October 14th, 2018 2:27 PM THE NPC’s, PROLETARIAT, AND COMMENTARIAT [T]he NPC’s in the PROLETARIAT are SCRIPTED by the COMMENTARIAT, who UNDERMINE Truth, Duty, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, and Markets in Everything, through disapproval, shaming, gossiping, rallying, and reputation destruction as a substitute for argument. Why? Because they cannot speak the truth: that equality and proportionality and discretionary rule can only exist under a kleptocracy of dishonesty that steals from the productive reproductive and meritocratic peoples.
Theme: Truth
-
Why Intellectuals Debate in Text Not Speech
October 16th, 2018 1:36 PM WHY INTELLECTUALS DEBATE IN TEXT NOT SPEECH
—“Let’s schedule a video call, and we can exhaust this without the unnecessary social incentives until I find out where I’m wrong, and I’ll leave you guys be in Aryan Propertyland.”—
The Value of Text 1) leaves a record of the evolution of the argument, and the tactics used in pursuing it. 2) Sophisms, Signaling, and Frauds are much harder to get away with in text. 3) The chain of reasoning one can produce in text is more suitable to proof by falsification, whereas verbal reparté is more suitable to analogy and justification (fraud). 4) I do not care whether you continue to argue or depart, because articulate debate only serves to educate the followers – there is no chance that you can win such an argument – you just don’t know that yet. I do. You can only say “Lying is a strategic advantage if you can get enough people to do it without getting them killed in the process.” 5) I am now aware of you, just as you are aware of me. And I don’t practice philosophy but law. And prosecution of those who perpetuate harm against the commons is not only my job, my art but my moral duty. 6) You can use the pejorative ‘aryan’ as if aryan (law) vs semitic (religion) is some sort of dispute over taste rather than a dispute over truth and transcendence, vs lies and dysgenic regression. You’re reasonably talented but it’s too clear that you are used to confusing the tactic of winning by sophism against the common folk, and not experienced at such debate with professionals with the hard science of it all. Trying to repeat the past is simply an admission of the failure to solve the problems of the present. The problem of the present is the same as it has always been: the conflict between the agrarian-metalworkers using law and markets (Male reproductive strategy), and the pastoralists using cults, and separatism (the female reproductive strategy) Horse+bronze+wheel+sky-worshipping+Militaristic+expansionist vs earth worshipping, pacifist, separatists.The eternal war between Cain and Able: The Masculine vs the Feminine. This is the fourth cycle of that war of civilizations.
-
Why Intellectuals Debate in Text Not Speech
October 16th, 2018 1:36 PM WHY INTELLECTUALS DEBATE IN TEXT NOT SPEECH
—“Let’s schedule a video call, and we can exhaust this without the unnecessary social incentives until I find out where I’m wrong, and I’ll leave you guys be in Aryan Propertyland.”—
The Value of Text 1) leaves a record of the evolution of the argument, and the tactics used in pursuing it. 2) Sophisms, Signaling, and Frauds are much harder to get away with in text. 3) The chain of reasoning one can produce in text is more suitable to proof by falsification, whereas verbal reparté is more suitable to analogy and justification (fraud). 4) I do not care whether you continue to argue or depart, because articulate debate only serves to educate the followers – there is no chance that you can win such an argument – you just don’t know that yet. I do. You can only say “Lying is a strategic advantage if you can get enough people to do it without getting them killed in the process.” 5) I am now aware of you, just as you are aware of me. And I don’t practice philosophy but law. And prosecution of those who perpetuate harm against the commons is not only my job, my art but my moral duty. 6) You can use the pejorative ‘aryan’ as if aryan (law) vs semitic (religion) is some sort of dispute over taste rather than a dispute over truth and transcendence, vs lies and dysgenic regression. You’re reasonably talented but it’s too clear that you are used to confusing the tactic of winning by sophism against the common folk, and not experienced at such debate with professionals with the hard science of it all. Trying to repeat the past is simply an admission of the failure to solve the problems of the present. The problem of the present is the same as it has always been: the conflict between the agrarian-metalworkers using law and markets (Male reproductive strategy), and the pastoralists using cults, and separatism (the female reproductive strategy) Horse+bronze+wheel+sky-worshipping+Militaristic+expansionist vs earth worshipping, pacifist, separatists.The eternal war between Cain and Able: The Masculine vs the Feminine. This is the fourth cycle of that war of civilizations.
-
THOSE WHO WOULD DEFEND THE SOPHISM OF POSTMODERNISM WITH THE SOPHISM OF CRITIQUE
THOSE WHO WOULD DEFEND THE SOPHISM OF POSTMODERNISM WITH THE SOPHISM OF CRITIQUE
“The Sophism of Critique.”
It does not matter ‘what you intend’ or ‘what you mean’ it matters what changes in state occur (consequences) because of your display word and deed (actions and consequences).
If I speak in poetry (loading/framing), or code (symbolism/parsimony), or science (existential description), I can say the same things in different terms and frames. If I act according to the instructions or consequences of deductions and inferences therein, my actions are what are caused by the prose.
