You just go on and on and on and on and on............shine on ! If I was to just keep posting here will you just keep answering ?

Gil:

However long it takes to destroy this Hermetic virus -- no problem.

Let's see if you have any stamina in you; I have been at this for 25 or more years. You want to try to match that?

Another 25? No worries...

You can, I think, answer that for yourself.

Do something else, right or wrong its not worth it. Remember AJ Ayers final words.

Gil:

Yes: I should have screwed Hegel some more...

And, I'll be the judge of whether it's worth ridding Marxism of ruling-class mysticism.

You obviously don't care.

Not counting, of course, the times when these concepts weren't separate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

You can't really talk about something without knowing something about it (even if you just make it up).

V:

Sure, but standard histories place religion, theology and mysticsim further back.

Unless, of course, you have evidence that refutes the standard tale...

But, even so, I am happy to lump all three together, and consign them to Hume's bonfire.

Association fallacy: ah an informal fallacy.

I still fail to see the relevance.

But, how does that turn it into knowledge, as opposed to make-believe?

I may know something about Tolkein's work; but does that make Tolkein's work itself knowledge?

So, once more:

How do you actually know this -- to be true?

One more question: is there any "totality" relationship between the circles of Lenin's day (hence his call for more party unity through centralized organization) and the sects of today?

My point is that there was no distinction between these things and philosophy originally.

Good idea, but you still can learn from the past, so it's better not to leave it behind entirely.

I also fail to see the relevance (because I don't remember what that referred to ).

It's not knowledge of the world, what has happened or is happening, but it's still legitimate knowledge.

V:

I think the opposite.

I blame diabolical logic.

No, it's just turned into its opposite.

Rosa, I don't know why you and the anarchist keep debating. Since he's an anarchist and not a Marxist, he should feel free to express his outdated, "double-duth" dialectical views without recrimination.

However, since he has brought up this old thread, I think it's time to address the concept of dynamic or dyna-mat "totality" (only due to the lack of a better word )...

I brought up above a possible "totality" (in this case, "totality" expressed as "historical") relationship between the circles of Lenin's day and modern equivalents ("sects"), and in my thread on dyna-mat brought up another "totality" relationship pertaining to class struggle.

I unequivocally agree. Sectarianism is best left to cults and religions.

V:

Too bad it afflicts dialectical Marxism, too -- and dialectics makes things worse.

JR:

He needs slapping down, and I am just the girl to do it.

What were you just saying about sectarianism?

Double-duth?

V:

We make exceptions for comrades like you.

My "double-duth" (link) remark has to do with the confusing language of dia-mat, and has nothing to do with my dyna-mat "totality" question.