t3IIa when you've never, to my recollection, shown the same degree of interest in dwyer?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> *I also have a total distain for wankers who feel the need to state inane shit* about "Everyone has the right to an opinion/use of the report post button" etc They seem to imagine they are making an interesting point when all they are doing is showing themselves up as idiots.


quite. so why do you do it so frequently?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Right then I will continue to hold my opinion based on the evidence available to me.
> 
> It's a tad retarded to attack someone for not holding all the facts when you are the person withholding them.



Srsly?

You're a fucking joke matey.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> ^ this ^
> 
> The man is a comparatively privileged and wealthy westerner who gets his kicks by beating up on strangers.
> 
> ...



online thuggery, catch a clue.

And pointing out the fact that people using a report post function to report inane your ma jokes not out of any genuine offense being taken but simply as a petty continuation of an online spat are cunts is hardly beyond the pale, likewise my contention that the Editor was pathetic in going along with it.

Fact remains that Dwyer is still a much more interesting poster (for good or bad) than some no mark like 5T3LLA.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Srsly?
> 
> You're a fucking joke matey.



Yes, my point was a piece of surrealist hijinx, everyone knows it makes more sense to base your opinion not on what is available to you but on some known unknowns, and by everyone I obviously mean Rumsfeld, 5T3LLA and seemingly yourself.

I don't really give a fuck about this spat beyond pointing out that using the report post function for petty point scoring in an online spat is a cunts trick and that it is pathetic of the Editor to play along with it, under the a hilarious pretence of objectively upholding the rules, rules that seem very, very selectively enforced.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2009)

*whoosh*


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> if that's the case, why are you engaging with 5t3IIa when you've never, to my recollection, shown the same degree of interest in dwyer?



I've had quite a few discussions and arguments with Dwyer regarding philosophy and politics, certainly more than I've ever had with 5T3LLA.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2009)

Funny how I've never seen you in here before.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Funny how I've never seen you in here before.



You've never seen me in the philosophy/theory section. 

lol


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> And pointing out the fact that people using a report post function to report inane your ma jokes not out of any genuine offense being taken but simply as a petty continuation of an online spat are cunts is hardly beyond the pale, likewise my contention that the Editor was pathetic in going along with it.



I think the comments Dwyer made were out of order and highly inappropriate. They were not harmless 'yo momma' jokes between friends, Dwyer was being vile and distasteful to get a rise out of me.

Why on earth has this got your goat so much that you need to waste two pages on hate filled comments?


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Funny how I've never seen you in here before.



If I'm looking for revol, I can fairly much guarantee to find him here! (Or in Football, but I don't tend to venture in there much  )


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> You've never seen me in the philosophy/theory section.
> 
> lol



It must be something to do with how bland your posts are.

Congratulations on becoming vaguely interesting.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> *whoosh*




lol @ revol


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> If I'm looking for revol, I can fairly much guarantee to find him here! (Or in Football, but I don't tend to venture in there much  )



Why is he leaping to Dwyers defense?  Dwyer acts like an odious cock all over the boards, gets banned on a technicality, the end.  What is there to moan about?  Fist they came for the dwyers or something?

Dwyer's perfectly capable of defending himself when he comes back and nobody has been laying into him in his absence.  He's probably enjoying the suspense it's causing.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> Why is he leaping to Dwyers defense?  Dwyer acts like an odious cock all over the boards, gets banned on a technicality, the end.  What is there to moan about?  Fist they came for the dwyers or something?
> 
> Dwyer's perfectly capable of defending himself when he comes back and nobody has been laying into him in his absence.  He's probably enjoying the suspense it's causing.



Phil and revol don't wind me up in quite the same way that they seem to wind some people up. I can disagree/argue with them on a lot of things, but there's a lot of what they say that I agree with - or that I'm not sure about. 

I don't agree that nobody has been laying into Phil in his absence btw.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Oh, after another little look I see that you didn't specifically say that AS reported it, no.
> 
> You know nothing about my 'spats'.


What do you know about the "spats" that revol derides, cesare?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> Phil and revol don't wind me up in quite the same way that they seem to wind some people up. I can disagree/argue with them on a lot of things, but there's a lot of what they say that I agree with - or that I'm not sure about.
> 
> I don't agree that nobody has been laying into Phil in his absence btw.



Fair enough.  Phil stopped winding me up long ago fwiw.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> What do you know about the "spats" that revol derides, cesare?



Hey, don't seek to draw me into this quarrel. My two posts on this thread (apart from this one) were (a) factual about where revol posts; and (b) a broad statement in reply to fM about my own reaction to phil and revol.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2009)

It's not so much a quarrel, I think, as a lack of contextual understanding; revol keeps on making the same point as if we're all dense or something. He doesn't seem to have considered the import of 5t3IIa's remark.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

On topic, I'm wondering whether any rational proof will sway me from my position of agnosticism. Doubtful, but interesting.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2009)

If you're looking for a rational proof you'll not find it here


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> If you're looking for a rational proof you'll not find it here



I haven't done so far, but maybe the second time round? New posters, new points of view etc.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 22, 2009)

How does socio-economics relate to theisms/religious organisation?


