CURZON ON THE SCIENCE BEHIND STOIC DISCIPLINE
—-“Be careful not to conflate the processes of ‘pushing away’ (to use the lingo) unhelpful thoughts with the action of redirecting. I do not… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=290783131518584&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-05 15:40:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037364892007911424
RT @DegenRolf: Replication study fails to find any evidence of stereotype threat impairing women’s math and spatial performance. https://t.…
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-05 15:10:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037357232969666560
THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY
Theology exists because philosophy excludes its fallacies, and philosophy exists because science excludes its fallacies. Science exists because math excludes its fallacies. Math exists because logic excludes its fallacies.
The question is why there is a demand for those excluded fallacies? Why? Either to bridge the gap between one stage of ignorance and the next, or to use fallacies for the purpose of conducting some sort of fraud.
Philosophy just means ‘we don’t know enough to write history, law, science, and mathematics yet’.
Philosophy serves as young adult literature that prepares you for adult literature: history, law, science, and mathematics, just as children’s stories, fables, and fairy tales prepare yu for young adult literature.
Its storytelling. Stories provide context for history, law, science, and math.
So in that sense, the reason philosophy is largely dead, is that history, law, science, mathematics, and logic has rendered it young adult moral fantasy literature.
The knowledge required at each state of declining ignorance is much greater than the previous.
(I’ve had to master a lot of fields as a judge if not as a craftsman. It took a very long time. I had the luxury of the wealth and time necessary to invest that time.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-05 13:14:00 UTC
[T]heology exists because philosophy excludes its fallacies, and philosophy exists because science excludes its fallacies. Science exists because math excludes its fallacies. Math exists because logic excludes its fallacies. The question is why there is a demand for those excluded fallacies? Why? Either to bridge the gap between one stage of ignorance and the next, or to use fallacies for the purpose of conducting some sort of fraud. Philosophy just means ‘we don’t know enough to write history, law, science, and mathematics yet’. Philosophy serves as young adult literature that prepares you for adult literature: history, law, science, and mathematics, just as children’s stories, fables, and fairy tales prepare yu for young adult literature. Its storytelling. Stories provide context for history, law, science, and math. So in that sense, the reason philosophy is largely dead, is that history, law, science, mathematics, and logic has rendered it young adult moral fantasy literature. The knowledge required at each state of declining ignorance is much greater than the previous. (I’ve had to master a lot of fields as a judge if not as a craftsman. It took a very long time. I had the luxury of the wealth and time necessary to invest that time.)
[T]heology exists because philosophy excludes its fallacies, and philosophy exists because science excludes its fallacies. Science exists because math excludes its fallacies. Math exists because logic excludes its fallacies. The question is why there is a demand for those excluded fallacies? Why? Either to bridge the gap between one stage of ignorance and the next, or to use fallacies for the purpose of conducting some sort of fraud. Philosophy just means ‘we don’t know enough to write history, law, science, and mathematics yet’. Philosophy serves as young adult literature that prepares you for adult literature: history, law, science, and mathematics, just as children’s stories, fables, and fairy tales prepare yu for young adult literature. Its storytelling. Stories provide context for history, law, science, and math. So in that sense, the reason philosophy is largely dead, is that history, law, science, mathematics, and logic has rendered it young adult moral fantasy literature. The knowledge required at each state of declining ignorance is much greater than the previous. (I’ve had to master a lot of fields as a judge if not as a craftsman. It took a very long time. I had the luxury of the wealth and time necessary to invest that time.)
—-“A great first thing to train out of is embarrassment – one of the cardinal signs of lack of agency.”—- Andy Curzon I mean, if you wanna start with the first and most important step in ‘never take anything personally’ that’s the first step. —-“Be careful not to conflate the processes of ‘pushing away’ (to use the lingo) unhelpful thoughts with the action of redirecting. I do not believe redirecting to be possible, per se. I can only describe a parallel to this by the example of the pathological ‘self-esteem’ movement – or the counterproductive sales pitch of ‘follow your bliss’. One can not AIM for happiness or self-esteem because they are RESULTS of actions. One can not ‘aim’ for a specific thought – but one can ask questions. The practice of asking for something (a form of prayer) and allowing one’s trained ‘wisdom’ to answer it and receive feedback seems akin to the conjecture and refutation processes Popper espouses.”— Andy Curzon bingo. You cannot circumvent a network of information, you can only train the network of information to come to different conclusions through self-questioning. hence the value of archetypes (gods, demigods, heroes) especially those that are omniscient (can read your subconscious). These train you to role play in a dialog that retrains networks. It works.
