—“We need a quantum bullshit guide.”– Sabine Hossenfelder (@skdh)
I’m working on a “Consciousness Bullshit” guide. I don’t know how many more guides we need. But I don’t think that list will fit in a Twitter post.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 16:47:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796221998483337473
—“We need a quantum bullshit guide.”– Sabine Hossenfelder (@skdh)
I’m working on a “Consciousness Bullshit” guide. I don’t know how many more guides we need. But I don’t think that list will fit in a Twitter post.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 16:47:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796221998386839552
Read my other posts in this thread.
But that said:
(a) yes empiricists find german phenomenalism as ‘provincial’, by attempting to maintain the sentimentality of the argument. Whereas the english are naval, legal and merchant peoples and germans are martial, clerical, and farmers. So, we all work in the frame that is common among our peoples. It’s one thing to make moral and sentimental arguments when everyone is like you and another when you must make legal and economic arguments when you trade with different peoples. This pattern is the same whether england vs germany or athens vs sparta.
(b) the anglosphere interprets phenomenalism, which is a variation of what today we call psychologizing, as an attempt at deception by suggestion and manipulation. This isn’t true since germans are profoundly honest negotiators – possibly the most so in the world. But when reading the older philosophical works that’s how anglos interpret it.
(c) So think ‘city vs rural’. Same thing.
Reply addressees: @RonElam5 @SRCHicks
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 16:20:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796215136862064643
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796182836866584851
Yes. First, Karlin is often correct. Second, I might say the same thing a bit more precisely but I appreciate the greater degree of castigation he conveys. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 16:12:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796213086547763453
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796193478608646651
RT @SRCHicks: @curtdoolittle Mostly this: “the purpose of studying Hegel is to understand ‘what went wrong’”.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 16:02:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796210524700471597
Thank you. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 16:00:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796210204771577997
Reply addressees: @SRCHicks
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796207838315896847
–“Hegel overflexed on moral reasoning, which was then inverted by the young Hegelians to become a progressive/materialistic philosophy. Post-modernists thought the answer was to reject moral reasoning (using moral reasoning, lol) by deconstructing it and/or flexing emotion…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 16:00:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796210064606273939
Reply addressees: @nomad_dissident @SRCHicks
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796191975936303137
–“Hegel overflexed on moral reasoning, which was then inverted by the young Hegelians to become a progressive/materialistic philosophy. Post-modernists thought the answer was to reject moral reasoning (using moral reasoning, lol) by deconstructing it and/or flexing emotion instead. By almost totally overlooking empiricism, there is a lack of balance”– @nomad_dissident
^Correct.
But everything comes from somewhere. So where do anglo empiricism, german rationalism, and french pseudo-moralism come from? And why was each country persisting that vision? And what were the consequences?
This broader origin of causality explains more than comparison of the philosophers themselves.
All groups develop strategies. These strategies begin with group formation. They’re usually ancient. And these strategies are unconscious presumptions (premises) – metaphysical, conveyed as norms, traditions, values, institutions, and mythos.
A such, what are those strategies that manifest in each as arguments in favor of ‘the good’ – and in doing so persist those strategies, despite dramatic changes in energy conversion and consumption (prosperity), and therefore both new opportunity and choice.
First principles and all that. 😉
Feminine Authoritarian French, Masculine Duty Germany, Ascendant Masculine Entrepreneurial Britain.
What I find humorous or Ironic, given the strategies of England, France, and Germany, is that there are only three means of coercion, three variations of personality bias (from neutral), three categories of elites, three categories of formal institutions, and that western civilization is unique in practicing both class and elite trifunctionalism.
Cheers
CD
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 16:00:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796210064396632064
@SRCHicks, Without wanting to abuse the charity of your time, but at the same time wishing for clarity:
GIVEN:
1) Group Differences: Naval, Commercial, Secular Administrative Britain (Athens, Aristotle, Empirical) -vs- Landed, Agrarian, Clerically Administrative Germany (Sparta, Plato, Literary) -vs- Landed and Naval, Expansionist, Clerically Administrative, France (Late Rome, Augustine, Secular Theological).
2) I don’t see any positive impact from Hegel. And of course, it’s quite easy to interpret Foucault two ways: either he was trying, as were all postmoderns, to produce relativism to continue the project of maintaining the traditional French influence of the clerisy cum secular clerisy, transforming german (masculine) traditional pursuit of behavioral and cultural capital into french (feminine) behavioral consumption, or he was trying to suggest that his criticism of Hegel was to favor anglo empiricism. Obviously the former, but it’s possible for readers to presume the latter.
THEREFORE
Are you saying the purpose of studying Hegel is to understand ‘what went wrong’? (Which I think is a general theme you pursue somewhat indirectly and with your rather charming Canadian gentility and benevolence. 😉 )
Cheers
Again thanks for all you do and have done.
CD
Reply addressees: @SRCHicks
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 15:44:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796206168945078273
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796181858767475142
Hmm.. well, you’re correct but … (a) yes self domestication (neotenic evolution) is the correct answer for the variation between the races (subspecies), but (b) intelligence scales with neotenic evolution, (c) so if we look at all measures of all demonstrated behaviors in all countries worldwide, every single measure correlates with IQ. Every single one, because neoteny correlates with every single one, (e) and while there are tiny variations in personality between the races, and (f) while there EW slightly more meaningful variations in cognitive balance between the races – those that mirror different sex differences in cognition, (g) it’s all the same really: neoteny.
So you are correct in that we emphasize IQ too much, when we should emphasize neotenic evolution (domestication syndrome), and it’s this difference that produces all differences, of which IQ is only one manifestation.
So, yes. You’re correct.
And yes, you’ve identified the problem: “And anglos are also uniquely low in ethnocentricism;”.
However if we look at voting patterns its white women that cause all policy that prevents us from correcting it.
Reply addressees: @RokoMijic @mimi10v3
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 05:55:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796057799115333632
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795942833909543236