|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 19, 2016 10:47:31 GMT
Tim introduced himself on the introductions thread. He self-identifies as right wing, but sees the current problem as one of "weaponisation of poverty".
He and I agree on this poverty issue and we both have a huge amount in common with mainstream Labour party beleifs, greivances and concerns here.
Awesome first post with a LOT to discuss there, Tim.
Perhaps we need subboards to deal with the whole "selfishness vs egalitarianism" and/or "the legitimacy of different types of morality" questions.
I've just instantiated that board. Specifically to have those discussions.
Feel free to start a thread there. I suspect that it will draw in many people.
And post anything else you deem that requires discussion or disambiguation here in this board.
Im entirely in agreement with your fourth paragraph, but worry that we lose each other somewhere in the second paragraph. Perhaps around where you say "establish and curate commons". Perhaps you mean something that synchronises with my Georgism here.
Perhaps you could elucidate?
Steven.
Administrative action:- opened disambiguation thread regarding the term "right" or "right wing" 19th April 2016 12:50pm stevedtrm
|
|
|
Post by bloodemperortim on Apr 19, 2016 17:13:01 GMT
Certainly. I'm aware that people must prioritise and so devoting time to fully understanding another's framework is to impose a cost on them. However, being able to pass the Ideological Turing Test is indispensible - for example, those on the right unable to defend against Marxism to some level of detail are doing themselves no favours - and so, even if I were an enemy, the best help I could give would be to open my mouth.
Weaponisation of poverty - this is the stage we are at. There are two ideas: on the left, austerity is considered a looting strategy to shift wealth upwards. On the right, one may consider it a necessary adjustment to the dire financial problems which are a fact of life. Really, they're both right, since in the cognitive division of labour which exists between the two specialisations, each gets a piece but not the whole. When economic times are bad, one cannot spend beyond their means, that's a fact. Measures have to be taken to cut the deficit. The problem is the Tories are not doing what is necessary to seed future wealth, the cuts are disingenuous and opportunistic. These are not meritocratic elites, but rather tyrants, and not even aesthetically interesting ones. They benefit from everyone getting poorer, as a simple means of killing competition/dissent. An authentic right-wing government may make cuts to avert a further disaster, but they would also be taking the necessary steps to seed later prosperity, for their own benefit as much as anyone else's. Why would you disenfranchise the bottom to the point of inviting resistance? Anyone in charge of a commons knows you have to avert internecine conflict to preserve the nation's integrity. Italian and German fascism had a working-class base. The poor needn't be made destitute, they could be used as a weapon of power. That's one clue that something else is going on here, a terminal liquidation.
Establish and curate commons - I might as well lay some groundwork here. A commons typically refers to common-use land, but I also use it in the Propertarian sense of any form of property to which members of a group share interests, including the normative commons (norms). Humans are social animals, society is fundamentally social, cooperation requires commons. At a basic level, one must have territory. That is won and defended by the sword, there's no two ways about it. Violence underlies the social order, not mere belief or conditioning, and the strongest create and defend the norms. Warriors do this, in ancient Greek 'aristos', 'the best warriors'. Hence the right-wing association with all things martial. They create the borders, and police the genetic and cultural capital of their territory. It's only later that we have the luxury of enlightenment values, egalitarianism, and norms so ingrained they're taken to be metaphysics. But this sort of thing is considered heartless and cruel by people unwilling to transvaluate their values and go beyond norms to find the hard limits of reality. I guess I could waffle further here but that's the gist.
Second paragraph where we may lose each other - discuss?
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 20, 2016 18:35:58 GMT
The phrase i referred to when i said may lose each other was "establish and curate commons." I was in fact referring to your third paragraph, not your second.
The first para was a joke, and had therefore vanished in my mind.
Steven
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 20, 2016 18:53:16 GMT
I dont like the term "right" because its so loaded with ambiguity, and i suggest that you use the term "elitist" or "darwinian" perhaps "militant" or something else which identifies the martial nature of politics in your view. Don't let me pick your word, just please use something that describes what you are. Rather than a hundred other concepts people might mistake for what you are.
