Social Rules: a deeply important philosophical matter beyond scientistic treatment of emergence

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 09 May 2017 23:32.

The scientistic idea that sheer emergence can dismiss the philosophical discussion of social rules as “merely political” is unacceptable.

I was walking back home from a local watering hole, in my not very busy city, with its not very trafficked streets that normally allow me to jaywalk with impunity.

For some reason I decided to do something a little differently this time. I decided to walk the few extra steps to the corner and cross through the “zebra-stripes”.

Now, emergence would afford me awareness of oncoming cars and the means to avoid them - usually, provided noises or other distractions did not block my awareness of the circumstance.

However, I noticed that in walking the few extra steps, which was really not hard to do, that I was relieved of a modicum of stress that I would have had in jaywalking - in which case I would be more on my own in having to be vigilant and not having the law on my side if an accident were to occur - if I were hit, or whatever. I had an added layer of ease of mind for what really did not (in this instance) cost me any appreciable time or effort. Jaywalking would have been tantamount to an alternative but not more advantageous route in overall pattern. I decided to cross the next street through the zebra-stripes as well. I came to an awareness that not only was I a bit less stressed in crossing the street this way, but a driver making his way to the intersection had to be less stressed as well, the rules comfortably taken for granted. By contrast, any driver would be more on his own too, and I’d need to be more hopeful that his awareness and good will were in better than conventional shape, if I were to jaywalk.

These are social rules. How they are put together is a philosophical matter - on this topic, not requiring much philosophical pedigree, of course; however, the matter of social rules goes directly into questions of how to live life and with that the most central philosophical issues for humans. The matter of jaywalking can be a matter of life or death, but nevertheless the matter of negotiation of social rules goes into broader, deeper, necessary and interesting discussions. Of course the negotiation of rules gets more complicated and interesting than the negotiation of zebra-stripes; it gets more interesting the more you consider the different ways our people can live. And for us, how you might negotiate these different ways and broad legitimacy while still protecting our precious inherited patterns.

I recall visiting Vienna some years back, as I looked over a tourist map, how eager a local man was to give me unsolicited help to find what I was looking for - I had to tell him three times that I was ok, didn’t need any help. I suppose that he could tell that I was a tourist, looking to admire the beauty of its sites, not to stay and take advantage; and he wanted to show me that he was not a snob.

Later on when walking back to my hostel, I crossed the street (in the zebra stripes), not paying attention to the fact that the light was red; having been enculturated to the idea that “you shouldn’t drive fast in town because there are pedestrians all around and you never know when one might go into the street” (and it is true that is good rule of thumb). With that in mind, I took my general safety for granted - it was of no great importance to me given the circumstance if this light was red or not, or so I thought, since there were no cars to be perceived nearby. Well, I almost got hit in the zebra stripes; a car came to a screeching halt before me. It is true that you’d have to pull into that particular turn very fast to not see a pedestrian walking through (green light or not) and so I automatically gave him a dirty look. Nevertheless, I could not say that he was entirely wrong when he put his head out the window and chided me in bitter sarcasm, asking, “I’m stupid yah?”

Emergence will have its constraints and affordances; rules conjured of the individual and social rules can go in many ways - some will be acceptable to us in the overall and will facilitate our survival, some will not.

Questions of emergence are very important, indispensable to ask, and answers provided will sort out some important matters, but not all, certainly not the all of philosophical inquiry. The negotiation and inquiry of social rules are a very important matter as well - if anything, asking more characteristically philosophical questions, only as shallow as the person asking them.

Tags: Activism, Anthropology, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Hermeneutics, Law & Order, Libertarianism, Pervasive Ecology, Popular Culture, That Question Again, War of Discourse, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 May 2017 04:26 | #

Daniel, you do not think philosophically, only sociologically. You do not think of the life of Man in a formative sense, only of his habits and organisation. That is OK, but it is an interest rather near the surface; and has its place much further along the causal chain of world-making. In your example above, what is the city? What is movement through the city? Such a level of inquiry does not concern you. You pay it lip service, but you have little use for it. You just accept that the city is there, and you are part of its life and movement. You do not want to know why or how such an estate came into being, what its nature is, what it makes in and of us. You begin to become involved only when the meaning of that last falls under investigation. Your focus is on the ideological, pre-political stage.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 May 2017 06:28 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 May 2017 23:26 | #

Daniel, you do not think philosophically, only sociologically.

DanielS: GW, you are full of shit.

GW: You do not think of the life of Man in a formative sense, only of his habits and organisation.

DanielS: That isn’t true. I consider the prefigurative structures of our genetics as well; and am not only willing, but want, in fact, to hear input from those with more of a scientific focus.

GW: That is OK, but it is an interest rather near the surface;

DanielS: No, the questions are only as shallow as the inquirer.

GW: and has its place much further along the causal chain of world-making.

DanielS: The world will not wait for your anal-retentive scientism. We know enough to have a working hypothesis of who and how we are - we’ve always had enough for a working hypothesis.

GW: In your example above, what is the city? What is movement through the city? Such a level of inquiry does not concern you

DanielS: Yes, it does concern me. I did even mention some characterisitics of the town (these streets not normally being subject to fast traffic). I had to put this in simplest terms because you make the mentally retarded assertion that only IS questions are philosophical questions. If anything, the reverse is more true, that OUGHT questions are more philosophical, but in truth it is a false either or, particularly for anything calling itself competent philosophy. It is a false either/or between IS and Ought (which I do not commit) hence your problem (and one you’d attempt to saddle me with).

So, I had to put this in simplest form to begin to clarify the matter that you will endlessly obfuscate while you return to being like an ostrich putting its head in the sand..

GW: You pay it lip service, but you have little use for it.

DanielS: Again, you are full of shit, because I am perfectly willing to take on those questions, but unlike you, I am not so ridiculous as to ignore the fact that we know enough about our people to begin to ask questions of how to defend them in this crisis - how we should live, etc. That does not mean we do not want and make use of two way feedback between is and ought - returning to IS questions of our nature and so on in hermeneutic process, prioritizing inquiry as need be.

GW: You just accept that the city is there, and you are part of its life and movement.

DanielS: No I don’t. You just think that I should accept this idiotic and completely untrue attribution of my motives and assessment.

I deliberately left off specifics about the city for a reason.

GW: You do not want to know why or how such an estate came into being, what its nature is, what it makes in and of us.

DanielS: Again, not true. And now I will ask you to stop lying about me.

GW: You begin to become involved only when the meaning of that last falls under investigation. Your focus is on the ideological, pre-political stage.

,
DanielS: Already having a good idea of the basics of what we value, my focus is on the guidance of what we value (and I recognize this as an interactive process, not dictatorial at all), in the crisis that anti-racism has presented us. Your focus is scientistic, with the ridiculous assumption that we don’t know enough about our nature to defend ourselves - even when we need to most urgently; and worse, that if you get to some sort of natural nub and show that to people that they will just automatically glow in the dark as proper nationalists.

Its safe to say it doesn’t work that way for humans and sound human action.

Yes, the questions that I am asking are the deeper, more important and comprehensive of your naval gazing ontology project.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 May 2017 12:10 | #

Basically how it looks to me is just the same as how it has looked for some time.

As a young man you recoiled and reacted to the “leftist” stuff that was coming out of academia.

You bought the idea that by contrast to that something like Thatcherite objectivism was good - at any rate it was good for you, so never mind. Apparently, your identity, ego, whatever, was tightly wrapped-up in in that identity in opposition to “the academic left.”

So much do you identify in that way - that you virtually have to have its foil in order to play your role as the hero overturning the pretenses and artifices of “the academic left” - that you will resort to endless straw men rather than give a remotely accurate reading to what I say.

You may have had encouragement from females in days gone by, as a more socially disordered situation tends to give them an advantage. Furthermore, STEM people tend to have gainful skills.

Later on, you got encouragement from other reactionaries - particularly those who love Hitler and Jesus, despite the obvious fact that these figures have been catastrophic for our race - from their position, they just want to believe we didn’t get it right the first time, so we need Hitler and Jesus 2.0

In Hitler’s case the cause of scientistic reaction and oblviousness is a predictable cause of disaster.

In the case of Jesus, well, let me count the absurdities.

The people who will egg you on against what I am saying now, in the name of Hitler and/or Jesus: The Daniel A’s, The Al Ross’s, the Carolyn Yeagers, the Tanstaafls, etc value these figures more than our race. Were it not so, they would not treat the redemptive inclusion of these figures as a litmus test for the value of this platform.

In the case of Uh, Thorn and Haller, they would encourage you to antagonize me for another reason - basically on behalf of Jews.

Uh once told me by email to “not do all that sociology.” It was news to me that I was doing sociology in his opinion, because that is not my discipline. It is surely the stereotypes of the left that Jews will try to encourage and right wing reactions to these stereotypes that that they will try to encourage as well.

Now then, in the case of Bowery, he will try to encourage you to antagonize me as well. But for a slightly different reason. He is from your same boomer generation and has your same STEM predilections.

Not being prejudice against STEM predilections myself, admiring their yields, in fact, I participate and have participated in complementary fashion. I expected it to be recognized as such. I did not expect the absurdity of having to be confronted with people saying ONLY the STEM approach and scientific (really, scientistic) type IS questions were legitimate - let alone the only issues legitimately deemed “philosophy.”

That is patently absurd.

It is a convenience for you and Bowery to deem these matters the only worthy issues.

Your boomer generation was lucky; and a blind, absurd philosophy could serve selfish interest among you despite its oblivious destruction to the social capital and resource of subsequent generations.

Unfortunately, in your case it may be that you would rather double down in logical positivism than admit that you had something so fundamentally wrong and derived benefit despite it, in significant part by luck.

Inasmuch as that is the case, you would be placing your ego and narrow selfish interests above the interests of the race - making logical positivism (its scientism) your Hitler and Jesus term. While not quite as negative as Bowery, because you have a large cadre of English people who might fall into place, a vast part of the wreckage among and besides is wholly unnecessary otherwise - and that is if it does not go headlong into disaster the way Hitler did.

In Bowery’s case, it seems his motivation is slightly more bitter; like you he is precipitating the big die off, but it is not so much a core of English and German people that he hopes will sift-out so much as it is “Euro-man” - i.e., a few scientific, computer/techno nerds. Artists, writers and anybody with other skills be damned.

There is a way out, GW, which is to recognize that hermeneutics (i.e., my over arching frameworks - as in NOT sociology) is NOT anti science, it is NOT against what IS, it is accountable to these things - it must be as a non-Cartesian discipline. I don’t reject the good things and important things that you and Bowery bring (unlike you, who reject the good and important things I bring; and will straw man rather than see the value in it.)

But I’m afraid that rather than doing that, you might just keep doing what you’ve been doing with the encouragement of the right wingers who egg you on and the Jews who want you to stay in that reaction - some fairly intelligent people, such as Millennial Woes and Greg Johnson have taken that path.

