The Specificatory Structure as Opposed to The Car Engine

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 13 September 2018 15:27.

Specificatory Structures (are topoi to be shaped and crafted as collaborative, working hypotheses in praxis, finally leading to operational verifiabilty) as opposed to a universal model of “the mind” proposed to function like a car engine (talk about a “clunky idea” or not).

I was about to put up a video by The Golden One in which he expresses gratitude to the Dalai Lama for voicing his authoritative support of European ethnonationalims - “Europe belongs to the European peoples and immigrants should return and rebuild their countries.”

But then I hear him saying that “the Dalai Lama is a spiritual man and is not beholden to ‘social rules” which our elite try to brow beat us with….I realize they’re at it again, that I cannot just suck it up in sympathy for the bad Swedish election; as I did in posting his last video, in which The Golden One calls the enemies “leftists.” There are still retarded people playing opposite day with me behind the scenes - encouraging misconceptions like “social rules” are Not somehow also a neutral analytic device (which of course they are) but singularly a tool of coercion for our enemies; whereas a rigorous adherence to “nature” without all that “sociology, communicolgical, White post modern stuff” will inevitably ensure our “rights” and “ethnonationalism.”

This is completely retarded and backwards. Nature doesn’t give us our rights, nature doesn’t give a shit about our rights and our ehtnonationalisms. We have rights because we are part of a community of people with relative group interests - in best unit, a union of discrete European ethnonations, in which we create and negotiate rights by consensus, not foolishly believing that we discover them in objective detachment.

As I have said before, The White Post Modern Project is a necessity in response to the ravages of Modernity and the inflexibility of Reactionary Traditionalism. ...and it (White Post Modernity) is particularly a necessity to hold up to the destruction of ethnonationalism that post modern conception is supposed to defend against, but rather destroys in YKW misrepresentation of the notions they’ve promoted as “post modernity.”

The project, including Heidegger’s, is not to make humans and society function like automatons, like a car engine, on an engineering and physics model - not in that model of “theoria” as Aristotle calls it, but to take our concerns even for the hard sciences, but especially for the social sciences into the realm of praxis - again, as Aristotle calls it - the social realm of people, where they have some agency, and are therefore not totally predictable; where we are biological creatures and mammals, evolved to care about important relationships to our survival and in optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction; where we are biological creatures and our actions have reflexive effects that cause changes in course in ourselves and others; where, as second order cybernetic creatures we can learn to learn. The project, including Heidegger’s (where on target and not too individualistic in his focus), The White Post Modern Project, is to take our thinking into praxis to correct the Cartesian detached and lineal, non-interactive notion of necessity - imperviously abetting, as it does, the phony and crooked disease of quantification to the point of false comparison, toxicity and runaway; typically by means of the Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement.

To correct the Cartesian error of modernity, we need Not a “model of the mind” as tightly connected as a Porsche car engine to the exclusion of all else (to defend ourselves against all that Jewish social stuff) ...no, what we need is a better understanding of the utility and integrity of Specificatory Structures to negotiate the participatory reality of Praxis. Specificatory Structures are basically partly or nearly finished working hypotheses as it were, that allow interlocutors to engage, shape, craft, correct and refine these hypotheses.

Remember, the ultimate aim of pragmatic philosophy is the rigor of operational verifiability. So, those with a penchant for engineering and scientific rigor should be satisfied; while being helped to Not promote the scientism and epistemic blunder of applying physics models (theoria) to creatura and social group concerns (praxis).

Nor does social constructionism (proper) and hermeneutics deny science, biological realty or race; it enhances and complements scientific inquiry, it does not discourage science: it may criticize bad science (“we are all Africans under the skin”) and bad applications of science - physics and brute animal models to humans and our world of praxis (“its all about competition, survival of the fittest, might makes right and nothing more”) - but it is not anti-science.

If GW or somebody comes up with specs, which generally track “the transit” of English and European (natural) social systems, well and good. What hermeneutics proper would do is not deny it, but refer back to it as need be in the course of operational verification.

What I am saying is true, of radical and deep priority for our European interests; but “opposite day” is still being played with me.

I will speculate as to why:

First is obvious - YKW know what I am saying is true, want to discourage it and direct Whites to join them as right wing reactionaries.

The second is right wingers - people who are lucky enough to be in position to take care of themselves, don’t feel need to care about the group as a whole - they sell our groups out.

There is a third and fourth category at work, also right wing reactionary. The Jesus freak contingent I’ve said enough about - if people can’t see the plain fact that Christianity is a Jewish trick, then how much time are you supposed to waste on them? Rather you have to defend against the worm they’d insist upon introducing. But among right wing reactionaries that are a problem for me are STEM people who are not penetrating enough philosophically to get beyond their STEM predilections - which, again, would have them perpetrate the epistemic blunder of applying theoria to praxis - which, rather, requires phronesis (practical judgement of the kind that the topoi of specificatory structures would guide). By contrast, the whole “Dark Enlightenment” crap is a psy-op set up by our (((enemies))) and advanced by operatives like Brett Stevens in order to misdirect and (((boondoggle))) STEM types.

These types are not only prone to this type of epistemic blunder, but have some enhanced confirmation bias as the harder matters that they’ve tended to look into are more stable and veifiable than the social world where Jewish rhetoric has wreaked havoc. Thus, their Cartesian anxiety is calmed somewhat by their concrete successes in engineering and business in boom times; say, during the Reagan/Thatcher objectivist sell-out years, in their reactionary quest for “foundations” in nature beyond human tampering.

