During the early 20th c educators intentionally ‘dumbed down’ education, and ‘marketers’ and the movements of the 1960’s did so further. The purpose was to give the lower middle, working, and underclasses greater confidence – and to do so for a reason. Overconfidence and overestimation of ones abilities and knowledge is an american marxist-postmodern trait.
At about 30 points we are incapable of commensurable communication, Every 15 points requires re-translation. And that is ALWAYS true EVERYWHERE in every discipline, and always has been. Ideas across the world flow downward from the fraction of one percent and are tested and succeed or fail in criticism, experiment and implementation.
So while some of us still aspire to, and frankly, require, 19th century grammar, as does any technical discipline, we are asked to write to 6th grade education in public.
Meanwhile postmodern drivel is published and ignored in volume in sociology, psychology, literature. And no one complains about it. Precisely because it has no material value, or coercive political power. While Logical, empirical, operational, and reciprocal, does.
I mean, I read just about every paper on physics, economics, and social science that comes out and makes the rounds, and the average idiot seems to think that we can express technical ideals outside the dominant paradigm in the common language of marketing to peasants and the room temperature IQ crowd. It’s not possible.
One of the great disasters is the disconnect between physics and mathematical physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, and computer science, and the metaphysical, psychological, sociological, legal, and political. THe former continue the scientific enlightenment., THe latter are expressly trying to resist and reverse it, just as did the French, Germans, and Ashkenazi. And just as the entire postwar world has tried – forcing what’s left of aristocratic civilization to drag them kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, disease, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of a nature that is hostile to expensive life forms (us).
Source: Original Site Post
-
(from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the sam
(from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the same criticism’s Chris, for the same reasons, and I sympathize with the problem of working outside the existing paradigms, career reinforcement, and institutional defense of them. Moreover I understand that due to the world wars, we experienced a catastrophic intellectual failure in the early 20th century. And the Marxist-Postmodernist pseudo-scientific religion has obtained near dominance of the non STEM academy, as well as the media and state – places dominated by those on “Island 120″ and the pretentious who wish they were. And so some of us (albeit the very bright) are experimenting with compensating for that failure, and counteracting the pseudoscientific religion of the academy, media, and state. But I can identify the dependencies upon which my arguments rest. 1 – operational language as a grammar of decidability for the elimination of pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology. 2 – reciprocity as means of decidability in matters of conflict. 3 – eugenic vs dysgenic as a means of decidability in matters of policy. 4 – the contingency of all non trivial premises, facts, and theories. etc. (quite a few more). So, while I have known *about* you for years, I haven’t looked into your work. And not for the reasons the Island 120 complain (a series of logical dependencies beyond ordinary people’s ability to construct and maintain constant relations) but because a) I don’t have any idea why ‘god’ matters (and I don’t care), and b) I don’t know (and can’t find) your dependencies, and c) I can’t afford to invest in your work and discover them myself. Because all axiomatic systems can eventually be internally justified, but it’s the survivability of the axioms (criteria of decidability) that they are dependent upon, rather than the explanatory power, and benefits of that explanatory power, that permit their survival as truth candidates. So, can you point me to some set of such ideas? I have a set of fundamental ideas in raw form that people have criticized as a means of gaining entry into a complex system of though. Do you have those somewhere? Thanks (sincerely) Curt -
(from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the sam
(from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the same criticism’s Chris, for the same reasons, and I sympathize with the problem of working outside the existing paradigms, career reinforcement, and institutional defense of them. Moreover I understand that due to the world wars, we experienced a catastrophic intellectual failure in the early 20th century. And the Marxist-Postmodernist pseudo-scientific religion has obtained near dominance of the non STEM academy, as well as the media and state – places dominated by those on “Island 120″ and the pretentious who wish they were. And so some of us (albeit the very bright) are experimenting with compensating for that failure, and counteracting the pseudoscientific religion of the academy, media, and state. But I can identify the dependencies upon which my arguments rest. 1 – operational language as a grammar of decidability for the elimination of pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology. 2 – reciprocity as means of decidability in matters of conflict. 3 – eugenic vs dysgenic as a means of decidability in matters of policy. 4 – the contingency of all non trivial premises, facts, and theories. etc. (quite a few more). So, while I have known *about* you for years, I haven’t looked into your work. And not for the reasons the Island 120 complain (a series of logical dependencies beyond ordinary people’s ability to construct and maintain constant relations) but because a) I don’t have any idea why ‘god’ matters (and I don’t care), and b) I don’t know (and can’t find) your dependencies, and c) I can’t afford to invest in your work and discover them myself. Because all axiomatic systems can eventually be internally justified, but it’s the survivability of the axioms (criteria of decidability) that they are dependent upon, rather than the explanatory power, and benefits of that explanatory power, that permit their survival as truth candidates. So, can you point me to some set of such ideas? I have a set of fundamental ideas in raw form that people have criticized as a means of gaining entry into a complex system of though. Do you have those somewhere? Thanks (sincerely) Curt -