But you are being encouraged do what you are dong precisely because it is wrong and it is bad for European/White people. You are dismissing what I say for that reason. And like the misguided “Generaton Identitaire”, Millennial Woes and Greg Johnson blame an older generation of Whites (despite their having totally different circumstances, controlled media only, etc); and are coming to the conclusion based on the French election that the boomers simply need to die off .. and nothing can change until.

Please do not justify their assessment by continually obstructing the social corrections of subsequent generations to your generation’s selfish consumption of idiotic logical positivism. You were born with bogey men of collectivism both real and imagined. We experience the collective disaster of logical positivism, like the wake of a swarm of “individual” locusts consuming all social capital in their path and leaving barren fields in your wake ...

Having taken a step back, and with the dust settled, I realize that you didn’t quite understand some important differences ..and I can look back on many attempts at worthwhile discussion where your generational and STEM biases were an unnecessary obstruction. For example in the discussion of a possible “new religion for European peoples.”

Bowery acted as if he saved the world from “collectivism” when he tried to muck up consideration of a new religion - we would not turn him, Kafka style, into an insect. You told me that one cannot go into a garage and invent a religion. Like so many things you’ve said, some good, some not so good, it was thoughtful enough to cause me to take a step back.

First of all, while Bowery’s concerns for loss of distinctly European individualism are valid, there are safe and sane ways to prevent that from happening.

Next, regarding the idea that you can’t start a religion in your garage, well, actually, where there are a few people gathered a determination of what is important and worth to be deemed sacred can be made - it would be tested and corrected though some others and from there it could gain popular assent. Christianity, in fact any religion, would have started this way. The episode that captures profound pattern can be revered ceremonially thereafter and so on.. as a model for reflection, for example, not necessarily as something that has to be followed verbatim or by rote.

But anyway, what is disturbing is that I can see many good things you contribute and will not forget them - e.g., your observation with Susan Lindaur that debt is a key component in the creation of war.

I will do not besmirch your ontology project, as a side of necessary back and forth flow in the systemic correction of our peoplehood.

But you do try to devalue my side - a side that I focus on a) because I recognize it as the most urgent priority and for which I do have important resource and conceptual tools to bring to bear and b) yes, these are among my skill set - I am not a scientist, not a STEM type; it does not mean that I don’t value science, and try to deny the contributions of scientists where they are important (and they often are), it just means that I try to contribute in accordance with my strengths - contributions which I am satisified are verifiable as important to our cause.

Nevertheless, I basically think that you are getting bad advice to take the position that what we are trying to do is mutually exclusive as opposed to amenable to complementarity.

However, I am not optimistic that you will change, even though you should, because yours is a lucky generation that derived much benefit from its position and it would not be natural to want to admit that its underpinning “philosophy” has so much to do with the destruction of subsequent generations.

Please do not prove them correct in making it so that the only way for your generation to unburden us of obstruction is for you to die-off. Please recognize that the necessary, socially corrective project of a subsequent generation is complementary and not mutually exclusive to the inquiries and findings that you have right on the harder more empirical end.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 May 2017 14:51 | #

When I was 18 years old, Daniel, I spent afternoons in the carrols of Purley Grammar School, where I should have been revising for A-levels, disproving the existence of God - or, at least, attempting to (I am not sure that the standard of proof attained would impress me much today). My personal interests were my girlfriend (along with every pretty girl who passed by, it’s only fair to say), writing, driving cars unsafely, hanging out with my Dad through his interests in fishing and football, and trying to work out what life is. I was not politically engaged. Politics was too coarse, contested by obvious charlatans, and far too dull anyway.

Even its two visitations upon me of unemployment (the first at the age of 22 and newly engaged to be married, when I was rendered jobless by Ted Heath’s insanely inflationary politics, and the second in 1980 by the early, very sobering version of Thatcherite monetarism) did not disturb my thought-processes. I was heavily engaged all through this period in an anti-spiritual search for understanding. Politics appeared only as an outrageous and harmful burden on the people, and anyway didn’t deal with the things I, as a definitely race-aware male, thought were important. However, the essential libertarianism of Thatcher’s general philosophy did cause me to sit up and notice the possibility of approaching the political as a problem to be solved. Before that, there was only ratchet socialism and historical inevitability.

So that is my relationship with Thatcherism. It ain’t no love affair. For one thing, I’m never going to get back all the money it cost me.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 May 2017 02:12 | #

Every time an English woman spreads for a nigger pussified English moralists have that old fairy Churchill to thank for it. Lulz

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 May 2017 04:43 | #

And every time a German woman spreads for one, techno-krauts, in their tendency to follow logical rules ad absurdem, have to thank Hitler’s didactic, subhuman scientism and anachronistic idolatry of Friedrich the Great’s imperialism at the expense of would-be Slavic allies to thank for it.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 May 2017 05:11 | #

A renewed hope in politics inspired by Thatcherite libertarianism might be somewhat analogous to the possibility that Americans saw in Reagan and Trump. ... to the hope that I momentarily had when I was involved with a department doing PR for the Clinton’s (even though I hated them) that I might be able to establish an academic platform. The hope that I had of establishing a literal academic platform is to be distinguished from the fact of my having left academia and its more clearly flawed ideas behind while taking from it what conceptual tools that I needed and retooling them for ethno-nationalist purposes.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 07:06 | #

But, there again, you are approaching the question as an engineer, not an architect.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 May 2017 07:20 | #

Not true. That’s how you are wont to see what I am doing. It is not true because I am indeed, beginning with what Is of our people, and taking measures on those architectural blueprints against the social engineering and deconstruction of antagonists or those who don’t care about our inherited forms.

The tools that I have availed myself are those which would stave-off misdirection and guide reconstruction of inherited ways (allow for its re-emergence too, if you will, being phobic to the word construction as you are).

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 07:47 | #

You cannot decide for yourself what is. Politicians ... legislators ... rulemakers ... cannot decide what is. It resides in the authenticity of the people’s act of living. It is beyond words to describe. To give it expression requires a different approach to simply knocking back some aspects of the sociological generality.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 May 2017 07:57 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 08:47 | #

You cannot decide for yourself what is.

I don’t decide for myself what is.

Politicians ... legislators ... rulemakers ... cannot decide what is.

Rule-makers can decide what parts of what is that they want to encourage and discourage.

It resides in the authenticity of the people’s act of living.

If authenticity is what you are calling those aspects of what is that you value, fine.

It is beyond words to describe.

Maybe. But if so, a discussion forum is not a good place for it.

To give it expression requires a different approach to simply knocking back some aspects of the sociological generality.

Here we go again with dismissive cartoon rendition - a completely inaccurate straw man really - of what I am doing. ..maybe Uh would think its cool.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 08:18 | #

Well, you are proving my point rather eloquently. You simply have no conception of what a people is, and can only be.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 May 2017 09:01 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 09:18 | #

Well, you are proving my point rather eloquently. You simply have no conception of what a people is, and can only be.

“No concept of what a people is, and can only be”. Impossible, untrue and ridiculous. Why don’t you just try to conceive of me as not being the foil of your bitter grievance with the Jewish, Jewish influenced or simply liberal academics of its opposing camp?

“They”, e.g., the English, can do no other within certain of their biological parameters as a people ...after that they cannot do other if they want (their legacy) to remain English by normal, agreed upon definition. And all that is verifiable by genetics and other means. It is the work of philosophers to combat misdirection beyond mere biological constraint and to advise rule structures conducive not only with the level of biological constraint, but as to legitimacies on the more flexible level as well - very critically on that level, as that we cannot take for granted while its affordance entails the degree of independence and creativity that we value so much as charactaristic of our European peoples.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 18:45 | #

I’m not talking here about what a people can do but about how a people’s natural or authentic life expresses. This is the fundamental difference between an ethnic form of nationalism and the nationalist teleologies. Your conservational DNA nation straddles both realms, but in an ethnic nationalist form, it would perhaps be adjunctive to it and inherent in its workings. But in a teleological nationalism the goals of the DNA nation would be separated out to lie ahead and be striven for. There would be purpose rather than mechanical function. But there might not be the possibility of a stable outcome because over time only authenticity is a giver of that.

Accordingly and properly, it is not the work of philophers to “combat misdirection” but to give impetus through the creation of world-renewing models and visions for us to do so quite naturally and irresistibly, and of ourselves. Consciousness defeats lies, so let that be our way.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 May 2017 19:02 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 19:45 | #

I’m not talking here about what a people can do but about how a people’s natural or authentic life expresses. This is the fundamental difference between an ethnic form of nationalism and the nationalist teleologies. Your conservational DNA nation straddles both realms, but in an ethnic nationalist form, it would perhaps be adjunctive to it and inherent in its workings. But in a teleological nationalism the goals of the DNA nation would be separated out to lie ahead and be striven for.

No, it would be a two way back and forth process of feedback and calibration.

There would be purpose rather than mechanical function.

Well, you very much want to portray what is actually quite an organic process (except for special inquiries) as mechanical. As I’ve said, you are determined to portray me and my efforts as a foil, but you really should find one elsewhere.

But there might not be the possibility of a stable outcome because over time only authenticity is a giver of that.

Well, you carry on in helplessness then if it makes you feel better - you can proclaim that authenticity will win in the end.

Accordingly and properly, it is not the work of philophers to “combat misdirection”

Yes it is. It is not all of what they do, but it is a very marked and important component of their work.

but to give impetus through the creation of world-renewing models and visions for us to do so quite naturally and irresistibly, and of ourselves. Consciousness defeats lies, so let that be our way.

Philosophers do that too.

In fact, you will probably keep trying to bury what I do, but its truth will come through anyway.

You’ve made it abundantly clear that your thing is to try to trivialize and bury what I say: but don’t worry, I won’t let you. It won’t let you. It’s too important.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 21:35 | #

it would be a two way back and forth process of feedback and calibration.

1. Peoples do not do hermeneutics.

2. Academics - who may do it, I suppose - cannot construct human being, only obstruct it.

3. Ethnic nationalism belongs to the being of the people. The intellectual dances of academics do not.

You are talking, inevitably, about dictate. Your nationalism is sincere, of course, but it is predicated on you knowing what must be done because of your going and back and forth etc, etc. None of us or can know this so well that we can create a more perfect and free life than a people itself. The role of academics at the level in the process you want to be involved must lend itself to the service of imperfection unless, prior to that involvement, the process of creation is already in train. The academic must follow, not lead.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:09 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 16:35 | #

it would be a two way back and forth process of feedback and calibration.

1. Peoples do not do hermeneutics.

Yes they do, it is very natural.

2. Academics - who may do it, I suppose - cannot construct human being, only obstruct it.

Not true. It is constructed all the time through it: all you show is your refusal to understand what is meant by the word “construction” proper (though its been explained to you); and your absurd determination to make an idea that is more important than your ego into a “merely academic thing” that normal people don’t do - when in fact, they do.

3. Ethnic nationalism belongs to the being of the people. The intellectual dances of academics do not.

You only confirm the point of your vain motivation to apply straw men to ideas that render your ego redundant.

You are talking, inevitably, about dictate.

