Biology, nature and dialectical materialism
                                      
   Nakived continues discussion of dialectical materialism with reference
      to contemporary biologists and historians of biology, Nov. 1998
            ____________________________________________________
   
   [MIM3@mim.org comments: In the article below Nakived discusses
   dialectical materialism. Nakived writes extensively on biology and
   Lysenko. Unlike MIM, Nakived believes the labor aristocracy of the
   United $tates is going downhill because of jobs being exported.
   
    Here s/he continues our pointed debate from the materialism page
   which really launched itself on the subject of Bogdanov and
   materio-criticism. S/he contrasts Lenin and Stalin on dialectical
   materialism that s/he refers to as "diamat." It is Nakived's agenda to
   trash dualism and argue that many people are biologically impaired to
   the point of being incapable of other than dualism.
   
   In siding with passivity and reflection, and by calling for the humyn
   animal to flow with Nature, Nakived may be pushing the species toward
   conservatism. By obeying Nature's laws, humyns can create new things
   in this world that have not been created before by other species. Is
   creating something new "flowing" or "reflecting"? Furthermore, what
   other parts of Nature have dialectical materialism? It seems only the
   humyn species does. Thus the humyn species regularly creates
   inventions unknown to other species and which are new. The fact that a
   humyn discovers something for the first time about Nature does not
   make that discovery any less "natural."
   
   Hokey pseudo-environmentalists regularly tell us that humyns should
   give up trying to "conquer" Nature. They also do not seem to realize
   that 99.9 percent of species went extinct long before the humyn
   species went on its industrial binge. That means Nature itself
   changes. So to say that humyns created cars and air pollution and that
   is "unnatural" might be wrong. It might be natural for humyns to
   destroy other species and itself. Nature has a long record of
   destroying species and creating new ones. People seeking to preserve
   every species there is are also idealist conservatives, whether they
   speak in the name of Nature or not. There is nothing about Nature that
   preserved species before there was a humyn species, so wiping out
   species cannot be blamed on the humyn species as if that species were
   somehow removed from Nature.
   
   So MIM is careful not to make a sacred cow out of "Nature" which can
   just be another god of humyn creation, and different for each humyn
   who created it. MIM attacks pollution in the name of the humyn
   species, not in the name of some religion or alleged permanent state
   of the planet.
   
   If it is natural for humyns to be aggressive and warlike, then MIM
   will seek to trick the humyn species into aggressive pursuit of peace.
   Our goals have to be possible within the laws of nature or we will
   simply be adding fruitless strife to the world.]
   
   POST TO MIM
   
   (from Nakived, November, 1998)
   
   
   
   This is heavy and it's important and relevant as it has a lot to do
   with the MODERN (RIGHT NOW!) Lewontin/Gould/Eldredge etc. group of
   evolutionary biologists in the West versus the Dawkins etc groups
   today, also in the West, and how they 'view' nature by using various
   theories. The Dawkins group ("Ultra Darwinians" eg book "The Selfish
   Gene") makes up theories of "how it all has to be" and then they PUT
   those paradigms into nature and life (read: into society); but the
   Lewontin group (eg: "Human Diversity" by Lewontin from Scientific
   American Library Series, or "Reinventing Darwin" by Niles Eldredge or
   anything else by Steven J. Gould) seem more to passively VIEW nature
   AS IT REALLY IS and THEN, only after viewing, they come up with a
   theory or law.
   
   
   
   One hears a lot about laws in the Stalinist USSR, but there are laws
   and then there are laws! Here is what I mean: It is a LAW of nature
   that zygotes develop unless terminated; even so, they develop UNTIL
   THEY ARE terminated.
   
   
   
   They WILL develop, they WILL change. That IS a _law_. Now, the
   political abortion issue is separate from this truth. Zygotes go thru
   phases and theychange. That IS a law but by "law" we obviously do not
   mean it's legal or illegal according to a legal system! A zygote
   produced by your mom and dad was YOU once upon a time! It was YOU.
   This is TRUE. One can invent a theory to explain the various stages
   zygotes go thru in developing into a living organism and people can
   (AND DO) carry that truth out, emphasize that truth and/or distort
   that truth, to bolster views against or for legalizing choice in
   having an abortion, but it is nonetheless a true-ism about zygotes
   developing. It is the major problem with me and what I KNOW TO BE
   "Diamat" for real, '3 plus 5 equals 8 reality'; versus the Marxian
   THEORY of Diamat where they, various TYPES of Marxists, argue about
   which "version" is right!
   
