The Generations of Truth and Falsehood https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/the-generations-of-truth-and-falsehood/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 22:41:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266862271063613442
Form: Quote Commentary
-
Art as Example. Does “anglo” Just Mean Elitist? Yes.
(useful for the analysis of art)
—“Pseudoprofound bullshit titles made abstract art pieces appear more profound. “On this basis, one may expect the presence of bullshit to be widespread in the abstract art world.”—Rolf Degen @DegenRolf —“Oh, shocking, words can generate meaning! And meaning increases value: Wow! Who ever would have guessed?”—Jason Powell@KillerkattArt
Actually, it’s not ‘meaning’ it’s ‘sentiment’. Not only can we use words communicate meaning (reason), but we can load (sentiments), and usually by means of suggestion (deception). The ‘big lies’ are all constructed by this method, and postmodernism institutionalized it.
—“I feel like your comment highlights why strictly anglophone philosophers are poorly equipped to analyze art.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt
I studied at one of the best theoretical art schools in America, and art theory and criticism was my first (and still best) work. One can make truthful (technical) claims. And one can make experiential claims. And one can make political claims. Or one can conflate them (lie). The optimum analysis of any work, set of works, movement’s work, or civilization’s work, is to produce all three analyses and put them in competition with truth(meaning), beauty (aesthetics), excellence (craft), to discover what influenced the artist (context-puppet).
..............Truth(meaning)........... ............./..............\.......... ..Beauty(experience) --- Excellence(craft)
And compare the set of influences and context-puppets to one another, to understand the total meaning of the work whether technological, emotional (self), political (political), or context (universal). I can state any and all of those analyses of any work. As should any student.
.........Political........... ......./...........\......... ..Emotional --- Technological
Past->……Universal…..<-Present
Now the next step is to explore the difference between creators who understand their CRAFT as a set of those techniques, for evoking human experience (actors, directors, and editors the best current examples). And those who merely fantasize that they’re not self-pleasuring.
playing > student > laborer > craftsman > artist > innovator.
And the next is not to pander to them, or the pretense that postwar art is critique (undermining) is any different from the idiot in the meeting who reminds us of some obvious pedantry for attention and contributes nothing except friction to development of innovations.
Subtractive <—– Current Condition —–> Addative
It’s not that I’m Anglo, it’s that I’m ELITIST. If Elitism is synonymous with Anglo, Which I think it is, then that’s fine with me. I haven’t seen anything out of the continent that is anything other than simpering Rousseauian want for return of the lies of the church.
—“I don’t mean to knock your style or education. I just feel that if you need to construct a box with predesignated specific language that requires others to get in your box to talk about something then the result is insular and alienating.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt
You mean, like every single other discipline in the world? Like, literature? Scriptwriting? The play? What do you think they teach you in art school? Truth is insular and alienating – that’s why we have it. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t need it. Truth provides the DECIDABLE, not PREFERABLE. Here is what I was after: is it art (additive) or is it defecating in public for attention (subtractive)? What is the demarcation between additive and subtractive in art? I know you’re a good person. This is my job, and you just provided me with an opportunity to educate others.
—“Are you sure that your personal categories of “additive” and “subtractive” tells us anything?”—“—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt
Do you think I’m so absolutely exasperatingly, frustratingly, and annoyingly, (and arrogantly) persistent in driving to first causes without knowing the first causes? 😉 If it isn’t decidable I say so. If it’s decidable I say so. Irritating. I know… lol
-
Art as Example. Does “anglo” Just Mean Elitist? Yes.
(useful for the analysis of art)
—“Pseudoprofound bullshit titles made abstract art pieces appear more profound. “On this basis, one may expect the presence of bullshit to be widespread in the abstract art world.”—Rolf Degen @DegenRolf —“Oh, shocking, words can generate meaning! And meaning increases value: Wow! Who ever would have guessed?”—Jason Powell@KillerkattArt
Actually, it’s not ‘meaning’ it’s ‘sentiment’. Not only can we use words communicate meaning (reason), but we can load (sentiments), and usually by means of suggestion (deception). The ‘big lies’ are all constructed by this method, and postmodernism institutionalized it.
—“I feel like your comment highlights why strictly anglophone philosophers are poorly equipped to analyze art.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt
I studied at one of the best theoretical art schools in America, and art theory and criticism was my first (and still best) work. One can make truthful (technical) claims. And one can make experiential claims. And one can make political claims. Or one can conflate them (lie). The optimum analysis of any work, set of works, movement’s work, or civilization’s work, is to produce all three analyses and put them in competition with truth(meaning), beauty (aesthetics), excellence (craft), to discover what influenced the artist (context-puppet).
..............Truth(meaning)........... ............./..............\.......... ..Beauty(experience) --- Excellence(craft)
And compare the set of influences and context-puppets to one another, to understand the total meaning of the work whether technological, emotional (self), political (political), or context (universal). I can state any and all of those analyses of any work. As should any student.
.........Political........... ......./...........\......... ..Emotional --- Technological
Past->……Universal…..<-Present
Now the next step is to explore the difference between creators who understand their CRAFT as a set of those techniques, for evoking human experience (actors, directors, and editors the best current examples). And those who merely fantasize that they’re not self-pleasuring.
playing > student > laborer > craftsman > artist > innovator.
And the next is not to pander to them, or the pretense that postwar art is critique (undermining) is any different from the idiot in the meeting who reminds us of some obvious pedantry for attention and contributes nothing except friction to development of innovations.
Subtractive <—– Current Condition —–> Addative
It’s not that I’m Anglo, it’s that I’m ELITIST. If Elitism is synonymous with Anglo, Which I think it is, then that’s fine with me. I haven’t seen anything out of the continent that is anything other than simpering Rousseauian want for return of the lies of the church.
—“I don’t mean to knock your style or education. I just feel that if you need to construct a box with predesignated specific language that requires others to get in your box to talk about something then the result is insular and alienating.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt
You mean, like every single other discipline in the world? Like, literature? Scriptwriting? The play? What do you think they teach you in art school? Truth is insular and alienating – that’s why we have it. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t need it. Truth provides the DECIDABLE, not PREFERABLE. Here is what I was after: is it art (additive) or is it defecating in public for attention (subtractive)? What is the demarcation between additive and subtractive in art? I know you’re a good person. This is my job, and you just provided me with an opportunity to educate others.
—“Are you sure that your personal categories of “additive” and “subtractive” tells us anything?”—“—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt
Do you think I’m so absolutely exasperatingly, frustratingly, and annoyingly, (and arrogantly) persistent in driving to first causes without knowing the first causes? 😉 If it isn’t decidable I say so. If it’s decidable I say so. Irritating. I know… lol
-
The Undermined Our Third Way on Purpose
—“We import millions of people, and as they start to commit crime because of the oppressive system, which wipes out the unlucky ones, Steven Pinker publishes a book about how we never had less crime. Or something like that.”—@ArturBooth
But that’s the whole point of our system: The Third Way. Neither priesthood(poor) or aristocracy(strong) but the third way (meritocracy and the natural law of tort). The question is, why did we in ’65 under Johnson’s Great Society imitation of the Soviets, bring in underclasses? They did it on purpose to DESTROY OUR THIRD WAY through immigration. They failed with economic marxism. The failed with cultural marxism. They failed with postmodernism. But they succeeded in destroying the west only because of immigrating people who can’t exist under The Third Way.
-
The Undermined Our Third Way on Purpose
—“We import millions of people, and as they start to commit crime because of the oppressive system, which wipes out the unlucky ones, Steven Pinker publishes a book about how we never had less crime. Or something like that.”—@ArturBooth
But that’s the whole point of our system: The Third Way. Neither priesthood(poor) or aristocracy(strong) but the third way (meritocracy and the natural law of tort). The question is, why did we in ’65 under Johnson’s Great Society imitation of the Soviets, bring in underclasses? They did it on purpose to DESTROY OUR THIRD WAY through immigration. They failed with economic marxism. The failed with cultural marxism. They failed with postmodernism. But they succeeded in destroying the west only because of immigrating people who can’t exist under The Third Way.
-
Here Is the Problem for The Artist
Nov 29, 2019, 12:34 PM The artist cannot necessarily control his intuitions – the elephant is stronger than the rider, and the elephant gets stronger the lower the individual’s agency (class). But he produces a good in a market, like any other, he can be liable for. Criticism (or shaming, or even ridicule at times, and perhaps prosecution) are what all producers of goods risk. HERE. I’LL MAKE IT WORSE Art can EASILY be evaluated by triangulation (ordinal), as can all things not reducible to linear (cardinal) measures. Anything humans value can be evaluated by triangulation. Most of the time, in art, we are measuring ignorance, as in any other field. Likewise, people can be taught the basics of art criticism just as they can be taught the basics of fashion criticism, or of literary criticism, or of movie criticism …like any other system of weights and measures. The fact that they don’t know the method doesn’t mean it’s hard. What we find if we give people a basic education in art criticism (which I can probably do in the space of three hours or so)we find that they are quite good at identifying quality, and need only the language of demarcating decoration and context. What fits where, like ‘manners’. Your bath, bedroom, hallway, living room, office spaces, public buildings, museums, and monuments require different ‘manners’ of behavior, dress … and art. For the same reasons. And that’s what people do everywhere. ( The reason to do otherwise is to take attention by ‘theft’ from those environments. )
-
Here Is the Problem for The Artist
Nov 29, 2019, 12:34 PM The artist cannot necessarily control his intuitions – the elephant is stronger than the rider, and the elephant gets stronger the lower the individual’s agency (class). But he produces a good in a market, like any other, he can be liable for. Criticism (or shaming, or even ridicule at times, and perhaps prosecution) are what all producers of goods risk. HERE. I’LL MAKE IT WORSE Art can EASILY be evaluated by triangulation (ordinal), as can all things not reducible to linear (cardinal) measures. Anything humans value can be evaluated by triangulation. Most of the time, in art, we are measuring ignorance, as in any other field. Likewise, people can be taught the basics of art criticism just as they can be taught the basics of fashion criticism, or of literary criticism, or of movie criticism …like any other system of weights and measures. The fact that they don’t know the method doesn’t mean it’s hard. What we find if we give people a basic education in art criticism (which I can probably do in the space of three hours or so)we find that they are quite good at identifying quality, and need only the language of demarcating decoration and context. What fits where, like ‘manners’. Your bath, bedroom, hallway, living room, office spaces, public buildings, museums, and monuments require different ‘manners’ of behavior, dress … and art. For the same reasons. And that’s what people do everywhere. ( The reason to do otherwise is to take attention by ‘theft’ from those environments. )
-
Jeffersonian, European, Aristotelian
Dec 2, 2019, 8:55 PM
—“[Jefferson was a Deist.] Most deists denied the Christian concepts of miracles and the Trinity. Though he had a lifelong esteem for Jesus’ moral teachings, Jefferson did not believe in miracles, nor in the divinity of Jesus. In a letter to deRieux in 1788, he declined a request to act as a godfather, saying he had been unable to accept the doctrine of the Trinity “from a very early part of my life”.[17][24] In an 1820 letter to his close friend William Short, Jefferson stated, “it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.”[25] In 1824, four years later, Jefferson had changed on his view of the “materialism” of Jesus, clarifying then that “… the founder of our religion, was unquestionably a materialist as to man.”—
“I REQUIRE A COUNTERPOISE OF GOOD WORKS TO REDEEM IT.” ie: your faith is irrelevant. Only your deeds matter. Because from every experience I have seen, those who hide behind faith use it as a shield of moral cowardice, selfishness, and self-delusion, under which they can pretend moral righteousness while doing precisely the opposite. If you must sell your religion by your words, you have no religion to sell. GODS My understanding is that gods are archetypal Despots, kings, priests, or parents, and that deism is nothing more than the anthropomorphism of physical and natural laws, and that as populations increased, man required religion because of the alienation of agrarianism and urbanism, just as man desires marxism, socialism, statism, postmodernism, feminism, and the various new age, occult, and Buddhist pseudosciences to compensate. And that the stoics and epicureans understood the problem was solved through training (stoicism) and restoration of social orders (epicureanism) that created mindfulness by mental training, and socialization, that are natural consequences of tribal life, and absent in social, economic, and political life at scale. I pray to my god all the time. and I do what he advises me. And I usually pay for it if I don’t. I do not know his name. But it certainly is not that vile evil demon Jehova and is far more likely Thor/Zeus/Dayus-Pitar, or their material agents Aristotle and Odin. And if I seek wisdom of great men in history I find it in Hayek, Jefferson, Frederick the great, henry 8th, Ceasar, alexander, and most of all Aristotle. I don’t see it in the nonsense of filthy, superstitious, thieving lying, sheep-f—king foulness of our mortal enemy. Increasingly I prefer Odin(chaos) and Aristotle(order) who are two sides of the same coin. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are a disease, the consequences of which are systemic lying by their participants, and all the consequences that result. They owe us a dark age, the great plagues, endless wars,m lost peoples, lost civilizations, lost knowledge, and a billion dead. And in the hell that is history, they will burn forever as the worst people to have walked this earth. There is only one debt existential – that is to our ancestors who made us possible, the heroes that defended and advanced them, the natural world that sustains us, and the universe for the opportunity.
