Posted by Hate Company on February 20, 2000 at 05:47:16 PM EST:
Vous dites que la communication est la cause première, comme les déistes disent que la cause première est Dieu, et vous n'expliquez pas davantage. Comme eux, vous récitez une croyance fondamentale.
What is there to explain? If at first there were apes and then there were humans, and then there was spirit, there should be a cause for it. It is my belief, a fundamental one, that this cause was communication. You want proof?
Well, the fact that it is the principal cause of humanity at the present is enough proof. If it is the principal cause now, it is because it was also the principal cause then, i.e the primary cause.
Vous dites que Dieu et le big bang n'existaient pas avant l'humanité. Nous sommes de cet avis, mais tel que vous le dites ce n'est qu'une affirmation gratuite, qu'il est facile de renvoyer dos à dos à ceux qui pensent que rien n'existe avant Dieu et à ceux qui pensent que rien n'existe avant le big bang. Chez vous comme Dieu, et à sa place, la communication est déjà là, grande dispute théologique, incréée ou créée, substance patati, infini qualitatif, tout est dans tout et vous appelez ça la communication. Vive la tranquillité.
Who said that communication was already there? And in all its glory, too! On the contrary, I've writen that communication should undertake a dialectical process through history, in order to realize itself. What was there at the beggining was just a glimpse of communication, the mere being and not the consept of communication.
Mais voilà que la communication viendrait de la sélection naturelle. Donc il existe quelque chose à quoi la communication est soumise. Nous aurions plutôt pensé en vous lisant que la sélection naturelle aussi dépend de la communication;
I have already answered that one to the "hated reader" imbecile. I quote:
"Do you believe that [beause comunication resulted from natural selection] evolution would be this primary cause then? But before this communication capability developed, there was no humanity. Just apes. Evolution was around for millions of years without humanity. Hence, it is the communication that made humanity possible and not evolution".
Of course, natural selection could help build communication. But no humanity. In other words communication is the human cause. I don't take philosophy too literary to say that nothing existed before humanity with the strict positivistic sense of the term "existance". A lot of things existed, but they had no meaning, no reality. Only communication made their meaning, that is to say their reality, possible. The cause of communication could well be another thing, one of this unfounded, meaningless things at the time. But the cause of humanity, the primary cause, could not be other than communication.
Vous expliquez la fin du monde par la fin de la communication, donc la fin du monde et la fin de la communication existent, même pour vous. Vous seriez bien du genre à expliquer l'infini du monde par l'infini de la communication et vice versa. Peu importe que la fin du monde et l'infini du monde se contredisent. Easy one, huh č
Yes, fairly easy. I pressume from all these, that for you, infinite means "without end in time". You are mistaken though; there's another word for that: eternal. I have already defined infinite as something having no limit in itself. Of course, all (or almost all) things have an end in time. Humanity too, along with the universe. That's mortality. Infinity is another thing. You confuse between the two, or pretend to confuse between the two, in order to make my statements look foolish. That's your methodology, along with the deploration of some of the worst kinds of common logic and the use of philosophical terms with their vulgar positivistic meanings. One can understand well why Voyer seized his correspondance with this Abreba guy.
To return to the point, Pi, the mathematical term, is an infinite succession of decimal numbers (3,141....). Being a math term, a thought, it will have an end too, when humanity (or mathematicians, whether comes first) does. However it's mortality doen't prevent infinity. You too, sir, will die eventually: but your stupidity is nethertheless infinite.
Vous retournez le fait que la communication dépend de l'humanité en son inverse, mais vous ne réfutez pas le fait que la communication dépend de l'humanité. D'ailleurs quand vous dites the universe vanishes when humanity does, soit l'humanité est donc bien la cause première, soit vous vous êtes trompé une fois de plus et vous auriez dû dire pour un dernier semblant de cohérence que l'univers disparaît quand la communication (et non l'humanité) disparaît. Il faut en tout cas conclure que communication et humanité sont la même chose. Si non, vous aurez bien l'obligeance de signaler au monde émerveillé en quoi communication et humanité se différencient.
Even the greatest of cretins would have concluded from what I wrote about communication that I believe that communication and humanity are the same thing. The phrase "communication is the principle cause of humanity" means exactly that. Now, either you haven't understood that, in which case you are idiots, or you pretend not too have understood that, in which case you are falsifiers and encules. It's as simple as that.
La pensée des totems serait en fait la pensée des Indiens. Mais vous nous avez expliqué que la pensée des marchandises est la pensée des “ riches ” qui la possèdent. Où est la différence č
I will spell it out for you: the thought of the totems is the very thought of the indians, while the thought of the goods is the thought which escapes the slaves. It is an alienated thought, and more so than the thought of the totems, which in some degree remains a conscious social consruct.
Contrôler n'est pas posséder, d'autres exemples : le gouvernement des Etats-Unis contrôle l'Amérique centrale, mais ne la possède pas ; qui la possède ? Saddam Hussein contrôle l'Irak, mais ne le possède pas ; qui le possède ? Bill Gates contrôle Microsoft, mais ne le possède pas, ce sont ses actionnaires, et encore seulement sur un plan strictement juridique ; je contrôle cet échange mais je ne le possède pas, parce que personne ne possède cet échange, il n'y a pas de propriété privée, il n'y a pas de possession en la matière.
So, for you, to have, to posses is necessary to have some sort of legal papers, some sort of contract. In this silly sense, yes, the United States do not possess Central America and Hussein does not possess Iraq. However, silly litlle O.T, to have is to control. Beyond that, the term "have" has no meaning. The jews had plenty of legal papers for their private properties in World War II Germany. But, however, they did not had them.
Les “ esclaves ” ne pensent pas. Et ce qui différencie un humain d'une chose, c'est que l'humain pense, mais pas la chose. Après nous avoir répété en long et en large que les choses pensent ! Vous vous moquez du monde č
All put together, this hypothetical "contradiction" simply implies that, in this reversed world, goods think, and thus are human, whereas human slaves lack thought, and thus are things. It also implies that O.T still cannot tell the difference between a tautology, a paradox and a contradiction.
Vous avez de l'esprit l'acception qu'on en avait dans les cours du XVIIIe siècle. Pour savoir ce qu'est l'esprit découvrez cet intéressant ouvrage de référence : 'la Phénoménologie de l'esprit'. Il n'a pas encore été critiqué. Vous y découvrirez peut-être que la pensée des marchandises est de l'esprit.
Once more, something I already pointed out, saying: "the thought of the goods is the absense of human spirit". Not absense of spirit altogether, just absense of human spirit.
Vous y découvrirez peut-être qu'il n'y a pas de pensée sans aliénation et même que la pensée de la désaliénation est au mieux une aliénation d'une pensée.
AND
Ensuite, la célèbre désaliénation. Soyons clairs et précis. L'aliénation est un mouvement de la pensée qui fait que cette pensée devient autre, étrangère à elle-même, et même que son essence se transforme. Que serait la désaliénation : un retour à la pensée initiale č
Once more, you confuse alienation and objectification. The two are not identical. If they were, alienation would be the condition humana, and hence inevitable. However, alienation is only a special form of the objectification of thought. The process in which the thought becomes different than thought, foreign to itself is objectificaion, not alienation. It is the practice of the spirit.
To conclude:
I'm not a theorist, and I don't even claim to be one. I have just posted some thoughts of mine in this board. However, in no time, I became (in your vivid imagination) a Voyerist, a rival theorist and who knows what next. It is quite clear that given your weak little theoritic contributions you are in desperate need of enemies in order to feel important. You never dare to account for what you are (which is nothing), you only justify yourself by what oppposes you. Suprise, suprise: the fact that 10 imbeciles (me included) opposed you in this anarcho-board doesn't proove anything.