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> How does socio-economics relate to theisms/religious organisation?



Not sure about theism _directly _(which is the connection I'd like further explanation on) but in terms of religious organisation - for sure. Organised religion is successful big business.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> I haven't done so far, but maybe the second time round? New posters, new points of view etc.



It'd need to be a different thread.  This one is phils vanity project.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> It'd need to be a different thread.  This one is phils vanity project.



It might be a project, dunno about vanity though. Philosophy and theology is what he does, surely? If I was an academic, I'd perhaps do something similar in education/employment. I'm pretty sure that some of my views on employment would be controversial enough to generate a few responses


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 22, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> How does socio-economics relate to theisms/religious organisation?



It doesn't. Its all about using language in the same way as slight of hand parlor trick.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> It doesn't. Its all about using language in the same way as slight of hand parlor trick.



It does though - the organised religion aspect. Can you think of any religious organisation that doesn't make money?

Where we need further clarification is where the basis of organised religion - i.e. the god/gods - _directly_ relate to socio-economics.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> It's not so much a quarrel, I think, as a lack of contextual understanding; revol keeps on making the same point as if we're all dense or something. He doesn't seem to have considered the import of 5t3IIa's remark.



The import of which remark from STELLA (fuck that numbers shit for a game of darts btw), I'm guessing you are referring to the one where STELLA alludes to the fact that there is something in their spat with Dwyer that goes beyond internet handbags, hinting towards something a bit more sinister perhaps? Well I did ask STELLA to at least vageuly fill me in on what these details are but they declined to do so and instead seemed to insist I simply take their word for it, much like Donald Rumsfeld's known unknowns.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> It doesn't. Its all about using language in the same way as slight of hand parlor trick.



Yeah there is no way that religion is bound up in the way that society is structured, certainly no correlation between early animalistic religions and the hunter gather societies or the development of monotheism with the spread of Empire, laws universalism.

There certainly isn't any connection between the development of Capitalism and protestantism, nor Calvinism and the work ethic.

As much as Dwyer's theism is loony tunes stuff and he can certainly spout some proper bollox he's ten times more intelligent and insightful than your cretinous self.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> It does though - the organised religion aspect. Can you think of any religious organisation that doesn't make money?



Maybe though organized religion, but that's got nothing to do with any rational proof of gods existence.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Maybe though organized religion, but that's got nothing to do with any rational proof of gods existence.



Well that's the part we're waiting to find out, surely? Because I suspect that phil will need to convince the unconvinced that to start with, there's a direct correlation between god/gods and money.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> Well that's the part we're waiting to find out, surely? Because I suspect that phil will need to convinced the unconvinced that to start with, there's a direct correlation between god/gods and money.



His argument is essentially that through our ability for abstract and symbolic thought we are both part of the material world and yet distinct from it, then by juxtaposing this to a reductive strawman materialism he creates a necessary niche for some good old dualism whereby the human spirit/consciousness must come from some divine spark/creator.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Yeah there is no way that religion is bound up in the way that society is structured, certainly no correlation between early animalistic religions and the hunter gather societies or the development of monotheism with the spread of Empire, laws universalism.
> 
> There certainly isn't any connection between the development of Capitalism and protestantism, nor Calvinism and the work ethic.
> 
> As much as Dwyer's theism is loony tunes stuff and he can certainly spout some proper bollox he's ten times more intelligent and insightful than your cretinous self.



Oh my and the first two paragraphs held so much promise. 

I like the way you agree with me, call Phils ideas loony, then say he is a genus and I a cretin. Full marks. 

I don't think have even come across you before, what exactly makes me so cretinous?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Oh my and the first two paragraphs held so much promise.
> 
> I like the way you agree with me, call Phils ideas loony, then say he is a genus and I a cretin. Full marks.
> 
> I don't think have even come across you before, what exactly makes me so cretinous?



You claimed there is no connection between religion and socio economics, I simply pointed out you are talking shite.

I did not call Dwyer a genius, that's an absurd suggestion, he is however quite an intelligent poster who whilst often holding daft notions at least has the balls to stand behind them and argue them out, he is also capable of making some interesting points and connecting common threads in different lines of thought/arguments.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2009)

Oh, my!


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

cesare said:
			
		

> Where we need further clarification is where the basis of organised religion - i.e. the god/gods - directly relate to socio-economics.



Well that's simple, alienation and commodity fetishism.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> You claimed there is no connection between religion and socio economics, I simply pointed out you are talking shite..



Not religion, rational proof of god existence. To be fair, looking back I didn't make that at all clear (I assumed we were talking about the thread theme). 