—-“A great first thing to train out of is embarrassment – one of the cardinal signs of lack of agency.”—- Andy Curzon I mean, if you wanna start with the first and most important step in ‘never take anything personally’ that’s the first step. —-“Be careful not to conflate the processes of ‘pushing away’ (to use the lingo) unhelpful thoughts with the action of redirecting. I do not believe redirecting to be possible, per se. I can only describe a parallel to this by the example of the pathological ‘self-esteem’ movement – or the counterproductive sales pitch of ‘follow your bliss’. One can not AIM for happiness or self-esteem because they are RESULTS of actions. One can not ‘aim’ for a specific thought – but one can ask questions. The practice of asking for something (a form of prayer) and allowing one’s trained ‘wisdom’ to answer it and receive feedback seems akin to the conjecture and refutation processes Popper espouses.”— Andy Curzon bingo. You cannot circumvent a network of information, you can only train the network of information to come to different conclusions through self-questioning. hence the value of archetypes (gods, demigods, heroes) especially those that are omniscient (can read your subconscious). These train you to role play in a dialog that retrains networks. It works.
NIETZSCHE VS DOOLITTLE : Critique vs Science. Value vs Truth. Inspiration vs Institutions.
I need to address this issue again for the little boys in the audience.
What I take from Nietzsche is his attack on supernaturalism, and submission, and his attempt to restore classicism – which is also what I am also trying to do: discover our origins (I have), and solve the institutional problem (i think I have) of restoring them.
Nietzsche created a Critique of semitic religion, and tried to articulate and express the ethic of the classical tradition (heroism, the dominance of man over nature) but was unable to solve the problem of how – just as many post-darwinist were. Unfortunately the abrahamists have nearly won again with marxism, feminism, and postmodernism. And they have won by continuing his technique: abrahamic critique.
—“Nietzsche’s thought after Hegel was to incorporate Evolution and to reverse everything possible in prior thinkers. So he reverses Hegel by searching for a way for the Noble to have self-consciousness. He reverses Schopenhauer by attempting to be positive about life and its prospects. He reverses Wagner by rejecting the Christianization of the Pagan mythologies. Of course he then reverses many long held beliefs that were unquestioned within the western worldview such as the necessity to kow tow to Christianity as a religious belief system. … So basically Nietzsche went after as many Sacred Cows of the European tradition as he could”— Kent Palmer
I systematically attack all our sacred cows and falsehoods – just as he did. Not for VALUE but for TRUTH. I look for everything FALSE not everything we VALUE. However, I attempt to restore classicism through formal INSTITUTIONS rather than the usual german sophomoric philosophy that is little other than a desperate attempt to restore the ‘woo’
of christian submission by rational sophistry rather than supernatural sophistry.
As for ‘spirit’ I see nietzsche’s ‘spirit’ as a choice, and an individual choice, not a truth,or a political movement, or an institutional solution – and I see nietzsche as having failed to discover a solution. And worse, I find his silly german ‘suffering'(struggling) abhorrent – the voice of the weak. The strong do not struggle they just do.
Nietzsche was prescient precisely because he FAILED. As did all german thinkers – desperate provincial romanticists appealing to the heartstrings of the pubescent.
I see nietzsche as ‘weak’. A polemicist. Like say, Rand, he is a gateway that gives you permission to abandon traditional religion, just as rand is a gateway to abandon traditional political ethics. But they are … childish … works by childish people. Which is fine, because we all work at some level of sophistication available to us at our own stage of maturity.
Nietzsche’s rant against his status who is nothing more than what all adolescent men do: express their identities and autonomy as unbound by parental debts, when they reach some level of agency.
But in the end, he just was an insightful polemicists that failed to provide a solution other than infinite skepticism and a return to a celebration of life. A pair of sentiments otherwise politically inactionable.
Nietzsche practiced critique: he remained an abrahamist. He offered us nothing to supplant the past. And understood the classical civilization only in silly germanic romantic and literary terms – rather than the tedious administration of half domesticated man by the use of military, law, bureaucracy, commerce, and education.