(from elsewhere) Serious people on the margins challenge people to fights as a m
(from elsewhere) Serious people on the margins challenge people to fights as a means of marketing. It works. It’s always worked. It’s just easier today with the internet not gating those challenges and arguments. Serious people in general use some version of ‘either put up and show you understand, ask questions in order to try to understand, or shut up until you can do one or the other rather than virtue signal to yourself that you can render a decision upon that which you clearly and often admittedly don’t understand. Lastly, there is a maximum distance across which semantic relations can be transferred. And frankly it’s pretty hard to ‘think like a dumb or common person’. Just as it’s hard to think like a ‘chimp’. Language (grammar) creates an illusion of commensurability and relative equality. Semantics invalidate that illusion. Which is why classes and disciplines use different vocabularies. And frankly, it’s a form of ‘theft’ when you try to guilt someone into investing the effort in educating you rather than you investing the effort. I’ve spent more than a decade trying to ‘talk down’ to ‘normies’. And frankly, other than improving my prose slightly, I’m not sure it’s been a good investment. So I sympathize with Chris. On the other hand, I am about as anti-abrahamic as one can get and suspect that if I delve into Chris’ work he is relying upon Pilpul at the axiom and law level, even if I would agree with his deductions from it. In other words, it is possible to justify high correspondence and coherence with reality and still not demonstrate high causal relation with reality. That’s what I did with Hoppe and Rothbard and others did with Marx: observations were true and justified falsely, leading to incorrect theories of causality. -
(from elsewhere) Serious people on the margins challenge people to fights as a m
(from elsewhere) Serious people on the margins challenge people to fights as a means of marketing. It works. It’s always worked. It’s just easier today with the internet not gating those challenges and arguments. Serious people in general use some version of ‘either put up and show you understand, ask questions in order to try to understand, or shut up until you can do one or the other rather than virtue signal to yourself that you can render a decision upon that which you clearly and often admittedly don’t understand. Lastly, there is a maximum distance across which semantic relations can be transferred. And frankly it’s pretty hard to ‘think like a dumb or common person’. Just as it’s hard to think like a ‘chimp’. Language (grammar) creates an illusion of commensurability and relative equality. Semantics invalidate that illusion. Which is why classes and disciplines use different vocabularies. And frankly, it’s a form of ‘theft’ when you try to guilt someone into investing the effort in educating you rather than you investing the effort. I’ve spent more than a decade trying to ‘talk down’ to ‘normies’. And frankly, other than improving my prose slightly, I’m not sure it’s been a good investment. So I sympathize with Chris. On the other hand, I am about as anti-abrahamic as one can get and suspect that if I delve into Chris’ work he is relying upon Pilpul at the axiom and law level, even if I would agree with his deductions from it. In other words, it is possible to justify high correspondence and coherence with reality and still not demonstrate high causal relation with reality. That’s what I did with Hoppe and Rothbard and others did with Marx: observations were true and justified falsely, leading to incorrect theories of causality. -
I thought it was rather obvious that the third world was a ‘sh–thole. An a bund
I thought it was rather obvious that the third world was a ‘sh–thole. An a bundance of ‘sh–t people’ make for a ‘sh–t country’. I mean, land is land, a country requires people, and people with ‘sh–t’ genes, knowledge, culture, and traditions produce Sh–thole contries. #Trump -
I thought it was rather obvious that the third world was a ‘sh–thole. An a bund
I thought it was rather obvious that the third world was a ‘sh–thole. An a bundance of ‘sh–t people’ make for a ‘sh–t country’. I mean, land is land, a country requires people, and people with ‘sh–t’ genes, knowledge, culture, and traditions produce Sh–thole contries. #Trump -
Never treat disapproval, rejection, shaming, ridicule, and rallying by the left’
Never treat disapproval, rejection, shaming, ridicule, and rallying by the left’s effeminacy as anything other than the barking of purse-dogs,with just as much agency behind it.Adults make empirical arguments.If you make a sentimental argument it just means you’re a child. #trump -
Never treat disapproval, rejection, shaming, ridicule, and rallying by the left’
Never treat disapproval, rejection, shaming, ridicule, and rallying by the left’s effeminacy as anything other than the barking of purse-dogs,with just as much agency behind it.Adults make empirical arguments.If you make a sentimental argument it just means you’re a child. #trump -
Retweeted Mike Enoch 🇷🇸🇳🇴🇺🇸 (@mikeenochsback): Anyone feigning outrage over Trum
Retweeted Mike Enoch 🇷🇸🇳🇴🇺🇸 (@mikeenochsback): Anyone feigning outrage over Trump’s “shithole” comments is a liar. No one is outraged. Everyone knows he’s right. The most intolerable thing about the present system is the constant lies. It’s run by liars that promote other liars and try to make you and me into liars too.