Source: Facebook

  • ART AS EXAMPLE. DOES “ANGLO” JUST MEAN ELITIST? YES. (useful for the analysis of

    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


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-29 10:28:00 UTC

  • Eric Danelaw updated his status

    Eric Danelaw updated his status.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-29 09:01:00 UTC

  • Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline

    Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-28 18:12:00 UTC

  • MISES: NEEDS REPEATING Mises was a raging clown claiming economics was construct

    https://propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/ON MISES: NEEDS REPEATING

    Mises was a raging clown claiming economics was constructivist ALONE. A fellow autist for certain, he didn’t grasp his discovery for reasons I’ve illustrated at length elsewhere. Mises is important for his membership in the great failure of the 20th century, which was a Jewish construction – reversing Descartes rescue of western mathematics from Semitic superstition.

    Short versions

    PRAXEOLOGY AS A FAILURE TO DEVELOP OPERATIONALISM

    https://propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/

    MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

    https://propertarianism.com/2014/10/17/mises-position-in-intellectual-history/

    ROTHBARDIAN FALLACIES

    https://propertarianism.com/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/

    HOPPE’S ERRORS

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/

    If you can find an error in there it’d be a miracle.

    If it weren’t for rothbardians we might have been able to reform mises by rewriting human action in scientific prose. At this point there is no point.Updated Nov 28, 2019, 10:19 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-28 10:19:00 UTC

  • MALE AND FEMALE DIFFERENCES IN MINDFULNESS AND ITS AFFECT ON RELATIONSHIPS NET:

    MALE AND FEMALE DIFFERENCES IN MINDFULNESS AND ITS AFFECT ON RELATIONSHIPS

    NET: We are baited into an ideal that s no longer accessible because the incentives are no longer functional. Women are a sex prize on a pedestal, and men are a resource prize.

    From: 5 Ways Women Are Trained to Hate Men by John Hawkins of RW News and 5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women by David Wong of Cracked

    There is actually a lot more propaganda aimed at getting women to hate men than vice-versa.

    1) Hollywood/Commercials: Ever heard of the Lifetime Network? Every man is a menacing stranger, every husband a wife-beating philanderer, and every date, a potential rape waiting to happen. Then there’s the hapless, incompetent father character who has become such a staple of television shows and commercials that he’s become a stereotype. There are lots of groups that can — and do — complain about how they’re portrayed on TV, but men could kvetch as much as any of them if they so desired.

    2) Women’s Magazines/Romance Novels: You might think women’s magazines are all about today’s empowered women who are starting their own businesses, competing with men on their own terms, and working their way to the top in politics. Uh…not quite.

    In other words, women buy women’s magazines to figure out which sort of men they should pursue and how to please them so they can get married. That’s kind of shallow, but not any moreso than men, who buy men’s magazines primarily to figure out how to impress women.

    The problem is that women’s magazines, like romance novels, have set the bar so high that there are like 12 guys who meet it.

    A man is basically looking for a woman he thinks is attractive, who admires him, who’s nice to him, who wants to take care of him, and who likes to cook and have sex. In other words, it’s still probably the same basic formula that cavemen were using. The message women get today, on the other hand, is that they should be looking for a man who looks like a cross between a bodybuilder and a professional model, who should either be filthy rich and/or a viking/pirate/vampire who’s incredibly dangerous and romantic, but can be converted into a house hubby via his emotion-releasing attaction to a woman, so they can live happily ever after, in eternal passion and in complete comfort forevermore.

    One of the biggest reasons that the age people first get married in this country has gone up considerably over the last few decades is the ideal consistently presented by women’s magazines and romance novels is so far out of line with reality that almost every real man women run across seems like a disappointment in comparison.

