<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>since i'm being dragged into this message backwards by the grammatical third person, i think i'll respond a bit, if no one minds:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><BR>Todd Archer wrote:<BR>> <BR>> Joe said:> <BR>> <BR>> What characterises a "secular religion", anyway, aside from having an "-ism"<BR>> in its name?<BR>> <BR><BR>Someplace Engels jokes about the acquaintances who, told that  one is an<BR>atheist, exclaim "Oh, then atheism is your religion."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>takes one to know one, i'd say.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>starting out a speech with a little humor is a well accepted rhetorical device, carrol.  helps everyone relax.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT><BR><BR>But notice, this whole discussion has not touched on either marxism or<BR>religion. Rather, it has consisted of a series of free-floating<BR>assertions about _people_. The argument is not that marxism is a<BR>religion. To make that claim would require an analysis of actual marxist<BR>positions. Rather Joe & others are claiming to be mindreaders -- they<BR>know better than I do what is going on in my head when I affirm a<BR>position about the world.<BR><BR>Todd is probably correct about my first response to R -- I made the<BR>mistake of responding in the mode he introduced: that is, the mode of<BR>talking about the people who hold a give conviction rather than the<BR>conviction itself.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>we all make mistakes, carrol.   it takes a big man to admit todd is "probably" correct.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><BR>Justin argues that the theory of surplus value is not a necessary (or<BR>even desirable) basis for explaining exploitation. He _doesn't_ (at<BR>least ordinarily -- we all slip) say that anyone who believes that<BR>theory is a robot, etc. So I can argue with Justin. It's called being<BR>principled. One can argue about principles but there is nothing to say<BR>in response to someone who engages in reading my mind to describe my<BR>secret or unconscious or whatever motivation in holding that conviction.<BR><BR>Rhetoricians have described R's mode of argument as "polluting the<BR>waters of discourse." </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>i'm flattered that those rhetoricians know i exist.    probably did a little polluting themselves in their time. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is, he has attempted to establish a context<BR>in which anything I or Yoshie or other "marxist" says is irrelevant and<BR>merely proves his position. He does not make statements about marxism.<BR>And he pulled both me and to some extent Yoshie into that shithole with<BR>him </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>i think you fell into that hole yourself.   a matter of momentum, and of not looking where you're going.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>have you gotten out or are you still in there?    is this note a plea for someone to throw you a rope?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-- of unprincipled statements about people rather than principled<BR>statements about theoretical or practical positions.<BR><BR>Carrol</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>carrol please stop casting yourself as being so picked on and misunderstood.    the roll of victim doesn't become you.    i'm not trying to read your mind.   i've enough just dealing with my own mind.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>I admire anyone, you and yoshie if the shoe fits, who can hold onto "marxist" beliefs for so many years in a society which is so totally hostile to that kind of belief system. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>  </FONT><FONT color=#000080></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>frankly, carrol, i'm generally more interested in the people who hold the ideas than in the ideas themselves.   after several years of reading and discourse, anyone can pontificate.  a rhetorician. or a psychotherapist, might refer to this as keeping people at a distance -- or an "intellectual defense."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>i always wonder about people who'd rather keep all discourse on a wholely abstract and intellectual level, ignoring or putting down the human element that shapes thought and human affairs, while referring to other's opinions as a "shithole."    don't you?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>R</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>