Not sure that's enough to warrant me being a cretin.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> His argument is essentially that through our ability for abstract and symbolic thought we are both part of the material world and yet distinct from it, then by juxtaposing this to a reductive strawman materialism he creates a necessary niche for some good old dualism whereby the human spirit/consciousness must come from some divine spark/creator.


This _impresses_ you?

What, then?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2009)

I'm really puzzled at why revol is picking up the where phils ad hominem attacks left off.  

Completely unwarranted imo.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Not religion, rational proof of god existence. To be fair, looking back I didn't make that at all clear (I assumed we were talking about the thread theme).
> 
> Not sure that's enough to warrant me being a cretin.



You really, really didn't make that clear.

You aren't going to get me to argue that exchange value provides rational proof of god's existence, I'm a devout atheist, however there is a connection between exchange value and theism, in that the products of human labour come to stand above human society like supernatural entities. 

Dwyer of course is going to attempt a rather daft albeit structurally interesting reversal of this commonality between Feuerbach's critique of religion and Marx'/Lukacs critique of commodity fetishism. 

Like I said utter tosh from Dwyer but nonetheless quite interesting tosh in that it touches upon many interconnected arguments.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> This _impresses_ you?
> 
> What, then?



of course it doesn't impress me, but it's atleast a line of argument internally consistent to itself, which is more than can be said for the shit most people post on urban, and he atleast stands by his arguments and doesn't hide behind inane liberalism nor play the poor bullied victim.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2009)

this is your ethical stance then, your justification for the shouty defense of trolls rights you've mustered?

fantastic stuff!


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> this is your ethical stance then, your justification for the shouty defense of trolls rights you've mustered?
> 
> fantastic stuff!



Come on Dwyer is many things but to reduce him to a troll is just bullshit, unless of course we simply define a troll as someone who gets many peoples backs up.

I'd also contend that the disingenuous use of the report post function as simply a means of trying to get someone banned over a petty online spat is much more troll like behaviour.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> His argument is essentially that through our ability for abstract and symbolic thought we are both part of the material world and yet distinct from it, then by juxtaposing this to a reductive strawman materialism he creates a necessary niche for some good old dualism whereby the human spirit/consciousness must come from some divine spark/creator.



Ah yeah, I think I can see where he's going with it. But from a personal point of view, I'd like to see at which (if any) specific point in his rationale I think/say 'not necessarily, that may or may not be the case' -> agnosticism.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> Ah yeah, I think I can see where he's going with it. But from a personal point of view, I'd like to see at which (if any) specific point in his rationale I think/say 'not necessarily, that may or may not be the case' -> agnosticism.



The point is his one dimensional reductive understanding of materialism.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> The point is his one dimensional reductive understanding of materialism.



Yeah, quite possibly, as I say he hasn't convinced me so far. But I'd like to see how his rationale develops and at what point I depart from it and why, iyswim.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> Yeah, quite possibly, as I say he hasn't convinced me so far. But I'd like to see how his rationale develops and at what point I depart from it and why, iyswim.



well you'll be waiting a while as he is banned.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> well you'll be waiting a while as he is banned.



Yep, which is a bit irritating. But I've waited 48 years to be convinced so far, I daresay I can cope with another couple of weeks


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

In the meantime, it'd be interesting to see if anyone can pick up phil's argument and run with it to see what happens.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> Yep, which is a bit irritating. But I've waited 48 years to be convinced so far, I daresay I can cope with another couple of weeks



ture dat.

i think the real reason why Dwyer pisses a lot of people off is because even when he is talking shite and they know he is talking shite, most are still unable to actually nail him in the argument.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> ture dat.
> 
> i think the real reason why Dwyer pisses a lot of people off is because even when he is talking shite and they know he is talking shite, most are still unable to actually nail him in the argument.




... so they focus on style rather than content? Probably.


----------



## Santino (Sep 22, 2009)

cesare said:


> ... so they focus on style rather than content? Probably.



If by 'style' you mean nasty personal attacks that he later claims is all 'banter'.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> ture dat.
> 
> i think the real reason why Dwyer pisses a lot of people off is because even when he is talking shite and they know he is talking shite, most are still unable to actually nail him in the argument.


No, it's because he ignores or insults them when they do.

You should be able to see for yourself.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

Jonti said:


> No, it's because he ignores or insults them when they do.
> 
> You should be able to see for yourself.



Well in my experience of getting the better of Dwyer in an argument he hasn't really reacted like that.