"thing is considered heartless and cruel by people unwilling to transvaluate their values and go beyond norms to find the hard limits of reality."
I object to the term "cruel" because it implies "evil" intent. Sadism, where it exists, isnt cruel, it is evolved. A falcon doesnt torture mice it kills, because torture isnt productive to falcons. They need to find more mice for nutrition. Humans, on the other hand, have things like public and private torture. Because a human can produce submission in other humans and the victim by demonstrating physical sadism. The horrific, or erotic, suffering inflicted in such tortures serves a purpose and an evolutional advantage- deterrent.
I also don't like the phrase "hard limits" because of BDSM connotations and prefer "physical limitations" or perhaps something even more precise.
But i am largely in agreement. The world is already abhorrent and darwinian, even in human terms. We are powerless to eliminate these horrors. And those that claim an interest in illusory and vague "human rights" are almost always participating in systems and economies which deprive people of these rights internationally and less obviously domestically. And as such are unwittingly hypocritical.
Steven.
|
|
|
Post by bloodemperortim on Apr 21, 2016 16:06:49 GMT
I use the term 'right' because that's what everyone on what I consider the right uses, but I could use a different term in this circle if I'm not being understood. I would have to work that out, though, since none spring to mind. I consider myself more realist about what it entails because I can explain the various sub-groups and why they behave as they do while clarifying that I don't reside with them, but also admitting they fall under that generic heading. Yes, everyone from the Nazis to the BNP to white nationalists fall under 'right-wing', but I know what motivates each of those. The left seems unwilling to admit the scope of the left, from Rousseau to Stalin to Antifa, instead trying to somehow make out it was not leftism, ie 'Stalinism was state-capitalism' and other evasive cowardice. Although, given that I'm in the minority, the onus is on me to alter my terms. I wish the left were more concerned with helping minorities Agreed, I was just describing how most people react. Lol that's fair enough. Usually not a consideration in intellectual circles though. I meant hard limits in the scientific sense, discovering limits as part of an inquiry, prerequisite to any later preferences. Truth first, sentiment later. I don't want to eliminate those horrors, personally. Nature contains all beauty and all cruelty, which one an individual focuses on is largely due to their psychological predisposition. To make the horror edifying rather than a terminal victimisation is central to my values. Resistance and overcoming, anti-nihilism.
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 21, 2016 16:30:34 GMT
We agree on everything here, apart from the terms you use, which are objectionable on the grounds of ambiguity. For now, "right" definitely has too much scope for misinterpretation, although militant may still be imprecise. "Militant" comes with potentially violent connotations and too little focus on these rather than the principles you espouse. I think for now, I'll use "libertarian" because its also much closer to the common notion of what you are, but it still has too much room for misinterpretation so if you come up with anything more accurately descriptive, say so.
Steven
|
|
|
Post by bloodemperortim on Apr 22, 2016 16:50:50 GMT
Meritocrat, perhaps? That doesn't cover everything but it's a pretty good fit.
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 22, 2016 17:52:23 GMT
How is that different from darwinian in your view?
|
|
|
Post by bloodemperortim on Apr 23, 2016 16:30:25 GMT
There's a lot to explain in answer to that. First, there are important philosophical differences separating Darwinists and meritocrats. The main one is that the application and goals of Darwinism are subjective. Like any other area, there isn't one ideal common to all proponents, anymore than there is of science in general. They're just means, the ends are a product of the various types. Darwinism in general is associated with atheist-humanists, whose philosophical stream is the post-Socratic modernite type Nietzsche loathed, and Social Darwinism is associated with the early, progressive eugenicists, neither of whom are the same as me and as such do not have the same ideal human in mind. For example, they may wish to breed out all violent instincts and leave only the docile, which is repulsive to me. So meritocracy cannot be considered synonymous with Darwinism, but arguably a sub-type or counterpart.
