The rise of epigenetics in the field of science

[Jacob Cliff]

Epigenetics in a nutshell posits an almost deterministic, if not fully deterministic, position on human life and activity -- one that effectively links one's genetic makeup to one's own behaviors and lifestyles. That is, one's diet today will effect one's offspring and determine how sickly or healthy they are; it will determine if and when they will have X or Y imbalance/disease, e.g., a heart attack. Although this does seem to serve as an affront to materialism's position that man, not genetics, is the determiner of his destiny -- it does actually have a scientific basis (one which I urge you to research). I am still, of course, skeptical of it -- but what does this mean for communism as a whole? If we discover that man's genes, and not his actions, determine his life and behavior, then all our premises fall apart. It is similar, in fact, one can even naturally just make a casual leap over to, the notion that man doesn't even have free will -- that one's decisions are ultimately determined by the world around him (which man of course comprises of).

[Heretek]

Epigenetics in a nutshell posits an almost deterministic, if not fully deterministic, position on human life and activity -- one that effectively links one's genetic makeup to one's own behaviors and lifestyles. That is, one's diet today will effect one's offspring and determine how sickly or healthy they are; it will determine if and when they will have X or Y imbalance/disease, e.g., a heart attack. Although this does seem to serve as an affront to materialism's position that man, not genetics, is the determiner of his destiny -- it does actually have a scientific basis (one which I urge you to research). I am still, of course, skeptical of it -- but what does this mean for communism as a whole? If we discover that man's genes, and not his actions, determine his life and behavior, then all our premises fall apart. It is similar, in fact, one can even naturally just make a casual leap over to, the notion that man doesn't even have free will -- that one's decisions are ultimately determined by the world around him (which man of course comprises of).

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. At some point, every person was part of another person (infants and embryos, for now anyways), and it makes sense that their actions will influence all parts of themselves, even those that will ultimately belong to another person (lifespan and genetics). For example, if a pregnant woman falls down stairs and the fetus is lost, the future human had no say in that (no I'm not advocating "pro-life"). Materialism teaches that humanity's actions are indeed influenced by the world around them. Yes it emphasizes it is our choice, but choice is influenced by the surrounding concept, hence 'material conditions,' and explains the lack of communist activity in the present and past (there is no universal consciousness). There are a multitude of reasons for this, like the limbo the proletariat finds itself in between the 'security' of modernity and 'nothing to lose but their chains,' but that's a different discussion.

[Rafiq]

Heavy sigh. Marxian, I wrote extensively about this on this very forum and you were privy to it, that is to say, to the so-called relation to genes and man's 'behavior':

That is, one's diet today will effect one's offspring and determine how sickly or healthy they are; it will determine if and when they will have X or Y imbalance/disease, e.g., a heart attack

Yet all of these things are outside of man's cogito, outside of his subjectivity, outside of his social being, his actual, essence as an individual. They are objects of his conscioness, they do not determine his consciouness. They are purely contingent circumstances, just think about this: Transhumanism, think about how we can replace every part of our body and retain our consciousness. The pure ideology here is simple: You take the discovery, the obvious one, that ones physiology determines their physiology, and automatically associate this with the superstitious idea that ones physiology determines their subjectivity, their ethical activity and their so-called 'behavior'. A heart attack isn't a behavior, just like your heart pumping isn't a behavior. For something to be a behavior means that YOU DO IT, meaning YOU as a SUBJECT are DOING it. You are not DOING a heart attack, it just happens and all you can do is respond to it. They are outside processes beyond his control. That is different from attributing to empirical processes the subjectivity and the consciousness in the first place which makes meaningful those contingent physiological aspects in the first place. Like you speak for god himself, when you say such things - but where is this god? I can't find him. Eveyr person speaks for god when they talk about how this or that 'determines life and behavior'. Well, what about the life and behavior that is talking about the determination of life and behavior? Isn't that a fucking behavior? Isn't that an act? What gene is responsible for the idea of genetic-determinism?

Ever think about that? You could, if you had the practical inclination to. If you, actually elected to think critically and hard about things before you come to crass and naive conclusions.

If we discover that man's genes, and not his actions, determine his life and behavior, then all our premises fall apart

Since it seems that you are totally unfamiliar with my writings as a whole, the sum-total of what I have produced on this forum as well as what I have produced on this blog, since you seem to lack a basic aquiantance with the entire point of Marxism thus far, if you are curious about the matter I will direct you again to Our Materialism, the entire point of which is to attack THIS EXACT SAME KIND OF filthy empiricism and agnosticism. You should know by now that such a discovery would be impossible, in the same way that discovering god is impossible This impossibility is sustained not by any investigation of the outside world but by the practice of men and women, as Communists, WHO RENDER it impossible FORCEFULLY and POSITIVELY by their own, willful practice, which cannot be attributed to any external empirical force.

The barbarous absurdity is mind-boggling. We are supposed to draw ethical, willful conclusions upon realizing that something determines us and is beyond our control. Unbelievable. If it is beyond our control, why the fuck do we have to talk about it and confirm it, confirm this 'truth' in the first place? If we are determined, what is there to talk about? HOW COULD we even fucking talk about it? If you were aware of every single fucking thing that is inside your body that allegedly determines you, from your genes to neurological processes, if you were 100% conscious of them, you are telling me you couldn't allegedly 'change' your behavior, even though you now know exactly what is 'determining' you? And to say we can never know these things is an even greater absurdity, why wouldn't we be able to know such a thing? Just think. It isn't hard.

