Now, imagine you come up with an idea with explanatory power. You can get all excited about it and invest in it (justificationism), or you can apply it all over the place, and see if the idea survives. Each time it doesn’t survive you can try to refine or replace it.
It seems to take three months to a year to work through an idea.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 10:11:00 UTC
CONSERVATIVE LITERATURE IN FEMININE VOICE 😉 (sarcasm)
Ok. So if you want to read literature instead of history, law, and science, then yes Leddihn is a pretty good teacher.
A friend suggested one of his books to me yesterday so I read it last night. And it reminded me of something.
A rather famous and talented actor takes his scripts and uses a black magic market to remove all the punctuation and anything else superfluous. Which in turn reminds me of jefferson cutting out the few meaningful words of jesus from the bible.
And you know that’s what I was thinking.
Now I know that as a scientist I get kind of ‘nauseous’ when an author appeals to my sentiments, or asks me to empathize with his.
And I know that the reason ‘You all’ want to read literature is so that you can understand by empathy and ‘feel’ a world view becauset he author is appealing to your sentiments, or you can empathize with his sentiments.
But in the sequence dream state > parable > sympathetic communication > —empty spot here— >formal logic > mathematics lies an empty spot for ‘operational sympathy’. Or ‘operational communication’. And this is the language of science. (and law follows science).
And so I have a very hard time reading even leddihn compared to, say, Pareto or Weber or Hayek – or any of the scientists – because of all the work I have to do listening to ‘woman talk’ and filtering out the nonsense.
So, yes, if ‘woman talk’ is necessary for you. I can understand why you would rely on, or need ‘literature’ rather than science and law.
But I need man-talk. Sorry.
And there isn’t anything meaningful or useful in there for me.
And so I think that ‘Y’all’ can keep your chick talk, woman talk, german philosophers, and such. And I’ll stick with operationalism that doesn’t depend upon analogy to, and loading of and framing with, feminine sentimentalism in order to make my arguments. 😉
How’s that. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 10:06:00 UTC
NATURAL LAW FASCISM
Natural Law provides the perfect Dictator in the form of a distributed dictatorship of the sovereign by the contract for ‘Natural Law Fascism.’ : Perfect Reciprocity 😉
(love it)
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 09:50:00 UTC
—“Europe must take its fate into its own hands”—Angela Merkel
That’s exactly what we’ve been saying.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 09:16:00 UTC
Lets reverse it: if women weren’t ‘crazy’ so to speak, they wouldn’t tolerate the cost of such expensive offspring for such extended periods of time. Women evolved to work together to raise generations, and even then, half of their offspring died before the first cycle of maturity (age seven), and half of those before maturity. Women feel a sense of emotional ‘panic’ much earlier. Because children die so much more easily than adults. And men feel a sense of emotional panic so much less easily, because we are, frankly, by comparison, except for our top 1/3, relatively expendable.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 23:02:00 UTC
WHY ARE WOMEN CRAZY? TO SOME DEGREE, THEY NEED TO BE. MOSTLY BECAUSE OF FEMINISM
–“I’ll bet a lot of women act crazy after Curt talks at them.”—Erika Walker
Statistically speaking, because of the much higher incidence of mental illness in women it’s more likely that they were crazy in the first place. Men develop antisocial behaviors but women mental illness. look it up. women are also much more likely to practice denial. sorry. just is what it is. women are also more likely to display cognitive biases such as ‘NAXALT’. Rather than denying it why don’t we explain why? INSUFFICIENT SOCIALIZATION.)
THE WORKING THEORY: DESOCIALIZATION
The best working argument in the literature is that women need and lack the social pressure of a lot of women, plus the freedom of emotional expression of high socialization especially when young, and will do better if they have younger siblings or their own children in their teens. Extending childhood, using schooling as a means of infantilization, and depriving girls from heavy socialization with older generations of women, allows women to develop extremes of behavior instead of focusing hypersensitivity on the maintenance of young.
LETS REVERSE IT
if women weren’t ‘crazy’ so to speak, they wouldn’t tolerate the cost of such expensive offspring for such extended periods of time. Women evolved to work together to raise generations, and even then, half of their offspring died before the first cycle of maturity (age seven), and half of those before maturity. Women feel a sense of emotional ‘panic’ much earlier. Because children die so much more easily than adults. And men feel a sense of emotional panic so much less easily, because we are, frankly, by comparison, except for our top 1/3, relatively expendable.
MODERNITY IS BAD FOR US
Modernity has made men sad and suicidal, and women crazy or at least crazier than is normal. All so that we could increase taxes and increase the rates of reproduction of the underclasses, extend childhood to the detriment of our offspring, and put people into total retirement rather than using them for easy work that keeps them fit and socialized.
(Do you see how I use criticism as opportunity for education?)
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 18:40:00 UTC
Try it. Go into a forum, page, or room with people who might be invested in a particular belief, theory, or narrative. Then propose a rational alternative that they won’t like because it is contradictory to their narrative. Then simply try to make your argument survive their criticisms. Don’t be an ass, just try to see if you can. People will defend their cherished investments. Most of it will be nonsense. but the best people will eventually chime in and tell you something intelligent. and you can learn from it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 18:33:00 UTC
Well, like Prometheus, Covenant is just a bad moving made barely tolerable by high production values
Let me help you: the alien franchise cannot be made into high concept, and that is why Scott is failing.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 15:19:00 UTC
THE POSTMODERN STRATEGY
by Bill Joslin
If we approach a theory, not as a report on the state of the world, but as an effort to report honestly, then those who argue for a reduced criteria for reporting are attempting to avoid due diligence.
Pomo (and platonists, idealists, solopsists etc) strike at the root of a criteria for honesty – that truth itself is not attainable, or can not be verified externally (and thus there are no commons to access), or is relative… its all an effort to avoid accountability.
Argumentation is then rendered irrelevant with them, as is evidence, observation, operation etc unless it adopts their presuppositions – this allows them to reframe the values or their opponents so that the sentiment behind those values works in their favor.
Equality before the law becomes egalitarian.
Wealth becomes exploitation.
Organizational structures needed for cooperation becomes oppression.
Democracy changes from a stop-check to rebellion into egalatarian arguments agaisnt “linguistic oppression of fomination cultures” (i.e. NVC)
So if you hold values of the enlightenment- those values gets twisted into advocacy to destroy enlightenment values.
I see everyday arguments of the right which support pomo goals . Pomo’s have their staunchest, most dedicated adversaries fighting their battles for them. Its clever as fuck.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 11:25:00 UTC
So, Alexander Zavialov, is the problem as simple, as european heroism, sovereignty, and markets spread successfully westward but not southward, for the simple reasons that (a) populations were larger in the south, (b) the vast majority were either river-valleys easy to conquere and rule, or herders on territory unfit for farming (c) it was more profitable to rule, exploit, and integrate with them than displace them?
I mean, we just killed off the europeans largely, and didn’t kill off the levantines, semites, egyptians, dravidians, chinese, africans?
Becuase indo europeans pretty much spread everywhere they could get to. And if the hittites hadn’t been stoppped by the egyptians…..
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 11:09:00 UTC