Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

This actually has little philosophical merit today:

What is the logic for logical reasoning?
Some say our capacity for abstract thought is a cognitive trick, yet this argument undermines itself. Can we trust our reason?

I agree, and this is the paradox that the various post-modernists cannot avoid. If they are right, then they are also as full of shit as anyone else.

This is an empty retort. "You can't claim that logic is a trick b/c you must rely on logical arguments in order to do so" is a flawed comprehension of the claim and begs the question.

The argument isn't that logic does not exist, but that it is a "cognitive trick." You're both (maybe not Jimmy, not sure where you stand on this issue) mistaking essence and appearance. Ray Brassier (not a postmodernist by any means) gives the refutation of the "self-refuting" objection:

Ultimately, the question-begging character of the 'self-refuting' objection [...] becomes readily apparent when we see how easily it could be adapted to block the displacement of any conceptual framework whatsoever by spuriously transcendentalizing whatever explanatory principle (or principles) happens to enjoy a monopoly in it at any given time. Patricia Churchland provides the following example [...]: 'The anti-vitalist claims there is no such thing as vital spirit. But if the claim is true the speaker cannot be animated by the vital spirit. Consequently he must be dead. But if he is dead then his claim is a meaningless string of noises, devoid of reason and truth.' Here as before, the very criterion of intelligibility whose pertinence for understanding a given phenomenon - 'life' in this case, 'meaning' in [Brassier's case] - is being called into question. But [...] anti-vitalism does not deny the existence of the various phenomena grouped together under the heading of 'life,' but rather a particular way of explaining what they have in common.

What Brassier is saying is that "cognition" isn't being called into question, nor is "logic" as it appears to us (that is, as a phenomenon), but rather how we essentialize or explain them. Calling logic a "cognitive trick" doesn't undermine our ability to make logical statements.

To treat sick patients is to kill viral bodies.

First, you implied that I was suggesting we should let patients die to save viruses. I denied this, but merely said we should refrain from thinking of ourselves as saviors in any sense: toward animals, toward viruses, or toward other humans. Now you're suggesting that I'm being messianic because of the fact that we continue to treat sick patients, when I already explicitly stated how I'm not saying we should stop treating patients but that we should stop thinking of ourselves as "saviors."

It's been there all along in both academia and it's effects on policy (policy almost invariably being "collective" in nature), regardless of it's effects on culture. To not take center stage is not the same as not having a strong influence.

It hasn't had a strong influence. Academic leftism has been traditionally ignored and even scoffed at. Only recently, with the expansion of technology and new media, has it been able to make a more profound impact on the wider cultural sphere.

 

[Dak]

This is an empty retort. "You can't claim that logic is a trick b/c you must rely on logical arguments in order to do so" is a flawed comprehension of the claim and begs the question.

The argument isn't that logic does not exist, but that it is a "cognitive trick." You're both (maybe not Jimmy, not sure where you stand on this issue) mistaking essence and appearance. Ray Brassier (not a postmodernist by any means) gives the refutation of the "self-refuting" objection:

What Brassier is saying is that "cognition" isn't being called into question, nor is "logic" as it appears to us (that is, as a phenomenon), but rather how we essentialize or explain them. Calling logic a "cognitive trick" doesn't undermine our ability to make logical statements.

I don't think the argument on consciousness or cognition is purely semantic or organizational. The core of the attack is on the dependability of human thought. If human thought is undependable, that includes the thought of questioning it.

Again, I see no difference between arguing against thought compared to "Trying to sneak up on the thing itself from behind". It's impossible to understand something else from an objective perspective, much less to understand our understanding. If you can explain how this is somehow vastly different I'm interested.

First, you implied that I was suggesting we should let patients die to save viruses. I denied this, but merely said we should refrain from thinking of ourselves as saviors in any sense: toward animals, toward viruses, or toward other humans. Now you're suggesting that I'm being messianic because of the fact that we continue to treat sick patients, when I already explicitly stated how I'm not saying we should stop treating patients but that we should stop thinking of ourselves as "saviors."

Well we can stop thinking of ourselves as saviors, but that is a semantic difference. The fact is that we take action (ignoring the motivations, or conscious/subconscious/unconscious factors, etc), and that these things have effects, up to and including destruction or creation (although obviously not really in the technical material sense: No matter is ever destroyed). Maybe a more accurate phrasing would be we constantly reassemble to new forms. When we do not reassemble in what we deem a "destructive" way, we "save" something. Or maybe by destroying one thing we "save" something else.

It's a semantic argument.

It hasn't had a strong influence. Academic leftism has been traditionally ignored and even scoffed at. Only recently, with the expansion of technology and new media, has it been able to make a more profound impact on the wider cultural sphere.

I could understand how you think this, since we disagree on what constitutes collectivism and individualism.

If you look at almost every philosophical writer of note, they are overwhelmingly collectivist, if not communist. The United States is the "Nation that Bacon Built" (not talking about Krig's favorite food). Bacon was a collectivist utopian like the rest of his peers.

Even the supposed lone voices "crying in the wilderness", like Jefferson, were only lone to a point. Then you get all this talk of "an Empire of Liberty".


On a slightly different note:

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2013/05/22/crypto-anarchy-and-libertarian-entrepreneurship-chapter-i/

I want to focus specifically on this portion:

If an entrepreneurial idea is to be adopted, it must be attractive to people who are not concerned with government risk. It is unacceptable to propose that people just stop putting money in banks and trade only in gold coins, as did both Rothbard and Mises. Libertarian entrepreneurship must simultaneously increase the division of labor and reduce risk. As successful as the homeschooling movement has been, it can never directly challenge the control of the public schools over children. An idea that promotes atomism makes everyone poorer. Not an easy sell, and self-defeating in the end too. Loners stand no chance against the state.

Individualism does not have to equal atomism. This is the biggest shortfall of homeschooling for religious reasons, although it's not the homeschooling itself that's the issue, as the atomization takes place across the full range of activities excluding those of the religious practices (or sometimes even including those).

The P2P structure is incredibly individualistic, and very free market. We all benefit as each on of us benefits, rather than one section benefiting at the expense of another, which is collectivism: The daily sacrifice of the individual.

The strategy, therefore, is to promote decentralization by enabling people to coordinate with one another by a shared system of rules or traditions rather than through a mediator. Promote independence from particular organizations by promoting greater dependence on networks and on society as a whole.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think the argument on consciousness or cognition is purely semantic or organizational. The core of the attack is on the dependability of human thought. If human thought is undependable, that includes the thought of questioning it.

Again, I see no difference between arguing against thought compared to "Trying to sneak up on the thing itself from behind". It's impossible to understand something else from an objective perspective, much less to understand our understanding. If you can explain how this is somehow vastly different I'm interested.

Well, you can choose not to see it; but Brassier provides a fine philosophical rejoinder. The content can communicate something about its form. Someone can say: "The argument I'm making relies on cognitive tricks performed by your brain." The truth of that statement does not retroactively drain it of any meaning.

Well we can stop thinking of ourselves as saviors, but that is a semantic difference. The fact is that we take action (ignoring the motivations, or conscious/subconscious/unconscious factors, etc), and that these things have effects, up to and including destruction or creation (although obviously not really in the technical material sense: No matter is ever destroyed). Maybe a more accurate phrasing would be we constantly reassemble to new forms. When we do not reassemble in what we deem a "destructive" way, we "save" something. Or maybe by destroying one thing we "save" something else.

It's a semantic argument.

Salvation implies teleology, eschatology, and a slew of other theologico-mythological elements. Refusing to call it salvation does more than simply redefine the act; it removes any sense that we should act, that it's historically determined, or that we have some moral duty.

I could understand how you think this, since we disagree on what constitutes collectivism and individualism.

If you look at almost every philosophical writer of note, they are overwhelmingly collectivist, if not communist. The United States is the "Nation that Bacon Built" (not talking about Krig's favorite food). Bacon was a collectivist utopian like the rest of his peers.

Even the supposed lone voices "crying in the wilderness", like Jefferson, were only lone to a point. Then you get all this talk of "an Empire of Liberty".

Come on, Dak. You can't seriously believe that academic leftism has been heavily influential in cultural organization. I'm making a distinction here between a vulgar democratic collectivism (which, you're correct to point out, I don't really believe is collectivism) and academic leftism.

Individualism does not have to equal atomism. This is the biggest shortfall of homeschooling for religious reasons, although it's not the homeschooling itself that's the issue, as the atomization takes place across the full range of activities excluding those of the religious practices (or sometimes even including those).

The P2P structure is incredibly individualistic, and very free market. We all benefit as each on of us benefits, rather than one section benefiting at the expense of another, which is collectivism: The daily sacrifice of the individual.

In the final section you quoted (which doesn't show up in my quote), it says that libertarianism/the free market promotes coordination and cooperation through a "shared system of rules or traditions" rather than a "mediator." I don't see a difference. Here we achieve a real semantic indistinction since libertarianism basically wants to do away with Law while still retaining laws (in the form of economic rules, norms, etc.). As a system and economic program, it cannot sustain itself without recourse to laws that define it.

Furthermore, the Law (perceived as a transcendental apparatus, having existed since the dawn of complex, conscious humans) is fundamentally tied to organisms that relate to their world in representational, fetishistic ways. There's a reason why philosophers from Plato down to Badiou, and those in the analytic/political/legal traditions as well, consistently talk about the Law as though it is an entity that actually exists. For Plato, of course, it did; for people like Badiou and Žižek, the matter is more complicated.

Since complex conscious organisms emerged, we have had systems based on exchange (whether Western global capitalism or primitive tribalism). Law always manifests in these traditions because they carry with them structural binaries and prohibitions that must organize themselves into a system of rules and regulations. While these rules and regulations may indeed persist without any mediating body to enforce them, it is highly unlikely and improbable (the materialization of the super-ego, if you will). This is not to say that, once a governing body comes into being, it doesn't make any fallacious and meretricious laws; it certainly does. But a system that abandons the governing/regulating body altogether is not a practical solution, and in fact begs of its citizens a mystical, cognitive revolution as equally impossible as the one that communism asks of its citizens.

I realize this may not have been the direction you wanted a discussion on that excerpt to go, but this is what stood out to me.

 

[Dak]

Well, you can choose not to see it; but Brassier provides a fine philosophical rejoinder. The content can communicate something about its form. Someone can say: "The argument I'm making relies on cognitive tricks performed by your brain." The truth of that statement does not retroactively drain it of any meaning.

This is what I'm talking about. It only works when it's only "your" brain. Not the brain of the person making the argument. This is the invalidation.

Salvation implies teleology, eschatology, and a slew of other theologico-mythological elements. Refusing to call it salvation does more than simply redefine the act; it removes any sense that we should act, that it's historically determined, or that we have some moral duty.

Of course salvation can involve all those things. Maybe I misconstrued your argument, or maybe you used poor choices of words, but I didn't understand you to mean that we only should view our actions differently, but that our actions be changed to bring about different outcomes. This is what I see as equally "messianic". In a messianic religion, only the actions of the savior can bring about the desired change. When the actions are human, this is the parallel.

Come on, Dak. You can't seriously believe that academic leftism has been heavily influential in cultural organization. I'm making a distinction here between a vulgar democratic collectivism (which, you're correct to point out, I don't really believe is collectivism) and academic leftism.

I think you would need to give me a general definition of "academic" leftism then. I see some core tenants such as the sacrifice of the individual for the collective, edification of some future (always in the future though, as another key is that humanity must either evolve or devolve more to be ready to "Receive" it) utopic state where the collective or only noble leaders rule with velveted iron fists, and a general hatred of humanity as it exists (IE the need to change fundamentally): Either needing to return to some former noble savagesque ideal or to evolve into some sort of "higher being".

My psychology teacher for this semester seems to hit these. Unfortunately, as he listed his political/philosophical beliefs, he expressed his belief he was "thinking outside the box". Well, as he spent most of his life in a relatively rural county in North Carolina, I can understand how he might think that (he also has no use for "modern technology"). But based on the first couple of beliefs I could have reasonably predicted the rest. The worst of the bunch was that he correctly identified the military as a virtual socialist ideal, and then said it proved socialism works. If works means extremely wasteful in doing everything, and the one thing it does well is kill, produces nothing (gets all it's funding externally), and crushes the individual, then sure it works.

In the final section you quoted (which doesn't show up in my quote), it says that libertarianism/the free market promotes coordination and cooperation through a "shared system of rules or traditions" rather than a "mediator." I don't see a difference. Here we achieve a real semantic indistinction since libertarianism basically wants to do away with Law while still retaining laws (in the form of economic rules, norms, etc.). As a system and economic program, it cannot sustain itself without recourse to laws that define it.

Furthermore, the Law (perceived as a transcendental apparatus, having existed since the dawn of complex, conscious humans) is fundamentally tied to organisms that relate to their world in representational, fetishistic ways. There's a reason why philosophers from Plato down to Badiou, and those in the analytic/political/legal traditions as well, consistently talk about the Law as though it is an entity that actually exists. For Plato, of course, it did; for people like Badiou and Žižek, the matter is more complicated.

Since complex conscious organisms emerged, we have had systems based on exchange (whether Western global capitalism or primitive tribalism). Law always manifests in these traditions because they carry with them structural binaries and prohibitions that must organize themselves into a system of rules and regulations. While these rules and regulations may indeed persist without any mediating body to enforce them, it is highly unlikely and improbable (the materialization of the super-ego, if you will). This is not to say that, once a governing body comes into being, it doesn't make any fallacious and meretricious laws; it certainly does. But a system that abandons the governing/regulating body altogether is not a practical solution, and in fact begs of its citizens a mystical, cognitive revolution as equally impossible as the one that communism asks of its citizens.

I realize this may not have been the direction you wanted a discussion on that excerpt to go, but this is what stood out to me.

It's unfortunate that in the last 4-5 years there's been quite a blending of anarchy and libertarianism, when they are not the same. A set of laws does not require any level of consistent maintenance, or "governing body". We already have mediators, which can be hired as needed. It doesn't even have to be a full time occupation, like a notary public. We already have security companies, security systems, and so on.

I believe there is a "universal law", that can be ignored to our detriment. Like thou shalt not kill or steal. Justifying Law does not justify the State. This is different from arguing for no hierarchies of any sort, or "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

 

[Einherjar86]

This is what I'm talking about. It only works when it's only "your" brain. Not the brain of the person making the argument. This is the invalidation.

Can you explain what you mean?

Of course salvation can involve all those things. Maybe I misconstrued your argument, or maybe you used poor choices of words, but I didn't understand you to mean that we only should view our actions differently, but that our actions be changed to bring about different outcomes. This is what I see as equally "messianic". In a messianic religion, only the actions of the savior can bring about the desired change. When the actions are human, this is the parallel.

Ah; no, view our actions differently, but not stop there. To use the vocabulary of the late, great Ralph Ellison, we need to "boomerang" through history. We can still perform the actions as we do, but we need to understand our role in them more clearly. We can continue to treat our sick and assist our dying without maintaining sacred anthropocentrism.

I think you would need to give me a general definition of "academic" leftism then. I see some core tenants such as the sacrifice of the individual for the collective, edification of some future (always in the future though, as another key is that humanity must either evolve or devolve more to be ready to "Receive" it) utopic state where the collective or only noble leaders rule with velveted iron fists, and a general hatred of humanity as it exists (IE the need to change fundamentally): Either needing to return to some former noble savagesque ideal or to evolve into some sort of "higher being".

"Sacrifice" is a popular vulgar term, in my opinion. Not academic at all. Furthermore, the reason why I don't see current liberal democracy as collectivist is because it still requires the individual to be present in order to be "sacrificed" (such horrible theological connotations). True intellectual leftism doesn't appeal to spiritual notions of sacrifice or a "greater calling." It deploys a material critique of the system.

It's unfortunate that in the last 4-5 years there's been quite a blending of anarchy and libertarianism, when they are not the same. A set of laws does not require any level of consistent maintenance, or "governing body". We already have mediators, which can be hired as needed. It doesn't even have to be a full time occupation, like a notary public. We already have security companies, security systems, and so on.

I believe there is a "universal law", that can be ignored to our detriment. Like thou shalt not kill or steal. Justifying Law does not justify the State. This is different from arguing for no hierarchies of any sort, or "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

Hiring a mediator to enforce the Law is incompatible. If the employer who hired the protective services begins to act unlawfully, what is the privately contracted security company to do? Does it continue serving its employer (as it is bound to by Law) or does it turn on its employer in order to reinforce the Law? This quagmire reveals the ineptitude of such a measure.

You essentially want to keep Law but subordinate it to itself. It just doesn't work.

 

[Dak]

Can you explain what you mean?

It is: My brain and argument are working fine, it's yours that is functionally delusional. Any shortcoming in human consciousness and/or cognition apply equally. Therefore, to attack one position by attacking the illusions of human consciousness or cognition, applies equally to the attack. If you cannot trust your own consciousness/cognition to critique a given thing, that includes critiquing cognition/consciousness itself.

Ah; no, view our actions differently, but not stop there. To use the vocabulary of the late, great Ralph Ellison, we need to "boomerang" through history. We can still perform the actions as we do, but we need to understand our role in them more clearly. We can continue to treat our sick and assist our dying without maintaining sacred anthropocentrism.

I think there is nothing wrong with anthropocentrism, although there could be a vulgar form, whose battle cry mimics something like "It's a disposable planet".

"Sacrifice" is a popular vulgar term, in my opinion. Not academic at all. Furthermore, the reason why I don't see current liberal democracy as collectivist is because it still requires the individual to be present in order to be "sacrificed" (such horrible theological connotations). True intellectual leftism doesn't appeal to spiritual notions of sacrifice or a "greater calling." It deploys a material critique of the system.

Semantics and vulgar words aside, down through time, the hallmarks of leftism require identical education, dress, and modes of living. Except in some cases, of course, for the enlightened elders. Ignoring the "true" qualifier, leftism may or may not place a spiritual merit to the matter (though isn't this the thrust of historicism?), but the practical application of the ideals is the same: Subordination of individual wants/needs/personality/etc. to the Collective Ideal.

Hiring a mediator to enforce the Law is incompatible. If the employer who hired the protective services begins to act unlawfully, what is the privately contracted security company to do? Does it continue serving its employer (as it is bound to by Law) or does it turn on its employer in order to reinforce the Law? This quagmire reveals the ineptitude of such a measure.

You essentially want to keep Law but subordinate it to itself. It just doesn't work.

So what you are asking is what to do about one who persists in aggressive/dsestructive/etc. action and refuses to participate in the services of a mediator? Of course a mediator is not going to be of any use for this sort of thing. Mediators assist in contractual disputes and other similar issues.

I've argued before, and continue to do so, that "law enforcement" is counterproductive, whether done through private or public organizations. This is a long and involved argument though, also requiring one not to believe in some sort of Ultimate Imperative of Justice. For one who believes that the gain of punishment of all evildoers far outweighs the monumental expense incurred at the cost of society, my argument gets nowhere: Generally comprised of the far-right-wing-christian subset. Once that comes out, I just insist that they do not refer to themselves as fiscal conservatives.

 

[Einherjar86]

It is: My brain and argument are working fine, it's yours that is functionally delusional. Any shortcoming in human consciousness and/or cognition apply equally. Therefore, to attack one position by attacking the illusions of human consciousness or cognition, applies equally to the attack. If you cannot trust your own consciousness/cognition to critique a given thing, that includes critiquing cognition/consciousness itself.

No, nothing is functionally delusional. You're missing the whole point, the point that sanctions Nietzsche's "transvaluation of all values."

Nothing about the contents (i.e. communicated meaning) of logical arguments, as it is functioning between two conscious agents, is being criticized or proven untrue, false, imaginary, etc. It is not a claim that logical arguments mean nothing; of course they mean something, because you're responding to what I'm saying. But meaning is an action, not a stable eternal condition; a statement "means," language "means." You're performing the hackneyed trick of essentializing meaning so as to turn it back on the argument, but this is completely fallacious: "You claim there is no meaning, therefore your statement is meaningless; but it can't be meaningless, because I've responded."

No; I claim that there is no essential meaning, but this does not preclude my comment from actively meaning, and you understanding it in turn. You're doing to the argument exactly what it says you cannot do. Likewise, for logic, I claim that logic relies on cognitive tricks, thus undermining the essentialism of logical arguments. This does not mean that the import of the argument I am making has no meaning. This is a subtle philosophical distinction, but one that you can't afford to elide.

Brassier again:

Since Nietzsche identifies truth with permanence, and permanence with being [i.e. essence], it follows for him to believe that the world is nothing but becoming [i.e. action], without ever becoming something, is to believe that there is no truth and therefore to "hold-it-as-true" that nothing is true.

I think there is nothing wrong with anthropocentrism, although there could be a vulgar form, whose battle cry mimics something like "It's a disposable planet".

Well, that's probably why you're for the free market.

Semantics and vulgar words aside, down through time, the hallmarks of leftism require identical education, dress, and modes of living. Except in some cases, of course, for the enlightened elders. Ignoring the "true" qualifier, leftism may or may not place a spiritual merit to the matter (though isn't this the thrust of historicism?), but the practical application of the ideals is the same: Subordination of individual wants/needs/personality/etc. to the Collective Ideal.

That's fine and fair, but I refuse to accept your argument that academic leftism is somehow culturally popular or central. Again, if anything, it's scoffed at and rejected as "elitist," which in turn perpetuates its elitism.

So what you are asking is what to do about one who persists in aggressive/dsestructive/etc. action and refuses to participate in the services of a mediator? Of course a mediator is not going to be of any use for this sort of thing. Mediators assist in contractual disputes and other similar issues.