You can superstitiously believe that it is impossible, and thus, to be a Communist is impossible, for that there will always be an 'other' who is determined by his genes, unlike you, who is apparently a beautiful, free rational being who is is allowed to have some privileged access to this non-human and divine truth, somehow.

[Jacob Cliff]

Is the case as simple as Hegel's "To be aware of a limitation is to already be beyond it", then? That -- to be conscious of those processes that constitute one's physiological being, already implies that one can alter, control and transform it (and we are therefore not dominated by this at all?). That to know, is a partisan act in itself (because it is an insistence on reason rather than superstition, rather than holding these processes to be external, sacred, untouched spaces)?

Your insistence on insulting me and others who ask questions is a genuine problem, I may add. It isn't that "it hurts my feelings", it's just purely ridiculous and only serves to further obfuscate your already-convoluted writing style. My apologies if my question touched your fragile nerves. I can very much understand resentment over those questions that gloss over what you have previously written about, so to an extent I am not claiming your anger isn't justified, but to be quite frank: what you write isn't always clear, even when one is approaching it very critically so as to retain this knowledge and 'connect it' to real-life. Accept that not everybody is as well-versed in psychoanalytic and Marxist terminology as you are (can you seriously, honestly, expect a student who only has a handful of Marx and Engels at his disposal to immediately comprehend that which consistently uses Hegelian terminology and so on while assuming it is just common knowledge? I'm not saying dumb it down, but my god, don't expect everyone to be "on your level" from reading a 29+ pages of a post that employs a logic that even you claim is extremely difficult to grasp, especially when it is written in the context of a debate and littered with paragraphs of browbeating and berating. Just some food for thought).

[Rafiq]

That to know, is a partisan act in itself (because it is an insistence on reason rather than superstition, rather than holding these processes to be external, sacred, untouched spaces)?

That, and because to know is literally practical. To know something is literally to subordinate something to your practice. Knowledge should be understood in the same way that any act should be understood.

I'm not saying dumb it down, but my god, don't expect everyone to be "on your level"

The biggest and most fatal mistake is to conceive me as an 'other', in this sense, who secretly is "at his level" for some reason that is unique to him. That is the problem.

If you are aware of your limitations - which all Socialists should - they should be in the process of struggling to overcome them. The problem is not your lack-of-knowledge, but that you regularly fall victim to the temptation of cutting the process of struggling to know short. That is the enemy: The enemy is those ideas which cut things short which allow one to take a breath, sigh, and relax in the vein that all is well. Prolonging confrontation with the deadlocks, with any internal deadlocks, is the most fatal enemy. Even where you are at the greatest level of despair, where you have given up all hope, where you in other words stumble upon a question you believe undermines your ability to intellectually justify yourself as a Communist, one should ask: Have I really exhausted everything? Have I really taken this to the highest possible conclusion, or is something missing from what leads me to despair?

The reason ruthless criticism is always stressed is because the point of ruthless criticism is that absolutely nothing is just assumed or taken for granted. One must be the most ruthless totalitarian to themselves. One must practice the most severe, merciless, and cruel self-dictatorship in the name of universal reason .

Absolute knowledge does not give an individual this kind of relief of a permission to no longer have to think. What absolute knowledge does is electrify persons to indefinitely go further and take every single thing to the highest conclusion possible.

[Jacob Cliff]

"The biggest and most fatal mistake is to conceive me as an 'other', in this sense, who secretly is "at his level" for some reason that is unique to him. That is the problem."

Except this isn't at all what I am claiming. Of course what are you saying can be understood by anyone unless they are mentally impaired or in a state of psychosis. I am not referring to you as any type of Other, only someone who happens to possess a comprehensive understanding of Marxism which can be adopted by Leftists today. The problem is how this understanding is articulated and disseminated to others.

"If you are aware of your limitations - which all Socialists should - they should be in the process of struggling to overcome them. The problem is not your lack-of-knowledge, but that you regularly fall victim to the temptation of cutting the process of struggling to know short."

And if this were the case, I would not have asked the question in the first place. I would have assumed Marxism to be bankrupt in this regard and wouldn't find a need to consider the answer of other Leftists on this forum, to solidify my own understanding. If I assumed this was unanswerable, if this was something that would not be able to be tackled by Marxism, I would go about my day and not have any reason to ask this. Had I 'stopped short' of conceiving this problem and immediately was mesmerized and paralyzed by it's position, there would be no question in the first place. Dedication to the cause, critical thinking and engagement even, does not preclude being stumped by even the most ideological claims. YOUR error is assuming that questioning something is giving up, that here, I renounce Marxism and revolutionary socialism because I have not taken my positions to their highest conclusions, or that when I come across a problem, I do not critically conceive it but simply jump to a go-to answer guaranteed by another online. I am not looking to be reliant on others at the expense of my own intellectual independence, but similarly, being stumped does not entail surrendering.