|
|
|
Intersectionality: Jewish ordering and exceptionalism of victimology in the age of treason.  On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction - when Jewish victimology turns attention to Jews as the victimizers, Jewish exceptionalism is invoked as “Neo” - “As long as I can remember I’ve been a ‘Neo’-Something: A Neo-Marxist, a Neo-Trotskyist, a Neo-Liberal, a Neo-Conservative and in religion, always, Neo-Orthodox, even while I was a Neo-Trotskyist and a Neo-Marxist….I’m going to end up a Neo, just Neo, that’s all.”Intersectionality: Jewish ordering and exceptionalism in victimology - the “Neo-exceptions” of victimology in the age of treason: Tanstaafl usually provides incisive insight into Jewish machinations. As he does here in his observation of “intersectionality”, recognizing that to be the point at which Jewish victimology turns attention back to them as the victimizers - which then requires their interests to propose their exceptionalism to the rule - a rule which might be wiggled-out-of as they don themselves “neo” this or that. Tan’s incisiveness can, however, cut off important “ambiguities” - “ambiguities” that provide means for learning, creativity and agency in the realm of praxis - Tan accuses me of “jargon” for this word, which outlines the interactivity of the social world and its impossibility to predict 1000% for the human capacity for reflexive agency in responses; e.g., I was surprised by Tan when he wanted me to clearly understand that he had “no problem with Hitler.” I expected him to change that, to observe problems, at least some problems with Hitler’s worldview after a reading on his former network of the chapter in Table-Talk, viz., where Hitler discusses his opinion of Ukrainians, the subservient role he saw for those not killed in resistance to his aspiration for aggrandizement of their land. Tan had, after all, objected to Carolyn’s insulting support of Hitler’s disparagement. Typically in this post also then, we should look-out for some blind spots in Tan’s analysis for his tacit identification with a right-wing perspective, particularly Nazi apologetics. The wish to vindicate Hitler can make for an over-focus, even if slightly, on Jews as the problem. If Jews were THAT much of the problem, virtually the only problem, then Hitler is apparently, largely vindicated for his “minor indiscretions”. It is not that there should not be strong focus on on the J.Q. But it becomes an “over-focus” when in that incisive focus it parses-out and does not afford discussion of our part, our agency - where any sort of ambiguity is not allowed-for as it does not follow the “logic” of the J.Q. (us or them) - as was the case where Tan’s logic accused someone like me of trying to distract, minimize or malign those who focus on the J.Q. Whereas I am, in fact, merely calling for the need to also examine the part some of our people play (as if we don’t know that Jews like Alana Mercer try to focus singularly on that side of the equation) in our situation, with Jews and otherwise. When Tan seeks to vindicate Hitler and unburden guilt and agency among his community of sympathizers - by suggesting rather that I am minimizing the J.Q., the singularly paramount issue, a life and death struggle against Jewish interests, as he expresses it - Tan is pushing Whites in the direction of repeating the same mistake, of headlong and disastrous reaction for wont of sufficiently deep and broad epistemic preparation - a necessary grounding especially in the praxis of European ethno-national coordination (which the motive of Hitler vindication precludes). Furthermore, by not allowing for the “ambiguity” of praxis he performs an additional disservice by going along with a Jewish default on left and right - i.e., where they can’t get you to cop to being a right winger or an alt-righter, they want you to say, as Tan does, “left and right is not a useful distinction.” Tan adds cleverly, I am a “White winger.” While he has criticized Lawrence Auster for making liberalism the problem and not Jews, his overly precise focus has bi-passed the fact that liberalism is the problem in the sense that liberalism unfolds characteristically, in reality, as license against group classificatory interests - a consequent in reality especially given the manicheanism of Jewish interests which exaggerate and instigate that liberal prerogative indeed; though liberalism as it follows consequently of insufficient account to our interests is still the manifest problem, even if Auster complains about it, even if instigated by Auster’s fellow YKW: And particularly if liberalism is hidden beneath titular conservatism, as in neo-conservatism or paleoconservatism, or the mistakenly presumed conservatism of Christianity - as any sort of conservatism that they propose will be under their Noahide control; thus not conservative of our sovereign classificatory interests. Worse, Tan says that Gottfried wants to blame liberalism as well - and so he does, but even more so does Gottfried want to blame and vilify “The Left” - the unionized accountability to social classification - and to position White identity against it - and has, in the form of the Alternative-Right - everybody is blaming “the left” as a result of the language game Gottfried set in motion. And while it is not always correct to play “opposite day”, in this case, it is - we should be asking why Gottfried et al. want us to do that? What is wrong about a White Right - Alt-Right or otherwise? Even more significantly, what is correct about a White Left perspective such that Gottfried et al. do not want us to identify with it? I do believe that Tan’s blind spots stem from his starting point in defense of his partial German heritage, partly from his STEM-nerd background as well, which has been overly-reinforced against the helpful ambiguities of praxis by right-wing reactionary communities in The US. Thus, he will gain dubious support, for example by fellow Hitler apologist Wolf Wall Street - who will call Tan “the greatest epistemologist in White Nationalism”. When in fact, epistemology is one of Tanstaafl’s blind spots and weak points. That doesn’t mean that most of what Tan has to say isn’t good - it is. His amplification of the matter of crypsis is an important contribution. But incisive, good and significant as his citing “anti-racism as a Jewish construct” is, it hardly renders insignificant my observation that “anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and killing people.” His statement can be seen as a focus on the major pathogen afflicting European peoples, while my statement focuses on the fundamental element of our systemic immuno-deficiency. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:58 | # Manners are a social construct. Peoples are not. They are natural forms of identity and being. Constructionism is a shallow reading of personality formation. Nothing is constructed as such. It arises quite mechanically, going in to and coming out from its house of the individual psychology, mixing and sometimes - most notably in our age - conflicting with what is already there. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:11 | # “Being with”, as an open term in itself, probably did characterise the tending to amorphousness exhibited by hippiedom’s uncritical openness. Openness of any kind will so tend. To correct that and to give historical agency to Being one must introduce two other contexts, namely belonging and acting (Being of and Being in). 4
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:05 | #
In your lame refusal to understand what social constuctionism is, you only react to its abuse. In social constructionism proper, for example, we might see that something is best understood as an epiphenomenon of the biology of race, and attribute it as such - but we are nevertheless socially constructing that attribution, where we say that “civilization and culture is an expression of race.” We can say, as you do of peoples:
But rather than saying that they are merely that, we have the capacity to approach the matter with intelligence instead.
No, your understanding of it is shallow.
For your recalcitrant refusal to understand what is meant by construction, only.
In your Cartesian attempt it is simple mechanism and does not interact.
To begin, I am not talking about what the hippies did wrong - where they were swayed by liberalism - in the end it won over, but it was not pervasive in American culture yet such as to completely overwhelm their authentic cause which was brought in high relief by the absurdity of the Vietnam war and its draft. With that, I am talking about a deeper motive that even they were not sufficiently articulate about - midtdasein. It was there, and profoundly important, nevertheless.
I wasn’t taking about whatever openness and liberalness that they might have had and sought in relief from the WWII generation’s rigidity. I was talking about their rebellion of the mechanistic habit and tradition of war and into midtdasein instead - a being amongst one’s people instead. In fact, they were rebelling against openness to war that was not necessary for theirs and their own people’s being.
Well they were moving toward that in their rebellion against the draft, but their authentic motivation was masked to the public by Jewish interests (who pandered against it, particularly to feminists, stepping it up once the war was over) with false attributions such as Susan Sontag’s interpretation. ..and the hippies were not articulate nor intellectual enough to hold up to her kind. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:13 | # Daniel, Your reading of the fundamental cause which exercised Western males in the late 1960s is valid and needed. The point I am making, however, is that your use of “midtdasein” is probably truer than you know, the relational openness of with-ness standing in need of the ethnic bounds; and it does so not for any utilitarian nationalist purpose but because the human truth is better explicated thereby. Human Being truly opens to belonging and thence to consciousness and action (ie, to ethnocentrism). This attendant opening is processional, particular and discriminatory and not, therefore, the uncritical openness that too readily attends midtdasein. It is Being constituted as the action of the identity (ie, the ethnic identity), and it is the human norm. On your social constructionism and communicationism, even if we set aside the influence of what is native to us as individuals (which, obviously, is considerable), the formed psyche is not communicated in whole by means of social interaction. All sensate data ... everything from Time and Place ... falls equally, and has the equal possibility to inform and shape for the reason that no gatekeeper is present in the mechanism. It is a gravitational process and a sculpting process to which the psyche itself is passive and blind, and over which the individual has no control. Take for example, the aphorism, “Once bitten, twice shy”, which does not at all restrict itself to human interaction, and which speaks of a mechanical response to a negative psychological stimulus, in which response only the initial discrimination for good is from Nature. A social reading will not yield an holistic model of Man. You really should think about retiring this annoying habit of calling everyone “Cartesian”. Not very long ago, on another thread, I explained something about Dasein vs the Cartesian cognition ... something along the lines, I think, of nature-to-nature vs self-reference ... and also explained that Heidegger’s thinking is not dismissive of the entirety of Descartes’ model of the subject. I also said that you can’t pick and choose which bits of Heidegger’s model you want to use. But you are still bent on doing so. My guess is that over time more and more of the whole cloth will be incorporated in your gown, because the holistic is irresistible to thinking people. 6
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:37 | #
Fine.
