woodenghost

Dance behaviour in cockatoos: Implications for cognitive processes and welfare

Video: Study finds cockatoos can performe 30 distinct dance moves | ABC News.

Tag yourself. I'm fluff.

I have a friend who's a actually becoming more and more leftist and lately even communist but not yet fully Marxist. I'm trying to help him shed lib ideas. He specifically asked me if we could have a talk at some point on war. He's confused about the war propaganda. Like just a vague "Haven't things changed maybe because of Russia? Maybe we in Europe need to boost defense now etc."

I want to introduce him to Lenins Idea of revolutionary defeatism, because I think it applies to our historical moment. A revolutionary can not but desire the defeat of his imperialist government. Also Liebknechts line:"the main enemy is at home". The main task for leftists in imperial core countries is to fight the imperialists we can actually effect: the ones right here. You can be happy about any success of comrades in Russia fighting their oligarchy, but don't get roped into supporting western oligarchs' NATO wars.

We both care about trans and queer issues a lot, so he will bring up fears of evil Russia conquering part of Europe and rolling back queer rights. I can contextualize by bringing up the moral track record of western countries (like the ongoing genocide). But is there a more direct answer? Also just in general, I'm not sure if I'm missing an obvious angle or argument. Anything you would definitely mention on war? Suggested reading?

I might have to get into the specifics, of how the war developed historically, but there will be a lot of propaganda to unravel, so ideally, I'm looking for a concise argument, that can pierce the propaganda and illuminate the truth. Hope that's not too much to ask ;)

As some feel too hopeless to get out and organized, I was reminded of this quote:

The first lesson a revolutionary must learn is that he is a doomed man. Unless he understands this, he does not grasp the essential meaning of his life. [...] I have no doubt that the revolution will triumph. The people of the world will prevail, seize power, seize the means of production, wipe out racism, capitalism. [...] The people will win a new world. Yet when I think of individuals in the revolution, I cannot predict their survival. Revolutionaries must accept this fact.

• Huey P. Newton

I like this sense of letting go. Letting go of the necessity to personally catch a glimpse of the new world with my own eyes. Maybe I will. I almost surely won't. And yet, I want to help us get there. Even if things have to get worse before they get better, I want to help keep that spark alive.

Activism burnout is real and valid. If you're effected, take all the time you need to heal. But recognize it's similar to depression in that it lies to you. It lets you see reality through a distorted, non-materialist lense where everything is hopeless. (Might even lead to actual depression.) Don't confuse it for wisdom. Material contradictions will move history forward.

To avoid that burnout in the first place, if we organize around a moment that arises outside of our control, we should anticipate the ebb and flow of social forces, of action and reaction. Use any arising moment to agitate, grow our forces, raise class conciseness, strengthen our orgs. And don't be surprised or disappointed when inevitably the moment passes and forces of reaction take the stage. The moment will only not pass once. Until then we have to endure. And only personally commit what we can sustain long term.

Also we should be understanding towards people who feel burned out from activism. Don't call them weak or pressure them, but invite them to come back in their own time (but don't let people spread nihilism either).

I recently leaned about how the dogma of divine simplicity shaped the history of philosophy, especially metaphysics and the problem of universals in the Islamic world as well as in Christianity. Basically it's the idea, that God is identical to each of his (her/their/just) attributes. By extension, each of the attributes is identical to every other one. So this obviously touches on the problem of universals. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) added the conclusion, that for God, essence is existence. Ibn Sina is key for this in Islam, as well as Christianity (because people like Thomas Aquinas learned his teachings and shaped scholastics for centuries).

Divine simplicity is central in the different schools of Islam and a dogma in Catholicism. Protestants kind of stopped talking about it, but never officially gave it up and Calvinists revived it. Only cool new streams like process theology distance themselves from it.

About the stupid joke in the title: Divine simplicity means, God has literally no parts you can point to (no pun intended), to determine their gender (no material parts, no temporal parts, no metaphysical or ontological constituents). If God has a gender, it must therefore be identical to all their other attributes, as well as themselves.

Question: If you got any religious education, was divine simplicity ever mentioned? Cause I never heard of it until recently, even though it's so central, that other attributes are typically derived based on it (for example immutability, infinity, omniscience) in official doctrine. Or, in Ibn Sina's case, even existence as well as every other attribute.

Do religious people still care about this? What would be cool pronouns for justice, freedom, truth, omniscience, etc.?

Edit: Also, do you know people who reject this dogma or accept it, but make mistakes around it? Like saying:"God might get angry or have wrath, but God IS love", which mistakenly elevates one attribute above the others.

I have no stake in this, as an atheist, just interested and willing to learn. And like I said it's historically relevant for the history of philosophy, no matter what you believe.