Oh myAfrican Tsegai

Doyle Saylor djsaylor at SPAMprimenet.com
Tue Nov 30 21:31:56 MST 1999

Title: Oh myAfrican Tsegai
Greetings Comrades,
    Tsegai remarks upon a lot of things that I think about in relation to how to
understand reality.
Tsegai :  Fritjof Capra makes a similar claim from the standpoint of quantum
theory, especially Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principal.  See The Turning
Point p77.
Quantum theory gets used way outside what it refers to.  I much prefer Gould's
use of the concept of contingency than any reference to uncertainty.  Uncertainty
meaning that one can't know some parts of the smallest because of interaction
between ourselves and the smallest does not appreciably affect the world we live
in.  In other words we "know" things, and how we know things has little to do
with an experience of "uncertainty" that prevails upon the smallest of events.  We
might find that at that level other things which makes clear what certainty is
on our level, but it has not penetrated into most peoples lives as yet nor do I
think smallest uncertainty will change what we mean by our level of living.
In referring to religion this way, it is not clear at all what you are talking
about with respect to religion.  Charles makes the point in his opinion religion
is fundamentally ancestor worship.  I doubt that.  It seems to me much more
likely that religion is "mind" worship.  By that I mean we assume a perfect
mind, a mind in things like the rocks and wind, etc.  This species of
speculation about the way things work is not really that different from doing
anything abstract in painting.  So that I hope you can see if religion is
worshipping the mind, that various forms of consciousness as a speculation of
what thinking is then are traditionally the prerogative of religion.  Such as
But who would you rather have, the most voluble
critic of creationism - Dawkins - or some redneck fundamentalist from
Kansas?  Marxist biologists and psychologists like Rose have no-one yet to
listen to them, except other Marxists.
Dawkins is the epitomy of capitalist thinking where technique is everything and
class privilege (current secular science privilege in the English/U.S.A.
academy) importantly shapes his whole take on anti-creationism.  A
fundamentalist redneck I assume you mean working class person with Christian
thinking could have a welter of positive attitudes about them that Dawkins would
not.  Dawkins would fight the working class, whereas a redneck with working
class interests could abandon his religion.  I speak to that because that is my
ethnic background (I am mixed race predominantly Irish), actually my background
is hillbilly, but working in the sun causes red-necks to anybody.  I encounter
for example my co-worker who is a black woman.  She advocates fundamental
Christian religion, but her views are also working class. I would take her over
Dawkins any day.  Dawkins is a committed opponent of working people's class
female humans power for the first time - see Chris Knight Blood Relations.  
It is possible that ritual and expressive art made its appearance at the
same time.  Since the earliest evidence for ritual art is perhaps more than
100 thousand years ago, even as much as half a million - red ochre pencils
in Kabwean site in southern France with hearths and wooden impliments - it
is not something associated with 'civilization'!
My understanding from the debates I've read, the upper limit for ritual and
expressive art is 60,000 years ago.  Uses of red ochre does not necessarily
refer to ritual as a means of abstracting to meaning to imagery.  The debates
though are just beginning.  These things need to be infused with a broad
understanding of many issues though.  Looking at artifacts but being cautious
about "Just So Stories".
Doyle Saylor

More information about the Marxism mailing list