You seem to think that by making proclamations that that makes them true - “communicationism” I am guilty of no ism. This is just you trying to demean and belittle the significant ideas that I bring. As for social constructionism, what you have ALWAYS failed to understand is the aspect of social constructionism that does not deny the more determnistic, less constructed end, but recognizes, in fact, that there is a social negotiation nevertheless as to how those facts come to count. Even though that should resolve the problem for you and allow you to at least not be an obstruction, you are probably too old and too stubborn to change. You are too heavily invested in chasing the red capes Jewish academia has sent out to divert from better ideas and therefore want to believe that these deceptions are the way these concepts are - period. Even though it is not true, you have invested yourself in rebellion against these misapplications and misrepresentations
In the moment there may be an absence of mediating structures. Subsequently, there will be a negotiation of how events count. Heidegger, as a phenomenologist, might suggest that it is not the experience of human being until we determine how it counts for us. Until then it is thrownness and if it remains in that state, inauthenticity.
This unconscious processing must be predominant over the psyche, I can agree, but then you are focusing on the psyche. I am not.
Your argument here is not really with me, but based on the false assumption that social constructionism (proper) would deny these facts. You are arguing against Jewish and liberal abuse of the concept.
Yes it will - it will lead to it and it will take into account other perspectives, biological, physical and psychological - on the other hand, a psychological reading will not lead to a holistic model of man.
No, you should really think of dropping your tiring contentiousness.
All you have done is show that you don’t know what you are talking about. As I have said, you don’t appreciate the significance of what I am doing with the word Cartesian, what philosophers are doing with it and why it is important. You don’t know gold when you have it in your hand. You have put yourself in the way for five years; it took a while for me to fully appreciate that you neither have sufficient understanding of the lay of the land of academia, nor of our struggle as ethnonationalists, to render the kind of dismissiveness that you do. You don’t recognize theoretical gold when you have it in your hands (you seem rather to have a dyslexia which has you attacking the better ideas - it mystified me and took a long time for me to appreciate fully, but I finally did realize that you don’t know what you are talking about; and it probably stems from your misplaced competitiveness), you cannot see, or refuse to see the difference I bring by contrast to the theoretical errors both of academia and in the struggle. Bowery tried to literally forbid me from using the word Cartesian, even though all philosophers who know what they are talking about use it in a recognizable way and as a pejorative attribution. I do not pluck it out of the hat as an “insult” as Bowery says, the way you do when you call me a “communicationist.” Bowery did a similar thing when I spoke of the “empirical philosophers” - all philosophers recognize that as a reference to Locke, Berkeley and Hume. Stupidly, Bowery took it as a personal affront, that I was trying to denounce empiricism and science, rather than as a hermeneutic effort to augment and complement science where its method is simply is not best suited to handle all human concerns. And yes, Locke’s Cartesianism is VERY relevant and negative - Bowery simply did not know what he was talking about. He doesn’t know why it is an important philosophical issue, for us especially, and apparently neither do you. Your generation has done enough damage. Its looking like you are just going to have to get out of the way if you can’t let go of concepts that have served you individually - rewarding you personally to such an extent that you can’t let go and endure positive and helpful corrections, modifications and enhancements despite the vast destruction you’ve left for subsequent generations in the wake of your intransigently held epistemological blunder upon which it stands.
I don’t pick and choose arbitrarily, that is your hallucination.
No, you are bent on maintaining your childish game of “foil the academic” There is a whole fucking expose on Being and Time discussed by two people who know a great deal more of what they are talking about than you do on the home page right now. You have not bothered to discuss it. You just want to continue to bring your business model here, to try to say that your product is all and mine is worthless - you do this to the terrible obstruction of the cause of Europeans and ethnonationalism. There is plenty there to talk about. I do not draw upon Heidegger arbitrarily; nor am I obligated to follow him verbatim, that is your trip and if you want to start doing better justice to him, try to overcome your aversion to hermeneutics.
