Jan 28, 2020, 10:33 PM TESTIMONY by Castle Gate I’ve visited 10 foreign countries and lived in three others for at least one year each. I own a law firm I created with two classmates. I have four kids ages 12 – 18. I am a Propertarian because I understand how the world actually is.
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
RT @realDonaldTrump: These are “Organized Groups” that have nothing to do with G
RT @realDonaldTrump: These are “Organized Groups” that have nothing to do with George Floyd. Sad!
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 15:18:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266750909805203457
-
Criticisms are residue from king of the hill games and Curt’s research methods
Criticisms are residue from king of the hill games and Curt’s research methods. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/criticisms-are-residue-from-king-of-the-hill-games-and-curts-research-methods/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 15:01:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266746590598959109
-
Criticisms are residue from king of the hill games and Curt’s research methods.
Jan 29, 2020, 9:03 PM (Selected Bill Joslin Notes on Curt’s Methods and His Critics) Many criticisms are residue from king of the hill games and Curt’s research methods. Curt will take a position and argue it, just to cause debate. Then through the subsequent “battles” the ideas that survive tend to be correct. He then goes away and refines them then comes back. His stance now is that christian ethics are scientific – the notion of P prosecuting Christians stems from their misunderstanding that testimonialism pertains to all and any speech acts – it applies to public speech acts (speaking to the public about matters public) not a private community or each other. Many jump off the train outraged if they don’t understand how P is developed: by public argument.
That fits Curts teaching style – the jargon stems from e-prime. To avoid God like proclamations often requires pulling in “just the right term”. Then what happens is an operational argument becomes a definition elsewhere (one word or phrase to reference the argument). Overtime a “terms of art” has evolved. The main hurdle to P is e-prime. From there definitions. Then, where I’m at, is general knowledge. Edit
-
Criticisms are residue from king of the hill games and Curt’s research methods.
Jan 29, 2020, 9:03 PM (Selected Bill Joslin Notes on Curt’s Methods and His Critics) Many criticisms are residue from king of the hill games and Curt’s research methods. Curt will take a position and argue it, just to cause debate. Then through the subsequent “battles” the ideas that survive tend to be correct. He then goes away and refines them then comes back. His stance now is that christian ethics are scientific – the notion of P prosecuting Christians stems from their misunderstanding that testimonialism pertains to all and any speech acts – it applies to public speech acts (speaking to the public about matters public) not a private community or each other. Many jump off the train outraged if they don’t understand how P is developed: by public argument.
That fits Curts teaching style – the jargon stems from e-prime. To avoid God like proclamations often requires pulling in “just the right term”. Then what happens is an operational argument becomes a definition elsewhere (one word or phrase to reference the argument). Overtime a “terms of art” has evolved. The main hurdle to P is e-prime. From there definitions. Then, where I’m at, is general knowledge. Edit
-
No, you can’t make it simple. 😉
No, you can’t make it simple. 😉 https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/no-you-cant-make-it-simple/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:59:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266745949126365184
-
Attempts to Create Multiple Incompatible World Views
Attempts to Create Multiple Incompatible World Views https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/attempts-to-create-multiple-incompatible-world-views/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:38:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266740746897502210
-
Attempts to Create Multiple Incompatible World Views
Feb 4, 2020, 1:01 PM by Predmetsky Rosenborg Heidegger is oftentimes very near the surface when it comes to post-structuralist advocacy of diversity, especially in the work of someone like Chantal Mouffe who draws on Derrida, the later Wittgenstein and Carl Schmitt to try to articulate a scenario in which multiple incompatible worldviews could coexist in the same region. R selected types like conflict because they extract resources from the conflict itself and from its leftovers. She tries to modify Schmitt’s view of politics as inherently antagonistic and rooted in the friend enemy distinction, by advocating friendly agonism rather than lethal antagonism. But underneath this is this Heideggerian idea that people basically don’t think that their own ideas correspond to a mind-independent reality; that a MusIim and a Christian can be convinced to discard whatever is “problematic” in their worldview and settle for a highly redacted and westernized counterfeit. You see this especially in obnoxious Heideggerian readings of Christianity in “neo-Orthodox” theologians like Rudolf Bultmann who argues that it doesn’t even matter for Christianity if Jesus really died because it’s all about the experience of the story. Most people don’t actually think like this though. They think that their beliefs are true and that their truth matters and they aren’t willing to pretend like it’s just a meaningless story whose truth-value is irrelevant. People take their worldviews very seriously, and as Carl Schmitt understood, they are often willing to kill or die in their defense.
CD: I admire this work. I cannot engage in this kind of literary analysis and exposition of emotion and intuition without first converting it to existential “laundered” (value neutral) terms. I only work with what is false, possible, impossible, and irreciprocal or reciprocal. The challenge is finding the VERY FEW others that can discuss these subjects in a scientific paradigm of consistent rational terms, and organizing what I consider sophistry, or secular theology into the scientific frame but while comparing and maintaining the frame of each original author. I suspect this is why i just can’t stand reading what I consider sophistry and secular theology – because converting it is extraordinarily burdensome, and I perceive every sentence as an attempt to lie.
-
Attempts to Create Multiple Incompatible World Views
Feb 4, 2020, 1:01 PM by Predmetsky Rosenborg Heidegger is oftentimes very near the surface when it comes to post-structuralist advocacy of diversity, especially in the work of someone like Chantal Mouffe who draws on Derrida, the later Wittgenstein and Carl Schmitt to try to articulate a scenario in which multiple incompatible worldviews could coexist in the same region. R selected types like conflict because they extract resources from the conflict itself and from its leftovers. She tries to modify Schmitt’s view of politics as inherently antagonistic and rooted in the friend enemy distinction, by advocating friendly agonism rather than lethal antagonism. But underneath this is this Heideggerian idea that people basically don’t think that their own ideas correspond to a mind-independent reality; that a MusIim and a Christian can be convinced to discard whatever is “problematic” in their worldview and settle for a highly redacted and westernized counterfeit. You see this especially in obnoxious Heideggerian readings of Christianity in “neo-Orthodox” theologians like Rudolf Bultmann who argues that it doesn’t even matter for Christianity if Jesus really died because it’s all about the experience of the story. Most people don’t actually think like this though. They think that their beliefs are true and that their truth matters and they aren’t willing to pretend like it’s just a meaningless story whose truth-value is irrelevant. People take their worldviews very seriously, and as Carl Schmitt understood, they are often willing to kill or die in their defense.
CD: I admire this work. I cannot engage in this kind of literary analysis and exposition of emotion and intuition without first converting it to existential “laundered” (value neutral) terms. I only work with what is false, possible, impossible, and irreciprocal or reciprocal. The challenge is finding the VERY FEW others that can discuss these subjects in a scientific paradigm of consistent rational terms, and organizing what I consider sophistry, or secular theology into the scientific frame but while comparing and maintaining the frame of each original author. I suspect this is why i just can’t stand reading what I consider sophistry and secular theology – because converting it is extraordinarily burdensome, and I perceive every sentence as an attempt to lie.