Moreover, these sorts have had a big leg up in advancing the epistemic blunder in their predilection when coming into the Internet age - for obvious reasons - computer technology is a STEM field mostly about the tight, non-human, electric/mechanical connections of theoria. While those more sympathetic to a White take on social, communicological, post modern, hermeneutic resource have been late bringing it to the table.

All the while the YKW have been doing their number, taking the best ideas for social advocacy for themselves then distorting them, abusing them and weaponizing them against Whites - to where Whites react and play opposite day with me, as if I am the bad guy simply for using our words, terms and concepts properly in our interests; Whites have such heavy reactions to the negative, red cape associations they feel from these words that they react against the abused words and concepts; and in so doing rebel against their own interests, in what one cannot help but believe is a (((deliberate strategy.)))

“We can’t defend ‘racism’, people wouldn’t understand (that the term is fundamentally about social classification and ethnocentrism), so we have to argue against it (and weaken the call of social classification and ethnocentrism).” “We must be against Multiculturalism (and for global monoculturalism)” ....“we must be against the Diversity industry (and for racial integration through Abrahamic/Noahide law, or ‘universal natural law’).”

“I only trust my own mind” ...“we need a science of the mind” ...well go ahead… maybe that is a good perspective for holding fast to inquiries into emergentism. I’m not stopping you, but we also need, need even more inquiries from the communications perspective - taking interaction as the unit of analysis, claiming the same turf as other disciplines when taking-on investigations: whether the group (sociology - most relevant, because races are groups); philosophy (inquiries into how to live and think about life); or biology and interacting ecosystems ...and alas, even psychology.

And so we’ve had a problem, as manifest acutely on Majorityrights, where the STEM people clamored here early. The site’s discourse model has been strictly Modernist - a free speech free-for-all with the errant notion that if you just keep allowing issues to be buffeted from all angles, eventually the foundational truth would be born again hard from this torturous alchemy.

Of course, that’s not what happens. Modernity is an insatiable charmed loop that has run rough shod over even our most precious resources, putting them at needless risk in the sheer objectivism of scentistic experimentalism; if something is not “new” it no longer merits reverence for the modernist thinker.

...and in come the trolls, the Jews, and Jew tools, like Haller and Thorn, whose backers know this and took advantage to sew misdirection in MR’s threads under the guise of “free speech” and inquiry into discovery of “the truth.”

The obnoxous “Uh”, who also displayed affinity, argued for the inclusion of the YKW and clearly does not take these matters of White advocacy most seriously, but wants a place to vent his spleen against those who had the nerve to go to college, so he can show how ‘smart’ he is… the fetish of MR in the modernist times has been ‘the one line zinger”, as Uh was so fond of… Soren et. al are other STEM people into that as well…

Sublime engineering is the model…there is just that one little precise thing, said in perfect rigor which will either bring the whole edifice down or make it hum like the best car engine ever ...the streak of incisive brilliance like a sheen, gleaming like a “classic sparkle.”

... claims I ruined all this fun for him ....

But it stems rather from a misunderstanding of the Specificatory Structure and its aim - its aim is to provide social topoi for people to participate, shape, craft and refine ...indeed, in rigor, as required in the post modern circumstance, to reach Operational Verifiability - that is the end point of the process of pragmatic inquiry - so the STEM-heads should not object and are only displaying just how reactionary (or dishonest) they are when they object to the terms and concepts that I set out.

Brilliant though he is, indispensable ideas though he’s contributed, even Bowery was bewilderingly reactionary in this regard, acting like I was attacking science when I criticized the bad science and misapplication of science that is scientism. ...or that I was besmirching science when I set out the place and general errors of the empirical philosophers, Locke, Berkeley and Hume (I presumed that everyone knows that you are talking about them when criticizing “empirical philosophy”) in historical context of epochal bias. I knew we were in trouble when Bowery simply ignored what I said, angrily tried to prohibit me from criticizing Modernity, Cartesianism (the quest to separate mind from interaction, viz. interactive stasis, outer systemic homeostasis) and proposed to “reboot the enlightenment.”

But the fact is that we have to move beyond modernity to White Post Modernity if we are to save ourselves and not be a part of human ecological destruction.

It is for this reason that I will introduce an update - not removing the present “About” information for Majorityrights - but add the Post Modern fact that “Hello’, we have the Internet now,” you can interact and help to shape and craft our necessary knowledge. We are no longer beholden to the transmissions model of communication, in which we sat in front of televisions, or teachers, or preachers and were to receive the information as pure, sacrosanct, passive, no need for our input and correction….

What you are presented with at Majorityrights are specificatory structures - hypotheses well enough considered, with a likely trajectory to protect our interests as discreet European peoples; but we can always use help from honest people of good will, to shape, craft and verify our inquiries where not proposing inquiries anew.

Articles are not put up as if by Moses presenting the ten commandments; nor presented as if the author thinks, in hubris, that these are immutable, always perfect ideas and objects; as if we think this is something like a sublime car engine, when it really isn’t, and what is necessary is for you to humble us, mock, in ad hominum attack. No. These are specificatory structures presented with a good deal more humility and social respect - your interaction, your help in participating in the generation of knowledge production is most appreciated.