The Grammar of Postmodernism (semantic content and limits; its’ consistency, correspondence, non-operational prose; coherence; its rules of continuously recursive disambiguation) are simply a continuation of the evolution of the Sophisms of:
Pilpul (justification), Critique (Straw Manning), Suggestion(appeal to cognitive bias), Overloading (of cognition), and Obscurantism (untestability);
… used in:
the Abrahamic (and other) religions > Platonism (Idealism/Obscuring one’s ignorance) > Rabbinical Judgement (Pilpul/Justification) > Christian Justificationism (theology) > Rousseauian (French) Moralism (Justification) > Kantian Rationalism (Pilpul/Justification) > Marxist/Freudian/Boasian/Frankfurt Pseudoscience, Justification, and Critique > and French Postmodernism (Critique).
These Grammars are all forms of sophistry. What they are not is math(measurement), logic (internal consistency), empirical (externally correspondent), scientific(warranty of due diligence), economics(rationality), law (reciprocity), and history(evidence), that is commensurable and testable because it is consistent, correspondent, operationally stated (existentially possible), consisting of rational choice, limited to reciprocal actions, coherent, fully accounted (against cherry picking, and complete in scope (against cherry picking).
Critique Consists in: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, straw manning, reputation destruction, of enemies, and heaping of undue praise of allies, and a failure to address the truth or falsehood of the central arguments, and their outcomes, rather than proposing an alternative, superior, competitively superior, solution that is actionable, and produces superior outcomes and externalities.
Peterson cannot say in his venues anything sufficiently complex that he would lose the relatively mainstream audience. I can. Because it’s my specialty to debunk sophism (psedorationalism: pilpul, critique, loading/framing/overloading/obscurantism), supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and deceit.
Postmodernism is yet another sophism in the long line of deceits that evolved through history to compete with testimonial truth in law, and the evolution of the tools by which we limit one another to that which is testifiable, rational, and reciprocal, and therefore a truth candidate.
In other words, Postmodernism is just another cult-of-lies. Like Marxism before it. Like Rationalism before it. Like Theology Before it. Like Occult before it: a means of coercing the simple to conform to the demands of the Herd. Whereas speech that is testifiable, rational, reciprocal, and stated in operational (existentially possible) prose, like all the grammars of testimony (math, logic, empiricism, science, economics, law, and history) is and always has been, and always will be the means of DECIDING between differences of argument and opinion.
Thus Endeth the Lesson.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26fIBA7O5Ag
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-15 10:52:00 UTC
-
SIMPLE TERMS, POSTMODERNISM CONSISTS OF THE SOPHISM OF CRITIQUE APPLIED TO MIND
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/IN SIMPLE TERMS, POSTMODERNISM CONSISTS OF THE SOPHISM OF CRITIQUE APPLIED TO MIND RATHER THAN HISTORY, ECONOMY, POLITICS AND NORMS.
The grammar of postmodernism is sophist overloading and straw manning, making constant relations impossible. It is the hollow verbalism of the solipsistic mind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-15 09:21:00 UTC
-
After only a couple decades…
October 13th, 2018 4:13 PM
—“I find it strange that after only a couple decades we can’t tell the difference between lying and hyperbole.”—Greg Hamilton
-
After only a couple decades…
October 13th, 2018 4:13 PM
—“I find it strange that after only a couple decades we can’t tell the difference between lying and hyperbole.”—Greg Hamilton
-
“WHO IS A CONSERVATIVE?”— (From Marginal Revolution) Avoiding the marxist-post
—“WHO IS A CONSERVATIVE?”—
(From Marginal Revolution)
Avoiding the marxist-postmodern love of verbal sophistry:
Conservatism consists in:
– Empiricism as a defense against hubris.
– Meritocracy as a defense against hubris.
– Private Property as a defense against hubris.
– Markets as a defense against hubris.
– The common (natural) law of tort as a defense against hubris
– The Jury-of-requisite-scale as a defense against hubris.
– Late Marriage as a defense against hubris.
– Intergenerational lending as a defense against hubris
– Taking no action for which one cannot perform restitution(Reversal) as a defense against hubris.
– Competition between the Scientific, Legal, Philosophical, and Theological as a defense against hubris.
– Small Nation States as a defense against hubris.
– Militias as a Defense against Hubris.
(That should be enough to get the point across.)
Not that Dunning-Kruger’s universal law, or the French Revolution, or all of continental philosophy, or the pseudosciences of Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; or the innumeracy of the general theory’s change of economics from measurement by balance sheet to measurement by income statement; or the sophisms of Derrida through Rorty and Rawls …. none need explaining to a Conservative. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-14 15:16:00 UTC
-
THE NPC’s, PROLETARIAT, AND COMMENTARIAT The NPC’s in the PROLETARIAT are SCRIPT
THE NPC’s, PROLETARIAT, AND COMMENTARIAT
The NPC’s in the PROLETARIAT are SCRIPTED by the COMMENTARIAT, who UNDERMINE Truth, Duty, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, and Markets in Everything, through disapproval, shaming, gossiping, rallying, and reputation destruction as a substitute for argument. Why? Because they cannot speak the truth: that equality and proportionality and discretionary rule can only exist under a kleptocracy of dishonesty that steals from the productive reproductive and meritocratic peoples.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-14 14:27:00 UTC
-
“I find it strange that after only a couple decades we can’t tell the difference
—“I find it strange that after only a couple decades we can’t tell the difference between lying and hyperbole.”—Greg Hamilton
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-13 20:13:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051204244047572992