No I am not and it becomes more clear that you are the would-be dictator, wanting only sayings that pass sheerly through the auspices of your ego to be what matters. After you try to obfuscate other input, everyone else is supposed to be taken by your “ontology project”, to want to be swept up in “consciousness of the authentic personality” ..“when that happens, we will just do nationalism without all that ‘academic’ stuff” that hurts your ego so.

Your nationalism is sincere, of course, but it is predicated on you knowing what must be done because of your going and back and forth etc, etc. None of us

You speak for yourself, Uh, Daniel A and Carolyn Yeager.

or can know this so well that we can create a more perfect and free life than a people itself.

I understand that ideas that are more important than your ego are hard for you to accept.

The role of academics at the level in the process you want to be involved must lend itself to the service of imperfection unless, prior to that involvement,

Hermeneutics lends perfectly to human imperfection and perfectly to correction!

the process of creation is already in train. The academic must follow, not lead

Your jealousy and resentment of academia, of ideas that do not follow your ego, your labeling of ideas which are in fact more important than your ego as “merely academic” does not mean that your straw men are true, nor that those who might use ideas more important than your ego have to follow your lead instead.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:43 | #

If people ... ordinary people ... “interpret texts” or whatever by “going back and forth” absolutely naturally ... just doing it “all the time”, they don’t need you, do they? Well, do they?

Heidegger and a handful of others aside, what has academia in the humanities done for our people over the last century? What is it doing now that is different to the self-interest of the banker class? Besides intellectual enslavement and cowardice, of course? Why does it deserve our respect?

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 May 2017 23:08 | #

Why does a beta pussy academic who fucked Jewesses like Heidegger deserve more respect than Adolf Hitler?

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 May 2017 23:40 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 May 2017 23:43 | #

If people ... ordinary people ... “interpret texts” or whatever

They don’t just interpret texts, they make sense of what is around them through specificatory structures that are corrected in application with others or through application of/or through their emergent structures (that have been formed with others, ultimately).

by “going back and forth” absolutely naturally ...

Yes, going back and forth from more general orientation to specific verification where need be, throwing out specificatory structures - partly finished hypotheses that others shape and correct with them..

just doing it “all the time”, they don’t need you, do they? Well, do they?

They don’t need me, but they are better off with accurate feedback and better theoretical advice (which I am giving) than the right and alternative right has to offer.

Heidegger and a handful of others aside, what has academia in the humanities done for our people over the last century?

Probably a lot (some good, a lot bad, depending upon the academics and students) but I really don’t care to be honest - I certainly don’t want to begin writing a book in order to answer your question. You seem to think that I am here to defend academia - even though I have told you even in the course of this conversation among others that that is not what I am here to do.

What is it doing now that is different to the self-interest of the banker class? Besides intellectual enslavement and cowardice, of course? Why does it deserve our respect?

I will only speak for myself. I am doing many things a great deal differently from the banker class, what they might think and want. I’d say they would be routing for your “philosophy” as it is more easily manipulated, prone to social irresponsibility and selfishness as it is.

What I am offering by contrast is a discussion of the way of liberation from the ignorant liberalism that has been encouraged by these types, to be free from the demonization that is anti-racism. I am discussing ways and opportunity to be at purpose with the people whom one is evolved to sustain and foster as part in their biological systemics; systemic evolution that extends far back in history and hopefully will extend in legacy indefinitely. What I offer is accountability to and from its social capital. What I offer is sound and sane grounds upon which to defend oneself among human ecology - with an emphasis on concerns that are particular to European peoples. To be able to cultivate individual identity - agency, coherence, warrant and accountability, as I like to emphasize, along with important group identity: I’m liking the specificatory structures of being/dasein, midtdasein/socialization, routine and the sacred, self actualization and farther reaches - as one set of topoi to discuss our problems and solutions.

...and that is just to name a few of the many things I’ve offered to discuss that can lend important help to (our) people - not just for matters of advancing middle class conceit, but for help in solving problems for people of any position among our evolution.

There is much that I’ve written here that people can use, their loss if they don’t want to take it up and a disservice if you dissuade them from consideration thereof.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 May 2017 07:07 | #

They don’t just interpret texts, they make sense of what is around them through specificatory structures that are corrected in application with others or through application of/or through their emergent structures (that have been formed with others, ultimately).

Daniel, have you not understood that the general commentary on Mind structure and operation, consciousness and mechanicity, and suggestibility and personality, which together constitute the psychological component of the Ontology Project, renders this model of yours, if we can call it such, perfectly redundant? There is not enough in communication theory, and what there is does not even handle language correctly. It is only concerned to predicate in the social, the general concept of which - if not the political content - it handles uncritically. Indeed, much the greater part of its political critique - Habermas and so forth - is at least vestigially marxist. It is, after all, sociology.

But very well. You have stated plainly that you do not want to think through the original and revolutionary wholeness of what, in my inadequate and untrained way, I have been trying to explicate to you. Perhaps that’s my fault. I am well aware that my non-academic background and non-scholastic method puts me outside the field of serious academic consideration.

What I offer is ...

... a pick-n-mix system drawn in the main from quite a narrow academic specialism by a thoughtful and sincere nationalist, and applied by same to the disaster wrought in our age in the life of European Man. The nationalism is right in its intent and in its analysis. The academic foundation in communicationalism and sociology is wrong.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 12 May 2017 07:42 | #

Daniel, have you not understood that the general commentary on Mind structure and operation, consciousness and mechanicity, and suggestibility and personality, which together constitute the psychological component of the Ontology Project, renders this model of yours, if we can call it such, perfectly redundant?

It absolutely DOES NOT DO THAT. What is happening is that you are expressing your vain, conceited wish that has festered since your days as a bitter, puerile lad - to render academics, any academic idea, “redundant.” That intransigent wish to render social perspectives redundant goes along with stem predilection gone mad.

There is not enough in communication theory, and what there is does not even handle language correctly.

Communication theory by itself, covers the the same turf as other disciplines. It can even cover and excel beyond your lame ontology project.

It is only concerned to predicate in the social, the general concept of which - if not the political content - it handles uncritically.

Depends upon the communication theorist. That you would say such a thing only shows how ignorant that you are.

Indeed, much the greater part of its political critique - Habermas and so forth - is at least a vestigially marxist. It is, after all, sociology.

Now I know that you are sucking at Carolyn Yeager’ teet, operating by some committee, anyway. She tried to render this accusation against me, as have you accused me of this before while I answered it before. I have laughed off the charge that I am influenced by Habermas. Having been apprised of better I have not bothered with more than a few paragraphs from Habermas, didn’t find him useful and so I don’t use him (he had a good thought in one sentence - having mentioned it, Carolyn apparently thinks he’s my guru. ..and maybe your memory suffers because this is the third time I’ve disabused you of this).

But very well. You have stated plainly that you do not want to think through the original and revolutionary wholeness of what,

I don’t want to waste time with your obsolete philosophy.

I am not antagonistic to science, but I observe where it may be flawed or misapplied. I can respect proper science at least; and it is of invaluable use. If you were to pursue matters as science and not try to denigrate philosophy, that would at least be a way to co-exist without your constant attempts at deconstruction.

As it stands, I can stand aside your ontology project, leave you alone to your modernist grandiosity.

If you will at least be so decent as to stop heaping straw men on me, I’d appreciate it.

in my inadequate and untrained way, I have been trying to explicate to you. Perhaps that’s my fault. I am well aware that my non-academic background and non-scholastic method puts me outside the field of serious academic consideration.

If you were trying, which is not at all evident to me, you haven’t been explicating me.

What I offer is ...

... a pick-n-mix system drawn in the main from quite a narrow academic specialism by a thoughtful and sincere nationalist, and applied by same to the disaster wrought in our age in the life of European Man. The nationalism is right in its intent and in its analysis. The academic foundation in communicationalism and sociology is wrong.

GW, if you wonder why I have taken to rendering insults back at you, those sentences will illustrate why. Let me shovel aside your latest pile of horsehit:

... a pick-n-mix system drawn in the main from quite a narrow academic specialism by a thoughtful and sincere nationalist,

I do not pick and match arbitrarily - I take things that are of vital necessity for our racial/ethno-national defense and more.

It is not a narrow academic specialism that I draw from. You are not telling the truth; to be accurate, it is a lie that I have dispelled before and you force me to repeat myself: Though I can and do focus on certain things where necessary, I draw from and operate on different disciplines and subject matter.

The nationalism is right in its intent and in its analysis. The academic foundation in communicationalism and sociology is wrong

Even if I were to approach these matters from a strictly communicological or sociological perspective (I keep telling you, in truth, that I am not a sociologist and you keep re applying Uh’s false accusation that I am and should not be) it would not be invalid, in fact probably, when mixed with sufficient ingredients from philosophy and biology, among the best disciplines for approaching our problems. These disciplines are not mutually exclusive to your physics envy pursuing the ends it is suited for. When done properly, however, they do not commit the epistemological blunder that you do. Nevertheless, you are free to pursue you ontology project as you will and to select passages from Heidegger verbatim. But grow up and stop misrepresenting my efforts. They are more important than your ego. You’ve only ever tried to compete with what I say, which is an absurd disposition to take, especially to the absurd extent that you do.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 May 2017 08:55 | #

This ...

They don’t just interpret texts, they make sense of what is around them through specificatory structures that are corrected in application with others or through application of/or through their emergent structures (that have been formed with others, ultimately).

... is what CC would uncharitably refer to as sperg, but let’s investigate it fairly.

they make sense of what is around them through specificatory structures ...

Epistemologically, how does being “there” in the world, before its objects and events as they resolve into pulses of raw meaning for the subject ... how does that mesh with “specificatory structures”? What structures? Why are they “specificatory”?

... that are corrected in application with others or through application of/or through their emergent structures (that have been formed with others, ultimately).

What does “corrected” mean? What is “application”? What are “emergent structures”?

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 12 May 2017 09:27 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 May 2017 09:55 | #

This ...

They don’t just interpret texts, they make sense of what is around them through specificatory structures that are corrected in application with others or through application of/or through their emergent structures (that have been formed with others, ultimately).

... is what CC would uncharitably refer to as sperg, but let’s investigate it fairly.

Like I am supposed to be surprised and dissuaded by random insults from CC? He is actually more reasonable than you are.

they make sense of what is around them through specificatory structures ...

Epistemologically, how does being “there” in the world, before its objects and events as they resolve into pulses of raw meaning for the subject ... how does that mesh with “specificatory structures”? What structures? Why are they “specificatory”?

At the more physical, “ontological level” that you care to investigate, being there meshes as communication between biologically co-evolved creatures that respond to their surroundings in an agreeable enough way to correct any reaction/interpretation from the other that would preventthem from having offspring - the offspring then has inherited the more raw capacities, the pre-existant structures that you wish to deem pure adaptation (that is, according to you somehow supposed to inspire nationalism upon its raw impulses).