My thinking is holistic, that is why it does not spend much time with psychology. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:02 | #
Already answered all of that:
... by contextualising Heidegger’s static concept of “thrownness” vis-a-viz Being within the transitional condition of the consciousness. Perhaps the early Christians were right and their fourteen Stations of the Cross are not the fourteen I have. But the idea is the same, and, yes, I am arrogant enough to believe it an advance on Heidegger’s. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:21 | #
The Transit, couched within the wider context of the suggestible nature of Man in ordinary waking consciousness (and I mean nature) and his return (or, perhaps more accurately, re-turn) to his own truth and free Being, does constitute such a model. Of course it leaves out “society” but it is not shallow in that way. 9
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:27 | #
DanielS: Not satisfactorily
DanielS: The reason why it is trivial is because it remains within the Cartesian framework of the first to third person perspective.
DanielS: You are arrogant enough, but your “advance” on Heidegger isn’t important.
10
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:28 | #
It is my intention to restrain you from your very marked and very isolating tendency to accentuate conflict. We must persuade not crush. Tan, for example, does not have to be treated as an enemy. He is not a philosopher. I don’t think he is even particularly interested in nationalist philosophy. He will not have a coherent philosophical position. Very well, we should interview him again and talk about that ... test his boundaries ... but keep him close. 11
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:40 | #
DanielS: Accentuating conflict is not what I do.
DanielS: I treated him as being on friendly terms until he displayed that he was loyal to Hitler no matter what, worked to conform his ideas to that end and tried to gas light me when I illustrated that that was in accordance with epistemological error.
DanielS: I wouldn’t mind talking to him again; but I can live without it. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:57 | #
Universal truths are not Cartesian.
You are being deliberately obtuse and ungracious, and probably Cartesian! The carrying over of Heidegger’s question about the meaning of being into one about the nature of Man is intellectually legitimate. Meaning is ascribed and will always have something of the subject in it, for its essence is discriminatory, and the reason for asking the question in the first place. Simply put, meaning is a response to phenomena but nature is that phenomena. The best one can do in terms of “knowing”, given the subject’s isolation, is to operate as far as possible free of the negatives which abound on the left-side of the Transit. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:15 | #
Is too. If it could be done with sufficient justice and brilliancy it might be a beneficial stratagem. But if it can’t, it exiles and isolates. How many times have I spoken about coherence not merely as an explicatory capacity but as the political mode of nationalism itself? We should never stray far from it, for the result is fissure and impotence. Of course it’s frustrating for us, as ethnic nationalists, to have so many kinsmen given to the usual ideological commonplaces. But we will never persuade them by alienating them - or ourselves. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:28 | #
Interpretation lies in the realm of meaning. Nationalism absolutely must attend to nature. That is its ground. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:59 | # What is “the dasein of social classification”? 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 21:59 | #
What would you have me say? Some of what they talk about is good, but not really excitingly so. Rather a lot is not good. Actually, as they circle the plug-hole of Heidegger’s supposed Nazism, the esteemed gentlemen present as philosophical quacks, especially Sheehan. I used that thread to express some thoughts about emergentism, which for me means order in a universe otherwise given to the accidental. It does not, therefore, mean inevitable and certain development, which is how I think you think I mean it. 17
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 03:37 | #
No it isn’t GW. This is what YOU DO. You just disagree and deny the validity of anything that comes across - talk about tiring. And you have this absurd idea that we have to reform the Hitler people; because I recognize that that’s a waste of time, that I am disagreeable. ...or the Jesus people..
I mean to exile and isolate Hitler people (people who think its necessary to redeem and defend him on balance) and Jesus people… people who want to include Jews here.. or people who just want be contentious and abusive.
We are not a political site, we are a meta-political site focusing on theory and intent on not getting entangled and repeating time in memorial errors in detriment to our people.
You act, for example, that I am being disagreeable with Tanstaafl for the devil of it. If you look back, you will find that it was Tanstaafl who was being disagreeable (mostly for the sake of protecting Hitler and Hitler people). Again, you have this thing about trying to bring around the Hitler people. It never worked and it is a waste of time. They try to make me seem bad and disagreeable, when anyone can see through the years that I have no problem with German nationalists per se. Look at the HelmutundHelene comment - Thank you for your comment HelmutundHelen ...that is me talking to them, that is how I am, always has been my disposition. There are important reasons to keep our site free of Jesus crap as well. There is reason to re-work our moral order. We had begun but you said, “it’s not the kind of thing you can do in your garage”...clever rhetoric, but not really true in the sense that a moral order can begin with episodes. The bottom line is that you are confusing my recognition of not getting derailed by Jesus, Hitler and Jewish trolling (or sincere but intransigent imposition) or other contentiousness, such as your own, with my being disagreeable - I am against these things and people who are into it are going to try to make me seem bad, crazy or sick. People of normal good will, will find that I am reasonable.
No, it has to attend to both. Attending to “nature” only is an epistemological error, the kind that has lead to our greatest cataclysms. Human nature is a different matter than mere nature.
It is their being, but on a group systemic basis, kept in cybernetic correction with ongoing feedback from its members.
I don’t know, but why don’t you try elaborating on something instead of ad hominum attacks on me or trying to deconstruct well considered ideas.
I have my disagreements with them as well, but by the same token, they lay bare a lot of material and helped me to understand not only Heidegger in fuller utility, but also their own mistakes, along with a few of Heidegger’s. Their shrill response to his Nazism was shallow, automatic and dangerous - for the reaction its inadequacy is likely to cause in those who feel the obvious need for ethnonationalism, as was Sheehan surprisingly and dangerously shallow for the most part, but nevertheless they do well to sort out the nuts and bolts of Heidegger.
I never really considered inevitability to be the crux of emergentism. It looks more at inborn potentials actualized beyond what reductionists might infer, but it is not inevitable - for one thing, because it is still interactive.
GW: Universal truths are not Cartesian. It is the same agenda. That is what DesCartes was after, it becomes a deleterious quest when applied to our concern with differentiating species of humans.
GW: You are being deliberately obtuse and ungracious and probably Cartesian! None of that. GW: The carrying over of Heidegger’s question about the meaning of being into one about the nature of Man is intellectually legitimate. It may be valid, something we touch base with when need be, but it obviously should not be our focus.
You should abide emergentism’s advice and not be reductionist in regard to human nature.
. “Given the subject’s isolation” 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 04:58 | #
Heidegger’s point of agreement with Descartes. https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/being_in_kind_part_1
19
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 05:20 | #
I don’t have much of a visual imagination, but if I was pushed to visualise emergentism as a conceptualisation of the working-out of content, I might settle for the graphic realism of this image:
I do not see reductionism here, not in relation to human nature or anything else. On the contrary, even when we look at detail ... even when we cut through the bark at a certain place ... we still find the grain of the timber; and as advocates of a systemic, world-making philosophy called nationalism: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_politics_and_metapolitics_of_24th_june_2016#more
... we naturally and necessarily work with that grain (ie, order in the universe). The emergent is our aid and guide which is something that cannot be said of any of the second-wave marxist politics which have to be coerced upon us daily. 20
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:02 | # With regard to your comment #18 on Cartesianism, I will first of all briefly repeat, that you do not understand what is being done with the disparagement of Cartesianism and why that is important - extremely (and the fact that you do not appreciate it underscores that you basically don’t understand the difference that you have here and you don’t know what you are talking about in your criticisms). Nobody should be saying that a Cartesian framework and coordinates cannot have provisional use, but you must step out of it and see the social bearing if you are to be responsible and relevant; and that broad social setting should be the default framework for sound philosophy and racial advocacy. Your defense of Cartesianism is motivated like Bowery, because you got lucky and crass individualism served you for a time as your generation of selfish pigs devoured all social capital before you like as swarm of locusts. So you want to believe that is best for all and not take responsibility for the fact that it is shit philosophy, and more importantly, that I might have something more important to say than you do. That is surely the greatest offense to you of all. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 09:56 | # The late Otto Hofmann, from Richard Linkater’s Waking Life, on what I would term emergence from the negatives on the left side of the Transit, and which nicely posits the exercise of the will as the opening to inevitability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jk5N29t-yc In other words, consciousness is intentional (but not in the Husserlian sense of intentionality) and, importantly, attentional; and it is its attentionality ... its willed focus ... which opens “to”. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 11:15 | #
... Heideggerian and specific to the existential condition of Man, and while it is not drawn directly from the neurological fact: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/susan_blackmore_on_the_myth_of_free_will ... it is consistent with it, as it is in its rejection of free will in the mechanistic state of ordinary consciousness while finding a path through intention to all that we habitually assume to be our permanent estate.
23
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 11:35 | #
It is the base. What emerges from it must be consistent with it.
