October 25th, 2018 10:01 AM

THE LAST FEW SHOVEL-FULLS IN THE GRAVE OF POSTMODERNISM

  1. I’m happy to go into depth on this subject but the argument is quite simple, and was put forward by a commenter:

–“Postmodernists: question who controls knowledge and where it comes from”–

Yes, that is a postmodernist (sophist).

  1. A Scientist: Truth (coherent, consistent, correspondent, rational, reciprocal, limited, and complete) is power independent. Either you are engaging in full reciprocity correspondent with reality or you are not.

  2. Pomo is an attempt to circumvent (conduct a fraud) by casting power as arbitrary, truth as arbitrary, reciprocity as arbitrary when they are necessary, and a presumption of an arbitrary good (equality rather than evolutionary survival) as justification for the fraud.

  3. Hicks‘ argument, which you did not understand, is that POMO is an evolution of the (Marxist) means by which to circumvent reciprocity (science, economics, and law) by claiming power (science/truth, law/power, economics/necessity) is sentimental and psychological (arbitrary).

  4. My argument, a bit more articulate that Hicks’, is that this attempt at fraud is not only from Marxism to Postmodernism, but from the long history of Pilpul/Critique, Abrahamic Law, Platonism, Abrahamic Monotheism, Abrahamic Theology, and Continental Philosophy (Rousseau/Kant)

  5. And that under Pilpul(Justificationism) and Critique (Straw Manning, disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying) any internal consistency (constant relations) can be argued (story or fraud constructed) to violate correspondence, reciprocity, limits, and completeness.

  6. And that under Falsificationism (Survival) from tests of coherence, consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits and completeness (what we test in court) such Frauds (Lies to cover Thefts) are exposed. Leaving only truth candidates.

  7. So while you merely made a list of STATED INTENTIONS, as scientists (and jurists) we measure the form of argument (lying) and the changes in state (thefts), and the means, motives and opportunity used (criminal liability) not the STATED INTENTION (lies) of the actor.

  8. One is not liable for his intentions but for his consequences. One acts given the resources available(means), the institutions available (opportunity) to produce reciprocity (meritocracy) and therefore continuous eugenic evolution (survival from competition) or the opposite.

  9. Ergo, Marx (econ/history), Boas (Anthro/Soc.), Freud(Psych), Cantor (math platonism), Frankfurt (Norms,Traditions,Habits,Institutions), the French Postmodernists (Reason Itself) sought to use the ancient techniques of overloading (lying) by pseudoscience (marx et al) and ….

  10. … sophism (Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, Heidegger) to construct a disinformation campaign w/Critique: poisoning the well with a straw man criticism) in order to perpetuate a fraud(theft) by attacking Poincare, Maxwell,Darwin,Menger, Spencer, Nietzsche, and the Eugenicists …

  11. … who were seeking to restate the successful group evolutionary strategy of western civilization (transcendence: by adaptive velocity ) using Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Jury and Tort Law, and Markets (empirical evidence of reciprocity) in everything …

  12. … including association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, polities, and defense(war), in scientific terms (The One Language of Truthful Speech, under the One Law of Reciprocity).

  13. Because it was this group strategy (today called “OODA Loops” in military, and “innovation” in economics, technology, and science), that allowed western civ in the ancient and modern worlds, to drag mankind kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, brutality, arbitrary rule, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature, in a universe hostile to life.

  14. So your ‘list of excuses-of-intent’ by stating ‘quotes of intent’ are just attempts to perpetuate the dysgenic, defeatist, destructive, fraud, of using sophisticated lies (sophisms, supernaturalisms, pseudosciences) to appeal to sentiments as a means of obtaining power.

  15. When your use of that power, as we have seen, is to destroy the modern world as the abrahamists (jews, christians, and muslims) destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world, costing us more than a thousand years of dark age, and a billion deaths …

  16. … for no other purpose than pursuing dysgenia, destruction of capital, the manufacture of ignorance, in the 3500 year struggle of the primitive peoples (equalitarian poverty and ignorance) against the advancing peoples (meritocratic wealth and knowledge).

  17. So I am not only calling you and other POMO’s Frauds, Sophists, and Thieves, but the Enemy of Mankind and the bringers of destruction, ignorance, poverty, dysgenia, and suffering. The only equality is poverty. The only wealth is differences (hierarchy). Because it is by hierarchy (Pareto, or Power Laws) that we can construct the voluntary organization of research, invention, investment, production, distribution, and trade, using the selfish incentives of man with the limited knowledge at his disposal, to seize the optimum opportunity at his disposal, such that together we defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance – despite none of us knowing more than a fraction of the existential knowledge we all possess.

  18. And like I said, if you studied Physics, Genetic and Cultural Differences, Political Economy, and Law (the complete scientific method), then you would understand such things – instead of reading Sophomoric Political Fantasy Fiction.

  19. Transcendence (Evolution), by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Natural Law of Tort, An Independent Judiciary (Nomocracy), and the only option remaining under all of the above: Markets for voluntary cooperation in all aspects of life.

— closing —

It is a well researched bit of knowledge that we claim a lie is performed by intent, but that we judge whether we lie by our preferences and cognitive biases. So we lie on behalf of our intuitions, not on behalf of the truth or falsehood of our statements.

Ergo, we lie not just by intention, but by failing to perform due diligence against lying by intuition in the absence of intention. We are not only liable for our intended actions, but failures of due diligence before taking actions.

We all self insure ourselves against falsehood.

Some of us specialize in the fraud of escaping self insurance, by escaping due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

— differences —

Doolittle (law), Taleb (statistics), Hicks (Intellectual history)