Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

MORE NON-ARGUMENT FROM GA POSTMODERNISTS

TO:​ Imperius

—“What is meant by the contrast between “description within experience” and “analogy beyond”?— Imperius

1. Within the limits of sense perception

2. Within the limits of physical instrumentation.

3. Within the limits of reason( deduction, induction, abduction, guessing.)

4. Within the limits of logic (constant relations).

5. Within the limits of calculation (logical instrumentation).

Ergo: (a) – within sense, perception, reason, calculation = Experience. (b) – Within instrumental evidence testable by sense, perception, reason, calculation = Analogy to experience.(c) “Reduction of the imperceptible to analogy to experience sufficient for comparison within the limits of sense, perception, reason, experience.

Operational means of stating what others have said by previous means — preventing idealism and subsequent conflation and inflation by reduction to operational terms.

—” morality is processed in the declarative, “— Imperius

DEFINITIONS:

RECIPROCITY: productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of other group members, sufficient to cause retaliation (demand for restitution).

MORALITY

Good <- Moral <- Ethical <- amoral -> unethical -> immoral -> Evil. (I’ve defined this in detail elsewhere, search the site rather than repeat here.)

1) Objectively Moral: Reciprocal (mutually beneficial) within the limits of proportionality (defection). No cooperative species can survive otherwise.

2) Personal Moral Intuition: Minimum Reciprocity within the Limits of proportionality that I prefer given my gender and sexual, social, economic, and political market value.

3) Interpersonal Personal Moral Intuition: Minimum Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality I can get away with given my sexual social economic and political market value.

4) Normative Morality: standards of reciprocity given the group evolutionary strategy, and the portfolio of conditions necessary to preserve sufficient reciprocity that sufficient proportionality is maintained that the polity survives.

DECLARATIVE, OSTENSIVE, IMPERATIVE

1) STATEMENT

Declarative (Subjective): of the nature of or making a declaration; a statement; (irresponsibility)

ie: Objective: Promissory. (responsibility)

2) DESCRIPTION

Ostensive: (Subjective) directly or clearly demonstrative. (irresponsibility)

ie: Objective: Operational. (Responsibility)

CLAIM(PROMISE), VALUE

Imperative: (Subjective) an essential or urgent thing; (irresponsibility)

ie: Objective Necessary: (responsibility)

Grammatical difference between:

a) Command free of responsibility (ir-reciprocity: immorality)

And;

b) Argument inclusive of responsibility. (reciprocity: morality)

So while you claim I don’t understand language as far as I know I understand all grammars known to man, the common (geometric) constitution of those grammars; the point of view each of them is uttered from; and the incentive to use each one of them for the purpose of NOT speaking truthfully.

And as usual you’re claiming that I don’t understand when no, I understand, I don’t value, because I am seeking a means of deciding conflict, and suppressing lying of all kinds, thus prohibiting the abrahamic means of deceit (which is the only one we westerners are vulnerable to given our high trust), and this is counter to your interests because of reasons I’ve explained before.

I don’t really disambiguate your claims often, and I emphasize the only known incentives to avoid reciprocal (testimonial) speech, and all are either to justify authoritarianism or justify deceit.

But if I can ‘correct’ Kantian sophism I’m equally comfortable disambiguating postmodern (social construction) sophism whether left appeal to authority to avoid darwin, or right appeal to authority to advance darwin.

Fact remains is that if you can’t state it truthfully the question is why?

I mean, authoritarianism especially martial and political does nto require obscuring the demand for authority. The reason being that one already has the power to exercise.

Supernatural authority or sophomoric authority or pseudoscientific authority are simply means by which those lacking the power to exercise try to construct it by inspirational means. There is no other reason to use it. But the total failure of continental civilization to produce anything without trying to rescue a country under external pressure and conquest (interwar germany), when people have an incentive to follow a message of rallying for material reasons.

If you can on the other hand construct some promise whether true (economic, political) or false ( supernatural salvation, economic power, political power), and a pseudoscientific, sophomoric, or occult means of advancing it (an ideology) then you at least have an excuse. TO OBSCURE a strategy for the obtaining of power. And then a strategy for preserving power, and operation that polity or faithful.

Now if you had that to offer then I could come back with ‘this will work, that won’t work’ or something or other.

BUt if you’re just talking the theory of lying that in that context I don’t see any value in promoting various new means of lying among our people when it is precisely this kind of lying that has made them vulnerable to marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, and postmodernism.

I mean, is start with ‘here is a constitution that will solve the problem of current modernity; here is a recipe for restoring our historically successful group strategy; here is a recipe for creating a new mythology but not what it is; here is a recipe for creating a new religion, but not what it is. so others please have at it.

So we have had this same conversation for something between four and five years now: I analyze, architect, engineer, and render into law. (Science) the means of operating a polity that cannot be defeated by abrahamic means (or military, or economic, or immigration). The rest is up to “storytellers”. If you want to write a story do so. As long as it doesn’t try to undermine our strategy, which is our group’s competitive advantage, then I don’t care what it is.

But if it does try to perpetuate abrahamic deciets then I’m going to do my duty and falsify, undermine, and eradicate it.