CONSERVATIVE LITERATURE IN FEMININE VOICE 😉 (sarcasm) Ok. So if you want to rea

CONSERVATIVE LITERATURE IN FEMININE VOICE 😉 (sarcasm)

Ok. So if you want to read literature instead of history, law, and science, then yes Leddihn is a pretty good teacher.

A friend suggested one of his books to me yesterday so I read it last night. And it reminded me of something.

A rather famous and talented actor takes his scripts and uses a black magic market to remove all the punctuation and anything else superfluous. Which in turn reminds me of jefferson cutting out the few meaningful words of jesus from the bible.

And you know that’s what I was thinking.

Now I know that as a scientist I get kind of ‘nauseous’ when an author appeals to my sentiments, or asks me to empathize with his.

And I know that the reason ‘You all’ want to read literature is so that you can understand by empathy and ‘feel’ a world view becauset he author is appealing to your sentiments, or you can empathize with his sentiments.

But in the sequence dream state > parable > sympathetic communication > —empty spot here— >formal logic > mathematics lies an empty spot for ‘operational sympathy’. Or ‘operational communication’. And this is the language of science. (and law follows science).

And so I have a very hard time reading even leddihn compared to, say, Pareto or Weber or Hayek – or any of the scientists – because of all the work I have to do listening to ‘woman talk’ and filtering out the nonsense.

So, yes, if ‘woman talk’ is necessary for you. I can understand why you would rely on, or need ‘literature’ rather than science and law.

But I need man-talk. Sorry.

And there isn’t anything meaningful or useful in there for me.

And so I think that ‘Y’all’ can keep your chick talk, woman talk, german philosophers, and such. And I’ll stick with operationalism that doesn’t depend upon analogy to, and loading of and framing with, feminine sentimentalism in order to make my arguments. 😉

How’s that. 😉