There is also a fifth unfortunate fact that we are up against a huge Irish/German demographic in America which, for reasons I’ve described, are prone to take the disposition that Hitler was simply right and needs to be redeemed - and there are White advocates of bad character, like David Duke, who will pander to that.

Because we are White Post Modern now, certain inquires are recognized as a distraction at best and all too often pernicious misdirection: Jewish participation; Christianity; Nazi redemption; obviously nutty conspiracy theories; and when we have time to explain with subtlety, scientism and other errors held over from the modernist apex.

And if someone, doesn’t like it - “wha! wha! I want ‘my’ Majoritrights back! - I want Jesus! I want Hitler! I want to kiss the ass of rigid Nordicism as opposed to ethnonationalism (which, among other European kinds, defends Nordics as such)! I want to trade ‘clever’ one line zingers with Uh!” - he can go grease up and get another tattoo on his neck.

Comments:

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:15 | #

On today’s “Stormfront” podcast, Don Black reiterates the David Duke line on how to respond to the term, “racism.”

Black says that “racism” is a made-up Jewish term (Trotsky) and we shouldn’t use their terminology; that he (like Duke) used to say “it depends upon how you define racism?”.....

But now Black just prefers to say, ‘oh, you’re just saying that because you are anti-White.’

This is a strawman argument that Black and Duke are using, because I am not asking, “it depends upon how you define racism?”

I am observing that there is ALWAYS inherent in the term, the function of social classification.

....whether one merely discriminates on its basis or whether one wants to lord over other social classifications as a supremacist.

Nevertheless, social classification is a necessary function of making sense of the world and of accountability. Thus the charge is illegitimate (Cartesian, etc.). To say that you are not a racist is to cede to the YKW the prohibition of social classification.

Social classification, the negotiation of which, is central to our cause of racial defense.

As I’ve said, Duke is theoretically inept.

Duke says, “you don’t change the conditioning of what people understand of the term.” ...you don’t exchange it easily, as there is commonly accepted currency and wisdom in ordinary language - beneath the term racism, social classification is pervasive in ordinary language. And the prohibition needs to be drawn out for the absurdity that it is.

To use Whitaker’s line that ‘you’re just saying that because you are anti-White’ will be fine sometimes. But it is just another way of problematizing the delegitimization of social classification, which needs to be done more explicitly and deftly in common parlance.

I like to say “anti-racisim is anti-social classification; it is Cartesian. It is not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people.”

Posted by stasis correction on Sat, 15 Sep 2018 03:51 | #

I should probably add when criticizing things as “Cartesian”, that Cartesianism expresses an anxiety to quest beyond interaction but more pertinently, beyond the interaction of stasis correction and homeostasis correction (homeostasis regarding the external system) DanielS

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:45 | #

Daniel: If GW or somebody comes up with specs, which generally track “the transit” of English and European (natural) social systems, well and good ...

I have said that I am not now interested in political practise, as you are. I am interested in foundation, which you aren’t. However ...

Having addressed the fundamentals in Division One of Being and Time, Martin Heidegger commences upon practical interpretation in Division Two. At the outset of Chapter 2 he writes (of The problem of How an Authentic Existentiell Possibility is Attested):

The question of the “who” of Dasein has been answered with the expression ‘Self’. Dasein’s Selfhood has been defined formally as a way of existing, and therefore not as an entity present-at-hand. For the most part I myself am not the “who” of Dasein; the “theyself” is its who. Authentic Being-one’s-Self takes the definite form of an existentiell modification of the “they”; and this modification must be defined existentially. What does this modification imply, and what are the ontological conditions for its possibility.

So here Heidegger is setting out the the basics of the transit, recognising the socialised entity which does not belong to Dasein, and stating that a certain change in and around it must be effected for authenticity in the lived life to become possible. This already accepts that, as thrown beings, we cannot ordinarily be other than lost to our own truth ... that this is an existential condition and other conditions for existence attend the possibility of “modification” - modification, mind, not the inflation of a mystical liberation or enlightenment. This is not an argument for a common life of saints and seers and mystics. This is an argument for a small but, obviously, seminal change to the general conditions of existence which ushers in (or in my scheme of the transit, turns us towards) the possibility of the authentic as a response to lostness - which conditions must then be conserved in the lived-life thereafter.

In that sense, then, Heidegger goes on to address the sequence as “modification” then conserving “rules”. He is saying that without modification “the they” will unfailingly account for rule-making. He is placing thinking like yours beyond the matter immediately at hand, thus:

With Dasein’s lostness in the “they”, that factical potentiality-for-Being which is closest to it (the tasks, rules, and standards, the urgency and extent, of concernful and solicitous Being-in-the-world) has already been decided upon. The “they” has always kept Dasein from taking hold of these possibilities of Being. The “they” even hides the manner in which it has tacitly relieved Dasein of the burden of explicitly choosing these possibilities. It remains indefinite who has ‘really’ done the choosing. So Dasein makes no choices, gets carried along by the nobody, and thus ensnares itself in inauthenticity. This process can be reversed only if Dasein specifically brings itself back to itself from its lostness in the “they”.

So that ties matters together, and provides for a place of work for both of us.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 15:44 | #

Note that when I talk about Aristotle’s philosophy and Heidegger’s work on the project, I do not call it “politics”, but refer to it rather as philosophy.

...and when you say that I am ‘not interested’ in foundations, it is more the case that (better) philosophy is concerned to move us into categories of process, engagement and relevance of implementation.

Thus, what you call “foundations”, I would still call specificatory structures (or check points).

