Feb 11, 2020, 9:40 AM
—“KOTH games are how I know Curt’s not an evil genius trying to start a cult. He purposely pushes away the cult like people and those who just want to be told what to do. He encourages us all to be skeptical, even of him, and to think. #NotACult”— Noah J Revoy
Feb 11, 2020, 9:40 AM
—“KOTH games are how I know Curt’s not an evil genius trying to start a cult. He purposely pushes away the cult like people and those who just want to be told what to do. He encourages us all to be skeptical, even of him, and to think. #NotACult”— Noah J Revoy
Feb 24, 2020, 4:29 PM In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?
Feb 24, 2020, 4:29 PM In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?
Mar 27, 2020, 10:08 AM by Matt MacBradaigh I had a couple of thoughts about Libertarians. It might not be as intellectual as some, but I think not insignificant.
When L’s want to lobby politicians for pro-gun rights (to keep the example consistent on this issue), they must lobby R’s to do their work for them. L’s didn’t cast a single vote to defend gun rights under Reagan, HW. Bush, Clinton (AWB), or under GW Bush for the sunset of AWB, or to defend gun rights post Sandy Hook, or post Parkland, FL, etc.
Given #2, it’s clear L’s aren’t even in the game. They’re watching, from the nosebleed cheap seats, and bitching about what the players actually did, armchair quarterbacking what they “should have” done.
I was reminded of this fact by Curt’s comment re: boys begging men to fight for them.
by Bill Smith Agreed. The ones I’ve met have been adult adolescents who unconsciously associate with their mothers as Jung described in Aion: The Syzygy: Anima and Animus They live spouting construct, never getting their hands dirty with interacting with their shadow… to continue with the jungian narrative.
Mar 27, 2020, 10:08 AM by Matt MacBradaigh I had a couple of thoughts about Libertarians. It might not be as intellectual as some, but I think not insignificant.
When L’s want to lobby politicians for pro-gun rights (to keep the example consistent on this issue), they must lobby R’s to do their work for them. L’s didn’t cast a single vote to defend gun rights under Reagan, HW. Bush, Clinton (AWB), or under GW Bush for the sunset of AWB, or to defend gun rights post Sandy Hook, or post Parkland, FL, etc.
Given #2, it’s clear L’s aren’t even in the game. They’re watching, from the nosebleed cheap seats, and bitching about what the players actually did, armchair quarterbacking what they “should have” done.
I was reminded of this fact by Curt’s comment re: boys begging men to fight for them.
by Bill Smith Agreed. The ones I’ve met have been adult adolescents who unconsciously associate with their mothers as Jung described in Aion: The Syzygy: Anima and Animus They live spouting construct, never getting their hands dirty with interacting with their shadow… to continue with the jungian narrative.
Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM (people not grasping closure) P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.
—“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan
How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’. You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail. You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it. The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference). The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion). Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions. Sorry. Just is.
Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM (people not grasping closure) P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.
—“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan
How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’. You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail. You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it. The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference). The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion). Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions. Sorry. Just is.
Mar 27, 2020, 11:38 AM
—“Libertarians don’t do skin in the game – they play fantasy league football for ideology.”—Gary Knight
(Gary always up-man’s everyone else. It’s a good thing.)
Mar 27, 2020, 11:38 AM
—“Libertarians don’t do skin in the game – they play fantasy league football for ideology.”—Gary Knight
(Gary always up-man’s everyone else. It’s a good thing.)