----------



## cesare (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Well that's simple, alienation and commodity fetishism.



Well, I think I understand that, but I'm not sure. What do you mean by 'alienation' and commodity fetishism'?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 22, 2009)

Santino said:


> If by 'style' you mean nasty personal attacks that he later claims is all 'banter'.



oh wise up he's hardly that vicious and he probably takes more than he gives out, afterall nearly every thread some wit will pop up with the refrain Fuck Off Dwyer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2009)

Pickman's model][QUOTE=revol68 said:


> oh how predictable, hand out a 24hr ban for next to nothing and then once the person inevitably logs in with a different account to see the fall out ban them for 2 weeks.


how many accounts do you have, revol?[/quote]any chance of a reply, revol?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> You aren't going to get me to argue that exchange value provides rational proof of god's existence.



I have a feeling there is only one person here that thinks there is any connection at all. I'm not even sure he believes it, I think he just wants to play what he thinks is a clever game of words. His frustration/irritation probably stems from the fact he has not managed to convince one person to jump his first hurdle. 

I have only seen him spout misinformed/badly reasoned nonsense, vile bullish attacks and even lies. An interesting diversion perhaps, but an intellectual colossus he is not.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 22, 2009)

Thread has needed this for a long time:


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 22, 2009)

The "world of ideas" does not "spring out of a basic human tendency to barter" !


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> oh wise up he's hardly that vicious and he probably takes more than he gives out, afterall nearly every thread some wit will pop up with the refrain Fuck Off Dwyer.


When he takes a personal pop just to be a cunt, he gets told to fuck off.

What on earth is the problem with that you fookin' bleedin' heart?


----------



## Corax (Sep 22, 2009)

brix said:


> You're free to 'comment', I'm free to pull you up on it, people are free to report posts.


Are the rest of us free to not give a fuck?  Just checking like...

I'm sure there's some sort of point to be made about Dwyer and Cargo Cults.  Not sure what though.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 22, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> It's very odd how you have quite quickly got your knickers in a twist over me. You launched yourself into writing vile things about my mother after I pointed out that you mentioned Kant in your first post after you said you had never mentioned him at all. A very small point I think.
> 
> I asked why, but all I ever got was abuse. Is that really what you call taking the piss Phil? It seems to me that you react rather strongly to anyone suggesting you are wrong. . . And admitting you are wrong or have lied? . . Well that just seems completely beyond you.
> Can I assume this is also the reason you can't bring yourself to actually post up your reasoning that there is rational proof for gods existence?
> The fact that you can't get anyone to agree to your very first point after three years would suggest that maybe you have got it all *wrong* again, no?



it's how the whole JC2 and I thing started at the start of the year... 

Dwyer had his physic dick trodden on and launched on one of his mental campaigns which ended up with all of us getting banned and a fair few people still believing his bollocks claims even tho JC2 didn't... 

why let him back after the two weeks let the useless fucker rot for entity...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2009)

Pickman's model][quote=Pickman's model][QUOTE=revol68 said:


> oh how predictable, hand out a 24hr ban for next to nothing and then once the person inevitably logs in with a different account to see the fall out ban them for 2 weeks.


how many accounts do you have, revol?[/quote]any chance of a reply, revol?[/quote]*taps watch*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> It might be a project, dunno about vanity though. Philosophy and theology is what he does, surely? If I was an academic, I'd perhaps do something similar in education/employment. I'm pretty sure that some of my views on employment would be controversial enough to generate a few responses



<editor: removed>

Are you taking the fucking piss, ed?

Given that the daft cunt has said as much himself on here, you fucking well must be!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> Well that's the part we're waiting to find out, surely? Because I suspect that phil will need to convince the unconvinced that to start with, there's a direct correlation between god/gods and money.



I thought that his take translates to something akin to "money is the devil, therefore if the devil exists, so must G-d"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2009)

revol68 said:


> ....and commodity fetishism.


On which he's written an interesting (by which I mean "stimulating" rather than "it's good and I agree with it") book.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> <editor: removed>


A lecturer, actually.

Americans call lecturers professors ~ and phildwyer has played upon this linguistic ambiguity, allowing British readers to gain a false impression of his academic standing.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> A lecturer, actually.
> 
> Americans call lecturers professors ~ and phildwyer has played upon this linguistic ambiguity, allowing British readers to gain a false impression of his academic standing.



WTF? 

I've been a professor too then.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> <editor: removed>


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he has announced his job title on these boards so I've edited your post.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> It might be a project, dunno about vanity though. Philosophy and theology is what he does, surely? ...


No, he doesn't. Seems to take some people in, though


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I thought that his take translates to something akin to "money is the devil, therefore if the devil exists, so must G-d"?



It's something like that.  My understanding is that he's saying that witchcraft, magic etc has historically been about manipulation of the world through symbols and that money is a symbolic representation of alienated labour and has taken on a life of it's own, which manipulates human behaviour and can be thought of as "the devil".  Interesting, but fairly bonkers IMO.  I have seen a similar argument in the Disinfo "Book of Lies" guide to magic and the occult.  Something about corporate symbols and logos being akin to magic sygils.  Entertaining nonsense.