Making activism consistent with “the willed focus” IS the way to a nationalist inevitability, for I am sketching ethnic nationalism’s ontology (which, remember, cannot be a social or collective ideology simply floating free of its own ground in human nature). It would be perfectly appropriate to consider the ontology and its emergent potentials as skeletal. The flesh to be added is more your area of concern. I intervene only where I perceive inconsistency - as I am bound to do, and in that process I never attempt to put you down or defeat you in any way. 24
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 12:11 | #
It is not THE base unqualified by the quality of human nature. Universal human nature obviously should not be the primary focus of our concern as a people under threat. Rather, our relative differences and specific requirements as such should be our focus.
Talking to you on matters of philosphy is a waste of time. You are stuck in psychology and this absurd idea that nationalism is a necessary byproduct emergent of the psyche.
I never said it was free floating.
Your ontology project is the skeleton - i.e., the death of opportunities for what was emergent as a sound and potentially vibrant philosophy. Nevertheless, I have kept the better philosophy alive despite you.
You always want to try to portray yourself as deeper and more important than me and what I do as trivial and shallow - if worth any fundamental attention at all. Oh brother do you have it wrong. We have enough science to go by, we can always use more, but to do more science is not necessary for a working hypothesis - if you come up with something, it could be like a helpful tool in our kit, that’s all. But as far as philosophy goes, you don’t even deploy Heidegger for his best aspects.
All you ever do is intervene.
Where you perceive it, is the operative word. My platform is coherent and fundamentally sound but you refuse to perceive that - or can’t, because your ego is in the way.
Yes, you are bound to do it, and you may not be fully aware that it is a mere game of one upmanship, because you are so embedded in it as to not be able to see around the contentious language game that you play.
Intentionality and attentionality lends itself to something other than your skepticism and Cartesianism, rather to agency and social constructionism as being integral to human being. Otto Hofmann’s gobbledeygook goes to show how stuck you are in egocentric fads of the 60’s and 70’s - of New Age human potential bullshit.
You defend Heidegger’s concession to Cartesianism under certain circumstances, not as an expression of authentic existence… Ok, since you remain like a child whose candy was taken away and pooped your diaper, lets change your pampers again - wheew! what a load and what a stink! Lets begin eeeew…
On the contrary, self respecting philosophers would recognize that as Cartesian nonsense. In truth, when a are we perfectly isolated and unrelated to our surrounds and others? Never.
It is as story that you’ve bought into and a bad one.
It can become more that way as more people come to believe that story… it’s a good narrative to embed sociopathology.
Well, maybe “the communicationist” can’t, in whatever you mean by that strawman coinage, but I think rather that a communications/hermeneutic perspective would indeed allow for intel and meditation on feelings of what is good and true for one’s self.
You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Just like with social constructionism, you are ignoring how communication is being considered by advanced communicologists - just because something is not a part of consciousness or deliberate construction does not mean it is not in communication.
You defend Heidegger’s concession to Cartesianism under certain circumstances, not as an expression of authentic existence. He is not recommending that we remain in thrownness and acquiescent to it as you are.
He accepts it as a part of the arbitrary into which we are thrown, not as something to be accepted of itself.
This statement is neither non-reductionary of the human condition - therefore of no use to emergentism - nor is it an advance on Heidegger: rather it is to fall prey to Heidegger’s reification of the individual being toward death as the only direction of authenticity. Here is where neo-Aristotleanism would make for a better philosophy.
Yes, but fitness is a debatable term for human beings.
...and the panmixia upshot of Cartesianism’s spawn of modernity is only making “what is fit” more atavistic, more a burden on a more thoughtful, intelligent way of life.
Is it really all that elemental?
That would be largely true of selectively interactive systems, not of isolated, individual organisms.
Your isolation is in your imagination.
Wow, Caresian car, er, human mechanics.
Poetically, your generation needs to be sent to a commune where you can contemplate your death, safely out of reach of the remaining sane and intelligent subsequent generations.
Not for you, apparently.
It has something to do with relationships, that was a big concession for you.
The permanent estate can’t come to your generation soon enough if we are to ever overcome your toxic egocentrism.
25
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:01 | # Daniel, you are offering far too much that is only reflexive and thoughtless denial, which leads you far too often to the employment of actual insult. That is divisive, obviously, and not acceptable. If you feel you must contest, do so intellectually, with properly constructed argument, or not at all. 26
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:33 | #
Absolute nonsense. That is a complete projection. 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 19:58 | #
This is a strawman objection. At no point have I confused the ontological with the ontical.