Meritocracy does mean sorting by ability, but I would say that it is not subjective, but refers to a primal hierarchy in which one is not 'given' power or status, but by their very nature it is simply acknowledged. The status economy is incredibly well ingrained in people. You can't argue against the strength of a ripped physical specimen, the words of someone with genius intellect, the paintings of a supreme artist, the huge dick of a virile man almost all women find desirable. It's just in-your-face, it's there, instant credibility, you know it even if you wouldn't care to admit it. The idea of meritocracy as something given is wrong, it is taken. When Nietzsche speaks of the 'pathos of distance' he refers to that subtle hierarchy, as when you know someone is below you intellectually, and so you are extra nice with them, or you argue a combative person to a standstill. Both parties know what is going on. To make best use of the whole of mankind, one must make use of its best people. Results can't be argued with. Speaking more generally though, meritocracy does entail supposed Darwinian values like strength, intelligence, beauty etc., but it is martial, masculine and Indo-European in nature (and origin). But that's a huge topic.
Another key element of meritocracy is that it defeats all instances of the ecological fallacy, and is often wielded against them. For example, rigid vertical hierarchy is not by nature meritocratic, it may also be nepotistic and thus preserving something anti-meritocratic. The caste system in India was foolish since it ultimately produced dysgenics, not an overall uplift, turning that hierarchical structure into a tomb for strength instead of leveraging it. So a true meritocrat cannot be nepotistic or prejudiced: if they are committed to uplift they must recognise and nurture it wherever it might be found, even unexpected places. They must at least allow a chance to demonstrate merit. On the intellectual far right, white nationalists are seen as plebs partly because they would preserve even a legion of cross-eyed nitwits as long as they were white, without reference to meritocracy.
Finally, meritocracy in a political sense - which it also encompasses where Darwinism doesn't - is basically aristocracy. And aristocracy refers to those with superior ability who form a decentralised class, who generally stick to their own devices but come together when needed in order to defend the society from both the tyrant and the mob. But I can't call myself an aristocrat because most people think of some stuffy toff.
I can sense this may come across as unsatisfactory as well, so grill me further by all means.
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 25, 2016 11:15:21 GMT
I have to say i dont understand what you have written here Tim. I'm an advanced mind, so i'll have investably already thought through these areas you describe already, but the language you are using to communicate it isnt reaching me.
Neither, because i havent read Nietzsche sufficiently, do i know the reference of the lothing you speak of.
So let's place the focus on this first paragraph here until we are both understand each other. If you give me a page or chapter of Nietzshe to read to bring myself uptospeed as to what you mean, i shall do so.
Therefore i'd like you to elucidate the first paragraph
here i copy it and highlight the phrases i feel i do not understand unambiguously with bold type. potential disagreements are in red. but theyre only on the basis of what i suspect your meaning is. And we should confirm we understand your words properly before we confirm the meaning.
===
First, there are important philosophical differences separating Darwinists and meritocrats.
1) Darwinism is a beleif in how things are from a natural perspective. It doesnt comment necessarily on what "merit" is, or how merit should be used. so i dont see that they comment on the same subject area. So i dont see that theyre in conflict.
====
The main one is that the application and goals of Darwinism are subjective.
2) Socratic doubt makes most things subjective including darwinisnm and meritocracy.
3) And darwinism does not, in itself, have goals.
===
Like any other area, there isn't one ideal common to all proponents, anymore than there is of science in general.
This is not a disagreement per se, but i usually like to define what the common meaning of a word is, and then work from there. Defining new terms if the common ones are too vague, as here maybe.
So i'd say that darwinists measure a kind of natural merit thats only loosely related to human ideas of merit. This kind of merit is, of course, defined by the ability to survive genetically.
It is merit, but it might not be merit in terms of a human value judgement. It is just what nature deems capable of survival.
4) So as long as we agree that darwinism refers to the ability to survive through natural selection, we are in agreement. Do we agree?
===
They're just means, the ends are a product of the various types.
Agreed.
===
Darwinism in general is associated with atheist-humanists,
Im agnostic, atheist under some defintiiona and humanist under others. By athesit i mean i am without a god to beleive in, to follow the decrees of or to worship. By humanist i simply mean that i feel compassion and empathy with humans.
I do nt claim all humans have rights or humanity is the primary concern of intelligent men. It clearly isnt.
So if we describe humanism as this minimal emotional response to humanity, then i am one, and i dont see why anyone would object to that any more than me liking, say, egg on toast. It is simply a taste.
If we desribe humanist as a far more fundamntal thing where one asserts equal rights, then id say i am not longer a humanist.
I think the latter is the common definition, so i'll claim, for now that in fact im not a humanist.
5) But we need o agree which definition we are going to use. What do you think of the above definitions. Do you agree to work with my common one as a basis?
===
whose philosophical stream is the post-Socratic modernite type Nietzsche loathed,
6) feel free to give references and definitions. Ive no idea what you refer to here. Interested to see what you mean and where Nietzche decribes it and why he loathed it.
===
and Social Darwinism is associated with the early, progressive eugenicists,
Again, i think i will need examples of their motives and goals here.
7) Eugenics is just a tool to me. I have no objection to it per se as long as the goals it serves are in my interests. What do you mean by social darwinism? I dont recognise the phrase. I dont recognise social agency.
===
neither of whom are the same as me and as such do not have the same ideal human in mind.
8) Inwhat ways are you different?
Theres getting to be a lot of queries here, i'm going to go and number them. Dont feel you have to answer them all immediately, pick the queries that will help us understand each other the best. The most fundamental and unclear ones.
===
For example, they may wish to breed out all violent instincts and leave only the docile, which is repulsive to me.
9) This refers back to your definition of social darwinism. Since i dont really beleive in society or social agency, 'm going to struggle to agree that theres anyhting social about breeding out aggression so that tyrants can exploit meek submissives more easily. That is more fascistic than social, in any sense of the word "social".
So meritocracy cannot be considered synonymous with Darwinism, but arguably a sub-type or counterpart.
10) Well, i disagree. I think darwinism doesnt measure merit. But describes a natural process which delivers an array of features, some of which are valuable (meritous) to decision makers and some of which are not. I am a darwinist. A person who is not could still be a meritocrat without recognising any form of darwinian evolutionary processes. You could also have a darwinist who isnt a mertiocrat. I therefore consider Darwinism almost entirely seperate to meritocracy. Not a subtype, or counterpart. Do you agree, and if not where? In what sense do you allege its a subtype or counterpart?
It seems that basically , to me, we are overcoming clumsy nd ambiguous language to ensure we both get at our clearest and deepest meanings here.
I wonder if we disagree at all.
I should also point out, that a cryptofascist social eugenicist who speaks of breeding out violent instincts and breeding in meek instincts, is a form of meritocrat submissive wrking for a potentially meritocratic tyrant who pereives merit in the submission of his subjects and is therefore willing to breed for it.
11) Do you see my point on this?:- Merit can mean things that are very ugly to those who do not create or beneft from the merit generated? And that therefore merit is subjective in an acutely naturally conflicting way. An indepdent man may try and escape the kind of merit his oppressor seeks him to have.
Steven
|
|
|
Post by bloodemperortim on Apr 29, 2016 14:09:41 GMT
First, I don't want to divert your resources from more important areas, and I sense I may be doing that with this thread. It could also be confusing to newcomers. To answer: I think it requires immersion in the sites and topics I'm accustomed to. I use unfamiliar terms to be more dense, at the cost of clarity, or I could explain at greater length, at the cost of your time. I can link some important ones if you feel it worth pursuing. I was referring to the dominant faction within Darwinism, not Darwinism as pure method. The particular individuals who dominate certain fields do not do so accidentally, each one is predisposed by their psychological type and other factors. The majority of modern Darwinists are of the atheist-humanist type. The majority of meritocrats are of the masculine/martial/anti-nihilist type. It's tricky because in one sense, we can divorce abstract method from individual types, but from a historicist viewpoint, the type of person required to bring those ideas into existence does (and must) have a particular personality type. In the cognitive division of labour, not all intuitions occur to all people, not all possibilities are apparent, not everyone is attracted to the same things. The personality and the resulting method brought forth follow directly. (Nietzsche's analysis of Socrates is an obvious reference point here). Building from the last point, Darwinism as I used it there was a proxy for the atheist-humanist type. We can use it to refer to the method absent other connotations, but as a means of signalling my own position, it doesn't work. So, 2) Agreed, and 3) As method, agreed. Yes, exactly. And that's why Meritocracy should be separated out. Mere genetic survival is not the goal, but it is required to build off what is strong in nature. Of your definitions, being A) a minimal sense of kinship, or B) equal rights universalism, then it's closer to the latter. So we can go with that one. But I use atheist-humanist in the same way that Nietzsche did, a secular form of theism. In other words, it's a reaction to the prior theism which retains many of its attributes, for example, the concept of universalism comes from the idea of a soul. Your typical modern Darwinists (in the cultural sense) like Dawkins are like this, their humanism is both A) and B). This is contrasted to the progressive eugenicists, who are on the same spectrum in terms of the nihilism-inviting worldview but have none of either A) or B). And for me personally, I view atheism as a reaction to the prior theism, but nothing that will last too long historically, just an aftershock, a trend. And I am not a trendy, sir. This is the perfect link to share on this topic: www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2pfj5h/antimetaphysical_egoism/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_DarwinismBy the 'early, progressive eugenicists' I'm referring to well, Progressive Era eugenics, who tied their eugenics to progressivism. A million and one anti-NWO documentaries feature them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States They're tied to the secret world elite, who simply want advancement of their own shitty bloodlines plus a slave population to rule over, and not the glorious flourishing and leveraging that I want. That's too massive to address here I think so we'll have to take that as read for now. As a side note, eugenics is a fact of life. Whenever we attempt a society-level change we are changing all incentives, which directly implies extinction of certain bloodlines. This is true of the left as much as the right. Oh, capitalist traits are no longer valued? I'm sure that won't affect breeding patterns... Ha, perhaps in future but this is a comprehensive one. This thread is going to grow exponentially if we don’t come up with a method of truncation. To answer: This is another area which requires immersion to corroborate my conclusions, but also like values. I want future generations that are like Gods compared to us, who can pursue even higher and greater aesthetic ideals and experiential consciousness that would be unimaginable to us today, wealth and high culture and magnificence flowing out from everywhere. They envision a slave populace and a tiny minority of technocrats prolonging their miserable decrepit nature, not a maximum possible upliftment of the whole. It’s hard to communicate, but their sort of consciousness could never produce my ideal. I want races of warrior-artists and nations, they want vertically stratified, clinical technocracy and globalism. It’s a vast topic really. I’m having trouble contextualising this comment. What is your understanding of ‘society’, ‘social agency’ and ‘social’, particularly the third of these where you say ‘struggle to agree there’s anything social…’ My comment about breeding out aggression is based on the dichotomy between ‘me’ and ‘them’ (which has by this point expanded into a larger discussion than ‘Darwinism vs Meritocracy’). As I see it, Meritocracy emphasises an upward movement, whereas those I’m opposed to would be quite happy to make all other weaker as long as they could be the strongest. Only in that it can appear superficially similar since both comment on the improvement of the species. It could be a subtype if Darwinism is considered in the sense of pure method, with meritocracy one of a range of different group interests all using it. It’s not a strong point, though, we can safely separate them out. It’s just that when you describe Meritocracy to people, they will tend to see it as a ‘Darwinian worldview’. Gotta define terms and parse, parse, parse. No way around it. This is a very important point: my version of meritocracy has nothing in common with this. Mine is a martial, aristocratic type in which virtue is raised above everything and the suppression of virtue is the ultimate crime. If one could not become stronger, they should become a lieutenant, but deliberate suppression of those that might become greater than oneself in order to be pettily supreme is totally anti-meritocratic. Even the lowest might become honoured if they did all they could to support the highest ideal. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on May 2, 2016 10:24:41 GMT
First, I don't want to divert your resources from more important areas,
Fundamentals are rarely unimportant. They lead to an understanding of the rest of our beleifs.
===
...It could also be confusing to newcomers.
If you confuse newcomers, then you are failing to communicate. In the event that you want to reach newcomers then, once we understand each other, we can work together to explain.
===
I think it requires immersion in the sites and topics I'm accustomed to.
Why should it? You have to be able to communicate without someone spending time endlessly trying to find what you mean by a word. Thats what definitions are for. If you have unambiguous definitions, or unambiguous words, then immersion- dedicating unweildy amounts of time- isnt necessary.
I should point out that attention and focus are necessary to understand anything. If that is all you mean by “immersion” then we are in agreement.
===
I use unfamiliar terms to be more dense, at the cost of clarity,
fatal error.
I havent seen any unfamiliar terms, but terms with implicit insider meanings and the risk of ambiguity and therefore lack of clarity fail to express your meaning, and that is the only objective of communication.
===
or I could explain at greater length, at the cost of your time.
Failing to express your meaning on the first communication means you have to rerun that attempt to communicate that element of your meaning, costing more time.
One may as well not communicate if clarity is absent.
===
I can link some important ones if you feel it worth pursuing.
Fundamentals are very much worth persuing, but if you cant break your meaning down into concpetual steps that must be progressively understood, then how do you hope to educate newcomers or even those who totally agree with you already and simply have different terms they use?
Im happy to follow links to consice presentations of meaning. ===
First, there are important philosophical differences separating Darwinists and meritocrats.
I disagree.
Merit can be recognised, and so can darwinian processes in the same person, without inconsistency.
A darwinist can be a meritocrat and therfore there is nothing seperating them.
I am an example. I think I qualify for both terms.
There is, of course, seperation in the definition of the concepts. The qualifications for one are not the qualifications for the other.
===
1) Darwinism is a beleif in how things are from a natural perspective. It doesnt comment necessarily on what "merit" is, or how merit should be used. so i dont see that they comment on the same subject area. So i dont see that theyre in conflict.
I agree here. So why did you allege previously that darwinists and meritcrats can be "seperated"?
===
I was referring to the dominant faction within Darwinism, not Darwinism as pure method.
Well that means that you used the term darwinist to mean something other than darwinist. This will inevitably lead to confusion and misunderstandings. Whatever defines that dominant faction you mean to refer to is what should be described. If you say “Darwinist”, I’m going to assume, naturally, as are most people, that you mean people who belvie that Darwinian processes lead to the current lifeforms on this planet.
===
The particular individuals who dominate certain fields do not do so accidentally, each one is predisposed by their psychological type and other factors.
OK, but still, the differences in the variety of darwinists out there is so vast that it clearly doesn't communicate your specification.
==
The majority of modern Darwinists are of the atheist-humanist type. The majority of meritocrats are of the masculine/martial/anti-nihilist type.
Then speak of them as those things. But even then, what about martial atheists? You dont have any terms here that are drawing significant distinctions in my mind here. Surely the humanist element here is core, as constrasted with the obviously distinct martial mentality, and the atheist element largely trivial?
I dispute that masculine is relevant here, although I see what you are probably driving at. and "anti-nihilist" clearly should be replaced by whatever it is the people you prefer to beleive in rather than nihilism.
Lthough, again I think its trivial relative to the main humanist/ martial distinction.
If you need to manufacture new words or completely redefine old ones for this conversaiton, do so. But without you and i understanding precieely who or what it is you are referring to, we aren't communicating anything effectively.
===
It's tricky because in one sense, we can divorce abstract method from individual types,
Correct.
===
"but from a historicist viewpoint, the type of person required to bring those ideas into existence does (and must) have a particular personality type. "
Personality types lead to varying diligence in abstract methods. And few are disciplined, alert, intelligent, careful and brave enough to face ugly and even lethal rea;ities , so yes.
Its a scalar thing. not a binary one, though. The more effort one focusses on udnerstanding, the closer that person gets to undertsanding how and why and when to use methods correctly.
There is one correct model and dozens of delusional ones that sloppy unclear thinkers might fall into. Because they werent careful in their methods in the first place.
So we have a scale and a league table, and the levels of skill and analytical competence to get to the highest levels require personal qualities that are rare, yes.
We agree, but its important to recognize the intellectual stratification.
===
In the cognitive division of labour,
Letting someone else do your thinking for you is, in itself, dangerous and submissive.
===
not all intuitions occur to all people,
Agreed.
===
not all possibilities are apparent,
True, but again, scalar.
the more hidden something is, the more diligence it takes to uncover.
And in some cases, the higher value it has when discovered.
Which is why elite thinkers are attracted to notions of value so they can discern very early on what is wrth persuing, what is likely to be wort persuing and what is trivial.
===
not everyone is attracted to the same things.
again, scalar. Intellegence detects and measures value more carefully. And the superior minds get closest to the evaluations that reality attaches to things.
A short person might value a step ladeer more than a tall person, but an intelligent tall person still has the ability to comprehend that step ladders have more value to others than himself. And that this value to others might also be useful as exchange value to himself.
Value judgement is critical
===
The personality and the resulting method brought forth follow directly. (Nietzsche's analysis of Socrates is an obvious reference point here).
Where can i find this? How long is it?
Specific reference chapters, pages and line numbers, please. I note now that the link you give later
===
“The main one is that the application and goals of Darwinism are subjective.”
I agree, but feel unceretain I’m appreciating the full import of what you say here.
Perhaps you could provide examples or analogies here so I can confirm that we mean the same thing?
===
Points 2 3 and 4 agreed and therefore deleted from the text.
|
|
|
Post by bloodemperortim on May 2, 2016 14:38:06 GMT
-I think we're talking past each other a bit here but I see why. It's alright though, I can explain each idea, even the apparently silly ones. My main problem is the vast disparity between my worldview and that of the stated ethos of this board, not that I cannot totally articulate my views.
-I can respond as is, or after you've finalised the above comment (Y/N?)
-Yes, it's time consuming for me also.
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on May 2, 2016 20:46:05 GMT
Respond as and when you feel it appropriate. The main thing for me is full understanding.
I'll do more with the remaining points when i get chance. Im very busy at the moment. Sorry for the delay.
Communications which acheive full clarity are far more difficult than people expect, largely due to ambiguity as we have already found, but are worth the investment of time, i beleive.
Steven.
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on May 3, 2016 8:41:11 GMT
"My main problem is the vast disparity between my worldview and that of the stated ethos of this board, not that I cannot totally articulate my views."
The stated ethos of this board is support for Corbyn, especially his election in 2020.
But this is a thread not about any alleged Corbyn policy, but instead about more general, abstract principles.
You may want to criticise Corbyn's policies or stance or beleifs because so far, you haven't deomonstrated any falsehood or weakness in his policies. You are quite welcome to document in a seperate thread. This thread is simply regarding my understanding of where your position lies. Not its objections to Labour or Corbyn ethos.
You appear, to me, to have many esoteric notions of what "right" and "fascism" is that do not correspond to anything that the common man would understand by them. And that means few fully understands the core essence of what you mean by those terms means that I, like any rational person making enquiries, am trying to find out. The individual concepts required to understand what you mean by "right" need to be structured in such a way that then can be sequentially understood to build a complete picture. Language is clumsy, and that means that we need to dissect and scrutinise meanings to work out where we agree and where we disagree. And then subsequently, the whole series of concepts can be scrunitised for errors.
I am here to do that and i'm willing to invest the time to do that with your political position until i perceive an impasse, which as yet, i do not.
But without presenting a coherent world view, consensus cannot be reached and allies cannot be found. And that world view should be as concise and clear as possible. With examples where confusion is possible or likely.
I will be presenting mine, but now this thread is to analyse how close mine is to your "eastblish and curate a commons" theme.
I'll say more later. I'm crazily busy and cannot work on this nearly as much as i'd like right now.
Steven.
|
|