   
   
   I believe this is also a major problem in the East/West unbridgeable
   gulf (by East I do not mean China per se tho some of Chinese thought
   would fit in). By major problem I mean that Diamat is NOT just a man's
   way of viewing the world.
   
   
   
   I mean it's the way the world, nature, cosmos WORKS. Man knowing it
   enables him to make correct and PREDICTABLE theories.
   
   
   
   Here is a statement:
   
   "The official Soviet version of dialectical materialism has not been
   rectified" so say many Marxists and others. What does this mean?
   "Official version?" Is there an official version of 3 plus 5 equals 8?
   How can there be an official version of reality? There is only
   REALITY. What man thinks of it is irrelevant. Man might perceive
   reality, wrongly or rightly, but that doesn't change REALITY at all!
   Reality IS. It IS what IT IS. The statement above in quotes has to do,
   in part, with the Stalin/Lysenko Soviet Creative Darwinism
   (Agrobiology) model versus the Western model of nature, keeping in
   mind that the DNA was not discovered then and their old concepts for
   genes has been thrown out complete by the modern genetics. Marxian
   dialectics is VERY HEAVY; it's not trite, rah rah crap. It's also
   often DRY, TURGID and heavy, hence hardly anyone on the streets knows
   it; tho they know the Western cartoon version of what they imagine is
   Socialism or Marxism. Unfortunate. Someone needs to DUMB DOWN "Das
   Kapital" for all readers out there. Why not? The Xians did that with
   their bible. Time to take note and speak to the majority of The People
   who don't have time to read "all that" or have the ability to read
   thru some of Marx's more iffy and obscure passages. But here is the
   problem as it arose (following) and you can see, it's not "light"
   stuff.
   
   Already, when they even say that there IS a "version" of dialectical
   materialism, Soviet or not, something is strange. Do they mean that it
   differs from Marx? Some of US minority Reds in the 1990's see that
   Newton had a VERSION of mechanics. However, only when velocities are
   1/10th or less of the speed of light does Newton's VERSION work. Ergo,
   Einstein had another VERSION of mechanics and, since then, Newton's
   VERSION has been assimilated; some might see that Newton's version was
   CHANGED; it depends on which portion of mechanics you focus on and
   which portions you choose to read as footnotes.
   
   
   
   Imagine that Newton wrote a chapter thinking it was a story. Einstein
   saw it was merely a chapter and proceeded to write the rest of the
   book. Yet these two men lived far apart and obviously didn't know each
   other. OK? The Soviet VERSION of dialectical materialism has all to do
   with Stalin and Lysenko and probably Prezent. I had some vitriolic
   arguments with Reds on this issue only to learn that they knew nothing
   of MODERN physics. So then, end of argument.
   
   Yeah, YOU called me an imperialist, a possible agent and/or accused me
   of being mystical and I called you morons, idiots, 19th century
   backward, null and voided pseudo-science imbeciles and oddly neither
   of us called each other hyenas. Names. Sticks and stones can break me
   bones, but names? PHOOEY.
   
   
   
   Here it is, quoted right out of both of them:
   
   
   
   Lenin's version in "On the Question of Dialectics" (1915) states that:
   "The *condition for the knowledge* of all processes of the world in
   their 'self movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real
   life, is the *knowledge of them* as a unity of opposites. Development
   is the 'struggle of opposites'. *Note he is speaking of a condition
   for knowledge, that IF you grasp the unity of opposites, this is a
   condition FOR knowing nature. It would IMPLY (not state) that nature
   works Dialectically, ergo to know it you must learn to think
   dialectically; tho Lenin does not state this in fact. Development,
   real life, to KNOW THEM AS a unity of opposites - this implies that
   they ARE a unity of opposites. "Development IS the struggle of
   opposites." Does he mean development for real, or just a way to
   understand development? Not clear, but it can be read that way by
   anyone reading it TODAY.
   
   
   
   On the other hand, Stalin, in "Problems of Leninism" wrote this:
   
   "The dialectical **method of apprehending** nature regards the
   phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing
   constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the
   interaction of opposed forces in nature." !! **He didn't say
   understanding nature, he said APPREHENDING; there is a difference. One
   does not eg understand a criminal, one apprehends him. 'Apprehending'
   is almost a metaphor - how can you apprehend nature unless Stalin
   meant to literally GRASP it. Both Lenin and Stalin were quite careful
   about the specific words they each used! Yet he also says that the
   dialectical method of apprehending nature REGARDS the phenomena of
   nature AS BEING IN constant etc. That is to imply that dialectical
   thinkers regard their thinking about nature as so. They analyze it
   dialectically. It can be read that way. It seems as if they are both
   saying the same thing.
   
   
   
   Also note, Lenin says "the KNOWLEDGE OF them AS A unity of opposites."
   Stalin says "the DEVELOPMENT OF nature as the RESULT OF THE
   interaction of opposed forces in nature."
   
   
   
   They, at first, sound APPARENTLY concordant! They both sound the same,
   say, to Comrade PM tho he sees that Lenin's statement is just more
   Kantian or philosophical. Maybe Stalin's is more Machian or
   Bogdanovian, or REAL, i.e. not philosophy. I.e., not just the way
   human consciousness organizes input about nature with the senses and
   then forms a conclusion, but REAL, how it REALLY IS whether your
   consciousness knows it or is even able to perceive it or not. But they
   seem the same basically. They are NOT! Or, the analysts insist they
   are not; as they say: Stalin makes a change in Lenin's view from
   Lenin's CONCEPTION OF dialectical materialism, the critical conception
   of the practice of its THESIS, - TO the Stalinist ONTOLOGICAL
   CONCEPTION OF ITS LAWS: AS LAWS. This is a HUGE change! Of course,
   Lenin and his contemporaries had no way of knowing HOW to check if
   this or that was real or not back then. I don't think Stalin did
   either, but he surely did state that it was real and a law.
   Ontological means "having to do with what EXISTS! as in Being or
   Non-Being!" But are the analysts right or are they quibbling with
   words? Since Lenin and Stalin did not talk about this between
   themselves, no one can KNOW for sure if this assessment is right or
   not.
   
   
   
   Lenin talks of a "condition for (human) knowledge of the processes of
   the world." Stalin talks of a "LAW OF THE WORLD ITSELF" inscribing in
   Being the presupposition of its knowledge.
   
   
   
   According to Lenin, Diamat (the fundamental dialectical thesis of the
   unity of opposites) is to enable the process of the scientific
   KNOWLEDGE OF nature and society to overcome the idealist
   mystifications that tend to fix its results in so many absolutes.
   
   
   
   According to Stalin Diamat is a law of nature itself, of nature and
   society, which human knowledge only has to MIRROR to be valid! This is
   a rather BIG difference.
   
   
   
   In Lenin, the Diamat philosophical THESIS opens up to objective
   knowledge the field of its own investigation according to its own
   modalieies (i.e., to investigate the world, nature, etc, USING Diamat
   as opposed to using some other philosophical method). This is changed
   by Stalin into an ontological interpretation of Diamat, with Diamat
   being a general LAW OF WHAT EXISTS which states the UNIVERSAL FORM of
   the laws established by the sciences of nature.
   
   
   
   I.e., Nature WORKS Diamatically, one need only understand Diamat to
   understand nature since nature IS Diamatic. EG, if you understand how
   to count and what numbers as symbols mean to society, you can
   understand 2 plus 2 equals 4. But if you have a philosophy that
   doesn't grasp the concept of "4 things" then you can't grasp 2 plus 2.
   Another EG: if you can grasp the concept of the infinite number "e"
   then you can figure out HOW plants and shells and etc grow. Nature
   doesn't count like we do, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Nature counts like this:
   0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, etc. Man's ideas don't shape numbers this
   way but NATURE ALWAYS DOES use this other number system. Man can
   discover it, how nature counts. This is obviously NOT a law of human
   consciousness at all since NO HUMAN SOCIETY has a number system like
   nature's.
   
   
   
   So this reality is OUTSIDE OF man's consciousness. If you dispense
   with this external reality, eg, how nature itself counts, then that's
   IDEALISM! So then, IS THERE such a thing as 2 plus 2 equal 4? Or is
   there only possibly a 1 plus 2 to equal a 3; and then a 2 plus 3 to
   equal a 5; and then a 3 plus 5 to equal an 8? This might sound too
   "weird" to anyone who balances a check book but you are used to a
   decimal system (computers use a binary system).
   
   
   
   But how less 'weird' is the idea that, IN REALITY, a circle is
   something with an INFINITE number of "sides" all of which are
   INFINITELY small? Surely you can't SEE any "sides" on a circle! So
   then, does half a circle have the same number of "sides" as a whole
   circle? YES! And sure, it's weird. But it's REAL. And again, what is a
   circle? Well, it's not a sphere nor can you find a natural circle
   anywhere around since it would be something with 2 dimensions to it.
   So then, man slices a sphere and calls the result a "circle?" Yes.
   
   
   
   Still, it's weird.
   
   
   
   Lewontin and those guys AGREE with this more ontological Diamat view
   of nature itself, an ever-ongoing dialectical movement and change, and
   they have a lot more modern knowledge and science and physics to base
   that on now. Lenin did not, he had less than Stalin had tho Stalin
   didn't have much fact on this either at the time as far as I know.
   
   
   
   Theory, for Lenin, was active and critical.
   
   Theory, for Stalin, became passive and reflective! Focus on
   REFLECTIVE. PRACTICE, PRACTICAL RESULTS, observation of REAL LIVE
   NATURE were real; theory could then be made based on that, not the
   other way around! Herein is the POINT of departure, the "Two
   Sciences."
   
   
   
   For Lenin (and I assume Marx), it was man's viewing of nature USING
   Diamat that would change his views, ideas, concepts, from the views of
   the old school bourgeoisie. (Also, HOW man works, the relations in
   labor, relations with man and the production; tho it would be man who
   makes the rules for the production and relations along new lines, that
   would also change how man VIEWS/FEELS ABOUT work.) For Stalin, the
   bourgeoisie had it wrong because nature itself WAS Diamatic; and as
   such, only those who grasped Diamat would "get it."
   
   
   
   GRASP IT. I might add that what man has done, imperialism, strife,
   conflict, all of it, has NOTHING TO DO with nature: it is thanatos! It
   will doom our species as if the human species has, for the most part,
   become a dead end as far as evolution goes. Lysenko said the same
   thing, tho he left out the warnings of doom since it wasn't so
   immediate during his time.
   
   
   
   Stalin is RIGHT. Nature DOES work and move that way. IT DOES. It
   doesn't matter if mankind grasps it or not! HA! As Margulis would say,
   "nature" and "life" will keep on going, don't matter a shit if MAN is
   around or not.
   
   
   
   Margulis is not a Marxist or a Commune- anything: she's a
   misanthropist and a Nobel Prize winner who made the most IMPORTANT
   discovery about multicellular life in this century; something that has
   the Darwinian school standing on its head! It's the closest thing to a
   paradigm shift from Darwinian-gradualism or even Gould's punctuated
   equilibrium (same paradigm as the former) in the 20th C. Hers is the
   blending, non-mating, symbiotic evolutionary model, symbiosis between
   organisms that are not even remotely related and yet combined in a
   very strange way (a proven thing, not a theory!). This is subtly SORT
   OF like some of the more weird stuff that Lysenko said tho he had no
   real knowledge of such things, couldn't have at the time, only she
   PROVED it. I don't know if she knows anything about Lysenko, few do
   because they have not read what he, himself, wrote. They read the SHIT
   written about him by the Left AND by the Right -- both of whom tend to
   get the fucking thing WRONG (except for Krementsov who had archival
   stuff, including Lysenko's archives, to go by).
   
   
   
   We have ALL of his writings. Suggest anyone interested read Lynn
   Margulis's writings.
   
   
   
   This all got tied into science, notably Lysenko et al versus the
   Western guys. There are strange words Lysenko used for "how heredity
   works" such as "assimilation" and "dissimilation." Lysenko insisted on
   seeing heredity as a function of the WHOLE ORGANISM, not just it's
   genes tho keep in mind, the concept of genes in Lysenko's day has been
   radically made over and redone!
   
   
   
   Today, this assimilation (mainly thru metabolism and other
   environmental factors) would be called "genetic assimilation." But
   what does this mean? Well, ostrich birds (one example out of many)
   have these callouses where they sit -- presumably they develop this
   due to sitting the way they do -presumably.
   
   
   
   Shock: in the embryo, the ostriches HAVE THESE CALLOUSES. HOW? HOW CAN
   THIS BE? Well: they DO. Is this Lamarckian? It sure sounds like it tho
   no one CALLS IT that, they call it "genetic assimilation." So did
   Lysenko call it that tho he was NOT a Lamarckian at all! There are
   human pygmies. Presumably they got like that due to environmental
   factors but HOLD ON. The colonial explorers of the USA were (males)
   about 4'10" tall! Yet thru diet, these white men can get, and got, BIG
   and TALL. But nothing makes the pygmies bigger or taller. Experiments
   WERE DONE with growth hormone on willing pygmies (Sforza and other
   endocrinologists did it). Pygmy tissues and muscles were resistant to
   this hormone, it did NOT make them grow. So they explain that the
   pygmies are resistant to it because the genitals and brain have
   reached the adult size (stage of development) which is why their
   muscles and tissues are resistant to it. Yet they did not try this out
   on YOUNGER or baby Pygmies, nor did they see, after trying it on
   younger pygmies, if the children OF those altered pygmies would be
   different, tall, non-pygmies! So they invented a "reason why" it
   didn't work; but they have no PROOF that that's the reason. Nor can
   they know, if they could change a younger pygmy, if the offspring
   would be changed AS WELL, which would mean that it would be fixed in
   that pygmy's heredity from then on. They DO NOT KNOW. They would be
   able to know if they could experiment on pygmy babies and then watch
   them grow up, breed with each other, and watch the newborns grow up
   but this is not allowed (or has not been done...) But that's aside
   from the point. How did the pygmies become pygmies? It is "fixed" into
   the genes, that is, "assimilated into their heredity" as Lysenko would
   say it. So HOW did it happen? No one knows and Margulis is the first
   to point out what MORONS even the Darwinians are, they "don't even
   know about the first 2.5 billion years of earth, 80% of the time the
   planet has been here."
   
   
   
   Lysenkoist theory was merely the suggestion, ala Michurin, to try to
   FIND OUT HOW things get "fixed" and then DO IT to change things along
   lines beneficial to man. That's all! Sure, if we KNEW HOW the
   callouses on ostritches got "fixed" in their heredity, we would know
   HOW TO do such things to other organisms, or undo these things. Of
   course, this does tie in INTIMATELY with Pavlov (which modern
   neurology confirms!). What's the big hoolah and resultant distortion
   and slander about? FEAR! Bone chilling fear that SOMEONE might figure
   out how to make YOUR KID get born as something OTHER than what you
   expected!!!
   
   
   
   How is it that ostriches in embryo have the callouses when they have
   never sat down anywhere to develop them? Well, the ostriches have no
   problem with it: MAN has a problem EXPLAINING it using his THEORIES.
   
   
   
   This all enters into the Lysenkoist modern debates over genes and
   environment, the SAME OLD debate.
   
   
   
   The geneticists see it in a non-Diamatical way. The naturalists
   (Lewontin, etc) see it in an INTERACTIVE way, diamatically. It's not
   just environment acting on the organisms, the organisms do things too
   in turn acting on the environment which again, in turn, acts on them.
   In case you don't recognize this, this is the tired old Americanist
   debate over genes versus environment, nature versus nurture which ties
   (as the Stalinists used to claim) directly into RACE RELATIONS U.S.A.
   It was Lysenkoites who shouted Shockley down so loud that no one could
   even hear what the man had to say, which didn't amount to anything new
   as Steven and Hilary Rose pointed out in "The IQ Racket."
   
   
   
   Understand that Lysenko-ism has taken on a new direction and new life
   of its own having NOTHING TO DO directly with agriculture or
   Lysenko-the-man except that he DID write essays on WHY the West wants
   to hang onto their theories; he mysteriously used the example of
   different COLORS of wheat that oddly correspond to the color-names
   used for human races. They are all still WHEAT!
   
   
   
   He wrote on this issue when he insisted that in NATURE there is no
   competition WITHIN species (intraspecific) and that there seems to be
   such competition in capitalist countries has nothing to do with
   nature; it's due to decadence and such. (Thanatos as I called it). And
   earlier, his statement that one has to not keep propagating pure lines
   as they get weak and deteriorated. These two statements drove the
   genetics crazy and it was GENETICISTS that dragged Stalin and the
   Central Committee INTO the debate with the idea of forming a monopoly
   of their own genetic school!
   
   
   
   That's in the archives!
   
   
   
   His statements have recently been shown to be true, not only WITHIN
   species, but often between separate species. The West had a fit over
   this because they did not WANT IT TO BE true; they did not want either
   the "pure lines" (read race!) part or the non intraspecific
   competition part to be true. I'm sure that if the white man lost it
   all and became the slaves of some newly formed Islamic Empire, they'd
   change their mind and agree with Lysenko in a minute!
   
   
   
   And that was the Soviet POINT! The West shapes their distortions about
   nature to JUSTIFY their behavior toward those they are on top of NOW!
   Lewontin and the Roses bring this up also, it is SO OBVIOUS to see
   this, yet the arguments continue. The arguments have nothing to do
   with nature or science at all.
   
   
   
   They have to do with people being able to FESS UP to what they are
   doing, FACE it. ADMIT it. Everyone else victimized by it or colonized
   by it already knows it. It's a moot point. It's like Charlie Manson
   claims he didn't kill anyone. OK, OK. Sure.
   
   
   
   I stray from all Reds on this issue now, in fact even Mencken would
   disagree with what I'm about to say: I believe that the western
   dualist type being is INCAPABLE of grasping the way nature really
   works because BECAUSE-- he does not "KNOW IT" with his OWN FLESH AND
   BEING. This is a thing that neither Lenin nor Stalin addressed-- HOW
   one knows a thing and why some are not able to know it. I believe and
   see that they LIE, they either don't know that they lie or are unable
   to realize it, or they just CAN NOT FACE it. I'd have more respect for
   a bonafide Nazi racist that not only faced it, but would be proud to
   ADMIT it. At least the Nazi KNOWS WHO HE IS! He knows openly what he
   WANTS. He speaks out his truth and he is VISIBLE because of that. I
   know where he stands and what he would do, if he could. It's in the
   OPEN. His economic ideas are often socialist (hence the name of his
   organization) and on that we don't disagree; his method is to have
   socialism for one race. I don't believe races in the true-biological
   sense, exist: the human genome project now CONFIRMS this! Many
   variations exist, even within one population group.
   
   
   
   But races have existence in terms of social realities and they exist
   based on how this or that person LOOKS on sight. Point being, I'd know
   that the Nazi is defining "race" as a category based on outward
   physical appearance and hence I can clearly UNDERSTAND what he is
   saying and feeling. What I DO NOT understand is why Jews who looked
   Nordic in all ways were NOT accepted! How could they regard Jews as a
   race when they come in all types, even the "Aryan" type? I don't quite
   get that part. But then, they mean Nordic Christians? No, not quite
   that either since many non-accepted Jews were Christians for 3
   generations by converting their religion. Beats me. It's not the point
   and would not BE the point in a dialogue with an open Nazi.
   
   
   
   There really ARE two sciences, no matter what you call them. One
   science, the one that Lysenkoites called "bourgeois," WANTS to see it
   as a one way thing and WANTS to "make it so" by imposing imperialism
   and other things. The other science, the one that Lysenkoites called
   "proletarian," observes the things in nature and THEN figures out how
   it works and then tries to make society MIRROR it. It is the part
   about "making society mirror it" that has caused all the conflicts,
   all political and ECONOMIC in nature. I have two other words for the
   two sciences: 1. non-science, the distorted half-thoughts of
   klippoths, which means greedy, empty people, people unable to be
   satisfied by ANYTHING and 2. science, the KNOWING (Gnosis, Dharma) of
   NATURE from within first AND THEN, from without and who consist of
   people who are CONTENT with the simple things in life, simple
   pleasures and leisure. I tend to go deeper into the "how one knows"
   than any Marxists tho modern neurology now agrees with ME on this
   issue. It can be tested. And about those two sciences, if you think
   that "objective results are always there" but that only the AGENDAS of
   the ruling classes versus the proles are different then you are WRONG.
   WHAT GETS studied versus what gets put on the burner is affected. We
   have fossil fuels petroleum still because of the economic power
   structure of the rulers, meanwhile the BALLARD FUEL CELL is ignored
   yet it's FDA approved and IN USE in small places. There are TWO
   sciences. How much money and how much cost was lost due to the stupid
   genetics ideas on farms in Texas that wrecked farms for hundreds?
   That's because the geneticists have the upper hand. They are all SO
   mystical about it, like they discovered the soul only they don't know
   that's what they did, in essence.
   
   
   
   Lecourt pointed out the Bogdanovian influences on the Stalin/Lysenko
   Diamat and, of course, he is against it and prefers Lenin's view (and
   Krushchev's! ugh). That's the lip service of a "follower" with NO
   knowledge of how it really works in the REALITY called nature-Earth.
   (And yeah, Lecourt IS a man. I thought Dominique was a woman and also
   I heard Lecourt referred to as a SHE elsewhere, I think my own
   library! I also knew a WOMAN named Dominique. I don't tend to have
   good memory for personal shit, persons, WHO. I focus more on "what is
   being stated." The who or what is irrelevant to me).
   
   
   
   The idea that "the senses evolved in man are deceivers" is upsetting
   to many people. Tho this is TRUE. This is sort of basically what all
   the Mach, Kant and etc. dialogue was about, back then during the
   stupid days. Walls seem solid to us, they better seem solid lest we
   bump into them and get hurt. Yet walls are NOT solid in reality and
   physics can prove it. Does a tree that falls in the forest make a
   sound if no one is there to hear it? Well: define "sound." Human ears
   do not hear the movements of molecules. But we DO hear a sound if a
   tree falls. Does a tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it? If
   sound is defined as PHONONS then yes, it does not matter if you can
   hear it or not. Reduced to absurdity: when you are ON THE TRAIN and
   it's going where you want to go, do you know it has wheels on it even
   if you saw wheels on the train prior to boarding it? DUH. You INFER
   there are wheels. Probable inference is made: train has wheels, very
   probable. The one with the trees is only less probable. In order to
   "see" anything, man has to bombard an object with photons (turn on a
   light). So man CHANGES that object by doing this, the object IS
   CHANGED on the atomic level, on the level of the object's electrons.
   So can man ever "see" the object as 'what it is' 'itself?' No, not
   really. That does not stop man from MAKING objects, say, to pour
   liquid into and drink from. The senses were not evolved to "Know The
   Truth." They were evolved in order to enhance SURVIVAL. Since
   agriculture, man has not ENHANCED anything for the majority of those
   who get to BE lorded over by the current imperialist on the globe.
   This poses a problem. Are there, then, TWO TRUTHS? Mundane truth of
   practical survival versus REAL truth? Yeah, SORT OF. One might call
   that subjective versus objective. It is only by knowing THE TRUTH that
   I think man will not annihilate himself or doom himself to extinction.
   One doesn't always have to "study" or "tinker with dangerous things"
   to figure this out. Many animals have done it by flowing PASSIVELY and
   automatically REFLECTING nature around them by flowing with it. Yeah,
   I realize you don't have a CLUE what I'm saying on that issue. Insects
   and bacteria come to mind, the ultimate superior living things that
   have outlasted (and WILL outlast) everything else.
   
   
   
   Man has discovered some of the fundamental building blocks of matter
   itself, his own flesh, atomic matter. Yet the WAY IN WHICH man has
   discovered this and what man KNOWS ABOUT this is totally destructive
   and NOT constructive at all. What doesn't man know about it; what
   would he have known had he come about its discovery in a very
   different manner or come upon some OTHER discovery of an energy
   source? We'll never know. What little we DO know of is not profitable
   or not being talked about.
   
   
   
   Tinkering with a person's genes, trying to insert this or that gene or
   delete this or that gene is akin, in my mind, to trying to reshape a
   wall by messing around with specific atoms in it. That's not how to
   reshape a wall! Let's go further and instead of looking at the
   fundamental building blocks of matter, the atoms, look at the arena IN
   WHICH all matter/energy exists: space itself. Would one go about
   reshaping a wall by changing the curviture of space? Oh, that would
   reshape the wall, alright. HA! But you know, if you could DO this,
   you'd still NOT change some of the "constants" out there in physics.
   I.e., the LAWS. In the eastern doctrine, these types of constants are
   called "Fohat." It means like a metric signature, a law of what is.
   Earlier parts of the universe may have had different constants
   (different Fohat). If you think trying to do this is fantasy or
   sci-fi, think again and read up on what some physicists want to do -
   without anyone having any idea what this is or what it might really
   DO. We don't have the technology? You mean, NOT YET?
   
   
   
   The body (of a patient) was making a protein that was causing illness
   - and so the geneticists knocked out the genes that make this protein.
   So it should no longer be made? Wrong -- the body found a way to make
   it anyway, knocking out specific genes didn't help. Another goodie is
   one I saw in Free Inquiry zine: that "a thing that has a shape has a
   size" and they all would agree. Wrong.
   
   
   
   Space has a shape; it does not have a size. Got'em. They got into this
   subject whilst railing against post modernism, cultural relativism,
   and other such things where people carry the sciences into the realms
   of absurdity, which I DO NOT except to JOKE.
   
   
   
   But WHY does it upset some people to KNOW that the senses often
   deceive and show, as Lenin? or Kant would say, you can only "know"
   what the consciousness can make from input of those deceiving senses?
   Because it puts a sober man on the level of a madman? Why does it
   BOTHER some people? During their time that was all anyone COULD know,
   yet there were many thinkers (or feelers?) out there that insisted it
   was not the case; that there WAS a MORE REAL reality out there that
   was NOT KNOWN thru the senses of man. So then, how did these thinkers
   KNOW this? We say, from "knowing it" another way, thru their own
   atomic flesh, inner knowledge not exactly FROM the 5 senses, thru
   their own atomic flesh in which these "other laws" are embodied but
   not so much "in the forefront" of what people tend to actively THINK
   about. (Oh, by "we" I surely do not mean "we Reds." No, I refer to the
   shamanist or Tantrik Turanians that inhabit the Soviet lands.) In
   reading one of Lysenko's early texts, I found nothing odd about his
   physical description of the heredity coil, like a spring, that splits
   in half when reproduction occurs with half of the coil merging with,
   assimilating with, half of the mate's coil. Ooops, he wrote that
   before the DNA helix was discovered, OOOPS. How did he know this? Now,
   that's a problem: answering how he knew some of the stuff he knew. He
   knew that microbes were a major part of plant growth, not so much sun
   or water. He was mocked for that -- however, he was right. HOW DID HE
   KNOW THAT? Another problem: HOW did he know? He went on and on about
   how a small patch of soil was not identical to another small patch,
   even if the plants on them were clones of each other - ergo the
   development would be different, there would be differences, they'd not
   be identical. He was RIGHT. I might venture to say that he knew this
   because he put his HANDS into the soil. He had contact with it; he may
   have even EATEN some of it. If you doubt anyone can know things this
   way, read Jeremy Narby "Cosmic Serpent" and find out what primitive
   Amazonian Indians know in terms of microbiology that the west is
   LEARNING NEW RECIPES from. This is a science book. No one doubts these
   primitives KNOW this stuff: but it's HOW they claim to know it which
   is a major problem for the West to accept. Well, are they lying? Do
   they have secret advanced labs underground and are they only POSING as
   primitives? Takes your choice. They KNOW it -- that's not even in
   dispute. Lysenko is, in the opinion of Comrade PM, the closest thing
   in the modern world to a person who is half shaman who knew things the
   way a shaman knows them (but never tells anyone) and who also is a
   bonafide scientist with real knowledge and who was able to synthesize
   the two and GET RESULTS. A lot of the theory he made was helped along
   by Isaac Prezent who was very literate in Marxian dialectics, a
   Marxist scholar.
   
   
   
   Nature DOES work Diamatically - but there is one "other" thing aside
   from the unity of opposites and that is that dark, hidden "other"
   force, ENTROPY, which PUSHES or PULLS (both?) motivates and permeates
   ALL of the "objects that make up those opposites, all energy/matter."
   THIS is the "thing" that some past thinkers (pre-physics) used to call
   vital force or vitality, who used to see this as a kind of SEEKING or
   URGE, i.e., the URGE TO.... or as Lysenko called it, SEEKING (an act
   of VOLITION) CONDITIONS FOR life (habitat tracking as Eldredge calls
   that). Energy and matter are NOT opposites.
   
   
   
   Here is more of the same boloney: were there any colors before life
   existed on earth? Well, before animal or plant life, there were the
   CAUSES that would make life-forms see colors! Was there any TIME
   before life existed? Well, no one was around to punch the clock,
   right? Sure time existed because you need TIME to cause things TO
   arise and evolve, it needs to have SPACE in which to exist, too.....
   That's like saying that there are no sums of super large numbers
   because no man has ever done the addition! HA! Idealistic shit.
   
   
   
   "Everything is mental" shit. Idealists, dualists, and absolutists go
   together, it's either mind or matter or whatever SHIT they say. They
   never figure that there are LAYERS of reality, some
   subjective/survival and others are in between to various degrees and
   others are not. I.e., it doesn't matter at all to moving, travel to
   job, sleeping, eating, etc. it doesn't matter that SPACE IS CURVED. We
   don't think about it as we walk thru a room.
   
   
   
   Dualism: alexithymia, severing of the PERSON'S ability to merge
   thinking and feeling/sensing centers of the brain. Akathartic
   condition.
   
   Idealism: escape into mental non-reality, fantasy world. Wannabe.
   Ophionic condition.
   
   
   
   Absolutism: spills over to Dualism/akatharsis or Idealism/ophionic. It
   all depends on how FUCKED UP the person is. They, due to neurological
   development, have a cut-off one-way circuit whereby they try to use
   the conscious brain to CONTROL the body/feelings/etc. Normal beings
   have a two- way circuit, as neurology explains, somatic
   markers-instinct, INSTRUCT the reason. The west is so unlike that,
   that they extol the fucked up type as being more "virtuous." They are
   unable to understand normal people!