The matter of ‘how things count’ for us still holds relevance even regarding the periodic chart of the elements.

Call what you are pursuing “foundations” if you insist, but please refrain from calling philosophy, proper philosophy, “politics”, as if mere politics.

Some right-wingers, like those over there at Strormfront may never learn. I turned on the show for three minutes ...“oh, ho ho ho, they say race is just a social construct, that there is no biological basis….that there are 57 genders”....

Still reacting against the didactic Jewish abuse of concepts and red-caping.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:34 | #

In the very broadest of terms, there is a philosophy of existence, and there is a philosophy of change. The first is not, and cannot be, political, but is perennial and resolute, and affords a certain rooted and a-historical understanding to the second. In turn, that second is given over in its entirety to the historical process. Its destiny is to make human history. It can, of course, be political, and indeed it flows readily into politics in consequence of its vast multiplicity of teleological and perspectival potentials, and because it is anyway very nearly a philosophy of human agency and diurnal power. You should not baulk at my description of it as politics. I am making the distinction between it and the foundational nature of what necessarily precedes it.

How (not whether) the preceding philosophy meshes with it is really the point at issue between us. There is a baton to be passed out from the realm of the existent ... something emergent and life-affirming, and causal. The political cannot go back and make that act of passing to itself, which I feel is what you want to do. It is proper that the political has its eyes fixed firmly ahead.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:53 | #

The political cannot go back and make that act of passing to itself, which I feel is what you want to do. It is proper that the political has its eyes fixed firmly ahead.

I do not want to change our nature. That is a right-wing stereotype of “what ‘leftists’ do.”

Rather, I am staving off the misguiding, confused and tangled rules and re-directing the way to reconstruction of our systemics, in homeostasis.

The baton is passed back and forth from broader perspective and imagination to rigor and closer readings and from closer readings to broader perspectives.

My concerns are not born ex-nihilo, free of biological and natural concern.

I do not object to closer readings. Calibration to feedback for another metaphor. I already take the baton of our haplogroups, which are close readings. ...this does not make redundant the careful description of ontology and its transit process that you wish to bring forth.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:58 | #

Nothing goes back and forth. Hermeneutics is an intellectual conceit. The power which connects the existential with the political is attention.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:35 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:58 | #

Nothing goes back and forth. Hermeneutics is an intellectual conceit. The power which connects the existential with the political is attention.

Wrong again. Tacking back and forth is as natural as it gets. A pulse. Breathing. Heart-beating. Any sort of survey. Looking both ways before crossing the street. Calibration and feedback. From the broad hypothesis to focus on particular detail….from imagination to rigor…

The balancing of systems as they move into a space…

You are trying to take advantage of the fact that it can go back and forth by suggesting that it, hermenetuics must, in an arbitrary and mechanical way, go back and forth in its survey. Rather it can facilitate, weave and integrate coherent attention in a way that the mere presentation of empirical data cannot, moving back and picking up historical data, as need be, as is comfortable, into the historical, into heretofore hidden parts of the system, into various perspectives and biographies, etc., once gain precisely because it is ensconced in the social realm, long after an initial episode of individual attention has lapsed.

Remember what Graham said about hermeneutics - that the best scientists are hermeneuticists: undoubtedly true.

Hermeneutics is not an intellectual conceit. Its a perfectly natural and eminently sufficient means of survey and inquiry. It provides orientation and helps to guide focus. It provides for coherence, accountability, agency and warrant - not only to individuals, but to our group systemic homeostasis.

Still up to your old tricks. If something is very important to our systemic requirements, if its very good, you will be in the way trying to destroy it. It goes to your resentment that good ideas could have passed through academia and that all that is necessary is NOT in your armchair. The true conceit is pursuit of universal foundations that are supposed to make everything else, including one of Heidegger’s most important contributions - hermeneutics - unimportant.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 21:12 | #

I am not wrong. You simply lack understanding of the process at hand, and so you make a category error conflating a practical re-turn ... a journey of the consciousness of a people ... with the pointless academic babbling of hermeneutics.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 23:37 | #

9
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:12 | #

I am not wrong. You simply lack understanding of the process at hand, and so you make a category error conflating a practical re-turn ... a journey of the consciousness of a people ... with the pointless academic babbling of hermeneutics.

Yes, you are wrong. I make no category error. It’s called a co-evolutionary process. “The consciousness of a people” is but one story (psychobabble if there ever was), while hermeneutics in total is crucial for our peoples to manage their coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 02:38 | #

Daniel, does it make you buttsore to know that most people think your sperging is a retarded joke?

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 04:40 | #

You don’t know most people. You circulate among (((Alt-Right))) people and those fixated on Hitler redemption (so, of course they are going to be taking a pejorative view of my offerings). “Sperging” is one among the tired and limited (((Alt-Right))) repertoire of terms that you don’t seem to have imagination enough to exchange. Ask experts on philosophy and on Heidegger in particular and they agree with me, that hermeneutics is essential and pivotal to his/the anti-Cartesian, post modern turn.

Their confirmation counts more than alt-righty folks, the ‘original thinker’ Carolyn Yeager (lol) and so on. So, no, I’m not “butthurt.”

Posted by danielj on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:13 | #

Hey y’all.

I’d really appreciate it if you took this down and removed my name and photographs. Please change the name to danielj at the very least.