There is no “social” nor any classification. No hermeneutic expert in interpretation of texts or whatever points to some part of the population and proclaims, “This is your social group. Where is your feedback for cybernetic correction?” No one tells another awakening person who they are and who they belong to and love. It’s there in their blood. They know it. They feel it. For the greater part, it defies a commonplace communication.
Daniel, no one is going to be swayed by the idea that an historically agentive nationalism requires not an awakening people but an interpreter class of people exactly like you to “communicate” and “go back and forth”, and direct things. You are locked into a hyper-specialist, academic cul-de-sac that is by no stretch of the imagination nationalism, and it is costing you your relevance to the movement.
You are certainly different. But that aside, you are confirming here what I have said before, which is that you are analysing. You are one of the many who function via critique and reactive thinking. But that is not how an awakening proceeds, because it is not a product of the intellect. On the contrary, the intellect, being a cumbersome and slow, justifying thing, will follow behind. 28
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 22:40 | #
It is not a strawman objection. You yourself have said that you were providing the philosophical skeleton, as if we do not understand nature well enough to defend ourselves and all else is trivia besides the fact that our understanding is less than perfect, not good enough to proceed with working hypotheses according to you. Worse, you try to found this pure natural approach in a “natural psychology.” Egocentrism is the skeleton of nothing but a rightfully dead philosophy and the modernist destruction of which yours and the proceeding generation were the culmination.
Yes, there is. It is only absent in your lame wish to be all important and to one up every idea that is important and threatens your egocentrism.
It is done all the time. Working hypotheses, including of group classification, are pervasive and unavoidable even.
All over the place. Marginals is a classic one (which has been corrupted by Jews to mean “outsiders” instead of those just within), because they know where the shoe pinches - they have a sentinel position as to where the system is being impinged upon. They are not the only ones to provide feedback of course, but its good to provide an example that has been corrupted. That is not the only example but one example that I have mentioned for years now - AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO ACCUSE ME OF NOT LISTENING!
Well, you assume that an “awakened” person will necessarily choose to partner with someone you approve of as an ethno-nationalist. If they find someone clearly appropriate no ethnonationalists is going to ask them for much of an account. But if they don’t the awakened ethnonationalist will hold them to account; and may set about to forge a nationalism where they cannot impose a course of genetic destruction upon the ethnonation for their choice.
You just gave it commonplace communication. You quote from above my saying:
It is more to the point to say that it took me a while to realize that you were always going to disagree, try to deconstruct and minimize the significance of anything that I say - never to acknowledge significance and build upon it. The better the idea the more likely you are to say it is worthless. But that is what you will do, even though it is so childish and so obstructive to what we need that I could not imagine it. You try to defend this puerile competitiveness with a strawman:
GW, I never said that I was an interpreter class of people. Hermeneutics is a graceful and fluid means of inquiry and synthesis that is available to anyone - stupidly, you called my efforts “clunky” - yes, you are full of these charming accusations, “not deep enough” was another ... who told you to say that, Bowery? ....and did he suggest to accuse me of “communicationism” and to call me a “communicationist”? ....while you say that I should not be insulting, despite a continual array of insults that you have directed toward me. You and a-hole Daniel A are not going to be persuaded by anything but a dumb naturalism, just as the fuhrer adhered to (sans Aristotle), as the way to go, (as if its wonderful yield - lol - is the way to go). So, when I say something other than that epistemological blunder is the way to go, you just don’t want to hear it.
No I am not. You obviously did not even bother to read the main post - it is all about participation that includes ordinary people of the (whatever community) and as a subtext, deployment of ordinary language. Further, your “ontology project” and its terminology is a jargon that will become popular? I think not. Those with a vested interest in including stigmatizing and misleading right wing ideologies are trying to persuade you that I do not represent a position that is popular. On the contrary: most people will not believe in Jesus, Hitleresque scientism and will recognize Jews as a distinct and significantly problematic people when the issue is not made didactic by Hitler redemptionists. Most people look toward and rely in fact, upon a society as fair, just and protective of their personal and systemic (group) interests as possible.
You are not honest and you are being mislead as a result. Jews and their unwitting minions who would misguide our people want you to believe that I am talking too technical. It is a lie. My relevance to the movement is exact. Because you do not know the lay of the land, you are being encouraged by advocates of Jews, Hitler and Jesus to try to gas light me. If Jews can’t get you to worship them directly, then they do it indirectly, with Christianity. Failing that, they will try to get our movement to be repulsive with Hitler and scientism (conspiracy theory too). you cannot see, or refuse to see the difference I bring by contrast to the theoretical errors both of academia and in the struggle.
That is not honest, it is a projection. You are the reactionary. I have demonstrated how that is so in numerous instances.
“Awakening” will occur in many ways, understanding the rule structures (in narrative form, perhaps, whatever works best to light up the way) which are important to group homeostasis and those rule structures which threaten them will help “awaken” people; but awakening to them will certainly not occur by means of your obstruction and denial.
You desperately want to create leader / follower roles. You have demonstrated that you and the people who egg you on do not have the judgment to be leaders. You have the intelligence and the capacity to follow mechanical logics that can allow you do be a useful participant and to provide feedback. However, to get you to understand that that is enough will probably be impossible. You are too egocentric and too competitive; you don’t know the situation well enough to avoid misplacing your competitiveness against what I say; and the right wingers (Hitler, Jesus, Jews and scientism) who are desperately threatened know how to cater to your ego by encouraging you to try to deconstruct and gas light what I say. You are not knowledgeable and aware enough of the broad situation to understand that. Your autobiography calls for you to white knight for right wingers - the Hitler, the Jesus, the Jew advocates and the scientistic - they egg you on as I threaten their capacity to go on leading in epistemological error and disaster to our people. Its not going to happen because I won’t allow it despite the fact that they egg you on to try to gaslight my efforts. Post a comment:
Next entry: Kurdish Female Sniper Dodges Headshot; laughs it off
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by Tanstaafl's latest theoretical fail on Mon, 31 Jul 2017 01:51 | #
In Tanstaafl’s latest theoretical fail:
The White Race and its Discontents:
He proffers:
1) “A civilization and its culture are racial constructs – the bottom up, grass-roots instincts of the masses largely modulated and moderated by the elite.”
This is a desperate and lame attempt to ignore the better understanding of social consructionism that I have had to explain time and again, because right wingers cannot adjust to the fact that they are reacting to a misrepresentation of the term.
They refuse to deploy the exercise of trying the word “mere” before “social construct” and observing that if you need that word, then it is Cartesian and not a concept that you would apply to something substantive like race.
The White race as a social construct - not merely, but substantively - already IS from the ground up and that, as a social construct, is a MUCH better way to look at it than the way that Tanstaafl says is THE way to look at the matter, i.e., that “civilization and culture are racial constructs” - that doesn’t even make logical sense (coming from a man who accused me of having poor logic): If he is emphasizing, as he does, the causal and deterministic aspect of our inheritance then why call it a “racial construct”? ..call it a byproduct, perhaps..
But he won’t go with a proper understanding of social constructionism because he is beholden to his reactionary audience.
It is better to allow for our individual agency and contributions by talking in terms of social construct - it emphasizes our social responsibility, interdependence, degree of independence and most importantly, our people as central outlook and framework, not our subhuman nature.
Tanstaafl does not do this because he continually tries to suck Hitler to life again, desperately trying to make his subhuman ideology relevant again.
Social constructionism, properly understood, not only begins with the proper outlook, from our people, but does so in such a way that already begins with instinct and unconscious doings - we talk in terms of the agentive capacity to attribute how things count when they are on the more causative side of the spectrum. But they are never, mere constructs.
2) To illustrate how it is that Tanstaafl can’t get over his wish to try to redeem Hitler and make him relevant again: in the context of Trump’s speech in Poland, Tan tries the old, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway.”
No they aren’t - especially not if you apply agency as a social constructionist. It’s easier as a Pole, perhaps, to say I/we had nothing to do with Nazism; but it is not that hard for subsequent generations of Germans to reject the attribution of Nazism either.
3) In another example of how he wants to apply natural causality and tie our hands to passivity in regard to how the Jews say things count, Tan cites the infamous Susan Sontag quote - “White people are the cancer of the earth” - in its full context; relishing the opportunity to attack one of my most cherished observations on behalf of our European people - i.e. that the Hippies were about midtdasein, Being amidst our people for White males as opposed to say, the endless war mongering of Hitler or the corporations and their draft into Vietnam - by saying that Sontag was endorsing the “freak-out” in order to promote sheer insubordination to older generations.
Well, that is how (((Sontag))) might try to say the hippies counted, that is NOT how we should say they counted. For us the rebellion of midtdasein against sheer war mongering could not have been a more relevant and authentic motive.
Comment DanielS