Horse wrote:
>
> Bob, have you ever bothered to read Zen or Lila all the way through or
> have you just skimmed the odd couple of pages here and there.
Bob replies:
Something I noticed years ago in debating people someone always says,
"Did you even read the book? If you did you sure didn't understand it!"
I was waiting for such a comment...I award you the prize.
> Add to this your overt bigotry and wonderful ability to mis-read
> virtually every item you quote and the end result comes across as
> incredible ignorance and prejudice.
Bob replies,
On the contrary, I believe in following the truth no matter where it
leads to...even if that truth is unpleasant (such as the fact that
people are not 'naturally good.' My incredible ignorance and prejudice?
I assume you mean against blacks...I've had jobs where most the people
were black. You'll never find one who ever said I showed the slightest
prejudice. I live in a mixed neighborhood...you'll never find one who'll
say I've showed the slightest prejudice. Tsk, tsk, you're showing the
Romantic understanding, not the Classic.
> Laugh?? - I nearly did.
Bob replies:
Laugh, it's good for you.
> They are a sore point because they are so thoroughly discredited no-
> one of any intelligence or integrity uses them for anything other than
> what they are - a means to espouse a particular thought system for a
> particular group. As a general intelligence indicator of homo sapiens
> they are worthless.
Bob replies:
They are worthless only to close-minded cultists. Everyone has a 'model'
inside their head of how the world works. The closer that model is to
'reality' the better is works. The farther from 'reality' the worse it
works. I keep trying to improve mine. Some people are convinced their
model needs no changing...when facts come along they bounce right off.
The term for this is 'self-deception.'
>Does anyone in this group besides me understand> economics?
>
> You see more value in addressing the personal habits of those you
> dislike rather than addressing the arguments they propose.
> Your failure to understand the difference between Biology and
> Intellect is stunning. Your placing of Socialism in the Biological >Level appears to stem from your dislike of Marx - whose personal habits
> you seem to feel are of more importance than his ideas - and you fail
> to understand the difference between Socialism and Marxist
> Socialism - two distinct theories. Note the word theory - this is
> Intellect not Biology. You ask if anyone else on the list understands
> economics and fail to see the irony in your question. Marx was an
> economist and historian (and in part a philosopher - hence the links
> with Hegel in his theories) and Marxism (Marxist Socialism) is an
> ECONOMIC theory. Have you ever bothered to read a single word of
> Marx or do you let others do your reading and thinking for you.
> Your own thinking seems to be more in line with National Socialism.
> You continue to espouse the idea of a free market (a myth) and the
> wonders of Capitalism in the same way that a small child parrots the
> beliefs of its parents.
Bob replies:
I am not addressing personal habits...I was asking if anyone understood
economics besides me.
I understand the difference between Intellect and Biology quite well.
What I'm pointing out is that anyone who thinks they are so
intellectually and morally superior that they have the right to use
biological State power to impose their values on others is making a
great mistake. What they are doing is treating others as 'objects.' And
I repeat, these are the kind of people that Thomas Sowell sneers at as
'the annointed' who are deluded with what Hayek called 'the fatal
conceit.'
When one deals with law, one better make damn sure they have a Classic
as well as Romantic understanding of it. They better make sure they they
have logically imagined all possible consequences that they can, good
and bad. They better make sure they look to history to see what such
laws have done in the past. The reason why is because laws can affect
millions of people, oftentimes in unexpected ways. This is called 'the
law of unintended consequences.' Good intentions don't matter...the road
to hell is paved with good intentions.
Marx was not an economist and historism. His understanding of economics
was virtually non-existent. He ignored facts all the time and made
things up.
One cannot attack people's character for what they have produced in the
'hard sciences.' One can attack character for what they create in
the'soft sciences.' Because their character influences their beliefs.
Marx was a vile human being who produced a vile philosophy. This is what
is meant by the ancient sayings, 'Wolves in sheep's clothing,' 'false
prophets,' and 'By their fruits you shall now them."
Marxism, Socialism, whatever, are indeed intellectual theories but can
take effect only through biologicial force--the State.
To ignore the fact that socialism has in various forms (Nazism, Fascism,
Communism, Marxism,) has killed 200 million people in the last 100 years
is indeed the lowest Quality.
I repeat: one of the most amusing defintions of insanity I've ever
heard is 'to do the same thing over and over and expect a different
result.' By this defintion all socialists are insane. The humor writer
P.J. O'Rourke (himself a former socialist) made the comment that
"Socialists worship Satan." This is because socialists worship the
biological power of the State.
> Really Bob, is that right? So the Christian ethic was based on what?
> Screw thy neighbour? or do unto others before they do it to you? or
> lets all make lots of money and take it to heaven when we die?
> Perhaps in defence of another glaring mistake you would like to tell
> us all about the terrible personal habits of Jesus (of which I'm sure >he had many - I suppose you didn't get around to reading the
> Apocryphal New Testament either). What was his IQ? Of course he
> espoused the merits of the free market in the temple didn't he? And
> he probably sold the loaves and fishes to make a bit of spare cash.
Bob replies:
The Christian ethic based on the Golden Rule. I have read the Apocryphal
New Testament. What you forget is that Jesus was murdered by the
State--in this case the invading and conquering Romans. The same applies
to Socrates--he was murdered by the State for asserting intellectual
freedom. And socialists worship the State as a god.
>Why not try reading Lila again Bob. This time with an open mind and
>without the idea of justifying your strange and warped notions.
>
Bob replies:
You have made my day. Thank you.
Bob
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:59 BST