Re: Love Hurts

[ermadog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Louis Proyect:
> I recommended Richard Levins to you because he and Richard Lewontin are
recognized as the pre-eminent Marxist scientists today, not to discuss
herbs or spices.

Well, that's the only point on which I disagreed with him. If fact, I have
subsequently used his formulation in my own definitions of science. I can
cite my text on this. It's in the archives. If you imagine I disagreed
elsewhere, cite my text.

> You obviously are not interested in the Marxist attitude toward science,
either from Levins-Lewontin or from the Bolshevik government that preceded
it, nor from people like Struik, Bernal et al who emerged in the 1930s.

You have been peddling this strawperson argument for over four months now.
I have repeatedly challenged you to cite any text of mine that would
substantiate your bizarre and ludicrous interpretation of my position.

> In fact you are not really interested in Marxist ideas on science but
prefer peddling your rather reactionary views in the name of socialism.

So, everyone who doesn't hold a Louis Proyect approved position on
pre-class society is a reactionary? This is bizarre, Louis. You are now
doing what you accused Joe Freemen of a few days ago. You are turning your
own sectarian view of this one issue into an absolute acid test for
Marxism.

Spell out exactly what my reactionary ideas are and cite my text or give
up this ludicrous charge. This is stupid, senseless, and a waste of time.

>> 1972. Did you check the dates on any of my citations? Most of the
nuggets of aboriginal wisdom are from people who are still alive and can
be contacted.

> You simply don't get it. There is no such thing as hunting-and-gathering
societies any more in North America. Talking about "aboriginal wisdom" on
native reserves in Canada is to utterly dispense with historical
materialism.

You're the one who doesn't get it, Louis. The point of my above remark is
that my sources are more modern than you seemed to have imagined. You were
complaining that I seemed lost in the 19th C. You brought up the issue of
the date of my sources; I rebutted. That's how it goes in debate.

I have *nowhere* suggested that there are hunting-and-gathering societies
extant in North America. Everyone reading my discussion knows this. What
exactly do you hope to gain by telling such outrageous fabrications in a
public forum where everyone can compare what I have said with what you
claim I've said? Whatever you're smoking, please send me some in the mail.

Btw, Hawaii is not in Canada. I cited aboriginal speakers from a wide
diversity of locations, most of which are not in Canada.

You are right, however, in stating that touting aboriginal wisdom flies in
the face of historical materialism. This is exactly the whole point of my
discussion; if you imagined I had some other point in this discussion, you
have wandered into the wrong thread.

I'm glad you have conceded this point. May I quote you next time Hunter
Grey tries to close discussion by appealing to the "authority" of tribal
spirituality, or when Jim Craven challenges my right to critique Native
American spritiuality?  Refuting these two positions was the whole point
of my opening of this discussion. As far as I am concerned, this part of
the discussion is now at an end.

Let me just recap the concessions I have won so far:

1. Jim Craven acknowledged that Native American spirituality plays the
same role as any other religion: it is a means of conforming the
individual to the needs of society. (This is the exact wording I used, and
to which he agreed.)

2. In his last post on science, Jim implicitly acknowledged half of my
argument on science. He implicitly acknowledged that there exists a
category called "science in general" separate and apart from bourgeois
science. This acknowledgement is implicit in his statements about Marxist
science, which acknowledge a category "Marxist science", in distinction
from other categories he has acknowledged in statements he has made about
bourgeois science and aboriginal science. Thus, he acknowledges three
distinct variations of the general category "science". Therefore, he
acknowledges the existence of a category "pure science", a category which
you have strenuously denied. With your background in philosophy, you
should be able to follow the elementary logic I have employed here.

Furthermore, he holds aboriginal science up as an epigone of ideal
science, which, according to him, surpasses in excellence "the shit that
passes for science today". In so doing, he reveals himself to hold exactly
that same position (science enthusiast) which you have been ascribing to
me in your shop-worn strawperson argumentation against me.

Does that mean Jim Craven is a reactionary?

3. Ever since I began discussing the Marxist position on primitive
communalism Hunter Grey has been carefull to qualify his laudatory
descriptions of tribal life. If he can do this, I think you should be able
to.

4. You have now asserted one of the premises which I have been attempting
to establish throughout this discussion, that touting native spirituality
is a denial of historical materialism. I would generalize that to apply to
all spirituality.

5. And, of course, the first concession Jim made was to refuse to discuss
"On the Reliability of Oral History". I took this as a concession by
default.

So far, I think I'm doing pretty good, for a bonehead.

> It is necessary to go back in history and try to understand these
societies prior to the introduction of private property and class
formation.

Good. I guess this means we can discuss the Nuer and Chipewyan data in my
previous posts. What does Leacock say about the reliability of this data?

> Of course, you are spouting a bunch of Canadian prairie anti-Indian
hatred in the name of socialism. At least your dad has the honesty to
describe himself as an anti-Communist bigot.

Rousseau was a Canadian prairie Indian-hating pseudo-socialist???? WOW! I
never knew that! The things you can learn on the Internet! WOW! NEATO!!!

Actually, I suspect my father picked up his ideas of the Noble Savage from
other sources. He seems to have picked up the Grey Owl/ Pauline Johnson
sensibility from somewhere; and they were an Ontario phenomenon. However,
he may also have been influenced by the Hollywood cinema, specifically,
the Western genre, with its adaptation of Native American stereotypes to
the Wildman archetype from classic Hero mythology. Hollywood, also, is not
in the Canadian prairies.

Anyway, I'm opposed to stereotypes of any sort, and to moralizing in
general; and that seems to make me, in Louis Proyect's eyes, some kind of
anti-communist bigot.

This is the most bizarre argument I've had in a long, long time.

You see, Louis, this is what happens when you raise strawperson
argumentation. I had no idea at all what point you were assaying with the
Sahlins quotation. The bulk of his remarks seemed to be a presentation of
typical misconceptions about tribal life, interspersed with brief
indications of the type of argument he intended to develop. Obviously, the
intent of the citation was to indicate: you shouldn't believe these things
because some major authority does not believe them. Since I didn't believe
these things in the first place, this advice was moot. Your argument,
therefore, constituted nothing but an appeal to authority, raised upon
strawperson argumentation, a logical fallacy.

Btw, Louis, if you want to impress me with your honesty, you may want to
try addressing my actual argument for a change, instead of raising your
constant barrage of strawpersons, ad hominems, and poisoning the well
logical fallacies. It wouldn't kill you to try an honest argument for a
change.

Try it. You'll like it.

Joan Cameron



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.