Regards,
d

Posted by danielj on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:15 | #

took this down *or* removed my name and photographs

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 04:40 | #

Done

Posted by danielj on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:06 | #

Thank you. Appreciated.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:19 | #

“Coherence, accountability, agency and warrant”

All this comes with the generalisation of that process which nationalists term “awakening” (not a hermeneutic process, btw), and I would include under the rubric of emergence. For example, in the ancient racial hearth of Europe, at least, “coherence” requires no managing. Its real name is kinship, and in that name it speaks quite naturally and of its own accord, perhaps even concord. Likewise “accountability” becomes coherent through kin-recognition and the completely natural, conscious loyalty which travels in its folds. “Agency” ... the power to do ... is a characteristic and strict outcome of the appropriated life. I don’t use the word myself (preferring singularity), but it is easy to see that unity is the optimum condition under which the capacity to do is found, and disunity the worst. Lastly, “warrant” has no truer or higher assenting authority than the natural and sovereign identity of the kin-group. I do believe, were I to ask you whose authority you are seeking, you would struggle to find an answer at all, even a wrong one.

This is not to say that the emergent requires no collaborative or organisational structure for its politics, law, and so on. But, as I have commented just recently, emergence itself is necessarily a penetration into the prior general life. Nothing from that life goes back to inform or engender it. Not even reaction to a daily injustice has that power. A creative philosophy alone has it.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 Oct 2018 19:53 | #

Consolidating prior responses into one comment:

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:19 | #

“Coherence, accountability, agency and warrant”

All this comes with the generalisation of that process which nationalists term “awakening” (not a hermeneutic process, btw), and I would include under the rubric of emergence

Of course it (awakening) comes with hermeneutics, it is part and parcel of consciousness of these things - part and parcel of emergence even. Be true to emergence dictum of non-reductionism!

For example, in the ancient racial hearth of Europe, at least, “coherence” requires no managing.

If you wanted to maintain distinct European tribes, it did.

And if you wanted to maintain coherence against the Muslim invasions, it did.

Its real name is kinship, and in that name it speaks quite naturally and of its own accord, perhaps even concord. Likewise “accountability” becomes coherent through kin-recognition and the completely natural, conscious loyalty which travels in its folds.

I didn’t say that it is not natural, and that accountability, like everything else, isn’t a part of nature, but emergent qualities are not to be reduced as you would like, in what you call your “ontologic philosophy,” which is primarily a vain effort to try to render me and what I say as unimportant, as the academic nemesis of your autobiographical conceit.

Accountability for differentiation among differentiated Europeans is no less a matter of sheer nature any more than it is for a teenager to speak our European language if he’s been kept isolated and never learned to speak a language as child. It is not simply emergent in his nature - rather the emergent includes the extended genotype.

“Agency” ... the power to do ... is a characteristic and strict outcome of the appropriated life.

Not necessarily, there is appropriation but there is also acting-into.

I don’t use the word myself (preferring singularity), but it is easy to see that unity is the optimum condition under which the capacity to do is found, and disunity the worst.

Your motive is understandable. It would be roughly the opposite of Bowery’s. While he would want to promote the freedom to extricate himself from alien populations surrounding him in The US, you would want to speak in language that emphaisizes a lack of agency to depart from your people, that “there can be no other,” in order to underscore loyalty to people and land.

The problem for you there, is that that is not exactly true for people that “they can do no other”. Although the bigger problem is once again that you unnecessarily see mutual exclusivity. Agency is not necessarily the enemy of loyalty, fidelity and authentic emergence, especially not when coupled with consideration of accountability, coherence and warrant. You may as well make the best of unavoidable facts, and put agency on your side.

I don’t think it was a coincidence that Shotter, an Englishman, was concerned to examine these matters by contrast to an alternative of “anything goes.”

Lastly, “warrant” has no truer or higher assenting authority than the natural and sovereign identity of the kin-group.

I do believe, were I to ask you whose authority you are seeking, you would struggle to find an answer at all, even a wrong one.

Not really. I would usually say something quite similar as in your first sentence (although “no truer”, I would not say - I’d say it would tend to provide sound working hypotheses in their ordinary language) although warrant can be established by means of the additional confirmation of other groups; or persons of distinguished authority - for example those skilled in verification by scientific proof.

So much for your doubt.

This is not to say that the emergent requires no collaborative or organisational structure for its politics, law, and so on.

As I have said, these things would even be a part of emergence.

But, as I have commented just recently, emergence itself is necessarily a penetration into the prior general life.

You can look into pre-linguistic structures, and try to identify where they might tend to align with ethnonatioanalist trajectory.

But one mistake you continually make when you pretend that you are doing a favor - “clearing away” - the language that I use, is that you are not clearing away authenticity at all, you are relying on strawmen - invariably, which is obfuscation.

Nothing from that life goes back to inform or engender it.

It is a circular process indeed where encouraged properly, as opposed to the diarrhea that you propose as revelation.

Not even reaction to a daily injustice has that power. A creative philosophy alone has it.

Well, that’s why it’s good that we have me here, so that there is at least one creative philosophy as opposed to your jealous denial and obfuscating bullshit.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 04 Oct 2018 20:47 | #

GW has had a gas chamber built in the basement of his house. The next step is to lure Daniel over there.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 16:28 | #

As a method of interpretation, hermeneutics is a discipline of active intellectual reflection ... a species of the directed process of “thinking-about” in the abstract. It belongs solely to the intellectual function of Mind. Academics invariably and uncritically assume that (a) intellect is the sovereign principle, and (b) logical structure yields an objective verity that the inchoate functions of Mind are constitutionally incapable of delivering. Although Heidegger is also at fault in this, as his hermeneutical fixation attests, he makes amends by theorising essential thinking (but still only as “thinking”, of course).

