Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Integrating Objectivism and Marxism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

You commentary is excellent. You are exactly right, except in one thing. And I really hoped not to bring it forward, but I guess I am forced to. That thing is that I do not only believe in discreet identity-based consciousness, which I call linear, but also in contextual, nonlinear consciousness that is on the right side of the model, viz., void (in terms of bosons and phytons), field, lattice (read: crystals), state (read: water, gas, solid), pulse (read: thought or emotion), aura (read: mind or soul), environment (can be mental, natural, artificial - anything in one's reach at a time; a home), nature. Nature is conscious. There is no evidence for this yet, even though there is a reason for my concern to try to convince you. I realize it's hard to grasp or understand this. Okay, so we have linear, quantitative logic and mathematics. How can we grasp true nonlinearity? I think there is a way, but it involves a different kind of logic (i.e., thinking). An example of a logic that shows this is Dr. Michael Kosok's dialectical phenomenology: http://www.thenewdialectics.org/. He has nice ideas about the overcoming of Marxism as well. He is the individual who successfully, in my opinion, integrated Hegelian idealistic dialectic with Marxist materialistic one. Kudos to him, a great pioneer, a dual doctor of philosophy and physics, as he is the most unfortunate man (now in utter poverty and slowly dying unable to move or to see; doctors give him about 4 months to live) completely ignored by the whole world because the world supposedly believes only in globalism and not in a dialectic way of thinking (as I heard from a contemporary fourth year class in philosophy). This here is not for you to feel anything for him; merely for me to express what I feel for him, since I had never told this to anyone, since so few care about philosophy in the general masses. Thus, "Individual beliefs, thinking, values, knowledge" are also forms of consciousness, in my view, since they also move and change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Would you contend that there have not been things created which would not have existed without some particular person or particular people?" <-- me

"I agree and do not contend with your statement, so, yes, but it is due to a unique nature of such things." <-- you

Could you perhaps rephrase that? I'm not sure if you are saying you believe that there have not been things created which would not have existed without some particular person or particular people or if you are saying that you believe that there have been things that wouldn't have been created if it weren't for certain particular people.

 

"Imagine that he took that money and then Taggart Transcontinental would have collapsed."

Yes, and that would have been personally detrimental to him as far as he was aware at the time. Taggart transcontinental was one of the few reliable, long range ways left to transport large qualtities of goods for sale or to relatively quickly transport individual people to far away places in the country. For transporting himself, people he was trying to do business with, and his products Taggart Transcontinental was very useful. Additionally, Reardan is thinking of potential revenue from working with Taggart Transcontinental not just one time, but in the future too. I'm pretty sure Dagny had said at least at one point that she was interested in using Reardan Metal to replace all of the old tracks that Taggart Transcontinental everywhere. There's a lot more potential profit in that deal long term than there is in just the one immediate payment for the one job.

 

As for the other stuff . . . yeah, see, metaphysics and epistemology is clearly a huge point of conflict here that would need resolving before you and the rest of us could make much progress discussing politics and ethics.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bluecherry:
1. All things are created and exist because of some particular people. There are creators, just like Rand argued, that initiate, or create, anything that is enjoyed by a society. The issue here is that it is not enough to create something for someone else to remember it. Hence, the creations are inseparable from their use over time. This is where creators and users are necessary parts of the formula (i.e., for oneself and others).
2. But the question remains: was Taggart Transcontinental the kind of "society" that he wanted to be with or not? It was ruled by looters, yet Rearden, thinking long-term, decided to help them (and himself). So, is it possible for Objectivists to cope with a society they do not enjoy - yes, and this is one example. Of course, our society today is another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eioul's last 4 words point a careful thinker to the whole problem here.

An integration of opposites is an embrace of contradictions/irrationalism. This is what I meant by an invalid use of "integration". Self directed and other directed are opposites.

"Any compromise between food and poison".......

Notice how much the ontological question of what constitutes and entity is at the base of so much philosophy?........

Startsev, eventually this whole discussion will end up at the level of what a valid method for conceptualizing any concept is.(and therefore definititions) From there the criteria for evidence and justification will follow.

