13 Comments
User's avatar
Kittykat's avatar

Brilliant

Expand full comment
NEVERMORE MEDIA's avatar

Here's a preview of what's coming:

So heres my thesis statement. I intend to defend each of these assertions.

All language is based on irony

All language is based on metaphor

All metaphor is based on nominalization

All nominalization is based upon generalization, distortion, and

deletion

There is no such thing as a correct thought or a right idea

The purpose of communication is mutual understanding

Mutual understanding comes from a will to relate, or empathy

Not all communication is real communication. Some uses of language are

deceptive and do not aim at revealing the truth, but rather of

concealing it. This is why intention matters so much in communication.

An honest intellectual debate, which is said to be ¨in good faith¨, is

one guided by an authentic ¨will to relate¨ and a sincere desire to

arrive at mutual understanding.

The academic-industrial complex is part of the political and economic

hegemony of the system that we as anarchists oppose. We should

understand that the contiguous amalgam of corporate and state power

promotes political ideas which are congruent with its economic goals

(such as neoliberalism) and seeks to neutralize potentially dangerous

ideas by ruling them problematic in some way.

Postmodernism produces political paralysis BECAUSE IT IS MEANT TO PRODUCE POLITICAL PARALYSIS.

Expand full comment
Kittykat's avatar

Very astute. I like this list very much

Expand full comment
NEVERMORE MEDIA's avatar

thanks!

Expand full comment
Alex Eulenberg's avatar

No need to give credit to quantum mechanics for “showing” us anything. Quantum theory is useless.

https://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/

Expand full comment
NEVERMORE MEDIA's avatar

Wow!!! This is really exciting!!! I have long intuited that there's something a bit off about Einstein & relativity...

I'm actually visiting family in Ottawa right now, and my cousin is a physicist, so you inspired me to look him up. Thanks!

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

"Once you reach this point, the best thing to do is to take a step back, reframe the debate, and avoid using the word with the contested definition."

No, you are misusing the word 'the'. You've seen many other approaches, such as in Socratic dialogues, work in this situation.

Expand full comment
NEVERMORE MEDIA's avatar

lol

Expand full comment
Adam Golding's avatar

you laugh in the face of death https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descriptions/ Analytic Philosophy will set you free

Expand full comment
Benn's avatar

Hi. There seems to be a mixing of biological sex and cultural gender here, as well as with those you are criticising. A poisonous view that you can be anything you want, as long as it is male (blue, hairy) or female (pink, smooth). John Michael Greer had a good post on this recently. Notice that all the trans activists shouting the loudest are men transitioning to women. Women transitioning to men seem a lot quieter. Funny, that...

Expand full comment
NEVERMORE MEDIA's avatar

I'm not sure I follow you... I'm not really making an argument about gender or gender expression here... I'm arguing that biological sex is not a matter of belief, and that people who think it is are delusional. Could you clarify where my thinking is muddy please?

Expand full comment
Benn's avatar

Just re-read your article and you didn't: apologies for that.

Expand full comment
NEVERMORE MEDIA's avatar

No problem! I appreciate criticism (which is hard to get!) so please don't hesitate to correct errors if you see any!

Expand full comment