Well, remember the large, hungry brown bear circling while the intellectual, out for his morning constitutional in the woods, dryly adumbrates. Beside him the gamekeeper, an unkempt emotionalist, knows only an urgent must, and clicks off the safety on his shotgun. We could say that in terms of participating mind-function the essential is properly an holistic and combinative operation of two or more of the brains perceptual systems. Compared to its opposite ... calculative thinking ... it is nearer by orders of magnitude to that clarity and spontaneity which is optimal for there-being as the site or act or state of the witness to Being’s disclosure. That very nearness is human presence. This is what you are describing as reductive.

Mind you, that makes a change from “Cartesian”. Or “epistemological error”.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:40 | #

20
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:28 | #

As a method of interpretation, hermeneutics is a discipline of active intellectual reflection ... a species of the directed process of “thinking-about” in the abstract. It belongs solely to the intellectual function of Mind.

No. It is an engaged process that does have some interpretation at one end but has engagement, acting into, and verification at the other end.

Typically, you completely misunderstand.

Academics invariably and uncritically assume that (a) intellect is the sovereign principle, and (b) logical structure yields an objective verity that the inchoate functions of Mind are constitutionally incapable of delivering.

You haven’t been paying attention to what I’m saying and you are remaining in your retarded war against academia that causes you to misrepresent everything with straw men. You are not “clearing away” and “preparing the ground” with your straw men, but rather are obfuscating it.

Although Heidegger is also at fault in this, as his hermeneutical fixation attests, he makes amends by theorising essential thinking (but still only as “thinking”, of course).

He is not at fault in picking up hermeneutics from his forebears, he is taking a necessary method for managing coherence against the propositional Cartesian divide.

Well, remember the large, hungry brown bear circling while the intellectual, out for his morning constitutional in the woods, dryly adumbrates.

I’ve addressed this dozens of times, even in comments within the past few days (your runaway train example).

From the endowment that we have - which can be looked upon as a social construct of our parents and forebears - we have some innate responses to the bear. We are even better equipped if we have the social construct of a high power rifle, bear spray, training in animal behavior… and good story telling capacity to entertain people with afterward in tales about the event.

Beside him the gamekeeper, an unkempt emotionalist, knows only an urgent must, and clicks off the safety on his shotgun.

The shotgun is surely purely natural ..or should we clear it away for your pure ontology?

We could say that in terms of participating mind-function the essential is properly an holistic and combinative operation of two or more of the brains perceptual systems. Compared to its opposite ... calculative thinking ... it is nearer by orders of magnitude to that clarity and spontaneity which is optimal for there-being as the site or act or state of the witness to Being’s disclosure. That very nearness is human presence. This is what you are describing as reductive.

No, I am not reductive. But you are. What we are experiencing now is your pathological contentiousness - a wish to render all perceived academic contributions trivial and useless by comparison to the shit that you spew.

Mind you, that makes a change from “Cartesian”. Or “epistemological error”

The engaged process of reaction to the bear is not a Cartesian or empistemologial error; your understanding of it is.

Finally, GW: don’t you think it’s a bit arbitrary that all you ever do is try to find some way to disagree with something that I say?

Quite the opposite of what I should be able to expect.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 21:34 | #

Typically, you completely misunderstand.

It happens as thought. Only thought. Therefore you are wrong.

From the endowment that we have - which can be looked upon as a social construct of our parents and forebears - we have some innate responses to the bear.

You are effectively retailing Marxist nonsense. Adaptive traits are not socially constructed.

You are old enough now to let go of your academic nurse. The things you learned at college are not nationalism, and as far as I can see they are not useful tools. They lead you into error, from which everybody tries to pull you, and you, in your stubborness, refuse to be pulled.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 22:48 | #

‘Typically, you misundersdand’

Actually, typically, you misrepresent.

And no, I am not wrong.

I am not retailing Marxist nonsense; adaptive traits may be looked upon and treated in various ways, despite the fact that your British bitches want us to believe they have no choice, and especially, the foreign women, have no choice but to mud shark - and that you are their hero.

You have been old enough to grow up, and not pander to women who encourage right wing reaction, instigating luckier women to ykw and less lucky women to blacks and muslims.

You don’t know everyone, and your tilt against perceived academia is your personal ego trip which you engage at the expense of the time of all people of good will.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 00:00 | #

Daniel’s “Cartesian” and “hermeneutics” are the equivalent of Bowery’s “eusocial” and “individual.” One represents evil and the other represents good. Both of their obsessive souls are forever condemned to spergatory, wrestling between darkness and light.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 03:33 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:00 | #

Daniel’s “Cartesian” and “hermeneutics” are the equivalent of Bowery’s “eusocial” and “individual.” One represents evil and the other represents good. Both of their obsessive souls are forever condemned to spergatory, wrestling between darkness and light.

I am sure that that’s not true for my part (regarding Cartesianism and hermeneutics).

Furthermore, you got anything against spergatory?

Posted by Epistemic blunder on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 10:44 | #

Adaptive traits certainly are socially constructed, if only for how they come to count for us.

It is an epistemologial blunder, of course, to try to founationalize our cause in “nature.”

