Mises’ Praxeology As The Failure To Develop Economic Operationalism 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://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/ MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/10/17/mises-position-in-intellectual-history/ ROTHBARDIAN FALLACIES https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/ HOPPE’S ERRORS https://propertarianinstitute.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.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Art as Example. Does “anglo” Just Mean Elitist? Yes
Art as Example. Does “anglo” Just Mean Elitist? Yes. https://t.co/O7iBKnS37a
-
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
The Undermined Our Third Way on Purpose https://t.co/KoWgBZhrDW
-
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
Here Is the Problem for The Artist https://t.co/KIX6x9F5c0
-
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. )