These sensations and neural paths that have survived for their adaptive fit, overcoming the natural obstacles, aversion and misunderstandings that might have prevented their parents from breeding them, are then confronted with further complex requirements, lack of need, misunderstanding and competition - broader social interaction beyond the brute responses of the organism, which actually afford a great deal of flexibility to go beyond our national bounds if you consider the obvious fact that we can breed with all other humans on the earth.

For people to look after their interests as their needs become more complex in time and space - such as the problem of maintaining the nation of those we care about - it is then necessary to share language of one kind or another - which establishes rules, prohibitions, obligations and legitimacy that structure our action with affordances and constraints that are established between individuals and more broadly by consensus.

Beyond the hard constraints of biology, they are negotiable. Unfortunately, as we can breed with other races, our nationality can be looked upon as “negotiable” by antagonists, though we would rather establish rules, specificatory structures that would encourage them to act in their interests and ours at the same time - and disempower them, if not banish them where they are not so inclined.

... that are corrected in application with others or through application of/or through their emergent structures (that have been formed with others, ultimately).

What does “corrected” mean? What is “application”? What are “emergent structures”?

Corrected means corrected: Correct being defined between individuals and consensus as a logic of meaning and action having more accurate, acceptable and useful application than the more sketchy hypotheses that were offered to begin to negotiate mutual understanding and coordination. Application means that it, the logic and understanding comes into personal and generally accepted use.

Emergent structures are our inherited forms and paths for making our way in the world; also revealed in their fuller manifestations through interaction. “Structures” is just a way of talking about and describing fairly stable logics - rule structures.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 May 2017 18:35 | #

Daniel, the first word in my question was “Epistemologically”. You want to take bits of Heidegger, so I am asking you, from the off, so to speak, to translate Daniel-speak into Heidegger-speak. It can be done in part, at least. Let me show you.

They make sense of what is around them through specificatory structures ...

... translates as “In waking consciousness, the Being of the subject ... so, you or I or anyone, indeed, all of us, for we all function in the same way ... is “there” in the world in a naturalistic or simple state, innocent of meanings. But “being there” itself is structured (for Being itself has a constitution), the principal facet of which structure is “care” ... or genetic interest in Salterian terms.

So, continuing with the latter for a moment, whereas the engagement of us just “being there” resolves raw meanings, these are filtered (for fitness) “there” as they pass through the gateway to Mind, basically. This is the primordial, animalistic mechanism, the native Darwinian bias which is necessarily right more often than it is wrong.

As Emil Nolde, the expressionist painter and early NSDAP member put it, “Instinkt ist zehnmal mehr als Wissen”. Experientially, this instinct determines essentially (phenotypically) for kind by nearness ↔ distance before it does so in any more calculated, sympatico identitarian sense, ie, by sameness ↔ difference, and long before any moral or intellectual argument comes into play. Obviously, the latter applies only when meaning has passed through the gate and been filtered by the three great, outward-facing systems of Mind (the motor, emotional, and intellectual functions).

The second part of your definition belongs to that perceptual stage.

... that are corrected in application with others or through application of/or through their emergent structures (that have been formed with others, ultimately).

Now we cannot maintain the Heideggerian approach (which is fair enough since you were in no way attempting to paraphrase him). The problem is the large epistemological gap between the first part of what you wrote and the second, because all of a sudden we are in this world of “Something must be done!” without having considered how on earth we got here. This is very much key to my critique of your methodology – you don’t articulate the parts. You are off chasing purpose.

So that leaves us not knowing what is being “corrected”, or why; or how. I mean, in “application” to what? You say “consensus”. But instinct is not consensual. It is violent and coercive, and it manipulates all of us to its evolutionary ends with relentless vigour. You and I agree, I think, that the ossified habitualities of human personality, which cover over the primordial and essential experience of Dasein, have to be cleared away. We really differ as to how the clearing away is to be done and what, thereafter, the power and influence of Dasein can effect.

But that brings us to the next difficulty, since the emergent in that latter respect appears in your definition, but only as unexplained “structures” which somehow arrive as if from nowhere. What are they emergent from, and how can they be informed by “others” if that emergence is from the direction, at least, of foundation? Are you claiming that Man is a socially-derived being? If so, you cannot be the nationalist which I know you to be.

Something is amiss. I suspect it’s that the Heideggerian worldview is substantially destructive of your communicationalism, and you are caught between the two; knowing that the former is too intellectually virile and interesting to ignore and the latter too personally meaningful to properly interrogate.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 12 May 2017 22:13 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 May 2017 19:35 | #

Daniel, the first word in my question was “Epistemologically”. You want to take bits of Heidegger, so I am asking you, from the off, so to speak, to translate Daniel-speak into Heidegger-speak. It can be done in part, at least. Let me show you.

Let me translate “GW speak”: I.e., a refusal to understand what has been explained a million times.

As I have said before, when you take a disposition to use the methods of harder sciences - physics and even biology to the extent that it doesn’t take into account additional human capacities, and you have a strict concern to draw axiomatic conclusions about the social world from these methods, applying them to the social world, what Aristotle calls “praxis - that is called an “epistemological error.”

The social world requires working hypotheses, that are true enough, useful, but a bit more flexible as humans are more flexible and changeable in their capacities.

They make sense of what is around them through specificatory structures ...

... translates as “In waking consciousness, the Being of the subject ...

Not strictly at all. Your interpretation is too psychologically vacuum packed to be of much good at all. Whereas what I am talking about engages one in interaction. Much more useful, more true and more authentic.

so, you or I or anyone, indeed, all of us, for we all function in the same way ... is “there” in the world in a naturalistic or simple state, innocent of meanings.

Oh baloney.

But “being there” itself is structured (for Being itself has a constitution), the principal facet of which structure is “care” ... or genetic interest in Salterian terms.

That’s one story to tell, I believe it will show patterns holding up to some extent - but not always: some people don’t get along with their siblings. As Graham advised, in a liberal society, siblicide is a winning move.

So, continuing with the latter for a moment, whereas the engagement of us just “being there” resolves raw meanings, these are filtered (for fitness) “there” as they pass through the gateway to Mind, basically. This is the primordial, animalistic mechanism, the native Darwinian bias which is necessarily right more often than it is wrong.

Function at this level, the cult of science and objectivity, its liberal alter free of human prejudice as it were, that has created the kind of scientism that you espouse, and it can explain much of why many more White women are with n****rs now than should be - “raw meaning.”

As Emil Nolde, the expressionist painter and early NSDAP member put it, “Instinkt ist zehnmal mehr als Wissen”. Experientially, this instinct determines essentially (phenotypically) for kind by nearness ↔ distance before it does so in any more calculated, sympatico identitarian sense, ie, by sameness ↔ difference, and long before any moral or intellectual argument comes into play. Obviously, the latter applies only when meaning has passed through the gate and been filtered by the three great, outward-facing systems of Mind (the motor, emotional, and intellectual functions).

Well, fine, if this guy promotes a language game that encourages German women to stick with German men that’s well and good. Apparently a number of them haven’t heard about it or they are not especially moved.

The second part of your definition belongs to that perceptual stage.

... that are corrected in application with others or through application of/or through their emergent structures (that have been formed with others, ultimately).

Now we cannot maintain the Heideggerian approach (which is fair enough since you were in no way attempting to paraphrase him). The problem is the large epistemological gap between the first part of what you wrote and the second, because all of a sudden we are in this world of “Something must be done!” without having considered how on earth we got here.

Not true. “How we got here”, what we are to each other, may be precisely the questions that concern the interlocutors.

This is very much key to my critique of your methodology – you don’t articulate the parts. You are off chasing purpose.

Well, you have to make up some straw man, don’t you? I am not chasing after purpose, it is abundantly clear, as are “the parts.” I am not saying that we cannot be more informed by science and I welcome that, but I don’t need more to begin looking at how we function when we function best, seeing where our way of life is lacking, under attack and what we need to do about it.

So that leaves us not knowing what is being “corrected”, or why; or how.

Well, like I said. That isn’t true. You act like all people are complete idiots and need completely new blue prints by you and only you in order to come to mutual decisions about what is the correct understanding about their relationship and their environment, social and otherwise.

I mean, in “application” to what?

Stupid question. Application to solving/negotiating problems, to useful ends, to making their life more beautiful and enjoyable, to facilitating their legacy..

You say “consensus”. But instinct is not consensual.

So what? Try to provide better language than the New York times so as to align the newer brain with the older, more instinctively guided parts. What I am doing is conducive to this as well - we don’t provide logics of meaning and action to guide people to contradict healthy instincts.

It is violent and coercive, and it manipulates all of us to its evolutionary ends with relentless vigour.

It can be like that, but as it is mentored by adults and comes into maturity it can often sublimate this vigor into an fairly optimal blend of serving one’s personal biological system and ones social biological system.

You and I agree, I think, that the ossified habitualities of human personality, which cover over the primordial and essential experience of Dasein, have to be cleared away.

I am not sure that I agree with you no - I tend to doubt that you know the difference between an “ossified habituate of the human personality” and ideas that are truly good and useful - it seems rather that you time and again try to clear these things away.

We really differ as to how the clearing away is to be done and what, thereafter, the power and influence of Dasein can effect.

For one thing, whether Dasain has power and effect is not important to me if our group outlook, friend enemy distinctions are not worked out properly.

But that brings us to the next difficulty, since the emergent in that latter respect appears in your definition, but only as unexplained “structures” which somehow arrive as if from nowhere.

I believe that I use the word “evolution” and not from “nowhere.” Furthermore, I think in terms of interaction, which is a lot less “nowhere” than where it would come from by your explanations.

What are they emergent from, and how can they be informed by “others” if that emergence is from the direction, at least, of foundation?

There are only rather primitive levels of biological manifestation in relation to environment that you might claim to not be informed by others. Even those levels would be reconstructed by thousands of generations; and even those levels of tightest causality would be open to at least a modicum of negotiation as to how they count.

Are you claiming that Man is a socially-derived being? If so, you cannot be the nationalist which I know you to be.

Socially derived is the wrong word to use. Interactively derived if you want to be radical. Emergence comes after. But I will claim that people are social creatures (and by social, I am including even where they focus on one or a few personal relations because they are still socially contingent) - and where they are not, they are not long for this earth. As I have explained to you many times, you can say that a tree falling in the woods makes a noise whether there are people there to hear it or not, but a social constructionist perspective can claim that as well, while placing the relative interests of a people at the center of one’s outlook as opposed to sheer, ‘objective” truths above all, because if the people that we care about are not there to talk about the wonderful objective truth that we’ve discovered that the tree falling makes a noise anyway, it won’t matter anyway.

Something is amiss.

What you are doing is amiss.

I don’t tell you to not do your ontology project. I will not even try to suggest where I think you might be missing something. What is amiss, and what I wish you’d stop doing is trying to see and depict what I am doing as antagonistic, as if I am attempting to impose the same affectations of the Jewish professors whose work that you don’t like and where it is shown to you that that is not what I am doing - what I am doing is actually good and important - rather than seeing that, what you do instead is to keep applying straw man to me instead of seeing accurately what I am doing - that’s what is amiss.

