Source: Facebook

WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS TERRIFYING. IT’S NOT ME THAT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND.

–“… (Doolittle) doesn’t understand language …”– A Right Wing Postmodernist

The truth is not amenable to man, unless the truth provides him with agency. Others confuse truth and utility. The truth may be useful but it is also true and reciprocal. Many statements are useful but either false, ir-reciprocal, or both.

AFAIK:

1) All words are names (referrers).

2) All Phrases Descriptions

3) All sentences transactions

4) All statements promises (This is not intuitive).

5) All narrations, stories.

6) All language measurement – that is reducible to analogy to experience – the question is, measurement of WHAT? (This is not intuitive)

7) All meaning transferred by description within experience, and analogy to experience beyond experience.

8) All meaning transferred by consent (understanding),

9) All due diligence limits meaning.

10) All paradigms of of communication deflationary(limited), descriptive(testimony), conflationary (loaded, framed), or inflationary(fictionally expanded), or fictionalism (sophism-idealism, pseudoscience-magic, supernatural-occult)

11) All communications ostracization (departure), cooperation (reciprocal), or coercive (dishonest).

12 ) (and here is the problem:) Audiences infantile, juvenile, ignorant, knowledgeable, skilled, or mastery.

13) audience composed of dominantly empathic, dominantly normative, and dominantly empirical distributions; and all populations distributed between female herd consensus (preference), and male, pack, advantage (truth).

14) and all attempts to organize those ranges of people by incentives either true or false, productive or parasitic, useful, not useful or harmful, and reciprocal, amoral, or irreciprocal,

15) and all persuasion addressed to:

i) an average of the audience,

ii) an average of the audience’s influencers,

iii) tailored to each audience’s influencers.

I can go on in even more painful detail. This is just an overview. If you take a peek at the chart of the grammars, you’ll find innovative explanations that no other has provided.

As I explained to someone else today, we may need supernatural theology, occult theology, secular theology, rational normative law, and empirical science to convince sufficient numbers of any given polity unless we follow the semitic strategy of infantilization of the cognition of the population, and the only slightly less infantilizing continental strategy – both seem to work. Just as rule of empirical law seems to work.

The question is which of the suite of methods do we use to provide decidability in matters of undecidability, difference, dispute, or conflict, between these cognitively dominant paradigms (narratives). Because we very clearly can provide a host of deflationary, descriptive, conflationary, inflationary, and fictionalisms as means of communication between group members given their levels of infancy or maturity, and femininity or masculinity, ignorance or mastery.

As to what I’m bringing to the history of thought – I’m bringing falsification to the abrahamic old world and abrahamic new world means of undermining our people with false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pipul and critique that we call islamism, jewish ethics, undermining our laws by design, undermining undermining the classes by marxism, undermining genders through feminism, undermining our identities, undermining truthful speech with postmodernism, and outright denial of individual gender, class, group and racial differences in order reverse our eugenic aesthetic cultural traditional civilizational institutional and technological achievements.

And I now perfectly well that it is easy for you and others to criticize that which is imperfect, and to seek attention by doing so when as far as I know there is nothing on the table by anyone living that is other than an admission of failure to provide a solution to the problem other than another retreat into one of the systems of lying that you prefer because lying is a cheap means of agency over the weak.

So as usual: “man up and show me something”, because ‘critique’ is just criticizing the real best vs the ideal perfect.

“Ya’ll got nothing.” So to speak. Except a bunch of young-uns wanting a daddy in theological, secular theological or sophomoric prose.

I have a simple message: “Here is a plan, this plan solves the problem regardless of which narrative you need given your cognitive dominances. It does not require we agree on how to go forward. It agrees on what we prohibit – the enemy. It preserves the western tradition of a competition between theological (lower classes), philosophical (middle classes), and empirical (upper classes). And prohibits a monopoly by any.”

So Man up. Show up. And we win the ABILITY to pursue supernatural, philosophical-normative, and empirical means of advancing our interests in markets where we only need to agree on material trades.

If that isn’t enough of an answer, every other possible answer will demonstrably fail given the existential classes and their frames, and their interests.

So as far as I know your criticism isn’t really a criticism. It’s a demand to serve your PREFERENCE, because you can’t produce an equally competitive solution with equal potential for implementation. If you could, you’d compete and pay no attention to me.

So your criticism is simply demonstration of the veracity of my work.

We just keep growing slowly, year by year. And If we don’t succeed in creating the answer to the Frankfurt School then maybe someone else will.

But so far ‘I got the only game in town’.