I've argued before, and continue to do so, that "law enforcement" is counterproductive, whether done through private or public organizations. This is a long and involved argument though, also requiring one not to believe in some sort of Ultimate Imperative of Justice. For one who believes that the gain of punishment of all evildoers far outweighs the monumental expense incurred at the cost of society, my argument gets nowhere: Generally comprised of the far-right-wing-christian subset. Once that comes out, I just insist that they do not refer to themselves as fiscal conservatives.

I know you've argued that law enforcement is counterproductive; but in that case, the Law becomes entirely impractical and impracticable. Of course, I don't share your belief in a "universal Law."

 

[Dak]

No, nothing is functionally delusional. You're missing the whole point, the point that sanctions Nietzsche's "transvaluation of all values."

Nothing about the contents (i.e. communicated meaning) of logical arguments, as it is functioning between two conscious agents, is being criticized or proven untrue, false, imaginary, etc. It is not a claim that logical arguments mean nothing; of course they mean something, because you're responding to what I'm saying. But meaning is an action, not a stable eternal condition; a statement "means," language "means." You're performing the hackneyed trick of essentializing meaning so as to turn it back on the argument, but this is completely fallacious: "You claim there is no meaning, therefore your statement is meaningless; but it can't be meaningless, because I've responded."

No; I claim that there is no essential meaning, but this does not preclude my comment from actively meaning, and you understanding it in turn. You're doing to the argument exactly what it says you cannot do. Likewise, for logic, I claim that logic relies on cognitive tricks, thus undermining the essentialism of logical arguments. This does not mean that the import of the argument I am making has no meaning. This is a subtle philosophical distinction, but one that you can't afford to elide.

Brassier again:

That's fine, if it stops there. But from what I've seen it doesn't. It is a trump card used to dismiss any opposing argument, while never applied equally to other arguments from the same sources.

Then, since we cannot avoid the possibility of this being true and cannot change it, it renders it basically a useless point from a practical perspective, which was iirc my original point. If human consciousness/cognition is illusory, this not only applies equally, but it's universality and inescapability render acknowledgement pointless.

Well, that's probably why you're for the free market.

I don't follow.

That's fine and fair, but I refuse to accept your argument that academic leftism is somehow culturally popular or central. Again, if anything, it's scoffed at and rejected as "elitist," which in turn perpetuates its elitism.

It maintains it's status as elitist because it can live nowhere else other than the socialist-lite models of western education. It may not be central in it's ideal form, but western socialism is overtly popular almost everywhere that is not the US, and I regularly run into the sentiment that it's a "Good Idea, it's just difficult to/has not been implemented properly (yet)." People "Want their cake and to eat it to". The Free Lunch, and so on.

The supposed supporters of "rugged individualism" are no less collectivistic, it just has a different aesthetic and focus (In fact the focus is almost entirely aesthetical instead of economic).

I know you've argued that law enforcement is counterproductive; but in that case, the Law becomes entirely impractical and impracticable. Of course, I don't share your belief in a "universal Law."

Just because we don't regularly pay some jackboots to be on constant guard for any transgression doesn't mean there is no enforcement. It means we don't "spare no expense". The loss to the cost of constant "security" eventually outweighs the losses incurred without it's presence. This is especially true since law enforcement is not security. It is merely law enforcement. It's the same principle that makes it more secure to encrypt and run digital communications through multiple circuits/channels than to have a dedicated line with some sort of antivirus.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's fine, if it stops there. But from what I've seen it doesn't. It is a trump card used to dismiss any opposing argument, while never applied equally to other arguments from the same sources.

Then, since we cannot avoid the possibility of this being true and cannot change it, it renders it basically a useless point from a practical perspective, which was iirc my original point. If human consciousness/cognition is illusory, this not only applies equally, but it's universality and inescapability render acknowledgement pointless.

First: misapplication is another argument.

Second: it doesn't render it useless if it's used to try and assess or understand more complex forms of reasoning or brain operations. Writing it off as impractical sounds like a poor attempt to salvage some argumentative leverage.

I don't follow.

It was only a joke, not a substantive criticism of anything: "Oh, you promote the free market; it figures you promote anthropocentrism." As in: "Oh, you promote collectivism; it figures you don't want to work." Just aligning things that have minimal conceptual relations.

It maintains it's status as elitist because it can live nowhere else other than the socialist-lite models of western education. It may not be central in it's ideal form, but western socialism is overtly popular almost everywhere that is not the US, and I regularly run into the sentiment that it's a "Good Idea, it's just difficult to/has not been implemented properly (yet)." People "Want their cake and to eat it to". The Free Lunch, and so on.

The supposed supporters of "rugged individualism" are no less collectivistic, it just has a different aesthetic and focus (In fact the focus is almost entirely aesthetical instead of economic).

I'm going to keep repeating myself in this regard. You separate appearance from some obscured reality behind it: i.e., "our system only appears to support individualism, but it's broader scheme is collectivist." I just don't buy this and won't, so I'm sorry. You're misplacing ideology in my opinion in some obscure "man-behind-the-curtain" scenario, but all the studies I've read convince me that this is a delusion. The strongest ideological proponent in our society today is individualism.

As a final note, if the larger cultural motion is collectivist, then this would seem to me to be a prime example of emergent phenomena differing greatly from their component parts; not only that, but also as entirely beyond our control.

Just because we don't regularly pay some jackboots to be on constant guard for any transgression doesn't mean there is no enforcement. It means we don't "spare no expense". The loss to the cost of constant "security" eventually outweighs the losses incurred without it's presence. This is especially true since law enforcement is not security. It is merely law enforcement. It's the same principle that makes it more secure to encrypt and run digital communications through multiple circuits/channels than to have a dedicated line with some sort of antivirus.

This doesn't really make much sense to me, sorry.

 

[Dak]

First: misapplication is another argument.

Second: it doesn't render it useless if it's used to try and assess or understand more complex forms of reasoning or brain operations. Writing it off as impractical sounds like a poor attempt to salvage some argumentative leverage.

Misapplication may be another argument, but I don't think that's what I'm referring to. An example would be if you and I disagree about Topic X, and we reach some sort of impasse, and you appeal to the fact that "Well, your position is based of course on cognition and that can't be trusted". This is a copout, and applies to whatever the opposing position was.

I'm going to keep repeating myself in this regard. You separate appearance from some obscured reality behind it: i.e., "our system only appears to support individualism, but it's broader scheme is collectivist." I just don't buy this and won't, so I'm sorry. You're misplacing ideology in my opinion in some obscure "man-behind-the-curtain" scenario, but all the studies I've read convince me that this is a delusion. The strongest ideological proponent in our society today is individualism.

I was thinking of Western Society as a whole. Also, the US, while more "individualistic" than Europe, is still trending towards collectivism in terms of policy (policy being the only way collectivism can manifest anyway). The fact that individuals always act for their own perceived interests regardless of ideology is irrelevant. They don't even understand that they do this in broad measure. Less conspiracy, more ignorance.

As a final note, if the larger cultural motion is collectivist, then this would seem to me to be a prime example of emergent phenomena differing greatly from their component parts; not only that, but also as entirely beyond our control.

Hardly. People act as they perceive their individual interests to be. People also usually defer to "leaders". When the State promises them the Free Lunch, they often believe it. Particularly when they have been educated by the State. Who wouldn't want a Free Lunch? Except it is a Unicorn.

This doesn't really make much sense to me, sorry.

Recognizing that a person can protect their person and possessions does not entail keeping jackboots on constant patrol, maintaining prisons, etc.

It would be significantly cheaper and more effective for me to guard myself/my things, or pay a person(s) to do so when I cannot, and insurance for failure, than to pay for the non-protection of police and the PIC. Then if there is failure for no reasonable reason, I can fire the security, replace what is lost with the insurance, and hire better. Or take my chances without one or both. Of course, insurance will probably be more expensive without any sort of security.

 

[Dak]

http://canadiantrends.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-bottom-line-cutting-off-our-nose-to.html

I see this problem bigtime in NC. New roads and bridges being built, while older infrastructure gets a bandaid or less.

 

[Einherjar86]

Misapplication may be another argument, but I don't think that's what I'm referring to. An example would be if you and I disagree about Topic X, and we reach some sort of impasse, and you appeal to the fact that "Well, your position is based of course on cognition and that can't be trusted". This is a copout, and applies to whatever the opposing position was.

But that isn't what's being said.

First: the argument isn't about some "Topic X" and then I appeal to flawed cognition, or something along these lines. The argument is about cognition itself.

Second: no one is saying your cognition can't be trusted. Arguing about the organization of neural information and the relationship between phenomenal appearance and noumenal reality in no way undermines the fact that humans think. Cognitive "tricks" does not equal cognitive absence.

I was thinking of Western Society as a whole. Also, the US, while more "individualistic" than Europe, is still trending towards collectivism in terms of policy (policy being the only way collectivism can manifest anyway). The fact that individuals always act for their own perceived interests regardless of ideology is irrelevant. They don't even understand that they do this in broad measure. Less conspiracy, more ignorance.

It isn't irrelevant because once that ideology has taken root (which it has) there's no getting "outside" of it. Furthermore, I think the notion that human beings act naturally in some way is a conceptual illusion. Human individuals do interact naturally with their environment, but when normative interactions are expanded into a general human naturalism, that's ideology. And that's what we have today.

Recognizing that a person can protect their person and possessions does not entail keeping jackboots on constant patrol, maintaining prisons, etc.

It would be significantly cheaper and more effective for me to guard myself/my things, or pay a person(s) to do so when I cannot, and insurance for failure, than to pay for the non-protection of police and the PIC. Then if there is failure for no reasonable reason, I can fire the security, replace what is lost with the insurance, and hire better. Or take my chances without one or both. Of course, insurance will probably be more expensive without any sort of security.

That's all well and good, but you're dealing in ideals. I'm interested in what happens when the Law creates conflicts of interest, which will be all over the place in a system where everyone is paid for their services. Your system doesn't resolve itself; if anything, it leads to further contradictions. I see it as highly hypocritical; wanting to keep "the Law" while effectively doing away with it in practice.

 

[Dak]

But that isn't what's being said.

First: the argument isn't about some "Topic X" and then I appeal to flawed cognition, or something along these lines. The argument is about cognition itself.

Second: no one is saying your cognition can't be trusted. Arguing about the organization of neural information and the relationship between phenomenal appearance and noumenal reality in no way undermines the fact that humans think. Cognitive "tricks" does not equal cognitive absence.

I haven't gotten that at all. But, let's agree that this is the case. It's still the logical conclusion of questioning it.

It isn't irrelevant because once that ideology has taken root (which it has) there's no getting "outside" of it. Furthermore, I think the notion that human beings act naturally in some way is a conceptual illusion. Human individuals do interact naturally with their environment, but when normative interactions are expanded into a general human naturalism, that's ideology. And that's what we have today.

It's impossible to get outside of it, and always has been. You can call it a truism (I can't think of the more accurate word I want), but whatever we choose is what is of greatest value to us out of available choices, because of the action itself, and/or because of the expected end of that action. There is no way to demonstrate this was ever not the case.

That's all well and good, but you're dealing in ideals. I'm interested in what happens when the Law creates conflicts of interest, which will be all over the place in a system where everyone is paid for their services. Your system doesn't resolve itself; if anything, it leads to further contradictions. I see it as highly hypocritical; wanting to keep "the Law" while effectively doing away with it in practice.

First: It's not my "ideal" system. In my "ideal" system we wouldn't need security or insurance because people wouldn't steal, kill, destroy, etc. . Those are the methods of dealing with the un-ideal.

Second: I think "Law" itself is a term that has become so bent by all sorts of bias, experience, etc., that it's almost of no use of trying to accurately describe, conceptually, the way that (at least) I view it. It's "law" in the way that the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" or entropy. Maybe more accurately, It's a law the way that I believe economic law is law. It's an explanation of the way things work best for humans in general terms.

To be more specific: I agree that we cannot fully know cause and effect. These laws, like economic law, are instructional in how "We ought to interact" in very general terms. Because each situation contains an infinite amount of specific variables, we cannot constantly predict with precision the exact time or scenario of which the expected outcome will manifest. But we can expect it. To know this, and for these outcomes to manifest, do not require some sort of monolithic entity breaking these laws itself, to prevent others from doing so. It just adds a new contingency to individual/private actions, and insures that no matter who else is in violation, violation is constant and systemic until we have a catastrophic level "meltdown".

As very common argument against philosophical anarchy is that "people will form a state again anyway". As things stand, I agree, because people believe it is, at a bare minimum, a necessary evil. People will continue to form states until they realize they do more harm than good. No different than Leeching the body to remove "bad humors".

 

[Einherjar86]

I haven't gotten that at all. But, let's agree that this is the case. It's still the logical conclusion of questioning it.

Only for those who want to preclude further discussion.

Second: I think "Law" itself is a term that has become so bent by all sorts of bias, experience, etc., that it's almost of no use of trying to accurately describe, conceptually, the way that (at least) I view it. It's "law" in the way that the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" or entropy. Maybe more accurately, It's a law the way that I believe economic law is law. It's an explanation of the way things work best for humans in general terms.

That's ideology, it's totalizing, and it's more of a problem than a solution (but that's my opinion).

To be more specific: I agree that we cannot fully know cause and effect. These laws, like economic law, are instructional in how "We ought to interact" in very general terms. Because each situation contains an infinite amount of specific variables, we cannot constantly predict with precision the exact time or scenario of which the expected outcome will manifest. But we can expect it. To know this, and for these outcomes to manifest, do not require some sort of monolithic entity breaking these laws itself, to prevent others from doing so. It just adds a new contingency to individual/private actions, and insures that no matter who else is in violation, violation is constant and systemic until we have a catastrophic level "meltdown".

As very common argument against philosophical anarchy is that "people will form a state again anyway". As things stand, I agree, because people believe it is, at a bare minimum, a necessary evil. People will continue to form states until they realize they do more harm than good. No different than Leeching the body to remove "bad humors".

I don't think it has anything to do with belief. It's simply the extension of trying to maintain some form of Law in general. Trying to establish a "more harm than good" scenario is nothing more than the support of an ulterior Law.

 

[Dak]

Only for those who want to preclude further discussion.

I'm game. What other ultimate conclusions can be drawn?

That's ideology, it's totalizing, and it's more of a problem than a solution (but that's my opinion).

I don't see how it's ideology. It's not an ideal. It's not how we wish things to be. It merely is. Ideologies flow from either acknowledging and accepting this reality, acknowledging it and wishing change (IE: "humans have no yet "evolved" enough for communism/socialism/etc.", or refusing to acknowledge it and thinking that humans ever act in selfless motivations. Of course this last category refuses to understand immaterial benefits. Like if I save the life of my child and die in the process, I still did what I perceived to be the best thing for me. As in, I would rather die and know my child lived than live and know he/she died.

I don't think it has anything to do with belief. It's simply the extension of trying to maintain some form of Law in general. Trying to establish a "more harm than good" scenario is nothing more than the support of an ulterior Law.

I don't understand the charge of "trying to establish a scenario". We teach our children (and attempt to teach pets) not to run out in the street because you might get hit by a car. Depending on the specific time (particularly depending on which street), your chances of getting hit by a car are completely different. However, across the board, running into the street will mean you get hit by a car. This is the closest analogy I can think of that draws on contingencies. The Golden Rule fits in there somewhere.

Using terms like "maintain" are the wrong conception, or at least in my mind evoke popularly held but extraneous details. I don't to hire people to teach my son to tie his shoes, or not to run out into the street, or to not touch the top of the stove he can't see. Maybe that is a better analogy. A child is too short, and therefore unable to determine if a burner is on/hot, just like even adults cannot understand all the contingencies. So if we err, we err on the side of caution, knowing that burners exist to burn things, and that there is the distinct possibility of being burnt if we touch them. We might reach and check, and not be "burnt" once. That doesn't mean the burner isn't on, it just needs time to heat. Or maybe it's off now, but not the next time. We, like the children, cannot(or at least do not) know these contingencies. Since contingencies are infinite, I argue that we can never know them all.

Additionally, in dealing with actions done to others (including both crime and policy), we are not merely touching the burner ourselves, but forcing another's hand to it. This is the real concern. I don't mind if you want to take chances on yourself. That's your freedom/right/whatever. Don't take it with me.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm game. What other ultimate conclusions can be drawn?

Just one example: that consciousness isn't evolutionarily valuable.

I don't see how it's ideology. It's not an ideal. It's not how we wish things to be. It merely is.

Codifying general human behavior into laws is not how things merely are. It's your imaginary perception of how things actually are. And that's ideology, son. There is no reason why the general laws you conceive need to correspond to all human behavior; and, if so, then you need to acknowledge that there will always be exceptions to your laws, and perhaps we need to redefine exactly what we mean by "human."

I don't understand the charge of "trying to establish a scenario". We teach our children (and attempt to teach pets) not to run out in the street because you might get hit by a car. Depending on the specific time (particularly depending on which street), your chances of getting hit by a car are completely different. However, across the board, running into the street will mean you get hit by a car. This is the closest analogy I can think of that draws on contingencies. The Golden Rule fits in there somewhere.

Using terms like "maintain" are the wrong conception, or at least in my mind evoke popularly held but extraneous details. I don't to hire people to teach my son to tie his shoes, or not to run out into the street, or to not touch the top of the stove he can't see. Maybe that is a better analogy. A child is too short, and therefore unable to determine if a burner is on/hot, just like even adults cannot understand all the contingencies. So if we err, we err on the side of caution, knowing that burners exist to burn things, and that there is the distinct possibility of being burnt if we touch them. We might reach and check, and not be "burnt" once. That doesn't mean the burner isn't on, it just needs time to heat. Or maybe it's off now, but not the next time. We, like the children, cannot(or at least do not) know these contingencies. Since contingencies are infinite, I argue that we can never know them all.

Additionally, in dealing with actions done to others (including both crime and policy), we are not merely touching the burner ourselves, but forcing another's hand to it. This is the real concern. I don't mind if you want to take chances on yourself. That's your freedom/right/whatever. Don't take it with me.

I'm saying it has nothing to do with "belief." It's not that people "believe" the state to be the lesser of two evils, or some ridiculous bullshit. It's nothing more than the fact that maintaining belief in Law manifests in the form of state control. You're trying to separate Law and the state. It's hypocrisy, in my opinion.

Finally, trying to appeal to a "more harm than good" scenario is nothing more than try to establish your own Law as "better" or more valuable than another. But again, that's ideology; it's evaluative behavior. Nothing you propose escapes ideological thinking, and in fact succumbs to some of the most dangerous reactionary thinking. Time and time again, you proclaim normative human behavior, and then proceed to evaluate such behavior as "better."

 

[Dak]

Just one example: that consciousness isn't evolutionarily valuable.

Define valuable

Codifying general human behavior into laws is not how things merely are. It's your imaginary perception of how things actually are. And that's ideology, son. There is no reason why the general laws you conceive need to correspond to all human behavior; and, if so, then you need to acknowledge that there will always be exceptions to your laws, and perhaps we need to redefine exactly what we mean by "human."

This isn't even "law". I'm not sure how that term got shifted to this portion. Your post exists because at the moment you typed it, there was nothing else that you perceived that you could be doing that was more fulfilling/valuable/etc. to you. This is why you posted rather than to do something else. I guess you could call it a "law of human nature", but I haven't thought of it in those terms. Again, please explain how it was not what you wanted to do most, that you believed you could (IE, winning the lottery/buying a winning ticket is not a valid answer).

I'm saying it has nothing to do with "belief." It's not that people "believe" the state to be the lesser of two evils, or some ridiculous bullshit. It's nothing more than the fact that maintaining belief in Law manifests in the form of state control. You're trying to separate Law and the state. It's hypocrisy, in my opinion.

1. It's not bullshit. Minarchists to libertarians believe the state is generally bad, but necessary to some degree. Everything past that believes that it is good, but merely needs to have "the right people/policy". While that is ideology (and if ideology is bullshit, then those beliefs are bullshit. I believe they are bullshit but not purely because of being idealistic), it's not incorrect, in that meaning of "bullshit".

2. Knowing general causality doesn't require a state anymore than we need a state to require people to change their oil, or to buy food for themselves, or any other mundane thing we already understand. If people didn't understand they needed to buy gas, or change oil, or replace spark plugs, or any other form of basic maintenance, we'd have many more cars than we already have abandoned beside the road. But since autos are closed systems of human design, outside of lemons we have a pretty good grasp of what needs doing where, when, and for how long. But we don't know when the burner is on or not, and so we just keep putting other's hands into the burner or allowing our hands to be put into them in turn.

Finally, trying to appeal to a "more harm than good" scenario is nothing more than try to establish your own Law as "better" or more valuable than another. But again, that's ideology; it's evaluative behavior. Nothing you propose escapes ideological thinking, and in fact succumbs to some of the most dangerous reactionary thinking. Time and time again, you proclaim normative human behavior, and then proceed to evaluate such behavior as "better."

I'll readily admit these laws are anthropocentric, and as that is an ideology, so they are. As far as normative goes, I'm not quite sure whether you mean the ought or the is. We ought to not murder. We do (is) always act under our own perceived interest. The latter is not normative under common usage. The former is normative, the latter is no more normative than the rotation of the earth around the sun.

 

[Dak]

Our American Pravda

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Einherjar86]

Our American Pravda

However, this material does conclusively establish something else, which has even greater significance. These dramatic, well-documented accounts have been ignored by our national media, rather than widely publicized. Whether this silence has been deliberate or is merely due to incompetence remains unclear, but the silence itself is proven fact.

The author doesn't seem to consider the possibility that the absence of these events from the mass media is neither a result of deliberateness nor of incompetence, but is in fact systematic.

Here's an interesting little write-up on education:

A Letter to George M. Philip