----------



## Corax (Sep 23, 2009)

editor said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he has announced his job title on these boards so I've edited your post.



Suck my wriggly blue one.



Oh no, wait.  Wrong thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2009)

editor said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he has announced his job title on these boards so I've edited your post.



He's announced that he's a professor. He's also, separately, announced his "field of endeavour".

It doesn't take a genius to put the two together.

Fuck's sake!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2009)

Jonti said:


> No, he doesn't. Seems to take some people in, though



I'd mention the general themes of books he's written around the subjects cesare mentions, but I suspect that the ed would remove the info just in case I gave anything about dwyer away.

(You might get the impression I'm a bit pissed off at the ed. You'd be right.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It's something like that.  My understanding is that he's saying that witchcraft, magic etc has historically been about manipulation of the world through symbols and that money is a symbolic representation of alienated labour and has taken on a life of it's own, which manipulates human behaviour and can be thought of as "the devil".  Interesting, but fairly bonkers IMO.  I have seen a similar argument in the Disinfo "Book of Lies" guide to magic and the occult.  Something about corporate symbols and logos being akin to magic sygils.  Entertaining nonsense.



Precisely, but if there's the possibility of a publication in it for phil...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2009)

Corax said:


> Suck my wriggly blue one.



You have a pet smurf?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> WTF?
> 
> I've been a professor too then.



Good afternoon, _Emeritus_ Professor Suplex!!


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 24, 2009)

*Belated one off contribution ...*




			
				revol78 said:
			
		

> You aren't going to get me to argue that exchange value provides rational proof of god's existence.





ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I have a feeling there is only one person here that thinks there is any connection at all. I'm not even sure he believes it, I think he just wants to play what he thinks is a clever game of words. His frustration/irritation probably stems from the fact he has not managed to convince one person to jump his first hurdle.
> 
> I have only seen him spout misinformed/badly reasoned nonsense, vile bullish attacks and even lies. An interesting diversion perhaps, but an intellectual colossus he is not.



For what very little it's worth I agree with ATOMIC here. I've been observing this thread on and off for absolutely ages, whilst not posting, and to me the whole thing does look predominantly like dwyer's vanity project (as somebody else has already said), an exercise in gamesmanship for him.

Plenty of room for proper debate about whether or not God's existence can ever be rationally proven, not even saying there's been none of that debate in this thread along the way. 

But I remain very unconvinced that such a debate is dwyer's prime purpose.

I do not believe in God, and I do not believe God's existence can ever be proven either. If any *real* proof manifests itself through irrefutable evidence, proper proof sufficient to convince those who in the absence so far of any evidence, are as good as sure -- for day to day purposes! -- that God doesn't exist, as well as convince those more ambivalent or sympathetic, then no doubt I'd have to rethink. 

But dwyer's cats cradles of semantic wordplay don't do it for me rational proof wise ... their prime purpose looks like trying to trap other posters into contradicting themselves, as in the games that dominate so much of this thread.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 24, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Plenty of room for proper debate about whether or not God's existence can ever be rationally proven, not even saying there's been none of that debate in this thread along the way.
> 
> But I remain very unconvinced that such a debate is dwyer's prime purpose.



If Dwyer didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.


----------



## bhamgeezer (Sep 24, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It's something like that.  My understanding is that he's saying that witchcraft, magic etc has historically been about manipulation of the world through symbols and that money is a symbolic representation of alienated labour and has taken on a life of it's own, which manipulates human behaviour and can be thought of as "the devil".  Interesting, but fairly bonkers IMO.  I have seen a similar argument in the Disinfo "Book of Lies" guide to magic and the occult.  Something about corporate symbols and logos being akin to magic sygils.  Entertaining nonsense.



This idea is always latched on to by troof seekers  It is true of course historically occultism was often considered the capacity to influence the will much more than the abilty fire lightening out your arse. Knowing this it is clear why attention starved "orginal sin" beguiling young women were the most commonly accused of witchcraft. Money also having a profound influence on the will of an individual clearly gained it an association with occultism as well. Their was the historical christian attitude towards usury for example, which ofc lead to the stereotype of the jewish money lender. Paper money was consider to be immoral for a time as well as the idea that something that had no physical value could be used as currency was too foreign and abstract for the people of the time. Additionally the fact that paper money needs requires a complex print to deter forgery makes it look slightly occultic.

However I don't really see the relevance of this because I think its clear as day to anyone living presently that influencing peoples motivations, will, behaviour or whatever you want to call is not magic or inherently evil and at best this information illustrates how a misguided understanding can lead to irrational beliefs.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 24, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> You have a pet smurf?



Does it spunk in polka dots, that's what I want to know.