First of all, because that would not follow in terms of describing what our nature does.

We seek to assimilate natural health and natural ways which are conducive to the well being of our people, but we do not simply let nature dictate the terms of our interests - for an obvious example, we do not simply let a virus destroy our people, but we develop means to deal with it, from vaccines, to quarantine, improved practices, sanitation and so on.

What that is describing even, is the fact that we are founded in our people’s interests first - not firstly in nature, the ‘interests’ of its viruses and so on. We look at nature as a guide and check points to health and non-health.

But to foundationalize our cause in nature is an epistemologial blunder.

The proper foundation is in Social Constructionism. In our people. That is the position of Praxis, following Aristotle’s corrective program. And then, very much in line with Aristotle again, we look to nature as guide-line check points of a healthy social system - e.g. placing value on optimality as opposed to maximization as a guide to homeostasis (racial autonomy).

Next, we deploy the hermeneutic turn when this positive view is cramping our breadth of perspective, individualism and imagination - we use it to gain more historical perspective, or novel ideas, or we become a bit more Platonic, say, in order to get a broader formal perspective on our systems, and develop working hypotheses. But the Hermeneutic turn is always duty bound to its circulation of inquiry, against Cartesian runaway, it will return to empirical verification wherever necessary or desired.

DanielS

Posted by Julian Bigelow on Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:55 | #

Julian Bigelow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Julian Bigelow (March 19, 1913 – February 17, 2003) was a pioneering American computer engineer.

Julian Bigelow at The Princeton Institute for Advanced Study (Left to right: Julian Bigelow, Herman Goldstine, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and John von Neumann).

Contents
1 Life
2 References
3 Further reading
4 External links

Life

Bigelow was born in 1913 in Nutley, New Jersey.[1] He obtained a master’s degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, studying electrical engineering and mathematics. During World War II, he assisted Norbert Wiener in his research on automated fire control for anti-aircraft guns, leading to the development of the so-called Wiener filter.

Bigelow coauthored (with Wiener and Arturo Rosenblueth) one of the founding papers on cybernetics and modern teleology, titled “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology.” This paper mulled over the way mechanical, biological, and electronic systems could communicate and interact. This paper instigated the formation of the Teleological Society and later the Macy conferences. Bigelow was an active member of both organizations. He was a visiting scholar for many years at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.[2]

When John von Neumann sought to build one of the very first digital computers at the Institute for Advanced Study, he hired Bigelow in 1946 as his “engineer,” on Wiener’s recommendation. The computer Bigelow built following von Neumann’s design is called the IAS machine, although it was also called the MANIAC, a name that was later transferred to the successful clone of this machine at Los Alamos. Because von Neumann did not patent the IAS and wrote about it freely, 15 clones of the IAS were soon built. Nearly all general-purpose computers subsequently built are recognizable as influenced by the IAS machine’s design.

Bigelow died on February 17, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.[3]

References

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:37 | #

Adaptive traits certainly are socially constructed, if only for how they come to count for us

The inflation (and I stress inflation) of certain evolutionarily adaptive traits can be expressed behaviourally. A woman in high heels or with rouged lips ... a man displaying his personal status via symbols of power and wealth ... these are obvious enough examples of socially-bound and deliberately, crudely-executed communication. But there are hundreds of subtle and marginal signs of fitness which completely elude the gross socialised behavioural modes of communication, and operate at a sublimely unconscious, neurological level, many of which do not even contribute to and reach the level of an awareness of a romantic idealization of the opposite sex.

Further, because socially communicative modes exist, that does not imply that social construction is involved in their expression. The impulses at work in a sincere and unguarded moment of sexual selection are far too quicksilver to be captured by the lumbering associative machinery of construction.

It is an epistemologial blunder, of course, to try to founationalize our cause in “nature.”

There is no other foundation for the organism which is Man, unless you do violence to the concept of foundation itself. The social environment is too contingent upon hazard and mechanicity to be identified as, or in any way conflated with, foundation. I cannot believe that you have reflected sufficiently on what foundation, contingency, hazard, and mechanicity imply in this respect. I think you have simply presumed these things, and the other signs of the lived life which I have written about at MR, to be inferior to your old university lecturer’s teachings as a matter of inevitability. You have made a mistake.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 04:41 | #

I have made no mistake but to have over estimated your wish to have the best in conceptual outlook and to underestimate the extent to which your jealousy of academia will have you chasing endlessly after the red capes of deliberately misrepresented and thereby misleading concepts.

It has been and apparently remains a very unfortunate bummer to deal with your reaction, but I will, in a moment.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:44 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:37 | #

DanielS: Adaptive traits certainly are socially constructed, if only for how they come to count for us.

Yes. and your taking issue with this statement, which should distinguish not only that there are limits but ultimate validity to social constructionism, goes to show that you are just a reactionary trying to show that you are smarter than “academics” by chasing after their and their students abuses and misuses of the idea.

It is possible for people to go Jim Jones and say that racial differences don’t matter, that we should all mix and ultimately kill ourselves because the world and life are so evil that people just don’t get it - take the Kook Aide, some 900 of you.

American society, its adherence to paleocon values, some fusion of Enlightenment and Judeo Christianity marshaled by Jewish academia has given the Kool Aide to people like yourself very nicely - to help obstruct social accountability in reaction.