I suspect it’s that the Heideggerian worldview is substantially destructive of your communicationalism,

You keep wanting to create these adversarial camps and to put me into the other, where you are so cool for trying to knock apart whatever I am doing. The Heideggerian worldview is not substantially destructive to communicology or any part of what I am doing.

and you are caught between the two; knowing that the former is too intellectually virile and interesting to ignore and the latter too personally meaningful to properly interrogate

I am not caught. I have a workable worldview. And if it is not Heidegger verbatim I care not a fig. What I do besides Heidegger is not just personally meaningful, and to suggest it is is just another attempt by you to trivialize what is more important than your ego.

“Interrogation”, even, is too soft a word for what you normally do. As you do not ask questions in any good faith. Where you have started asking questions, you know the answer for yourself - to you, what I am saying must be destroyed. That not as bad as what you usually do, which is attempt to summarily dismiss everything I say from the start. But my theoretical grounds are too robust for you to be able to do that, GW.

P.S. I noticed that you left out some key answers that I provided in my prior comment.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 May 2017 23:35 | #

The reason that the Heideggerian epistemology is destructive for you is because the notion of Dasein opens up the certainty that politically-motivated meddling - say, Jewish machinations or the dictates of any aparatchik class (like yours) - will produce the human being imperfectly, that is, with inauthenticity and thence with moral and ideological failings. As I have noted many times, you cannot prescribe human authenticity, and you are not required to clear away the sociologically negative influences. The authentic man will do that anyway, simply by the fact that they do not belong to him. The revolutionary moment occurs not in his actions in the world but much earlier, in his act of apprehending truth. Ours is a revolution of truth.

I have not left anything out in my last comment, btw. Much of what you routinely say is irrelevant to my line of questioning. You routinely answer to satisfy yourself, not my questioning. Where you say something which connects I will usually reply. The rest I will leave alone.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 05:43 | #

I will add that nationalism historically concerns itself with the rejection of liberalism and egalitarianism, perhaps also democratism, modernity, latterly globalism and neoliberalism, and Jewish supremacism as it manifests through much of these. How many great tomes of stern rules are you going to have to write to deal with all that? Or will you admit that you are actually talking about a narrow social focus which is of passing concern for nationalists but which, obviously, has assumed a massive importance for you, such that you have consistently claimed that “the social” is prior to relation itself?

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 May 2017 05:52 | #

I will add that nationalism historically concerns itself with the rejection of liberalism and egalitarianism, perhaps also democratism, modernity, latterly globalism and neoliberalism, and Jewish supremacism as it manifests through much of these. How many great tomes of stern rules are you going to have to write to deal with all that? Or will you admit that you are actually talking about a narrow social focus which is of passing concern for nationalists but which, obviously, has assumed a massive importance for you, such that you have consistently claimed that “the social” is prior to relation itself?[/IMG]

There is no reason to “admit” to your straw men and desperate whish that all is redundant but your ego.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 May 2017 18:35 | #

The reason that the Heideggerian epistemology is destructive for you is because the notion of Dasein opens up the certainty that politically-motivated meddling - say, Jewish machinations or the dictates of any aparatchik class (like yours)

Now I’m an aparatchik class?

Or is it that you and Bowery think that everyone who isn’t evolved for salient STEM predilections should die-off?

That seems rather to be the case, even though when one sees how philosophically inept that STEM people can be, that the wild card capacity that other skill sets demonstrate does indicate utility hidden behind the place holding of less apparently useful occupations . As Plato says, the philosopher seems useless until the ship goes off course.

- will produce the human being imperfectly, that is, with inauthenticity and thence with moral and ideological failings.

Another one of your patent absudities. As if I’m standing in the way of people being at their optimal best - I neither do that, in fact rather provide many considerations by which they may do so despite various obstacles to their authenticity, obstacles to which I describe as well. While I am in fact open to others contributions to their achieving their optimal selves, within reason - as in, not by means of Jesus, Hitler, Jews, scientism, conspiracy theory or pair-wise duels.

As I have noted many times, you cannot prescribe human authenticity,

And, as I have said in truth many times, I don’t prescribe authenticity, I make recommendations which people can take or leave.

and you are not required to clear away the sociologically negative influences.

You think that by continuing to label (straw man) what I’m doing “sociology” that you are proving a point - which is that to make me and anyone but you, your humongous ego, redundant, while your copy of Being and Time remains ready to hand but poorly understood because you are impervious to its historical/philosophical context.

The authentic man will do that anyway, simply by the fact that they do not belong to him.

You want to create a sterile room style control variable, where a child will raise itself on an island all alone, but it will not even be able to speak English, let alone perfectly.. while you simply try to ignore the fact that people all around are falling for tricks - you, GW, as much as anybody. STEM types with their predilection to attend to Augustinian are notorious dupes.

The revolutionary moment occurs not in his actions in the world but much earlier, in his act of apprehending truth. Ours is a revolution of truth.

Well, I am talking about truth for humans, you are talking about truth for animals, pets and humans who act like them.

I have not left anything out in my last comment, btw.

You did, but its right there two comments above for whom it may concern.

Much of what you routinely say is irrelevant to my line of questioning. You routinely answer to satisfy yourself, not my questioning. Where you say something which connects I will usually reply.

Your “questioning” is to ask, “why don’t you understand that you and your efforts are unimportant and redundant” ..and especially because that is not true, you wonder why I don’t “answer your questions affirmatively, in the way that you want.”

I understand where you are coming from, though, you are at a point where you don’t want and don’t think you should have to, and resent having to use words to help persuade people act like you think they should. I was there. But it doesn’t work that way in the real world, which does not stand still as a sterile control variable unresponsive to yours and others claims.

The rest I will leave alone.

That would be much preferable to a puerile contentiousness that has all the hallmarks of pathology.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 May 2017 08:21 | #

This is what we’re liable to get if scientists are not “interfered with” by “contaminants” such as sociological perspectives etc. - if scientists present themselves as the philosophers and priests of purity at once:

These priests of pure empiricism are here to disabuse us of “the sin of artificial constructs of race and group differences.”

They will render us the duel “service” by “saving us” from the “evil collectivism” that will undoubtedly occur if we see and act as if there are differences in group patterns that call for judgement, discrimination, social agreement and activity.

Never mind that incapacitating the means of that group maintenance - incapacitating it with purity spiraling or other reasons - incapacitating group maintenance, its resource and buffering is the surest way to lose your capacity for individuality.

The great scientist, Spencer Wells, has “disproven” “racism”, saying that there are no important differences between us - the science shows this to him.

Perhaps being the “apparatchik” that I am, I should send Wells to a psychiatric hospital in Eastern Siberia to tell the natives that there is no difference between them, Russians and Africans.

... and if he wanted to pull that off, the first thing he’d want to do is tell them that their native language, peoplehood, sociology, differing logical rule structures and such are “mere constructs” of no importance…because deep down, universally, we are all the same.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:01 | #

What class would you envisage making rules but apparatchiks? Where but in the state machinery would you install the rule-makers? If you object to the handle of would-be apparatchik, how would you describe yourself?

And, as I have said in truth many times, I don’t prescribe authenticity, I make recommendations which people can take or leave.

And I said you must follow, not lead. The work of the state would be to give political effect to the natural will and interest of the people.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:26 | #

Your “questioning” is to ask ...

In the main I question the areas where, in my view and in the view of others, you place yourself in what I suppose we could describe as intellectual hazard. “The white left” is one such, along with your quite excessive demonisation of “right wing”. The argument you advance for these is precisely an example of a clever man constructing a chain of logic until he lands himself in a position which is quite inexplicable to the rest of us. He can look back at his footsteps and see that the line is straight and even, so how could he possibly be wrong? Yet everyone can see that he is. But persuading him of that is impossible.

I do think you are softening your position in respect to a sociological solution of rules. The fact is you let a little trojan horse into the sociological city when you incorporated the heideggerism of midt-Dasein into your exegesis. You now find yourself routinely talking about emergence, which only shapes and intensifies the conflict between nativist and sociological thinking which must, as a matter of opposing foundations, inhabit your conclusions. I have resolved that conflict with my ontology of consciousness and authenticity. I can’t see how you can ever do so as things are now. Perhaps you don’t realise it’s there at all.

In any case, you are, as a thinker like all of us, a work in progress. You are more flexible than you think you are. The point will arrive when you draw close enough for others to draw from you.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 May 2017 10:30 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 10:01 | #

What class would you envisage making rules but apparatchiks? Where but in the state machinery would you install the rule-makers? If you object to the handle of would-be apparatchik, how would you describe yourself?

People make rules together, those who are entrusted to articulate the rules and enforce them are agreed upon by the largest most powerful unionization - which at this point, is not the nationalists.

I would describe myself as an advocate of the human ecologies of European peoples, seeing nationalism as a practical and optiamal level for their unionization in defense and for coordination with other ethno-nationalisms.

And, as I have said in truth many times, I don’t prescribe authenticity, I make recommendations which people can take or leave.

And I said you must follow, not lead

Who is the dictator here? I will restrain myself and not tell you to F-off, though I should.

The work of the state would be to give political effect to the natural will and interest of the people.

There is no mutual exclusion to that and my efforts, at all.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 May 2017 10:42 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 10:26 | #

Your “questioning” is to ask ...

let me fill in the whole sentence, which you conveniently left out:

Your “questioning” is to ask, “why don’t you understand that you and your efforts are unimportant and redundant” ..and especially because that is not true, you wonder why I don’t “answer your questions affirmatively”, in the way that you want.

In the main I question the areas where, in my view and in the view of others,

Others = Carolyn Yeager and Daniel A

you place yourself in what I suppose we could describe as intellectual hazard.

Not really. It is a public relations difficulty because Jewish interests have spent decades twisting terms and concepts around. It is far simpler and better to go to work correcting the understanding of the terms than to react to them as they see fit.

“The white left” is one such.

Yes, exactly, I have explained many times why it is the optimal position and perspective. Just because you and your friends have a retarded phobic reaction to the word “left” doesn’t mean that I should or will back off of the correct strategic position.

along with your quite excessive demonisation of “right wing”.

I don’t demonize the right wing, people identifying as such and with certain perspectives that fall neatly under its rubric are easy to make sense of under that rubric - it makes consistent sense of their stupidity, destruction, susceptibility to infiltration and manipulation.

The argument you advance for these is precisely an example of a clever man constructing a chain of logic until he lands himself in a position which is quite inexplicable to the rest of us.

Again, you don’t speak for everyone. You speak for a narrow group of right wing fools.

He can look back at his footsteps and see that the line is straight and even, so how could he possibly be wrong?

The truth is that I am not wrong. I have acknowledged that there is PR work to be done to overcome misperceptions that Jews and right wingers have created of the term, “left”, but to start, promoting a “White Left” as a difference can help enunciate that difference.

You are not going to help, because you are a reactionary and too petty to work with an idea that did not come from your armchair.

Yet everyone can see that he is.