----------



## Jessiedog (Sep 24, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> For what very little it's worth I agree with ATOMIC here. I've been observing this thread on and off for absolutely ages, whilst not posting, and to me the whole thing does look predominantly like dwyer's vanity project (as somebody else has already said), an exercise in gamesmanship for him.
> 
> Plenty of room for proper debate about whether or not God's existence can ever be rationally proven, not even saying there's been none of that debate in this thread along the way.
> 
> ...



Yup.

It's a troll.

And obviously a very good one.



And, as we already know, most likely a professional one too - in the sense of gathering data/ideas/material for the purpose of making money/keeping a job - through publication of some sort of book/paper/article/lecture/hypothesis/whatever.

Most of the time, this kind of journalistic "exploitation" of Urban is frowned upon, but as revol68 points out, phil is an entertaining poster and this allows him much latitude.

Nevertheless, the "multiple logins" mantra has been drummed into us for years by mod after mod after mod - and perma-bans, without exception, dished out upon discovery (at least when the mods have chosen to let us know this has occurred).





			
				FAQ said:
			
		

> Banned posters trying to sneak back in will be re-banned immediately and permanently.







Maybe phil could be unbanned after his two week hiatus on condition that he tithes 10% of his salary and any book (or other money making) deals to the server fund?

Otherwise, I fear, the rules are clear and we will be permanently deprived of such engaging dialogue.

Something must be done!




Woof


----------



## jannerboyuk (Sep 24, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> It's something like that.  My understanding is that he's saying that witchcraft, magic etc has historically been about manipulation of the world through symbols and that money is a symbolic representation of alienated labour and has taken on a life of it's own, which manipulates human behaviour and can be thought of as "the devil".  Interesting, but fairly bonkers IMO.  I have seen a similar argument in the Disinfo "Book of Lies" guide to magic and the occult.  Something about corporate symbols and logos being akin to magic sygils.  Entertaining nonsense.



alan moore bangs on about that stuff in his mindscape of alan moore doc. as you say entertaining nonsense


----------



## purplex (Sep 25, 2009)

IMO god exists in peoples minds. 
Whether that is real or not depends whether you believe. You clearly have to hand yourself over to believing god really exists, its a leap of faith and trust.
I see belief in god as equivalent to computer software. Software doesn't physically exist, you can't touch it, you can't see it, it's not a physical thing its just 1s and 0s being passed around electronics, if you turn off the device running the software, the software disappears and no longer exists, its transient, in the same vein, belief in god is a set of impulses running around your brain. If belief in god is a computer program then religion is the equivalent a virus. I dont believe in God myself, but I have no problem with people that do, they are simply infected.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 25, 2009)

purplex said:


> IMO god exists in peoples minds.
> Whether that is real or not depends whether you believe. You clearly have to hand yourself over to believing god really exists, its a leap of faith and trust.
> I see belief in god as equivalent to computer software. Software doesn't physically exist, you can't touch it, you can't see it, it's not a physical thing its just 1s and 0s being passed around electronics, if you turn off the device running the software, the software disappears and no longer exists, its transient, in the same vein, belief in god is a set of impulses running around your brain. If belief in god is a computer program then religion is the equivalent a virus. I dont believe in God myself, but I have no problem with people that do, they are simply infected.



Isn't that just called thinking.


----------



## Drone Module (Sep 25, 2009)

seems to me that the debate on god's reality or unreality could well do with moving backwards, down to the terms of what people consider the real to consist of. 

even if God does not exist in its own right, it certainly exists as an object of speculation and argument and has affected billions of lives throughout human history... to me that makes God real enough, this having injected massive (more often than not violent) difference into the world. if God doesn't have any positive, autonomous existence beyond this that doesn't mean it is not real, it just means its reality takes the form of absolute absence.

the analogy to software is an interesting one because there we have an immaterial assemblage of routines, patterns and so on which clearly exist despite having no tangible, phenomenological reality outside of the interface of the screen. perhaps this is how god exists too...but with the situation reversed so that the screen itself conjures the software.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2009)

now phil's back, perhaps he could make up for lost time and crack on with his so-called proof of god.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> now phil's back, perhaps he could make up for lost time and crack on with his so-called proof of god.



It is indeed a matter for profound regret that we were so sharply interrupted just as we were starting to make significant progress.  Worse yet, I am off to Japan in a couple of days, and consequently may not be able to advance my proof as quickly as I would have wished.

Still, the fact is that I had no business suggesting that Atomic Suplex’s mother is nothing but a two-bit hooker.  Of course I don’t really believe it anyway.  In fact, to judge by Atomic’s furious outrage at the suggestion, I’m pretty sure she is a virgin.

And we all know what that means.  Most probably the angel Gabriel appeared to the young Mrs. Suplex and pronounced: “Lo, though thou art yet a virgin thou shalt bear a son, and thou shalt call his name ‘Atomic.’”

So that would make Atomic Suplex nothing less than the Son of God Himself.  And if God has a Son, then obviously God must exist.

A less intellectually scrupulous man than myself would declare victory at this stage and announce that God’s existence has been proven.  I cannot do so however, mainly because I cannot quite believe that Atomic Suplex himself exists.  

So we must press on.  I shall return in due course to respond to the objections to the initial stage of my proof that have been raised in my absence.


----------



## newme (Oct 6, 2009)

so no, just more obfuscation and delay.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It is indeed a matter for profound regret that we were so sharply interrupted just as we were starting to make significant progress.  Worse yet, I am off to Japan in a couple of days, and consequently may not be able to advance my proof as quickly as I would have wished.
> 
> Still, the fact is that I had no business suggesting that Atomic Suplex’s mother is nothing but a two-bit hooker.  Of course I don’t really believe it anyway.  In fact, to judge by Atomic’s furious outrage at the suggestion, I’m pretty sure she is a virgin.
> 
> ...


doesn't sound to me like you're sorry at all.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 6, 2009)

Me neither! Me neither!


----------



## laptop (Oct 6, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> doesn't sound to me like you're sorry at all.



If this were a dafamation case, that "apology" would double the damages.

dwyer loses.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Still, the fact is that I had no business suggesting that Atomic Suplex’s mother is nothing but a two-bit hooker.  Of course I don’t really believe it anyway.  In fact, to judge by Atomic’s furious outrage at the suggestion, I’m pretty sure she is a virgin.


I *strongly* recommend you desist from continuing this infantile and wildly off topic baiting.

This is the 'theory, philosophy & history' forum, not the general forum or, indeed, the playground.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2009)

OK, lookit.  We'll do this quickly this time.

The most basic act of barter imaginable: a man swaps a sheep for a goat.

In order to conduct this transaction, the _value_ of the sheep must be perceptible (conceptually not empirically) in the physical _body_ of the goat.

When the parties look at the goat, they must perceive not only the physical body of the goat, but also the value of the sheep.

Is everyone with me so far?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 6, 2009)

I'll say 'Yeah....and?' then leave it to other people to shout and scream at you.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 6, 2009)

You can look at both, quantify their value to yourself and decide to swap, or not.


----------



## newme (Oct 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, lookit.  We'll do this quickly this time.
> 
> The most basic act of barter imaginable: a man swaps a sheep for a goat.
> 
> ...



A sheep is worth something, right, you and Sainsburys agree on this, next?


----------



## Santino (Oct 6, 2009)

My mate knows a lot about wine but I don't perceive that in his body.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 6, 2009)

But would you want to swap him for a sommelier?


----------



## Santino (Oct 6, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> But would you want to swap him for a sommelier?



Free range?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 6, 2009)

Battery. I find the free range ones tend to be a bit radical in their wine reccomendations.


----------



## Santino (Oct 6, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Battery. I find the free range ones tend to be a bit radical in their wine reccomendations.



I can't bear to see their little faces in those cages. 

Some of them go their whole lives without seeing a decent Malbec.


----------



## Corax (Oct 6, 2009)

Too many assumptions in your argument so far Phil.  If you're going to hinge it on this value perceived in the body of a goat thing, then first of all you need to prove that the goat exists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, lookit.  We'll do this quickly this time.
> 
> The most basic act of barter imaginable: a man swaps a sheep for a goat.
> 
> ...



why is he swapping the sheep for the goat?


----------



## newme (Oct 6, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> why is he swapping the sheep for the goat?



I did wonder this myself but decided Id just go with it for now as at some point Id like to see where this is going. Maybe hes moving to a mountainous region? or has a hankering for some feta?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 6, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> why is he swapping the sheep for the goat?



Is the punchline 'a wooly jumper'? 

Hang on . . .


----------



## Santino (Oct 7, 2009)

8ball said:


> Is the punchline 'a wooly jumper'?
> 
> Hang on . . .


What do you get when you cross a sheep with a Hegelo-Marxian Theistical Dialectician?


----------



## bhamgeezer (Oct 7, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, lookit.  We'll do this quickly this time.
> 
> The most basic act of barter imaginable: a man swaps a sheep for a goat.
> 
> ...



I have too many goats sustained on the land I own and their population is increasing dramatically, I do not want your goat as it would cost me more in maintaining extra goats until they can be sold or eaten. The only way I will take your goat is if you pay me to compensate for the cost of owning it. Does this mean their is negative value of the goat also conceptually perceptible in the physical _body_ of the sheep? I still want to sell you my sheep but goats are negative currency in this exchange.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2009)

Any two lines are comparable to each other, but they aren't commensurable. However they are comparable in terms of their properties (i.e. their length). Is it true to say that in order to compare a line with another line one must perceive the physical nature of one line in the other? I think it's pretty hard to see how abstract entities are compared by the perception of the physical nature of one in the other.


----------



## Corax (Oct 7, 2009)

What if I swap my goat for a blowjob?  How does that work?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2009)

what about if the goat's swapped and then leased back?