GW: The inflation (and I stress inflation) of certain evolutionarily adaptive traits can be expressed behaviourally. A woman in high heels or with rouged lips ... a man displaying his personal status via symbols of power and wealth ... these are obvious enough examples of socially-bound and deliberately, crudely-executed communication.

I should not have posted the Julian Bigelow thing. It caught my eye because he is from the town (Nutley, New Jersey) next to mine and went on to work with a bunch of luminaries, like Wiener in cybernetics and John von Neumann (games theory etc.).

I did want to indicate that “my project” was not adverse to this sort of rigorous and scientific inquiry.

But no particular endorsement was implied, nor was it meant to imply confirmation of my own efforts as you apparently took it to mean by focusing on behavior as if you were going to ‘disprove me’ somehow by doing that.

Your commitment, as ever, is to try to trivialize me and my efforts and make yourself seem like the one and only with deep thoughts.

In so doing, you entirely miss the point, time and again.

So does Bowery (I see that a minion of his is hornily lurking in modernity, seeing that “nothing new” has been presented when I set out a bit of history), by suggesting that I am, or should be trying to do with Social Constructionism what social constructIVISM does, i.e., focus on the products of processes as opposed to the process itself.

GW: But there are hundreds of subtle and marginal signs of fitness which completely elude the gross socialised behavioural modes of communication, and operate at a sublimely unconscious, neurological level, many of which do not even contribute to and reach the level of an awareness of a romantic idealization of the opposite sex.

This goes only to demonstrate your narrow, retarded notion of communication (still in the transmissions model) and the social realm - especially when talking about how things come to count, post hoc.

GW: Further, because socially communicative modes exist, that does not imply that social construction is involved in their expression.

So, chasing the red cape of misused and misrepresented social constructionism is indeed, your thing.

It is a shame. You have stood in the way for seven years for nothing but your puerile reaction and lack of sufficient education.

GW: The impulses at work in a sincere and unguarded moment of sexual selection are far too quicksilver to be captured by the lumbering associative machinery of construction.

In post hoc attribution they are not too quick silver; and not if you want to protect your English women a whole lot better than you and your anti social society are currently doing.

GW: It is an epistemologial blunder, of course, to try to founationalize our cause in “nature.”

Yes - Nature divorced of praxis, that is (human nature).

GW: There is no other foundation for the organism which is Man,

Oh now YOU are going to teach ME about Praxis?

GW: unless you do violence to the concept of foundation itself.

Look, if you want to proclaim some general things as universally foundational I’m ok with that as a post hoc attribution - discreet nations for just about all the ethnicities, this kind of DNA counts as this kind of people, etc. ..but if these things ever exist outside of the possibility of conversation they may as well not exist at all - and that is profound, because it doesn’t only go to how facts count for us. It gives us the agency that our enemies want to take away from us - and have, starting perhaps with Christianity.

GW: The social environment is too contingent upon hazard and mechanicity to be identified as, or in any way conflated with, foundation

It is a bummer that you maintain such a crude misunderstanding.

I look back at what I have brought to bear these past seven years and I find with the recent relief from your puerile antagonism, that I have brought to bear good and important concepts and reasoning. And your angle and childish adherence to an antagonistic view, chasing after red capes, has been a misfortune, misleading others along with your having been misled - I see that the poor guy ecce lux is going around and labeling just anyone and anything he doesn’t like “social constructionist.”

Our Jewish adversaries would have it no other way.

GW: I cannot believe that you have reflected sufficiently on what foundation, contingency, hazard, and mechanicity imply in this respect.

Unlike you, I focus on the most essential and important things - which includes what You might call foundation (but I elect not to belabor that word), contingency, hazard and mechanicity -

I do not ignore them in a vain attempt to cast the other (me) as shallow and yourself as “deep.”

You are trying to render me trivial and if you can, wholly redundant. That’s yours and Bowery’s techno nerd thing - operationalize the circuit - beat it down until the weak link appears then remove it and replace it….

with YOUR intellectual conceit.

Meanwhile, you are not only ignoring that I am not trying to compete with you and render your more scientific quests redundant, but I cooperate and complement them with things that are actually quite often very important.

GW: I think you have simply presumed these things, and the other signs of the lived life which I have written about at MR, to be inferior to your old university lecturer’s teachings as a matter of inevitability. You have made a mistake.

Read what I said in the last sentence. I came here to cooperate with, not to overturn science.

All you are doing is expressing the puerile jealousy and antagonism to academia - in exaggerated form - that has become so central to your identity. You can’t even see the difference between what I am saying and what the “academics” you don’t like are saying through the stereotypes and misrepesentations that you depend upon as the foil for your ego trip. I have made no mistake but to over estimate your dedication to a collaborative effort to arrive at and deploy the best theory to the cause of European peoples.

The Jews thank you for all your reactive obstruction.

Anyway, in a few days, I am going to put up a new post. I’ve been delayed by a few things but its coming along nicely…

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:54 | #

Is “muh dik” socially constructed?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:57 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:54 | #

Is “muh dik” socially constructed?

Yes.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:40 | #

Correction

if these things exist outside of the possibility of conversation they may as well not exist - i.e., if we no longer exist to talk about them and decide at least how they count.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:21 | #

GW sounds like a blank-slatist the way he talks about the alleged plasticity of the human personality. As far as I am aware the balance of psychological research on the subject indicates the majority of variability in personality traits is accounted for by heredity.

Also, he seems content to leave what IS actually socially constructed for the crows.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments