Practice of Marx's Theory?

I agree, in theory, with Marx’s Historical Economic Thesis. I see the benefit of effecting change in an organic, evolutionary flow. Only organic, evolutionary processes could produce true, complete, and lasting change. I agree with that theory.

As DJ said in class, organic, evolutionary, human processes take hundreds of years. Humankind requires multiple generations for those within the superstructure to effect the necessary change within the base.

I worry that neither the planet, nor any of its species, will survive intact long enough for that evolutionary change to occur. We’ve lost so many species already; many more are on the brink. Pollution, climate change, and economic globalization, the base’s newest version of colonialism, have already destroyed complete ecosystems, and cultures. The greedy, global base should be prevented from destroying any more environments, any more species, or more people. How can that be done without harming any life?

I do not see how Marx’s theory can be put into practice in time. The base is destroying the superstructure. The base’s existence is ultimately linked to the existence of the superstructure. Is the base’s destruction of the superstructure, and its consequent self-destruction, Marx’s vision of organic, evolutionary restructuring?

While I’m a true fan of the metaphysical worldview, I deeply love some aspects of the natural physical world. I am also fond of certain convenient, or enjoyable, manufactured objects. If the base keeps moving at its current pace, the physical realm will disappear. Only the metaphysical realm will remain.

If this is the practice of Marx’s theory, I think it requires an addendum.

"Why Work? Marxism and Human Nature "

Most of the time, what we say and do is a reflection of the way we produce. Society judges people by their productivity; people perceived as not productively contributing to society, have less value than producers do. Unfortunately, productively contributing to society is a subjective concept, standardized by the powerful elite of the society.

I agree that most individuals often regard society’s perception of them, as a true reflection of who they are, and what their value is. I think this is true all of the time for most people, and at least some of the time for everyone.

Caregivers of humankind’s offspring – homemakers, and educators, responsible for producing the next generation of producers, by proxy, are undervalued. Their manufactory relationship to incomplete, and therefore, substandard producers, i.e., children, and college students, renders their final products as insufficient. Relatively few professors become exceptions, usually because of influential works they publish, rather than the number of successful producers they manufacture. Then, society judges them as producers of particular works, not the next generation of producers. Their works may influence an aspect of the manufacturing process (education). Society now views the published work as their product. Society no longer evaluates them on their former product, students. Disassociated from society’s undervalued product, their position in the superstructure is raised.
This defies logic, even from the p.o.v. of the base. Children are a composite production of multiple factors of both nature, and nurture. From Marx’s p.o.v., it defies both logic and reason.

Those providing for people too old, or too incapacitated, to produce for Marx’s base, are, also by proxy, undervalued by society. I view caregivers, educators, children, and the disenfranchised, as victims of Marx’s base. This is my personal view of capitalistic societies, especially the U.S..

All those we would consider moral patients, are considered by Marx’s base as unvalued, disposable products.

I think this is the foundational concept supporting, legitimizing, and maintaining the dominance of the base over the superstructure and everything in the material.

Education - Ollman/Marx Style

After reading Bertell Ollman’s “Excerpts from How to Take an Exam . . . and Remake the World,” and today’s class discussion, I feel it is time I “person-up” and raise a topic that has troubled me since I reentered the academic community.

How should students address professors?

With some professors, it is easy enough. They tell you to address them as Professor, Professor So and So, Dr., or Dr. So and So. Others give you those options, and the option of using their first name.

Here’s my personal discomfort zone. Some professors tell you to call them by their first name. Some sign their email to you with their first name. Some give you no name calling instructions whatsoever.

Now come the Marx/Ollman manifestos on alienation of students in academia.
I am student, in search of enlightenment, or at a minimun, opportunities for growth until enlightenment comes. I find myself in the midst of a philosophy course and a logic course. I want to perform the proper, Fight Student Alienation tact - just for me, of course, and the betterment of society, never because it is what the establishment expects, demands, or grades me on.

Here is where I’m seeking help from my community of mates, and should they be inclined, I’m willing to look at whatever helpful bones the academic establishment throws my way.
A long time ago, in the far away land of Massachusetts, I was raised in a male dominated, gender-segregating culture. I come from a generation taught to respect authority and our elders. It is very challenging for me to achieve a first name, comfort level with most professors, especially those professors who are not women.

My conundrum: Respect Authority and Respect Elders.
It so happens that I am older than all my professors this semester, alas, this is the norm in my current college career, to be older than that alienating, academic establishment.
I’ve been trained to respect authority. I’ve also been trained that everyone should respect his or her elders, that is me now, I am an elder.

Elder seeks help. Willing to listen. Send me your post. I promise to respond.

Curious Cats - Free to Revel in Being Inexhaustively Inquisitive

Kate Berardo writes, “Curiosity creates an interest in learning and helps break down barriers between cultures and their differences.”

I think curiosity breaks down differences between individuals, as well as cultures. The class taught me about life without curiosity. Curiosity broke down the barriers of my limited paradigm, facilitated my understanding of the differences between individuals.

I disagree with Van Gogh, I personally find Nature to be more interesting than people. Maybe the class will restructure my paradigm once again? I can’t imagine how when it comes to this one.

My favorite quotes from this article:

"Curiosity, in this sense, is an essential stepping stone toward building awareness, appreciation, and understanding of other cultures. Through curiosity, people can gain new perspectives, unparalleled learning and growth, and a chance for interesting conversation and reflection at every interaction." - Kate Berardo

“We have a hunger of the mind which asks for knowledge of all around us, and the more we gain, the more is our desire; the more we see, the more we are capable of seeing.”- Maria Mitchell

“The possession of knowledge does not kill the sense of wonder and mystery. There is always more mystery." - Anais Nin

Constructing Realities

I think individuals, like societies, construct their own realities. Society’s construct is the foundation from which the individual creates a unique worldview. The paradigm we build for ourselves then becomes the looking glass with which we view everything we perceive as “other” than, or separate from, ourselves. Our worldview, shaped by nurture (social relationships), and nature (genetic inheritance) is the tool we use to evaluate all individuals, groups, concepts, and the concrete; as well as ourselves. It can be our prison or our release.

I believe humankind’s greatest undeveloped and active potential lives within the possible communication between unique paradigms existing in a symphony of interdependent relatedness. This exchange of information flows via physical and nonphysical senses, verbally and intuitively, at least between human animals. Personally, I believe communication is possible between all sentient beings. I recognize this is not a widely shared construct for “modern” societies. My paradigm has some flexibility. Presentations of other worldviews could be opportunities for learning, growth, restructuring a limited construct, or reevaluating my present paradigm.

My mind meandered to these thoughts after classmates and DKJ very effectively communicated their constructs on the nature of curiosity. Because I found being curious as natural and essential as breathing, I was completely unable to understand how it could be that some people are not particularly curious, or might even dislike being curious. It was impossible for me to frame incuriousness in a manner that would allow me to relate to that concept, and then reframe it so I could integrate it into my paradigm. I could not understand how a life without curiousness would be worth living. I found it literally unimaginable, my life devoid of curiosity created a visual picture of my mind permanently imprisoned.

Sharing life experiences, classmates supplied concrete examples of incurious, but happy, passionate, people, who were capable of co-creative expression. Born from this free exchange of wisdom-based worldviews, I was able to reframe my beliefs, alter my worldview, and reconstruct reality.

Having said that, I still do not understand why DKJ said curiosity is dangerous. The claim that “curiosity killed the cat,” is completed by, “but satisfaction brought him back.”

Within each construct, potential limitlessness and imprisonment coexist in various states of latency.

Imprisoned Bodies, Imprisoned Minds

Nature versus Nurture
I found the level of the class’ energetic discussions of Nature versus Nurture, similar to the level of passionate participation elicited in our debates on Free Will versus Determinism. I find the relatedness between these schools of thought intriguing.

I believe there is no single primary determinant of human nature. Human nature is the result of multiple factors that manifest in individuals in differing ratios of predominance. Of the determinants in the reading, I consider genetics and social determinism to be the principal influences on human nature. Blending facets of nature and nurture provide the foundation for unique variations in individuals.

Nature, as expressed through our genetic patterns, uniquely configures both the potential limits, and strengths of a physical body. Manifestations of external factors affecting the range of potency include gender, height, body type, hair, skin, and eye pigmentation and muscle tone. In my opinion, the brain, the systems facilitating the five physical senses, and the endocrine system, are equally potent as determinate factors. Imbalances within these systems can limit or expand an individual’s capacity for psychological, biological, and mental activity. They affect memory, learning, communication, emotional regulation, receptivity of societal norms, development of “desirable” personality traits, and the competency necessary to relate societal constructs.

Genetics imprison the physical body, and then facilitate degrees of its freedom. Genetics might restrict the mind and the personality, or cast them off untethered, lacking the capacity to engage and relate.

Family Traits – Nature versus Nurture

Stimulated by class discussions of Nature versus Nurture, I entertained myself on the drive home by attempting to ascertain the root cause of curiousness. Was it predominantly genetic, or societal in nature? Class input regarding the trait, informed me that my pre-class beliefs regarding the nature of curiosity were insufficient, and inaccurate for application to the class of humankind. My recently revealed, glaring ignorance regarding the absolute and profound necessity of this trait for one's very existence, demanded that my exploration of this topic be restricted to only my curiosity matrix.

GENETICS

ADHD - requires unusually high levels of stimulation to create and maintain focus.
Both parents also ADHD.
Two siblings ADD, only
One other sibling - also ADHD and dyslexic.

Dyslexia – necessitates constant review of data received and transmitted, especially in
social learning environments.

Lack of input causes malaise clinically known as Extreme Boredom.
Malaise causes physical and mental discomfort, with resultant manifestation of fidgety-ness.


SOCIAL DETERMINANTS

Both parents ADHD.
Two siblings ADD,
One other sibling also ADHD and dyslexic.
Both parents, and two siblings - highly inquisitive people.

Grew up in rural environment.
Exposure to others limited to school, church, family activities - first 13 years of life.

Both parents avid readers.
New books - educational and pleasure always entering home.
Limited TV, and phone time.
Reading, participation in family games, playing musical instrument - family requirements.

Father required high levels of stimulation. Started debates at supper table every evening, at conclusion of debate, he reversed his position for purpose of maintaining high level of stimulation.

Mom was always busy, sewing, reading, knitting, crocheting, embroidering, or doing needlepoint while “resting” and watching TV.

84-year-old mother still loves learning new vocabulary, and exposure to new learning experiences.

It appears to me that there is a high family overlap in genetic determinants and social determinants; many of the listings in the “social determinants” category could be how genetic determinants manifested within the family structure. After reviewing the family history, personality traits, and life choices, I concluded that nature and nurture are the root cause of my curiosity level. However, I continue to wonder if the “nurture” factor is truly based in societal influences, or the resultant creation of my famiy’s genetics.

Stuck on Torture and Terrorism

Impassioned by latest Daily Phlog posting - I am postponing my "Nature versus Nurture" postings to reflect my concerns created by current events.

I am troubled by more than a few aspects reported in Scott Shane’s November 1, 2007, New York Times article “Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases”

1. Who are the “legal experts” explaining the Central Intelligence Agency officers’ use of the waterboarding torture practice as “harsh interrogation practice?”

2. Since it is accepted and declared by government officials, that in 2002 and 2003, C.I.A. officers used waterboarding in “questioning” “at least three” high-level terrorism suspects:

a.) Why is it that in 2007, the torture victims are still referred to as “suspects?”

If torture in general, and waterboarding specifically, are effective intelligence gathering tools, why aren’t these torture victims currently acknowledged as “terrorists?” Or al-Queda? Or bombers? Or murderers?

How can they possibly still be described as “suspects?” Should not the waterboard torture of “at least three” human beings have yielded the C.I.A. officers with a less, nonspecific category, in which to place them, than “suspects?”

Even should you choose to set aside morality - innate or socially driven, ethics, and humanity - how could such an inefficacious technique become socially and nationally acceptable?

3. How do we quantify “at least three” human beings? Thirty? Three hundred? Three thousand? Thirty thousand? Three hundred thousand? Logically, don’t all these quantitative values qualify as possible equivalents of “at least three?”

4. Is there a global or national definition of “high-level” terrorism? What is it? What is the standard by which we measure low-level, mid-level, and high-level terrorism?

I surfed the web looking for a lucid definition of this term. I could not find one. I did find that Norm Chomsky used a definition of terrorism from a U.S. Army manual describing it as, "the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to inculcate fear; intended to coerce, or to intimidate governments, or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Chomsky used this definition to support his argument that the major sources of inter-national terrorism are the world's major powers – championed and led by the United States.

If we apply the U.S. Army manual definition of terrorism to life today in the United States, couldn't what the Bush-led government has done, and is still doing, qualify as terrorizing American society?

In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism, that, “On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. A word with intrinsically negative connotations it is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' quoting Brian Jenkins, "thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; ...if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.’ ...the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned.”

How can this country contemplate the nomination of any Attorney General prospect, who refuses to declare waterboarding illegal or prosecute any and all involved in these illegal actions, regardless of their rank, title, office or wealth?

How can the citizenry of this society express anything but outrage and revulsion at the perpetration of torture by government decree; compounded by the sanctioning and championing of these crimes by those sworn to represent us, and our constitution – Presidents, Attorney Generals, Senators, and Representatives all?

What I find most disturbing about the current debate concerning the issues of defining, legitimizing, criminalizing, sanctioning, or prosecuting acts of torture, is how can we, the society of citizens opposed to torture, affect change within our government, so that it reflects the true moral conscience of humanity.