>From Eva:


>> How do theories get started anyway?  Don't they start out from some one's
>> personal beliefs and questions that he or she is still seeking to prove or
>> disprove?  Aren't the hypotheses often set based upon desires and
>> expectations and the selections of either experiments or situations to
>> observe made based upon the desires and expectations?
>>
>
>I don't think the theory of marxist philosophy is based on
>personal beliefs, Marx looked at historical/economical/natural
>scientifical  data for his "prouncements".
>I have personal opinions that are formed basing my outlook on
>this philosophy. However, if it wasn't logical and fact-based,
>I would discard it, regardless of any emotional attachment to
>it, if any.   Also, I am still waiting to hear a similarily
>factual explanation, based on current trends,
>why the capitalist (market economy) world system is a
>practical way to the future.  It is not
>rewarding or comfortable to be a marxist/be in a minority.
>I am willing to change my mind, if I see any reason for it.
>
>I've been posing this question for ages, and all I get is personal
>abuse and history lesson on stalinism (tisztelet a kivetelnek.)
>Eva Durant

Eva,

        I find your conceit to be rather amusing.  To say that you, or me,
or anyone would automatically discard or change a way of thinking if it
were illogical is really an interesting statement.  We all make judgements
based on what we see, what we learn, what we perceive and to a great extent
how our parents raise us.  For the most part, we cling to those beliefs
like barnacles to a pier.  That is because we value the things we believe
in.   Look around you.  Do you see people who believe in crazy things?
What about Jim Jones and his followers in Guiana?  What about the
Inquisitors or the Middle ages?  What about men who wear leisure suits and
white belts?

        If changing our beliefs to something more logical was so easy,  we
would have all reached Nirvana eons ago.  Instead senseless human pride and
often mindnumbing ignorance keeps us from giving up those things that make
no sense even after it has become clear that adhearing to them is idiotic
and purposeless.

        To say that Marx formed his theory based on only his look "at
historical/ economical/ natural scientifical  data for his 'prouncements'"
is to say that he wasn't human at all.  Remember all of our insight, logic
and research must be run through that most fallible of filters, our human
mind.   Marx's beliefs were, like yours and mine, impacted by his own
biases, prejudices and values, based on a lifetime of experiences.  That
these values and experiences so failed him is all of humanity's tragedy.

Regards,

Doug Hormann

>>
>>         What it instead seems to indicate is a realization on the part of
>> the author, who in reality Celia, speaks only for himself, that the
>> British, instead of using their influence, have consistently blinked when
>> approaching the brink of European entanglement in this century.
>> Chamberlain's "peace in our time" stands as the seminal example.
>>
>
>Hm. I think they (the Brits) got entangled. E.g. they were the first
>to entangle against Hitler, though the motifs were - as usual -
>not as noble as it looks at first glance.
>Eva Durant

Eva, you really need to crack open a book now and then.  The British were
the first to entangle against Hitler?  You might get a bit of an argument
from the French and Poles, not to mention a few others who merely let him
roll on through without a fight.  By the time the British entered the war,
they truly didn't have any choice.   Whether they helped to make it so by
Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler is irrelevent.  Given this, their
motives were entirely noble;  the defense of their sovreign nation.

Regards,


Doug Hormann

Jozsi- stay in focus! Jancsi has good points on PC vs Elitist Terrorism via
linguistic social jargon... likewise,
Jancsika- stay on beam - Jozska is trying to intellectualize his desire for a
better world thru inapropriate demunative ridicule sans rational thought.

me? i don't give a damn & don't wanna bust up your dance/stampede, just
pointing out something called "ad-hononym" disparity of your arguments...

serious Janos :|  <---- not a smiley

At 06:44 AM 2/2/96 -0500, James Doepp wrote:

>Isn't the use of the word "provincial" offensive and un-PC?  If I am not
>mistaken, the French originally used it to describe those from the area
>of Provence, who were commonly thought to be backward.

Well, so much for common wisdom.

Jim, I tried to explain earlier, that one should not worry about being PC
when one is trying to curse, put-down, belittle, etc..  I used the word
'provincial' because I wanted to slight Sam's comment.  Did you notice that
he didn't comment that I was being un-PC.  He merely came back at me and
said that I was being 'provincial'.  And fair enough.  I'm sure that neither
Sam, nor I, would make gratuitous comments about people who live in
'Provence'.  On the other hand, when a man calls a women a 'girl', despite
the fact that many women have indicated that that is unexceptable, then that
becomes politically incorrect.  We should always try and call people by
non-offensive words.  Now I know that there is no general agreement on what
is the proper, non-offensive, way to refer to women.  All I know is that
very few women will be upset by that word, but a growing number resent being
called 'girl'.  Of course, if you have a women friend who wnats to be called
'girl', or is not upset by being called 'girl', then there's no problem with
PC.  Just don't assume that other women feel the same way.  Also, depending
on the situation, anyone can be called anything, and that would not be an
area where PC is a factor.

Hope this helps.

Joe Szalai

>s. Balogh has shown many strengths, but I'm afraid she has now admitted=20
>two weaknesses: a desire for equality, and a sense of superiority.
        If I am not superior to some of those guys on the Forum, I can hang
myself! Mind you, it doesn't take much!

Eva S. Balogh
e-mail: 

> Felado :  [Hungary]
> This problem of knowledge is at the root of the reason socialism
> failed.  Government officials cannot evaluate the "worth" or value of
> different products, because in the economy values are subjectively
> held.  This is true also of capital goods and labour.  As a result,
> the socialist countries produced things that nobody wanted, and wasted
> precious resources.

Certainly one of the root causes, but not the only one. Not only would
socialism require an Omniscient Planner, it also requires Obedient
Executors for whom work is a matter of honesty and pride (a munka
becsu2let e1s dicso3se1g dolga), wages be damned.

Andra1s Kornai

I just heard on Public Radio: in the United States men spent 11
minutes a day doing housework!

Eva S. Balogh
e-mail: 

this is a test post.....test only......

In article >,
Doepp James > writes:

>But there is a common denominator: the first three statistics,
>which show that this society, supposedly a model for others, is
>actually troubled.

The common denominator here is that we live in an age when any idiot can
cobble together three totally unrelated factoids in order to publicly
validate his or her world view. Mr. Mayfield's ouevre may wow 'em in
cultural studies class, which discipline ignores the difficulties of
groping toward the elusive truth in favor of the easier route of
confirming prejudice. It should not, however, be mistaken for real social
science.
Sam Stowe

test only...test only...do not download