----------



## Corax (Oct 7, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> what about if the goat's swapped and then leased back?



Finance lease or operational?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2009)

Corax said:


> What if I swap my goat for a blowjob? How does that work?


a blowjob, from a sheep???


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2009)

Corax said:


> Finance lease or operational?



let's say operational for the sake of argument.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 7, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> let's say operational for the sake of argument.



What's the difference again?


----------



## Corax (Oct 7, 2009)

free spirit said:


> a blowjob, from a sheep???


What, you got something against the welsh?  Racist.  



Pickman's model said:


> let's say operational for the sake of argument.


In that case, under finance regulations you can only pay 90% of the sheep's value during the course of the agreement and then have to return the goat.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 7, 2009)




----------



## 8ball (Oct 7, 2009)

Corax said:


> What, you got something against the welsh?  Racist.



No thread lives this long on Urban without being haunted by the spectre of racism.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 8, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> what about if the goat's swapped and then leased back?





Corax said:


> Finance lease or operational?



Can I securitise the goat, using the sheep as initial collaterol on it, and then re-securitise half the goats value (lets say 3 chickens), which can then be used to purchase some magic beans, and I'll pay you all back with a goose that lays golden eggs when the magic beans grow and I can raid the giant castle in the sky?


----------



## Gmart (Oct 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, lookit.  We'll do this quickly this time.
> 
> The most basic act of barter imaginable: a man swaps a sheep for a goat.
> 
> ...



So, yes, both parties can look at the same thing and see a different value. If bhamgeezer's situation occurred then that value would be negative, ie you would need to pay to get rid of the item. So most people would have differing views as to the value of the animal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, lookit.  We'll do this quickly this time.
> 
> The most basic act of barter imaginable: a man swaps a sheep for a goat.
> 
> ...


it's strange how you say "we'll do it quickly this time" and then spend your next 180 posts on other threads.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> it's strange how you say "we'll do it quickly this time" and then spend your next 180 posts on other threads.



Silence, fool.  I shall return to this thread when I see fit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Silence, fool.  I shall return to this thread when I see fit.


you should be a man and admit defeat.


----------



## Corax (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Silence, fool.  I shall return to this thread when I see fit.



I hope it's quick.  We're a bit stumped by the leasing conundrum.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 11, 2009)

Corax said:


> What if I swap my goat for a blowjob?  How does that work?



Just get the goat to suck you off


----------



## free spirit (Oct 12, 2009)

Dandred said:


> Just get the goat to suck you off


wronguns.... this thread is full of them


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2009)

are we any nearer the awful proof?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 9, 2009)

I think he's admitted defeat.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 9, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> are we any nearer the awful proof?



Homoph- oh, sorry.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 9, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> are we any nearer the awful proof?


what, of dandred getting sucked off by goats?

no, but his silence speaks volumes IMO


----------



## newharper (Nov 10, 2009)

Santino said:


> What do you get when you cross a sheep with a Hegelo-Marxian Theistical Dialectician?



A goat.


----------



## Corax (Nov 10, 2009)

Did we kill dywer's thread?  Was it the leasing conundrum?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

fractionMan said:


> I think he's admitted defeat.



Have I bollocks.

Like a 5-day test match, the art and beauty of this thread lies in its longevity.

I fully expect it to take several years for my proof to unfold fully.  I shall return here from time to time to add a pinch of evidence here, a sprinkle of logic there, until the butterfly finally emerges from the chrysalis.  And then some people are going to look very silly indeed.


----------



## Corax (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Have I bollocks.
> 
> Like a 5-day test match, the art and beauty of this thread lies in its longevity.
> 
> I fully expect it to take several years for my proof to unfold fully.  I shall return here from time to time to add a pinch of evidence here, a sprinkle of logic there, until the butterfly finally emerges from the chrysalis.  And then some people are going to look very silly indeed.



Cockbobbins.

Answer _that_!


----------



## Fuchs66 (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Have I bollocks.
> 
> Like a 5-day test match, the art and beauty of this thread lies in its longevity.
> 
> I fully expect it to take several years for my proof to unfold fully.  I shall return here from time to time to add a pinch of evidence here, a sprinkle of logic there, until the butterfly finally emerges from the chrysalis.  And then some people are going to look very silly indeed.



Ah quantity not quality

I'm surprised this bollocks is still alive (if only feebly kicking)


----------



## free spirit (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Have I bollocks.
> 
> Like a 5-day test match, the art and beauty of this thread lies in its longevity.
> 
> I fully expect it to take several years for my proof to unfold fully.  I shall return here from time to time to add a pinch of evidence here, a sprinkle of logic there, until the butterfly finally emerges from the chrysalis.  And then some people are going to look very silly indeed.


are you planning on revealing all in this life, or is the idea that you'll post your final proof from beyond the grave?


----------