-
Jeffersonian, European, Aristotelian
Dec 2, 2019, 8:55 PM
—“[Jefferson was a Deist.] Most deists denied the Christian concepts of miracles and the Trinity. Though he had a lifelong esteem for Jesus’ moral teachings, Jefferson did not believe in miracles, nor in the divinity of Jesus. In a letter to deRieux in 1788, he declined a request to act as a godfather, saying he had been unable to accept the doctrine of the Trinity “from a very early part of my life”.[17][24] In an 1820 letter to his close friend William Short, Jefferson stated, “it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.”[25] In 1824, four years later, Jefferson had changed on his view of the “materialism” of Jesus, clarifying then that “… the founder of our religion, was unquestionably a materialist as to man.”—
“I REQUIRE A COUNTERPOISE OF GOOD WORKS TO REDEEM IT.” ie: your faith is irrelevant. Only your deeds matter. Because from every experience I have seen, those who hide behind faith use it as a shield of moral cowardice, selfishness, and self-delusion, under which they can pretend moral righteousness while doing precisely the opposite. If you must sell your religion by your words, you have no religion to sell. GODS My understanding is that gods are archetypal Despots, kings, priests, or parents, and that deism is nothing more than the anthropomorphism of physical and natural laws, and that as populations increased, man required religion because of the alienation of agrarianism and urbanism, just as man desires marxism, socialism, statism, postmodernism, feminism, and the various new age, occult, and Buddhist pseudosciences to compensate. And that the stoics and epicureans understood the problem was solved through training (stoicism) and restoration of social orders (epicureanism) that created mindfulness by mental training, and socialization, that are natural consequences of tribal life, and absent in social, economic, and political life at scale. I pray to my god all the time. and I do what he advises me. And I usually pay for it if I don’t. I do not know his name. But it certainly is not that vile evil demon Jehova and is far more likely Thor/Zeus/Dayus-Pitar, or their material agents Aristotle and Odin. And if I seek wisdom of great men in history I find it in Hayek, Jefferson, Frederick the great, henry 8th, Ceasar, alexander, and most of all Aristotle. I don’t see it in the nonsense of filthy, superstitious, thieving lying, sheep-f—king foulness of our mortal enemy. Increasingly I prefer Odin(chaos) and Aristotle(order) who are two sides of the same coin. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are a disease, the consequences of which are systemic lying by their participants, and all the consequences that result. They owe us a dark age, the great plagues, endless wars,m lost peoples, lost civilizations, lost knowledge, and a billion dead. And in the hell that is history, they will burn forever as the worst people to have walked this earth. There is only one debt existential – that is to our ancestors who made us possible, the heroes that defended and advanced them, the natural world that sustains us, and the universe for the opportunity.
-
Explaining to Normies (the “boiling Frogs”)
Dec 4, 2019, 9:41 AM by Chris Moyer When speaking to normies about costs of policies I tell them “We’ve lost entire cities we cannot even walk in while remaining safe” Really gets their noggin’ jogging. We’ve lost entire cities, pay the cost of increased security, and pay to have them housed and fed. What exactly are we getting again?