You don’t know everyone, you don’t speak for everyone, and you don’t represent what I say - you argue against straw men.

But persuading him of that is impossible.

It is a projection. Persuading of you is perhaps impossible. It is apparently so.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 May 2017 10:42 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 10:26 | #

Your “questioning” is to ask ...

let me fill in the whole sentence, which you conveniently left out:

In the main I question the areas where, in my view and in the view of others,

Others = Carolyn Yeager and Daniel A

you place yourself in what I suppose we could describe as intellectual hazard.

Not really. It is public relations difficulty because Jewish interests have spent decades twisting terms and concepts around. It is far simpler and better to go to work correcting the understanding of the terms than to try to react to them as they see fit.

“The white left” is one such.

along with your quite excessive demonisation of “right wing”.

I don’t demonize the right wing, people identifying as such and with certain perspective that fall under its rubric quite neatly to make sense of their stupidity and their susceptibility to infiltration and manipulation.

The argument you advance for these is precisely an example of a clever man constructing a chain of logic until he lands himself in a position which is quite inexplicable to the rest of us.

Again, you don’t speak for everyone. You speak for a narrow group of right wing fools.

He can look back at his footsteps and see that the line is straight and even, so how could he possibly be wrong?

The truth is that I am not wrong. I have acknowledged that there is PR work to be done to overcome misperceptions of that Jews and right wingers have created of the term, “left” but to start, promoting a “White Left” as a difference can help enunciate that difference.

You are not going to help, because you are a reactionary and too petty to work with an idea that did not come from your armchair.

Yet everyone can see that he is.

You don’t know everyone, you don’t speak for everyone, and you don’t represent what I say - you argue against straw men.

But persuading him of that is impossible.

It is a projection. Persuading of you is perhaps impossible. It is apparently so.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 May 2017 11:01 | #

I do think you are softening your position in respect to a sociological solution of rules.

You never bothered to understand my position, the fact that you present it as merely “sociological” and antagonistic goes to show that you cannot say what I am “softening” because you don’t know.

The fact is you let a little trojan horse into the sociological city

Fuck this bullshit, acting like I am so opposed to what is “natural”, that I “accidentally” let in a natural thing….that I am the Jewish academic trying to impose all pernicious artifice ...as the imaginary foil of your conceited dreams ..and you are going to slay the dragon.

when you incorporated the heideggerism of midt-Dasein into your exegesis.

My “exegesis” has no problem with Dasein .... an anti Cartesian hermeneutic guidance was accidentally slipped into your “ontology project” the moment you used the word.

You now find yourself routinely talking about emergence, which only shapes and intensifies the conflict between nativist and sociological thinking which must,

I have no problem talking about emergence. Your trying to cast me as a sociologist and in conflict with native nationalists is retarded.

Stop taking advice from people like “Uh.”

as a matter of opposing foundations, inhabit your conclusions.

Bullshit.

I have resolved that conflict with my ontology of consciousness and authenticity.

Obviously you have resolved nothing.

I can’t see how you can ever do so as things are now. Perhaps you don’t realise it’s there at all.

Emergence is a more articulate way of talking about what is. I never denied what is. The cartoon foil that you would try to cast me as might not be able to reconcile it, but I can and have. But don’t worry, I will not let you get away with mischaracterizing me or what I say.

In any case, you are, as a thinker like all of us, a work in progress. You are more flexible than you think you are. The point will arrive when you draw close enough for others to draw from you.

I am not inflexible where I should stand corrected. But there is no reason to bend to the false attributions, the straw men that you would attribute to me.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 11:16 | #

People make rules together, those who are entrusted to articulate the rules and enforce them are agreed upon by the largest most powerful unionization - which at this point, is not the nationalists.

For sure, rules are required for contact with the artificial, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Huskisson#Death

But a rising self-consciousness in a people decreases the requirement even for moral stricture. This is part of the change from the liberal concept of freedom to the ethnic nationalist concept of the freedom in being. The latter does not imply licence, which issues from the customary positives and negatives. Freedom in being leads to will and creativity ... the power to do. It is a completely different line of human development, and it would be worth your while to at least ponder it.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 May 2017 11:33 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 12:16 | #

People make rules together, those who are entrusted to articulate the rules and enforce them are agreed upon by the largest most powerful unionization - which at this point, is not the nationalists.

For sure, rules are required for contact with the artificial, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Huskisson#Death

But a rising self-consciousness in a people decreases the requirement even for moral stricture. This is part of the change from the liberal concept of freedom to the ethnic nationalist concept of the freedom in being.

On the contrary, to be void of accountability, for there to be no recognized consensus of rules, not even the modicum that would unionize the interests of the people as a whole, in their historical, social capital - that is a-historical nonsense which is the essence liberalism. ..it is the essence of the kind of sham libertarian “conservatism’ that Americans have swallowed. ..

You now find yourself routinely talking about emergence, which only shapes and intensifies the conflict between nativist and sociological thinking which must,

I have no problem talking about emergence. Your trying to cast me as a sociologist and in conflict with native nationalists is retarded. I have never denied evolution, genetics, biology, its importance, on the contrary. And the group unit of analysis is entirely valid, looking after group biological systems, along with the empirical verification of what is, is entirely in keeping with hermeneutic process - it always has been in keeping with what I’ve actually done and advised (as opposed to your cartoon stereotyping of “the ‘lefty sociologist’ who tries to impose pernicious artifice onto to the native peoples’ nature).

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 14:17 | #

On the contrary, to be void of accountability, for there to be no recognized consensus of rules, not even the modicum that would unionize the interests of the people as a whole, in their historical, social capital ...

My take would be that nationalism treats interests as twofold. Biological interests constitute a foundational, indivisible whole with which all other interests (for example, economic interests) are cohered. It does not make a unity of all the interests, which would damage their particularity. All the interests in society are freely expressed but coherent with ethnic interest and, therefore, with one another. The framework for free expression and coherence is the ethnic worldview itself.

What we, as nationalists, want from philosophy is a life-system that informs human being in an holistic and vivifying way, such that the conflictedness and open-ended individualism which afflicts systemic liberalism, and which leads to all the difficulties nationalists understand so well, are non-possible. The number of artificial rules that become necessary in the process would actually constitute an index of philosophical failure.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 May 2017 15:00 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:17 | #

On the contrary, to be void of accountability, for there to be no recognized consensus of rules, not even the modicum that would unionize the interests of the people as a whole, in their historical, social capital ...

My take would be that nationalism treats interests as twofold. Biological interests constitute a foundational, indivisible whole with which all other interests (for example, economic interests) are cohered. It does not make a unity of all the interests, which would damage their particularity. All the interests in society are freely expressed but coherent with ethnic interest and, therefore, with one another. The framework for free expression and coherence is the ethnic worldview itself.

That would cohere with my view as well.

What we, as nationalists, want from philosophy is a life-system that informs human being in an holistic and vivifying way, such that the conflictedness and open-ended individualism which afflicts systemic liberalism, and which leads to all the difficulties nationalists understand so well, are non-possible.

That is very much my objective as well, except that I believe that somethings would, unfortunately, still be possible for the foreseeable future. A labyrinth of rules are not necessary to prevent them from imposing alien, destructive consequences upon our system for their choice, but some ostracism and prohibitions are necessary in a negative sense, along with the wide range of legitimacy that we’d like and a few obligations circumscribing choices, really, that basically entail benefit to our people freely chosen whichever the choice.

The number of artificial rules that become necessary in the process would actually constitute an index of philosophical failure.

Probably, yes, and natural ends unfulfilled.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 15:15 | #

Your trying to cast me as a sociologist and in conflict with native nationalists is retarded. I have never denied evolution, genetics, biology, its importance, on the contrary. And the group unit of analysis is entirely valid ...

But you are fishing in the pool of Nature and Nurture, which is home to many a large and hungry crocodile. Ordering the ethnic group in a category of social behaviour, which you have done repeatedly, is not a good place to start. Or true.

You used the term communicology up the thread. But you are not a communicologist. You are a communicationist. The difference is in the handling of science.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:57 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:15 | #

Your trying to cast me as a sociologist and in conflict with native nationalists is retarded. I have never denied evolution, genetics, biology, its importance, on the contrary. And the group unit of analysis is entirely valid ...

But you are fishing in the pool of Nature and Nurture, which is home to many a large and hungry crocodile. Ordering the ethnic group in a category of social behaviour, which you have done repeatedly, is not a good place to start. Or true.

You start where you will, I will “start” where I will - which is not the place that you think - because you think in Cartesian divide, as if I start on “the other side” of nature. I am sure that an honest appraisal of my approach would deem it correct - I am also sure that you mischaracterize what I do and the reasons why I approach matters as I do.

You used the term communicology up the thread. But you are not a communicologist. You are a communicationist. The difference is in the handling of science

No, I am not a “communicationist.”

I am an advocate of my European peoples and the ethno-nationalisms thereof that I see as the best means to defend them.

I deploy the best theoretical ideas in this defense. At its most basic, it is fundamentally a two way process of broad orientation and verification; and not one or the other as you continually try to portray it as being - “artificial concepts” being misapplied to pure “nature.”

Posted by Sean Urbanski's pair-wise emergence on Mon, 22 May 2017 10:52 | #

This is what happens when people listen to and go along with the Right/Alt Right…

Pure nature, pure emergence, might makes right, none of that “leftist”, “false ‘sociological”, that “social stuff” ...i.e., absent social intelligence, i.e., absent intelligence.

...it is no coincidence that this guy, Sean Urbanski, decided to lead and manifest his “pure manly emergence” - a logical sine qua non in natural ‘pair-wise duel” that accomplishes nothing worthwhile and will send him to jail for a long time - with a proper lack of thanks from anybody - except perhaps (((those))) who want to associate the right wing and its narrow, reactionary behavior with White activism.

The Heavy, “Sean Urbanski: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know”, 21 May 2017.

Right-winger Sean Urbanski

Richard Collins, whom Urbanski killed, probably did not have much power and influence over the system of liberal integration that will now send Urbanski to jail - right wingers and those who maneuvered Urbanski’s “activism” there, did.

Fox5:

The suspect, 22-year-old Sean Urbanski, is a University of Maryland student. Police say he approached Collins and his friends at around 3 a.m. Sunday as they were waiting for an Uber on Regents Drive. Police say Urbanski started yelling.

Stabbing death of Bowie State University student being probed as possible hate crime

“He said to the victim, ‘Step left, step left if you know what’s good for you,’” said University of Maryland Police Chief David Mitchell. “The victim looked at him puzzled with the other friends of his and said, ‘No.’ It was then that Sean Urbanski stabbed the victim in his chest.”

Investigators say Urbanski, who they believe had been drinking, never left the scene and was arrested without incident.

Mitchell said police have learned that Urbanski was a member of a racist group on Facebook called Alt-Reich Nation, hateful toward women and minorities.

“Especially African-Americans,” Mitchell said. “Which brings up questions as to the motive in this case.”