Central to this are these concepts:

Entity

Consciousness

Integration

Opposites

Society

Selfishness

You still have not answered my question (unless I missed it)

What is Objectivism missing and how did you come to that conclusion?

By the way, Rand didn't publish a "scientific historical perspective on evolution" because she was a philosopher not a professional biologist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmatic:
I consider integration of opposites as a compromise. However, it is a compromise between a good and a good, not food and poison. Do you consider others as poison? And everything about others as poison? Then there can be no compromise, and you are right. In fact, then there can be no life, since life is change and motion, which consists of compromising motions. Think of balancing forces in Newtonian mechanics.

A problem with Objectivism, you ask? Well, first, let's start by saying that Objectivism is not perfect. Why not? Well, why is there not a cult of it any longer? What's wrong? Ok, maybe there is nothing wrong; it's just people are tired of it and Rand is deceased. Then that's fine. But wait! We haven't identified problems with Objectivism yet. Hmm, what are the problems? I won't go the obvious way and instead will try some new criticism. Here is one: a difference between an initiation of anything and the resultant process. There had been criticisms that Objectivists are lacking emotions, and these criticisms had been countered by quotes from the texts. However, what is meant by an emotion is not merely a mental state, but a state that, scientists claim, is separate from the brain. Rand talked of initiating emotions, but usually suppressing the result (which I think she did quite a lot in the U.S.S.R.). Happiness is one such emotion. Do you think that happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient? A mental picture of happiness is, but not the experience of the emotion because, to experience an emotion, one needs to express that emotion. And why would one express an emotion in a closed room away from the world? I am not saying you cannot do that. I just think that it would be strange. I always thought that people enjoy emotions with others. That's how we connect, isn't it?
 

Rand didn't publish a "scientific historical perspective on evolution" because she was a philosopher not a professional biologist.

Yet she studied history and Marxism. And I don't think that Marx was a biologist, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sartsev said:

I consider integration of opposites as a compromise. However, it is a compromise between a good and a good, not food and poison. Do you consider others as poison? And everything about others as poison? Then there can be no compromise, and you are right. In fact, then there can be no life, since life is change and motion, which consists of compromising motions. Think of balancing forces in Newtonian mechanics.

Lets start here then.

What about the Objectivist concept of trade do you think involves compromise and how does this have anything to do with opposites? How does your answer apply to principles as such? How can one compromise principles and retain integrity?

A problem with Objectivism, you ask? Well, first, let's start by saying that Objectivism is not perfect. Why not? Well, why is there not a cult of it any longer? What's wrong? Ok, maybe there is nothing wrong; it's just people are tired of it and Rand is deceased. Then that's fine. But wait! We haven't identified problems with Objectivism yet. Hmm, what are the problems? I won't go the obvious way and instead will try some new criticism. Here is one: a difference between an initiation of anything and the resultant process. There had been criticisms that Objectivists are lacking emotions, and these criticisms had been countered by quotes from the texts. However, what is meant by an emotion is not merely a mental state, but a state that, scientists claim, is separate from the brain. Rand talked of initiating emotions, but usually suppressing the result (which I think she did quite a lot in the U.S.S.R.). Happiness is one such emotion. Do you think that happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient? A mental picture of happiness is, but not the experience of the emotion because, to experience an emotion, one needs to express that emotion. And why would one express an emotion in a closed room away from the world? I am not saying you cannot do that. I just think that it would be strange. I always thought that people enjoy emotions with others. That's how we connect, isn't it?

I have no idea what your referring to by an emotion being "seperate" from the brain. Where on earth did you get the idea that Oism says one ought to "suppress" emotions? What made you conclude that trade(intellectual or material) doesnt involve others?

Yet she studied history and Marxism. And I don't think that Marx was a biologist, either.

Uhh, Marxism is a philosophy and all study in some way involves the past.... Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmatic:

What about the Objectivist concept of trade do you think involves compromise and how does this have anything to do with opposites?

Yes, it involves opposites. An exchange of opposite but equal values. Read the term opposite loosely here. For example, financial and material goods are exchanged and benefit both parties at the same time, thus oneself and others formula is satisfied. It is a compromise because one gives away a thing to get something else which is at the time valued higher than what is given up. Thus, it is still a plus, a profit, a win, etc. - a compromise that is good. Integrity is retained, is it not? It's simple: Don't trade unless you want to. No one is forcing anybody here.
 

emotion being "seperate" from the brain

Well, I disagree with the tendency to separate. I think we need to integrate, but unfortunately, here are the definitions of emotion: in Medical Dictionary: "arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort"; in Science Dictionary "arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort" (from dictionary.com). They still say it's in the mind, but to me, the definition is contradictory. Does it mean we cannot control some of our minds? Are we insane? No. Emotions are initiated by the brain, but go through the heart. That's the difference, and we should keep the two together. If we only favor Rand's stoic stance, we would suppress our emotions. Now, you could argue that Rand expressed her emotions through sex, but it still would be so limiting, would it not? Also, looking at individuals that she trained to be "ideal" during the cult years, it seems that it was a mere robot factory. And even sex was rationalized there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emotions are initiated by the brain, but go through the heart.

I REALLY hope that's a metaphor. Emotions don't go through the heart... Even then, neither definition suggests emotions are disconnected from cognition. Actually, since you already denied what I called intentionality, the implication is that emotions are unreal too. So you seem to have redefined it as some sort of "internal animal spirit" that flows through your body. All pre-Freudian weirdness.

 

Also, you got the wrong idea of Rand's view on emotion. See: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emotions.html

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lexicon only differentiates physical senses from nonphysical emotions, and I agree with that. But it does not show how emotions are actually expressed. For example, "Emotions are produced by man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly" basically states that emotions are initiated by the brain, but nothing more. If you want to see something wrong with her view on how emotions are expressed, just look at her ideal characters. Howard Roark is especially a great example: showing emotions when just by himself, suppressing emotions when meeting with Dominique.

Eiuol, it's only a metaphor as far as that statement not differentiating between heart and the circulatory system, the same can be said for brain and nervous system. It's for simplicity's sake. What I mean is that the heart is like a fulcrum for emotions. Do you think you can express emotions if you have just a brain and a robot's body?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmatic:

I consider integration of opposites as a compromise. However, it is a compromise between a good and a good, not food and poison. Do you consider others as poison? And everything about others as poison? Then there can be no compromise, and you are right. In fact, then there can be no life, since life is change and motion, which consists of compromising motions. Think of balancing forces in Newtonian mechanics.

A problem with Objectivism, you ask? Well, first, let's start by saying that Objectivism is not perfect. Why not? Well, why is there not a cult of it any longer? What's wrong?  There had been criticisms that Objectivists are lacking emotions, and these criticisms had been countered by quotes from the texts. However, what is meant by an emotion is not merely a mental state, but a state that, scientists claim, is separate from the brain. Rand talked of initiating emotions, but usually suppressing the result (which I think she did quite a lot in the U.S.S.R.). Happiness is one such emotion. Do you think that happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient? A mental picture of happiness is, but not the experience of the emotion because, to experience an emotion, one needs to express that emotion.

Ilya, speaking metaphorically, of course, SOME people are poison. We, as a society, try to keep them locked up in prisons. One cannot apply mechanical laws to human-behavioral laws, because people are not machines, as you have pointed out. We have courts for the purpose of deciding the fate of people whose behavior deems them worthy of a prison sentence. We have other means of deciding the validity of mechanical laws. There is no "cult" of Objectivism any longer, because there never was a cult of Objectivism. No cults that I know of served the purpose of empowering the individual; cults empower the cult leader.

Regarding emotions: Happiness is the prime objective in my life. What's yours? If I express happiness alone in my car, my home, or in the woods, it's still my happiness. Other emotions exist, they are real. Other emotions are important. However, my emotions are neither real nor important for the process of solving real important problems. That's why a person needs philosophy.

Objectivism is so well-defined, I cannot understand your purpose for altering it. When greater numbers of individuals recognize it for what it is, perhaps that will mark the beginning of a new age. But until then, this rather randomly selective reconstruction of Ayn Rand and her life's work is, to say the least, futile.

You seem like a well-meaning sort, but some of your assertions may require more clarity, if you wish them to be understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Repairman:

Happiness is the prime objective in my life. What's yours?

It may sound strange to you at first, but happiness is not my prime objective in life. I like to experience a spectrum of emotions and derive equal pleasure from love and hate, joy and grief, happiness and depression, etc.
 

If I express happiness alone in my car, my home, or in the woods, it's still my happiness.

It's happiness as an idea. I have nothing wrong with that as long as you are happy! :) True happiness (as an emotion) is happening and, once you ask yourself if you are happy, you interrupt it and have to send another signal to repeat that emotion. However, it costs energy, and sometimes, after an interruption, that state cannot be restarted.
 

That's why a person needs philosophy.

I would have hugged you for this, if we had met. :) Although, I have a strange view on philosophy. I don't like it when it's all too mental. My philosophy needs to be felt as well for it to have its best effect.
 

When greater numbers of individuals recognize it for what it is, perhaps that will mark the beginning of a new age.

I am doing my best on spreading the word!
 

some of your assertions may require more clarity, if you wish them to be understood.

You have no idea how complex my assertions really are. What we have covered here is just a tip of an iceberg. Trying to explain all of this consistently and completely is an arduous, although pleasurable, task, believe me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case the "emotional" argument did not satisfy you about a potential error of Objectivism, here is my other issue with your ideology: competence in linear relationship with self-esteem. Rand equates the two in Atlas Shrugged (I don't remember exactly where, but I have it in my comments on facebook; a lot of other issues are expressed there as well). So, for example, if a person's self-esteem decreases, does his competence necessarily decrease in proportion? Rand would say yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of mentioning that the U.S. is a constitutional republic as opposed to a straight out democracy is because 1) the constitution does create a government involving voting and elections, but the government's powers are limited in what options they have to vote on and elect in favor of 2) that's basically the kind of general form we'd be in favor of for a government. (The actual current U.S. government is not our ideal constitutional republic though of course.) 3) pointing out that we already don't live in a democracy and that we do live in a constitutional republic may ease some immediate freak out people often have when they hear we aren't in favor of a democracy, making it so it's clear the alternative to democracy doesn't have to be a dictatorship. So, for instance, a constitutional republic may involve voting to determine who will do what in the government or when various tasks will be undertaken perhaps, but it may not allow for people to vote to go forcefully take some other random person's kidneys. 

 

"A feeling of belonging not only to some small commune, but to Society of the entire world."

What if not everybody values such a feeling? It isn't an automatic given that this is something desirable for people. What would you contend is the reason this is a good thing as opposed to getting our warm fuzzies from alternatives?

 

"It is a case of humankind and the planet coming to terms with each other, . . ."

Do you believe that the planet itself has a consciousness too? Not sure what you would mean by "coming to terms with each other" if at least one of the parties involved isn't conscious.

 

*heavy sigh* Can we please not use the "c word"? It isn't applicable to Objectivism now or at any other point in time. So, yeah, there's no "cult" now because there never was one. There was some group of friends that Rand had decades ago that shared a lot of her views, but by now they've largely died of old age.

 

However, I wasn't asking about smart people with opposing views meaning some smart people who support Marxism and some smart people who support Objectivism. I was trying to ask about any case where one bunch of smart people believes Thing 1 is true and another bunch of smart people thinks that Thing 1 is false. Not that smart people held largely conflicting sets of views but instead that on some single, very particular thing they held the exact opposite position. For instance, Smarties Group A says that it is definitely big foot in that picture while Smarites Group B says it is definitely not big foot in that picture.

 

"But, of course, we think more globally here, since we are bored with an endless stream of goals of a kind you have mentioned."

Surely you have a better reason than boredom for pursuing the kinds of socities and collective goals of said societies, yes?

 

". . . one may see children as a way to try to solve problems one could not solve by oneself."

They might, or they might not wether they choose to have kids or not. I'd argue that's a bad reason to have kids though, it doesn't recognize the kid as being their own person with their own choices to make in life. Recipe for raising a kid badly.

 

"The issue here is that it is not enough to create something for someone else to remember it."

Hmm? Not sure exactly what you're saying here. Anybody remembering something or not is rather irrelevant to my question.

 

For the second thing after that, I'd say more about that, but it involves spoilers about Atlas Shruged.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I am starting to see all of your points clearer, and like it better. However, people have to grow up for laissez-faire capitalism, and people are not ready for it yet, as the financial disaster of 2008 has shown. Unregulated economy is currently not the right way to go. Now the question is the same as for Communalists: Will people ever wake up and desire the kinds of societies we are talking about?

 

bluecherry:

Yes, I believe that the planet is conscious, but I have no evidence for it, except the kinds of hypotheses you consider woo woo, e.g., Gaia hypothesis. I am an environmentalist, though, and I do not believe anti-environmentalists when they say that our planet and nature can take a lot of pressure. Sooner or later, it will all break. Humans, similarly, have a limit of patience.

 

Our greatest difference is the following: I inherently believe in "grey" compromise - I was born with this feeling; I never got this or learned this from anyone. Rand, on the other hand, only liked seeing the world in black and white, good and evil. I cannot see it this way without forcing me to do so. It is not in my nature to believe in good or evil. In fact, belief in good and evil is exactly what I do not like about Christianity. The fall from Eden happened because people started differentiating between good and evil and keeping them separate. So, to reiterate, I am in Group 1: Grey, no, let's call it Silver (it's shiny :) ), and you are in Group 2: Black & White. Who is right, who is wrong? That's what we are trying to decide here.

 

I was coming from the following: creators are the cause, users are the effect, mind is the cause, soul is the effect; all inseparable, albeit differentiated - call it grey goo or whatever, but I see this as truly beautiful.

 

No spoilers on Atlas Shrugged, please! I haven't even finished the first part yet, writing all these commentaries! I think I will have to take a break from the forum and the computer if I ever want to finish reading the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just discovered a logical error in my formula: for self and others. This formula is incorrect. Here is my proof:

 

Consider levels:

Body--Environment

Society--Nature

 

Ignore Nature for a moment.

 

Body|Body|Body|Body|...--Environment

Society

 

I multiplied Bodies within Environment. These Bodies are not the same as Society, since they are on our level, not level above us. Hence, these Bodies are others we should not care about (unless they share our goals toward Society), since they are merely a sum of Bodies, not a true Society. "For self and others" regression is therefore not allowed, but for self and society (or state in the definition of: "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation"). I apologize for earlier confusion. Please, accept this correction.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I inherently believe in "grey" compromise ... ...

I am in Group 1: Grey, no, let's call it Silver (it's shiny :) ), and you are in Group 2: Black & White. Who is right, who is wrong? That's what we are trying to decide here.

So, Grey is the new White?

Put another way, you don't want to be good or bad, but a mix of both? But, this, itself is a standard. By the terms of your own principle then, whatever you define as "grey" is actually your definition of good. You cannot escape judging things good or bad, you can only change your definitions: change them from those used by others, or change them on whim... now one thing, and now another.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"However, people have to grow up for laissez-faire capitalism, and people are not ready for it yet, as the financial disaster of 2008 has shown. Unregulated economy is currently not the right way to go."

Drifting a bit off topic here for a moment, but if you poke around the forum some you can find what we contend is the cause of that financial disaster, a cause which is not lack of regulation. (Which is not to say that there wasn't a lot of shady stuff going on involved in the cause, it's just shady stuff that was enabled by bad laws.)

 

A hypothesis - any hypothesis - isn't evidence in any sense though. A hypothesis is a sort of guess at what the evidence is coming from and going to, waiting to be tested out. In any case though, my question about if you believe the planet is conscious is answered. That's all I was looking for right now, not a case for if what you believe on this subject is true or not. I just was trying to find this out in order to make sense of what you meant in an earlier comment. So, thanks for answering my question. *nods*

 

"Rand, on the other hand, only liked seeing the world in black and white, good and evil."

It is possible for a person or a plan or many other things to contain both black and white elements though. So, it may look like some shade of gray when you step back and view it in totality at a distance, but upon closer inspection you can pick out where there is black and where there is white. Thought it was worth mentioning so we're clear that looking at things in black and white doesn't mean we always are 100% for something/somebody or 100% against something/somebody.

 

As for feelings and beliefs, we're in favor of a form of tabula rasa where ideas (and feelings based upon said ideas) are not something people come with built into them. You don't have to be told everything by others though to acquire an idea. You can form them all on your own. This is getting into another whole large topic again though.

 

Oh, fear not. I loathe spoilers. I'm not about to start giving them out. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, unless you do not equate intentionality with consciousness, I should have satisfied your inquiry.

Maybe you misread, but my wording was that you deny intentionality as a real thing. I say intentionality is an important part of consciousness.

My characterization of your idea: Consciousness exists, but it can't really consist of mental states, beliefs, desires, or all those other ideas that require those non-concrete ideas about consciousness.

You have the wrong idea about Rand's position on emotions, since she doesn't advocate suppressing emotion. All the time she mentioned how emotions are a really important and need to be acknowledged, understood. She didn't say a view on how emotions ought to be expressed, and certainly not on suppression. Emotions are just not a means to knowledge/cognition. Her position on (long-term) happiness shows how that does not mean suppression. Roark didn't suppress his emotions, he's just the sort of person who doesn't seem to show it on his face very well. That doesn't mean suppression, it just means he's pretty introverted, basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bluecherry, concerning the "c" word - ok, I won't mention it again. However, I would rather have you not ignore it, since it was a mistake done by Objectivists before, and as any historical mistakes, we should understand them and learn from them, so we do not regress into an extreme of one's ideology. It was not merely "some group of friends that Rand had decades ago that shared a lot of her views," but a kind of dictatorship by Rand, a self-dictatorship, to be more accurate. Similarly, Marxists should learn from Lenin's revolution, and Christians from the Spanish Inquisition.

softwareNerd:

You cannot escape judging things good or bad, you can only change your definitions

So far, I do not criticize anything except Objectivism, which is why I am interested in it. I am judging not merely good or bad, but good and bad, as a standard I am trying to understand.

Eiuol:

Consciousness exists, but it can't really consist of mental states, beliefs, desires, or all those other ideas that require those non-concrete ideas about consciousness.

Let me put it this way: a human being's consciousness taken as a whole on the level Body--Environment is different than forms of consciousness from which it is composed, namely, mental states, beliefs, desires, etc. All those are also forms of consciousness in my view. I am not denying any of them. They are simply on lower levels in the model.
 

You have the wrong idea about Rand's position on emotions

All her positions on emotions are expressed in favorable light, just as the public wants to hear it. She talked of the best of emotions, not the worst of her own. However, what did she really believe? I judge that her true view on emotions can be seen through the way her ideal characters act in her books. They are introverts, you say? Yes, extreme introverts, to be sure. How does it work out for them through the stories? What about her semi-autobiographical "We the Living"? The kinds of sufferings her characters experience and how they suppress those sufferings is exactly what I am talking about. She talks about everything being light and dandy in public, but her stories show a much darker side of her. What I really want to get at is her psychology. What did she experience in the U.S.S.R. to get to be as determined as she was and as merciless? I contend that it was suffering that she suppressed, and by suppressing suffering, one learns to devalue emotions and easily suppress them too, if they contradict calcified reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bluecherry:

we're in favor of a form of tabula rasa

Have you heard of Noam Chomsky's ideas on nativism? His syntactic theory is quite inflexible, though, so I am not necessarily in favor of it. Although I am not sure if I am in favor of the other either. It is a complex topic without any solid evidence of which I know.

Plasmatic:

Not all consciousness is intentional.

Agreed. Again, remember, that I look at this from the model (post #40). Thinking that I deny any form of consciousness would put you as far from the truth as possible. Merely because I don't write about consciousness in the model does not mean that it's actually not inherent to it. It is the binding glue; without it, the model would fall apart. Also, I differentiate consciousness from awareness; the latter is dead in the center between all levels. It is the ultimate undifferentiated state, which I call "grey" or "silver" in our case. If you know of deconstructuralism, it will be somewhere along the lines there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...