[Marxism] On being whole

Lanasnest at aol.com Lanasnest at aol.com
Fri Apr 30 17:04:25 MDT 2004

  If we were to look at a newborn, in it's perfection, most humans (who 
possess a heart) would cry out at it's perfection.  If the baby had only one 
leg...we would pity it at best...or toss it over a cliff, or in a dumpster at worst. 
 Why?  Because it wasn't "whole."  We are biologically and psychologically 
manufactured to "spit out" the maimed.
   If we look for truth, we look for it's completeness.  In order to know if 
something then is true, we must see the beginning, and the end needs to come 
into agreement with it's beginning.
   If we look at an Ecosystem, we marvel how "perfect" it is (that is w/o 
mans intervention).  If we are hurt...we go to the doctor to make things "whole" 
again...do we not?  So what does it mean to be whole?  This is why I 
challenged our "physicists and mathematic friends" to look at a circle.
   In order for something to be whole, it must be complete.  When Jesus (OH 
GOD the J word!) healed someone, he said "be ye whole" what do you think he 
meant?  Perfect?  No...think some more...
   Lucaks said, "...to go beyond this immediacy can only mean the genesis, 
the creation of the object."  Creation?  Genesis?  How does the bible start?  I 
(and most scientist) dont believe that the creation came from NOTHING it 
obviously came from SOMETHING.
   The bible says that the "word was"...the mere thought from god created 
something...back to another subject...does thought have force?  Marx said,"theory 
has also become a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses."  
Where do you think he got that "thought"?


More information about the Marxism mailing list