Posted by Tara McCarthy: dark side of the alt-right on Tue, 23 May 2017 22:25 | #

Tara McCarthy on the dark side of the Alt Right

14:11: “I’ve never said this on camera before. But, I was raped twice..
..while I was a teenager, once by a black and once by a middle eastern person..

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 24 May 2017 08:42 | #

On Urbanski, Daniel, emergence as a process of foundation has nothing to do with psychotic individuals. If you don’t listen, you won’t be able to avoid such errors.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 May 2017 09:16 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 24 May 2017 03:42 | #

On Urbanski, Daniel, emergence as a process of foundation has nothing to do with psychotic individuals. If you don’t listen, you won’t be able to avoid such errors.

I have made no error and it is you who does not listen.

You have cited the very good MacDonald article (White Ethnocentrism: Can Americans Really Be Brainwashed?) which in turn cites studies of immediate old brain response in aversion to other races.

From there MacDonald goes on to discuss how socio-cultural influences - such as vectored from (((The New York Times))) - can then influence and brainwash people to suppress these natural, instinctive reactions in self and group defense.

OK, so, we’re in agreement so far - I’m sure you agree with MacDonald and I as to the science of immediate discriminatory reaction to other races and that it is possible for cultural rules to be construed such as to misdirect White people from that discrimination in their best interests, ethnonatioanlism etc.

However, in this case, of Urbanski, you want to say that there were no socio cultural rules which influenced and misguided him. “He was just born psychotic.”

It’s not likely. There is a such thing a life span and the difference between children and adults through experience and learning is appreciable - some of it utterly profound: as in the incapacity to learn language after a certain age of not having learned it.

What you refuse to see, for your puerile autobiography as “the disabuser of left-wing academic affectation,” is that you are miscasting me as your foil and for that weird psychological need of yours, you are forced to not listen (yes, that was another projection of yours) and to not read what I say because it would show you the false attributions that you are making.

There hasn’t been a word of truth to your criticisms of what I say. It has to stem from your wish and your refusal to see that I am not the same and not doing the same as the Jewish, “leftist” etc. academics that you wish to polemicize against.

If it is possible for social rules to lead White people astray from White people’s interests, it is also possible for social rules to guide White people, into/back-to their interests, ethno-national etc.

Attention to emergence is well and good, an indispensable and important side of analysis, but it is not enough.

People are not born complete - babies are not born with all they need for life as humans - socialization is a natural, normal and essential part of the human process of being, stasis, development and actualization.

All the articles that I have published are completely conducive to this end (and to concomitant diagnoses to ward off misdirection) but you have ignored their point and content for your vain autobiograpahy and wish to altercast me as your foil; along with your jealous wish to dismiss what I am saying as nonsense. If you would finally realize what I am saying (to read what I say instead of imposing your wish to stereotype what I am saying would help) is neither antagonistic nor mutually exclusive to your interest in closer readings, you might avoid such errors. Moreover, you would avoid being the terrible obstruction that you are to wider understanding and acceptance of vital concepts to our defense, survival and well being as discreet peoples.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 27 May 2017 07:50 | #

I have made no error and it is you who does not listen.

You routinely talk straight through what you do not want to hear; and this last comment is another example of that. You do not address the holistic nature of the thesis, which is of the emergence not of specific traits, behaviours, or preferences but of the authentic quality of “being there” as the action of identity ... as self. Heidegger, with his epistemological focus, spoke in terms not of this direct emergence but of disclosure of the meaning of the being of beings. But, ontologically, the track is the same.

Because the whole eludes you, you alight on its parts, and construct a critique finding me guilty of scientism or objectivism or Cartesian thinking, whichever is the intellectual sin du jour; and on you bound to matters of political theory (which you call philosophy), finding me guilty again of obstructing all need for authority - and thence a libertarian, no less! What awful intellectual crime will I, in my ignorance, commit next?

Well, my thesis only really touches upon authority in the matter of identity’s will; and, as I have said to you many times, such matters lie ahead. But even when I get to them, if ever I do, they will still be framed in the non-political form. You and I will still stand in different squares on the board.

To reiterate, the truths of science - say, of brain function - are only relevant to philosophy where the latter touches upon their domain. Philosophy must observe scientific truths as faithfully as it does all truth in the natural world, for they are one. This fidelity is, very obviously, a halting thing, and not the extrapolation of which you serially accuse me. If you would only listen, I should not have to keep telling you this.

I am not a philosopher. I am only someone trying to hold open a door to a philosophy of identity and existence which I believe our nationalism is in dire need of. I invite all serious thinkers to pass through. That is the true extent of my effort. Please do not mischaracterise it further.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 27 May 2017 09:21 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 27 May 2017 08:50 | #

Daniel: I have made no error and it is you who does not listen.

GW: You routinely talk straight through what you do not want to hear

No, that is a projection - exactly what you do.

and this last comment is another example of that.You do not address the holistic nature of the thesis,

Yes, I do, it’s in the working hypothesis and its anti-Cartesian survey of hermeneutics.

which is of the emergence not of specific traits, behaviours, or preferences but of the authentic quality of “being there” as the action of identity ... as self.

That is not holistic, that is a reductionary artificat of framing for your wish that a pre-human level of emergence, that is to say one divested of concerns of its unavoidable context in praxis, is holistic. When in fact, mine is the holistic view, yours isn’t.

Heidegger, with his epistemological focus, spoke in terms not of this direct emergence but of disclosure of the meaning of the being of beings. But, ontologically, the track is the same.

Ok, there can be a more vivid reading of the relationship of emergence to praxs.

Because the whole eludes you,

It does not elude me. You cannot get over your puerile autobiography as the hero to your right wing friends and fair maidens against the “lefty Jewish academic” ...a role that you are so wedded to, that you absolutely cannot live without a foil - so you will ignore what I say and desperately try to make me into that foil at all costs ... because there is one cause even bigger than your being the hero of the right - it is your ego.

you alight on its parts, and construct a critique finding me guilty

I don’t construct a critique to find you guilty. Again, that is exactly a projection - refer to the last sentence.

What I do is try to work with the things that you have right, develop them and fit them with the things that I have right.

However, when you say what is not true and right, such as the suggestion that I have nothing right, you leave me no choice but to look at where you are going wrong and I see it, I do not merely construct it:

of scientism or (a will to sheer) objectivism or Cartesian thinking,

whichever is the intellectual sin du jour;

It is not a sin de jour, these are perennial philosohical errors that you are committing, and these errors are right up there with the most important kind in terms of what has put our people at risk and led to our downfall.

and on you bound to matters of political theory (which you call philosophy),

No, you call philosophical concerns “political”, as if philosophy should not be concerned with how we should live. ...and after obstructing the most profound concerns for the umpteenth time, on you bound to a bludgeoning of philosophy in order to shoe horn “philosophy” as definitively one and the same as science.

finding me guilty again of obstructing all need for authority

I did not say that you were guilty of obstructing all need for authority. That is a dishonest attribution.

You are, however, obstructing the most important discussions.

- and thence a libertarian, no less! What awful intellectual crime will I, in my ignorance, commit next?

Who knows, but whatever it takes to keep me in the stereotypical role of your foil, right?

Well, my thesis only really touches upon authority in the matter of identity’s will;

I’m not sure why you are talking about authority, but what I do know of the arbitrariness of your empirical myopia, in combination with your ego role and altercasting of me as your foil, is that it will slide off into the next available straw man.. now you arbitrarily allege that I am on the side of “authorities.”

and, as I have said to you many times, such matters lie ahead.

What, not who, is correct in our defense, is the authority.

The matter of identifying and defending our people is an issue to be undertaken now. Nobody says that you have to join us, but we will not have our hands tied behind our backs before a philosophical child.

But even when I get to them, if ever I do, they will still be framed in the non-political form. You and I will still stand in different squares on the board.

You are addressing your straw man, so you don’t know how I would stand with regard to “authority.” Rather the authority is not who, but the proper defense of our peoples. The action into these recognized rule structures can come from different people, but it will be clear enough for most all to recognize.

You put me on another side, “necessarily”, because you cannot get over this game of trying to put me in the role of your foil.

To reiterate, the truths of science - say, of brain function - are only relevant to philosophy where the latter touches upon their domain. Philosophy must observe scientific truths as faithfully as it does all truth in the natural world, for they are one.

That’s what I mean. Stupidly, you think science and philosophy are one - and that your scientism is the only way of philosophy.

You’ve summed-up the error of your quest quite nicely.

This fidelity is, very obviously, a halting thing, and not the extrapolation of which you serially accuse me. If you would only listen, I should not have to keep telling you this.

If you would only listen, and drop your puerile contentionsness, instead of barging over the fact that what I am doing is not contradictory to emergence, I would not have to keep repeating myself so that you do not bury the important things that I am saying - to have to continually dig this out from under the destructive, obstructive shit of your ego project.

I am not a philosopher.

Indeed you are not.

I am only someone trying to hold open a door to a philosophy of identity and existence which I believe our nationalism is in dire need of.

And ironically, you are shutting the door to it. It is as if you’ve absorbed the arrogance that masked Wittgensein’s bad will.

I invite all serious thinkers to pass through. That is the true extent of my effort. Please do not mischaracterise it further.

I have mischaracterized nothing. “All serious thinkers” is too vague a term to stave off those who would discombobulate the theoretical clarity necessary to our defense. It is a vaguery that might abet the buffeting of trolls, Jews and other supremacist imperialists, the scientistic, in basically a false modernist idea that endless critique and suspension of disbelief will necessarily result in pure foundations and otherwise good results. You would apparently prefer to invite-in the enemy and its misdirecting ideas, as it would perhaps allow you to resume a role within that modernist fallacy as the only important mind behind all this endless pseudo quest for “what is.” ... because your goal is apparently not to arrive at a satisfied working hypothesis, to elaborate on it and deploy it, no matter how good, no matter how important, you will define it as trivia to be dismissed in favor of your “pure mind”.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 21 Jun 2017 05:18 | #

“Anti-racism” is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudiced. It is hurting and it is killing people.

Is that merely “political” and not “philosophical” ?

Obviously not.

Is it merely “academic”?

Where have you ever seen it in academia?

You have not seen it there. It is not found there.

Nor is it seen anywhere else in the struggle. Being dismissive of it thus indicates a lack of knowledge of the lay of the land in the struggle; and a lack of appreciation of the significance of ideas; (or a (((a very keen understanding))), that does not want our people to have it).

Is it trivia, like something to be made quick work of like a wooden duck at Blackpool?

On the contrary, it is on par with “in the beginning, god created heaven and earth” in terms of its significance for the struggle for racial survival.

And that is just one of many important ideas that I’ve been putting through here on behalf of ethno-nationalism.

To dismiss these ideas as merely “political” or “sociology” is false as well.