    3) The court system: The whole “women can do anything a man can do,” “we’re empowered” thing reminds me of a tactic John Stewart likes to use. He makes serious commentary that he wants to affect how people think, but when he gets called on it, he says, “Hey, I’m just a comedian. You can’t take what I say at face value!” In other words, it’s “clown nose on, clown nose off” based on whatever best suits his purposes. We get the same thing with the court system

    Men and women both have equal responsibility to take care of a child. So, can the father have shared custody after a divorce? No, the kid needs his mother. The woman makes more than the man. Can he have alimony? A man getting alimony? That’s ridiculous! Women are just as tough as men and can do anything they can do in the office! Unless, “Oh my gosh! Someone told a joke about a prostitute and a priest walking into a bar! I’m traumatized! It was almost as bad as the swimsuit calender on the wall! That’s was sexual harassment!” A good looking guy asks a woman out and she goes. An unattractive man asks a woman out and it’s sexual harassment. Clown nose on, women are empowered and strong, clown nose off, women are delicate little flowers who’ll be bruised by being treated the same way men are on a day-to-day basis.

    4) Politics: Haven’t you heard about the “war on women?” Women are being asked to pay for their birth control — just like men are! So obviously, they’re being kept down! Haven’t you heard that women don’t make as much as men? Granted, they don’t work as much either or in professions that are as dangerous or unpleasant, but still, it’s men keeping women down! The rhetoric doesn’t need to have anything to do with reality; it just has to be useful to the politicians using it to try to get elected.

    5) Liberal feminism: Liberal feminism has as much to do with hating men as it does with empowering women. It tells women that there’s a “patriarchy” out there that doesn’t exist, that men have it better than women, plays up any and all grievances between men and women, tells women they’re victims, and generally does all it can to promote gains for women at the expense of men. Liberal feminism is more of man hater’s philosophy than it is a way to lift up women.

    Thank goodness that there are so many women out there who don’t pay attention to the conditioning that’s all around them in modern American society.

    — CURTD – ANALYSIS —

    “Man is a nesting resource”

    INSECURITY – HIS ATTENTION IS ELSEWHERE

    Still talking to his ex

    Ogling at other women

    Comparing her to his mother or ex

    (vs Marrying Up, Divorce, Extract, and Dispose of)

    INSECURITY – HIS MIND IS ELSEWHERE

    Obsession with gadgets and machines

    Turning into fitness freaks

    (vs Obsession with appearance, nesting, status, and hyperconsumption)

    UNATTRACTIVENESS – HE DOESN”T FIND ME ATTRACTIVE

    Inflated male egos in a relationship

    Zoning out and being a selective listener

    Being completely unromantic and ignoring expressing love

    Not putting in the effort to turn on their partners and taking sex for granted

    (vs inflated female perception of value, talking nonsense to men as if they’re girlfriends, being unattractive, and requiring waaaaay too much work to ‘get some’.)

    UNINTERESTING – HE DOESN’T SHARE MY INTERESTS

    Hogging the TV remote

    Unwilling to compromise with activities and interests

    (vs omg moronic shallow expensive attention whoring interests)

    DISRESPECTING – HE DOESN”T RESPECT ME

    Being disgusted by women’s hygiene issues

    Making a mess and leaving stuff all over the house

    Slouching on the couch for the entire weekend

    Excessive burping and farting

    –VERSUS–

    “Woman is a sex resource”

    Men were raised to conform in order to get an attractive woman (and there aren’t any waist-hip ratios any longer)

    Men were raised to conform in order to put women on a pedestal. (women are used as bait to civilize us)

    Women conspire against our sex drive (ok for women to ‘advertise’ despite the fact that we find it exasperating)

    Men can no longer dominance play or achieve manhood by ‘achievable’ means – women dominate the commons.

    We Feel Powerless in obtaining sex and attention and so there is no point in being civilized.

    DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE DEMAND FOR MINDFULNESS

    For women, mindfulness is almost impossible in general, because of ‘worries’ (threats).

    For Men: “90 Percent of Our Energy and Discipline Is Devoted to Overcoming Sex-Hunger, to Behave Like Civilized Human Beings”

    —“It’s like that for most men, most of the time. We’re starving, and all women are various types of food. Only instead of food, it’s sex. And we’re trying to conduct our everyday business around the fact that we’re trying to renew our driver’s license with a talking pair of boobs. So, from about age 13 on, around 90 percent of our energy and discipline is devoted to overcoming this, to behave like civilized human beings and not like stray dogs in a meat market. One where instead of eating the meat, they want to hump it. Again, if you want to experience what it’s like, get a testosterone injection.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-28 09:37:00 UTC

  • Observer, Start, Positional Name: If you name zero (0) “start” and each ‘number’

    Observer, Start, Positional Name: If you name zero (0) “start” and each ‘number’ a positional name then the ‘mystery’ of math rapidly disappears, with the only question being why didn’t we use the right of the decimal rather than the left. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-28 08:52:00 UTC

  • Hayek didn’t correct Keynes, Hilbert didn’t correct Einstein. Poincare didn’t co

    Hayek didn’t correct Keynes,

    Hilbert didn’t correct Einstein.

    Poincare didn’t correct Cantor.

    Brouwer failed to correct mathematics

    Bridgman did try to correct the sciences.

    Doolittle does correct Mises.

    Same F—king Problem: Western Action and Realism vs Eastern Verbalism and Mysticism.

    Masculine vs Feminine cognition.

    Real is real vs Words are real.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-27 21:09:00 UTC

  • THE GENERATIONS OF TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD (via Brandon Hayes, The Propertarian Inst

    THE GENERATIONS OF TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD

    (via Brandon Hayes, The Propertarian Institute)

    1 – Generation One: The Yamna, Law, Bronze, Wheel, steel and Paternalism Enlightenment

    –vs–

    The first Counter Enlightenment: Religion and Mythology > causing The indo-iranian-european divide. (See Armstrong)

    ————————————————————–

    2 -Generation Two: The Pythagorean, Socratic, Aristotelian, and Zeno Rational Enlightenment,

    –vs–

    The Second Counter Enlightenment: Scripture > Pilpul > Abrahamism (Judaism > Christianity > Islam) > The Dark Ages.

    ————————————————————–

    3 – Generation Three: The Bacon, Newton, Locke, Smith, Hume, Empirical Enlightenment

    –vs—

    The Third Counter-Enlightenment: Rousseau, Kant and the Continentals – The French counter enlightenment and Napoleonic conquests.

    ————————————————————–

    4 – Generation Four: The Poincare, Maxwell, Dawin, Menger, Weber-Pareto-Durkheim, Spencer, Nietzsche, Second Scientific Revolution,

    –vs–

    Generation Four’s Counter Enlightenment: Marx /Freud /Cantor /Mises /Frankfurt (pseudoscience) and it’s heresy: Postmodernism (“there is no truth”) Causing the loss of the 20th century western civilization.

    Meanwhile Tort law, Markets, Technology, and Science falsify the “Priesthood’s Deceits”.

    ————————————————————–

    The only social science is Tort.

    Albeit slowly. We win.

    Our truth is more expensive and slower than your lies.

    We call that high cost “Empiricism”. (evidence)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-27 17:44:00 UTC

  • FLAWLESS (At least four people are as good at arguing P. There is at least one p

    FLAWLESS

    (At least four people are as good at arguing P. There is at least one person better at P than I am. Look at this. It’s flawless.)

    by James Krieger

    Rothbard & Mises extend Mengerian-subjectivism to escape liability (symmetric risk transfer) & consume commons, restricting legal (via negativa) intervention against asymmetric transfer & the production of moral hazard under the guise of Pareto-efficiency. Thus the libertarian corpus reproduces talmudism in economic prose, & this fact is not lost on even the least scrupulous propertarian analyst.

    That said, praxeology (operationalism: catallactic constructability) is necessary as a means of testing possibility, but is insufficient for the construction & maintenance of a political order i.e. matters of law, contract & liability remain undecidable (discretionary). Therefore, Propertarianism advances warrantied-reciprocity as a necessarily means of producing decidability in political economy (law), thereby subjecting transfers to a test against the following series:

    … (i) productive

    … (ii) fully informed

    … (iii) warrantied

    … (iv) voluntary

    … (v) free of externality of the same criteria

    The Libertarian error stems from a fallacy of composition: conflating subjective-valuation as an input in the determination of prices of goods & capital in consumer markets with a sufficient means of maintaining a cooperative order under a division of labor, perception & reproduction. The latter of which requires careful (objective & decidable) deliberation over the optimal allocation of violence in pursuit of defense & indemnity against imposition of costs.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-27 09:30:00 UTC

  • Updated Nov 27, 2019, 5:20 AM

    Updated Nov 27, 2019, 5:20 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-27 05:20:00 UTC