Rome was the adult that athens matured into.
We are only now, right now, restoring the state of development at which rome fell.
—
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-05 09:47:00 UTC
September 5th, 2018 1:14 PM THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY [T]heology exists because philosophy excludes its fallacies, and philosophy exists because science excludes its falsehoods. Science exists because math excludes its fallacies. Math exists because logic excludes its fallacies. The question is why there is a demand for those excluded fallacies? Why? Either to bridge the gap between one stage of ignorance and the next, or to use fallacies for the purpose of conducting some sort of fraud. Philosophy just means ‘we don’t know enough to write history, law, science, and mathematics yet’. Philosophy serves as young adult literature that prepares you for adult literature: history, law, science, and mathematics, just as children’s stories, fables, and fairy tales prepare you for young adult literature. Its storytelling. Stories provide context for history, law, science, and math. So in that sense, the reason philosophy is largely dead, is that history, law, science, mathematics, and logic has rendered it young adult moral fantasy literature. The knowledge required at each state of declining ignorance is much greater than the previous. (I’ve had to master a lot of fields as a judge if not as a craftsman. It took a very long time. I had the luxury of the wealth and time necessary to invest that time.)
September 5th, 2018 9:47 AM NIETZSCHE VS DOOLITTLE : Critique vs Science. Value vs Truth. Inspiration vs Institutions. I need to address this issue again for the little boys in the audience. What I take from Nietzsche is his attack on supernaturalism, and submission, and his attempt to restore classicism – which is also what I am also trying to do: discover our origins (I have), and solve the institutional problem (i think I have) of restoring them. Nietzsche created a Critique of semitic religion, and tried to articulate and express the ethic of the classical tradition (heroism, the dominance of man over nature) but was unable to solve the problem of how – just as many post-darwinist were. Unfortunately the abrahamists have nearly won again with marxism, feminism, and postmodernism. And they have won by continuing his technique: abrahamic critique. —“Nietzsche’s thought after Hegel was to incorporate Evolution and to reverse everything possible in prior thinkers. So he reverses Hegel by searching for a way for the Noble to have self-consciousness. He reverses Schopenhauer by attempting to be positive about life and its prospects. He reverses Wagner by rejecting the Christianization of the Pagan mythologies. Of course he then reverses many long held beliefs that were unquestioned within the western worldview such as the necessity to kow tow to Christianity as a religious belief system. … So basically Nietzsche went after as many Sacred Cows of the European tradition as he could”— Kent Palmer I systematically attack all our sacred cows and falsehoods – just as he did. Not for VALUE but for TRUTH. I look for everything FALSE not everything we VALUE. However, I attempt to restore classicism through formal INSTITUTIONS rather than the usual german sophomoric philosophy that is little other than a desperate attempt to restore the ‘woo’ of christian submission by rational sophistry rather than supernatural sophistry. As for ‘spirit’ I see nietzsche’s ‘spirit’ as a choice, and an individual choice, not a truth,or a political movement, or an institutional solution – and I see nietzsche as having failed to discover a solution. And worse, I find his silly german ‘suffering'(struggling) abhorrent – the voice of the weak. The strong do not struggle they just do. Nietzsche was prescient precisely because he FAILED. As did all german thinkers – desperate provincial romanticists appealing to the heartstrings of the pubescent. I see nietzsche as ‘weak’. A polemicist. Like say, Rand, he is a gateway that gives you permission to abandon traditional religion, just as rand is a gateway to abandon traditional political ethics. But they are … childish … works by childish people. Which is fine, because we all work at some level of sophistication available to us at our own stage of maturity. Nietzsche’s rant against his status who is nothing more than what all adolescent men do: express their identities and autonomy as unbound by parental debts, when they reach some level of agency. But in the end, he just was an insightful polemicists that failed to provide a solution other than infinite skepticism and a return to a celebration of life. A pair of sentiments otherwise politically inactionable. Nietzsche practiced critique: he remained an abrahamist. He offered us nothing to supplant the past. And understood the classical civilization only in silly germanic romantic and literary terms – rather than the tedious administration of half domesticated man by the use of military, law, bureaucracy, commerce, and education. Rome was the adult that athens matured into. We are only now, right now, restoring the state of development at which rome fell.