..if they are not accredited and taken up yet, it is because people who are ignorant or of bad will are distracting from or burying them. They have to be overcome, whether they are acting (or not acting) in ignorance, on behalf of Jewish, right wing (read: a wish to avoid accountability) or plainer, sheer liberal interests.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 21 Jun 2017 08:30 | #

Ok, so what then is the next response to this Cartesianism? As opposed to becoming fixated and parsing out social concerns (i.e., parsing out social concerns would be to get it backwards), to try to pursue absolute unchanging truths beyond this “messy social world” of human agency, to the clean physical world or sufficiently law-like inhuman biology within, we need to recognize our interactivity and our relative concern in that interactivity for people, particularly for the mediating concern of our socially circumscribed sphere of interests - which should have an eye on accountability to social capital and EGI. (and if you want to get people more readily involved, you connect with their subjective interest).

One way, good way, to analyze this mediation process, where it is going well and where it is going wrong (getting tangled up and so on) is through the analytic tool of “rules.”

Rules in this sense DOES NOT mean telling people what to do. It is a means to analyze what is actually being done; which can then generate suggestions as to how these practices might be done differently.

Now, this doesn’t mean that we should deny and never pursue “law like rules” that have predictive and even prescriptive value. Some will even be absolute and universal; others will be disputable but still important.

Where rules are not absolute laws of physics and biology, as not all important rules are, people can decide and must decide somewhere along the line on obligations, prohibitions and legitimacies; nevertheless, not all rules are obligatory or prohibitory. Not all are a matter of human agency.

Rules are not the only good way to analyze our problems and solutions; but they are a good tool - as an analytic device they can move deftly from laws of physics to matters of “zeitgeist.” ...even the rule structures such as Christianity - interactions which we might prefer not to have to deal with but must sometimes; we can diagram it and look at different ways that the interaction might go…

If not showing a preferable moral order, at least keep them from interfering with our sovereignty and self defense.

There is no reason to dismiss the tool of “rules” on the suspicion of “sociology” or artifice of “social control.”

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:44 | #

Now then, the impervious, socially unaccountable trajectory of the Cartesian notion of coherence can be used against us ad infinitum (tanstaafl says “anti-racism” is a Jewish construct, and there is preponderant truth to that), with its penchant for reductionist unversalism (Occam’s razor) to bypass important differences and to latch onto the idea that because all humans can breed with one another (and arguably to some, it would be good for us to do that), that there is only one important classification - the human race classification as opposed to other animals with whom we cannot breed. It is possible for people to argue that and therefore we must argue against it. We must deal with it in the realm of praxis.

This is not “in our head”, not a matter for the psychological unit of analysis (not as a usual bias, anyway).

If we are to defend against this egregious nonsense, “that there is only one race, the human race”, we are arguing that there are important racial differences and we are in the realm of defending the concept of different human classifications, practically necessary and broadly recognizable classifications (taxonomies, if you will) of peoples.

This is no trivial matter.

These are analytic essentials for defending our race. Interaction and the group are the key and basic default units of analysis that we need to pay attention to in defense against the abuse of the Cartesian concept of “anti-racism” by YKW, liberals and right-wingers (people who disingenuously or naively latch onto a Cartesian notion of coherence in reaction to empirical and social flux and susceptibility to argumentation).

Posted by Hamilton's rule explained on Sat, 04 Nov 2017 06:10 | #

If you use the word “rule”, even if you know that you are using it as an analytic device to sort out facts, obstacles and interactive tangles, a device which has even more descriptive value than prescriptive for that end, your use of the word “rule” nevertheless and in any event means that you are trying to control and manipulate English people.

You didn’t know that’s what Hamilton’s rule means, but now you do.

Posted by Kahneman evaluation of officer traits on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 16:59 | #

NPR, interview Michael Lewis, 6 Nov 2017:

DAVE DAVIES: I want to talk a bit about your latest book, “The Undoing Project,” which is now out in paperback. It’s about a couple of Israeli psychologists who did some pathbreaking work on how people make decisions. And I know that you got interested in this after you wrote “Moneyball,” which is about how, you know, the managers of the Oakland Athletics found that smart, you know, data-based evaluation of ballplayers gave them insights far more helpful than veteran baseball scouts. So how did you get from major league baseball to these two guys in Israel?

LEWIS: You know, it was funny because I seldom read the reviews of my books because all I remember is the bad stuff in them, not the good stuff, so it’s just a - it’s a pain-inducing event. But I read a review of “Moneyball” by Richard Thaler, who’s just recently won the Nobel Prize in economics, and Cass Sunstein, who is a legal scholar. And they said - they pointed out a flaw in “Moneyball.”

And the flaw was that I didn’t understand what my book was about. I thought my book was about how people got misvalued in a marketplace - in this case, baseball players. And they said, no, what this book is really about is the way experts - supposed experts on baseball players - scouts - misjudge the players. And it’s about what’s going on in the minds of those people when they make those misjudgments.

And two Israeli psychologists, Amos Tversky and Danny Kahneman, did work in the ‘70s and early ‘80s exploring what was going on in the minds of experts when they were making judgments in conditions of uncertainty. And they actually explained exactly what’s going on inside the minds of these people.

And I thought, oh, my God, I missed the story. So I started reading their papers just to see what I had missed. And in the course of reading the papers, I finally got up the nerve to call Danny Kahneman and go visit him, and that began a relationship that led me to the book.

DAVIES: Yeah. Amos died in 1996.

LEWIS: Amos Tversky died in 1996. And oddly, which I didn’t appreciate at the time, his eldest son, Oren, had been my student in the one term I’d taught at Berkeley. And so I had - I ended up having access to both sides of the collaboration. Kahneman himself, when he was 21 years old, reshaped the entire military by essentially doing “Moneyball” for Israeli officers. He built an algorithm to decide which young men would be officers and which wouldn’t.

DAVIES: And how did Kahneman tell them to evaluate officers to find the good ones?

LEWIS: Well, what was going on when he came into the army in the early ‘50s was, they were using scouts. They were essentially using people who were supposedly expert in kind of looking at a young man, and sizing him up and deciding whether he was officer material. And he had the insight then that the judgment was bad. They already had data at that point.

They were starting to realize that the wrong people were ending up in the officer corps. The performance in the army was not good back then. And what he did was he identified half a dozen traits - he did this in a day. This is the amazing thing. This is how slapdash it all was at the time, too. But in a day, he sort of made a list of the traits that you would want in an officer. You want punctuality. You would want bravery. You would want et cetera, et cetera.

And he found ways to ask questions of people so that these qualities could be measured and a number could be assigned to a person that would be a grade for each quality. So he built a very cruel - crude algorithm, and he took the process of choosing the officers essentially out of the hands of the scouts. And to this day, it’s done by what’s called the Kahneman score - that the young men and women in Israel are evaluated by this thing he built in the early ‘50s.

DAVIES: So these guys collaborated closely for many years and came up with this explanation for how our gut instincts will steer us wrong, how experts get it wrong. And it’s unfair to ask you to summarize Nobel Prize-winning work in the - but…

LEWIS: No, you can - you know, it’s funny. It’s very hard to summarize because what they were doing - here’s a good example of an experiment they did that’s easy to describe on the radio. They put people in a room with a wheel of fortune. And on the wheel of fortune were - it was numbered 0-99, and they’d have people spin this wheel of fortune.

And it would land on some number - 47 or 62 or 88. And then after they’d - it landed on some number, they’d ask the people, what percentage of the countries in the United Nations come from Africa? And the answer, they were able to see, was driven in part by the number that was spun on the wheel of fortune. People who spun a low number guessed a lower number for the number of African countries in the United Nations than people who spun a high number.

And thus is born the idea of anchoring, that you can actually, really screw up people’s judgment by throwing in an arbitrary number in front of the thing being judged. The thing, in a funny way, that really drew me to them as a subject was not just the research they’re famous for, but all the stuff they kind of picked up and played with and didn’t really publish anything about but got to all kinds of rich insights anyway.

DAVIES: Why is the book called “The Undoing Project”?

LEWIS: I think of their program as kind of undoing a false view of the human mind as an essentially irrational thing. But it’s called “The Undoing Project” also because that’s what they were working on when they busted up, when they stopped working together. They were trying to explore the rules of the human imagination. The very idea that the human imagination has rules is, to me, breathtakingly interesting.

But it grows out of Danny Kahneman watching people at the funeral of his nephew who had been killed in an Air Force plane crash try to undo the boy’s death, the way that the stories they told - if only that had happened, if only that had happened, if only that hadn’t happened. And there was a structure he saw to the if-only statements, that people were - the things they were undoing were the things that happened right before his death. They - people kind of worked from the tragedy backwards. They didn’t say, if only there was no Israeli army (laughter) or if only he’d never gone into the Air Force.

And he and Amos start to noodle around about the rules of the imagination by looking at the way people undo tragedies and to turn up all this stuff that they’d ever put in print. And I think when you back away from Kahneman and Tversky, yes, people will say they created behavioral economics. They won Nobel Prizes. They created a field called judgment decision-making that never existed before. But what they really did was make it scientifically respectable to investigate the human mind and what it’s doing. And that has had profound implications across the society.

DAVIES: You know, their approach to decision-making I gather has affected, you know, things that leaders do in government and medicine and finance and probably military strategy. You know, I’m wondering if - how it affects we ordinary people who make routine decisions like voting, for example. And I wondered what you think they might observe of the election of Donald Trump.

LEWIS: Well, let’s - I’ll give you a grab bag of things I think they would have said about the election. But I’m putting words in their mouth because of course they didn’t speak to the election. The first thing they would say is they would notice how after the election, all sorts of people had explanations for why it was basically inevitable that Trump was going to win who never predicted it, that the world instantly set about trying to make itself seem more certain than it actually was and denying that - kind of a large random component in any election - that a lot of things could have happened where Trump wasn’t president.

But people started to kind of explain the world as if that was what was meant to happen. So they would have been very interested in that, just for starters. And they would have said, you know, it’s basically a phony exercise pretending to be able to explain what you never could have predicted. And reality is much more complicated than that. So, they would have said that.

Then they would have said I think that Trump’s appeal is in part the way he eliminates the uncertainty of the world, that Obama - as successful as he was as president, Obama himself acknowledged that it was always problematic for him having to seem sure of things that were clearly inherently probabilistic, that people do not want to be led by someone who’s saying, well, there’s a 68 percent chance we won’t be in a nuclear war (laughter). They want to be led by people who say, I’m going to - not going to let that happen. And that aspect of Trump’s character they would have seen as appealing to basically human nature.

They would then have said about Trump that he is a case study of all of the problems with intuitive judgment because he gives into his own so totally, that he’s so totally devoted to his own gut instincts. And they had identified all kinds of problems with gut instinct. The gut instinct led you to naturally think in stereotypes, for example, to naturally overweight whatever you’ve just heard or just seen, to naturally think that things that are vivid or memorable are much more likely to happen than things that aren’t.

So they would have been - they would have fought - I think they would have been alarmed - very alarmed by Trump’s - the lack of a sense he had that he needs to check his own gut against anything. I don’t think they would have felt that their research basically explained the election. I don’t - I think they would have said it was deeply inexplicable.

Posted by Tim Snyder on the con of "America First" on Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:34 | #

Timothy Snyder, the con of “America First”

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments