## Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's mission

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

### Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's mission

Bauber Lives Through the Inability to Think through an exchange, and the flight into emotion by a blushing interlocutor

Modern society controls human beings, not with kinship relations, but with rules which are indifferent to persons, therefore the "Ich" is prior to the "Du". When the infinite power of society obliterates nature, the "Ich" rules over the "Du" (concern for the advantage of the genetic other, the "Du" that shares one's genes, is defeated forever). According to Goebbels, it is indispensable to overcome this situation. However, only through the decision to admit the problem of overcoming society exists (just as once nature vanished under the human "ego's" "will" or "sorrow" or "eros"), can the issue first be faced.

Guide wrote:
(Meno, and his thoughtless ilk, need not read this, please.)

Modern society controls human beings, not with kinship relations, but with rules which are indifferent to persons,
Do you mean the rules do not distinguish between individuals - iow who may have different skills or intelligences or whatever?

According to Goebbels, it is indispensable to overcome this situation. However, only through the decision to admit the problem of overcoming society exists (just as once nature was subordinated), can the issue first be faced.
But he was instrumental in creating society that wanted radical control over everyone. Sure, there were certain distinctions, based on some categories (and not on a wide range of other possible categories). But everyone had to do and act in the same ways. And within your category - so not just Jewish or Aryan but men women, citizens - there was extreme rigitity. IOW rules indifferent to persons. Of course you may simply be picking out Goebbel's single belief, finding it useful, but it seems an odd appeal to authority, given the rest of his beliefs, and then perhaps the response will help me understand the position you are taking, since I find the OP here vague.

“Do you mean the rules do not distinguish between individuals - iow who may have different skills or intelligences or whatever?”

In former times there were different laws for the different classes of society. But, now, it is said that the law about, viz. sleeping in an alley, will be applied to rich and poor, high and low, alike.

The issue of intelligence and skill is like that of money and power, those are issues that concern outcomes, rather than the starting position.

“But he was instrumental in creating society that wanted radical control over everyone. Sure, there were certain distinctions, based on some categories (and not on a wide range of other possible categories). But everyone had to do and act in the same ways. And within your category - so not just Jewish or Aryan but men women, citizens - there was extreme rigitity. IOW rules indifferent to persons. Of course you may simply be picking out Goebbel's single belief, finding it useful, but it seems an odd appeal to authority, given the rest of his beliefs, and then perhaps the response will help me understand the position you are taking, since I find the OP here vague.”

Apes do favours to their ‘near and dear’, it is supposed to have a fitness bonus for evolution. Can we say that nature sought “radical control” over animals? And then, the nomos or convention gains “radical control”. The convention says that the law should be applied with indifference to the advantages gained by favouring one’s friends and family (nepotism is meant to be excluded, ergo, the “Ich” must not favour its most favoured “Du”). To a high degree this was achieved by the way the competition for work divided people into a homogeneous mass of workers, and a few owners of the places people work. The situation in Goebbels' Germany. The legal contract becomes the main law and levels all evolutionary advantageous in the sense of preferring near and dear. The “radical control” of contract relations over homogeneous masses is then the difficulty the “authority” here cited speaks to. That solution was of “radical control” of a guide or person who expresses the National character. Ergo, from rigid natural law, to rigid contract law, to genius of the people. The issue is then that if one is in harmony with the “rigid” control, if one wants to do things that way, there is no command and obey. It is like knowing the right way to play chess, one wants to follow the rules if they lead to exemplary play which suits one’s character.

However, my intention is not to support the particular Nazi path. But, to examine the basic issue of this three stage problem. The third stage is the question, where the natural and the social are outstripped, man must own his situation.

Guide wrote:
Apes do favours to their ‘near and dear’, it is supposed to have a fitness bonus for evolution.
Sure, and social mammals can extened this near and dear quite broadly. Goebbel's and Hitler being no exception. To an ape a nation is a radical hallucination of kinship. The Anschluss even more far out there. Forming a pact with Japan as intelligible as William Blake's prints. So kindship gets extended far away from other primates, but going beyong the Third Reich's definitions of kinship is degenerate?
Can we say that nature sought “radical control” over animals?
This is no parallel. We might be able to say that when a certain male became the head male of a group of chimps and using his allies enforced a lot of restrictions on the whole troop, micromanaging all sorts of chimp behavior, punishing exceptions other groups do not focus on much, iow taking radical control on a bell curve of troop control rules, then we might have some kind of parallel.

And then, the nomos or convention gains “radical control”. The convention says that the law should be applied with indifference to the advantages gained by favouring one’s friends and family (nepotism is meant to be excluded, ergo, the “Ich” must not favour its most favoured “Du”).
Sure, and while the Nazis personally pulled whatever shit they wanted and treated certain racial and political groups terribly, they were after all Socialists and had a whole boatload of rules that everyone was to follow. These were not libertarians or anarchists.

To a high degree this was achieved by the way the competition for work divided people into a homogeneous mass of workers, and a few owners of the places people work. The situation in Goebbels' Germany. The legal contract becomes the main law and levels all evolutionary advantageous in the sense of preferring near and dear. The “radical control” of contract relations over homogeneous masses is then the difficulty the “authority” here cited speaks to. That solution was of “radical control” of a guide or person who expresses the National character. Ergo, from rigid natural law, to rigid contract law, to genius of the people. The issue is then that if one is in harmony with the “rigid” control, if one wants to do things that way, there is no command and obey. It is like knowing the right way to play chess, one wants to follow the rules if they lead to exemplary play which suits one’s character.
Sure, and playing Crazyhouse or anti-chess would probably have been considered decadent. So many things were seen as the right way. The right way to stand, the right music to listen to, the right facial expression. It was a radically controlling culture.

However, my intention is not to support the particular Nazi path. But, to examine the basic issue of this three stage problem. The third stage is the question, where the natural and the social are outstripped, man must own his situation
Could you extend and paraphrase this?

“Sure, and social mammals can extened this near and dear quite broadly. Goebbel's and Hitler being no exception. To an ape a nation is a radical hallucination of kinship. The Anschluss even more far out there. Forming a pact with Japan as intelligible as William Blake's prints. So kindship gets extended far away from other primates, but going beyong the Third Reich's definitions of kinship is degenerate?”

Let’s leave aside this “imagined communities” stuff. I think that is a childish nonsense thesis based on ignorance of the situation. The issue is that a break with the instincts is achieved. Laws come in producing homogeneity of feeling for the “Ich”, each one comes to be their own, the “Du” is set aside as something secondary. A third stage opens up, it is called by Kant freedom. We make a decision to the third stage. The issue of the Volk, as against Universal Human Beings, is a question for freedom. This has to do with the question of different “prejudices” as Nietzsche called them, which suit different so-called cultures. The same prejudices don’t suit all the people on the earth in the same way, so the Nation, the Volkisch, is a reasonable answer, not merely a chauvinistic preference of a jingoistic “nationalist”.

Can we say that nature sought “radical control” over animals?
This is no parallel. We might be able to say that when a certain male became the head male of a group of chimps and using his allies enforced a lot of restrictions on the whole troop, micromanaging all sorts of chimp behavior, punishing exceptions other groups do not focus on much, iow taking radical control on a bell curve of troop control rules, then we might have some kind of parallel.

That would only be so if the laws were made arbitrarily. The laws are parallel to the “radical control” of nature. But, here, we are speaking of a third stage, an impersonal “radical control”, but not by nature or law.

And then, the nomos or convention gains “radical control”. The convention says that the law should be applied with indifference to the advantages gained by favouring one’s friends and family (nepotism is meant to be excluded, ergo, the “Ich” must not favour its most favoured “Du”).
Sure, and while the Nazis personally pulled whatever shit they wanted and treated certain racial and political groups terribly, they were after all Socialists and had a whole boatload of rules that everyone was to follow. These were not libertarians or anarchists.

That’s not a question of Principle. It’s not sufficient to discredit the Catholic Church that the Borgia Popes were corrupt. Or, the Jacobians that the revolution devoured its children during the Terror.

To a high degree this was achieved by the way the competition for work divided people into a homogeneous mass of workers, and a few owners of the places people work. The situation in Goebbels' Germany. The legal contract becomes the main law and levels all evolutionary advantageous in the sense of preferring near and dear. The “radical control” of contract relations over homogeneous masses is then the difficulty the “authority” here cited speaks to. That solution was of “radical control” of a guide or person who expresses the National character. Ergo, from rigid natural law, to rigid contract law, to genius of the people. The issue is then that if one is in harmony with the “rigid” control, if one wants to do things that way, there is no command and obey. It is like knowing the right way to play chess, one wants to follow the rules if they lead to exemplary play which suits one’s character.
Sure, and playing Crazyhouse or anti-chess would probably have been considered decadent. So many things were seen as the right way. The right way to stand, the right music to listen to, the right facial expression. It was a radically controlling culture.

Every society strictly enforces behavioral prohibitions in a way that feels like “radical control” to whoever does not agree. One can say only that in some societies one can be legally charged or even killed for disagreeing. But, this is true in the Liberal Societies too, think of those who favour ISIS, or a few generations ago, the Soviet Union. The question of what is a reasonable prohibition, and what is oppression, is relative to the regime and the character of the citizens.

However, my intention is not to support the particular Nazi path. But, to examine the basic issue of this three stage problem. The third stage is the question, where the natural and the social are outstripped, man must own his situation
Could you extend and paraphrase this?

This links up to Kantian freedom, which has to be reinterpreted because of the existence of the cultures. One can review the statement of the American Anthropology Association opposing Universal Human Rights. Ergo, opposing the belief in summa ratio, perfect and universal reason.

Then, the the lazy "Karpel Tunnel"'s beautiful heart chilled the ardor for philosophic discourse under the shadows of the public houses with this embarrassing response:

Your lack of clarity puts you on the boundary to being a waste of time. (I know, I know. You assume that any failure on your part to communicate clearly is the fault of those you 'guide') But here, in response to Mr. R. your just another Goebbelist thug, bye.
Guide

Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

### Re: Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's miss

Bang! A new phase of civilization begins!
Guide

Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

### Re: Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's miss

Guide wrote:Bang! A new phase of civilization begins!

I will have to look up this Goebbel fellow, to read his 'best bits', as I'm all for a new phase in modern man/a much more well-read demographic, to convey good thought into the nurturing minds of the equally thoughtful other.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist

Posts: 18867
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

### Re: Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's miss

Guide wrote:
Then, the the lazy "Karpel Tunnel"'s beautiful heart chilled the ardor for philosophic discourse under the shadows of the public houses with this embarrassing response:

Your lack of clarity puts you on the boundary to being a waste of time. (I know, I know. You assume that any failure on your part to communicate clearly is the fault of those you 'guide') But here, in response to Mr. R. your just another Goebbelist thug, bye.
You could be clearer. You don't need to call someone a nigger. It's lazy and it protects you.

When people don't fully get your posts, to you it must be about them. You never have to connect the dots or find out if you can. You can make bold proclamations, many in a row. Be allusive without communicating. There are some very skilled philosophers, some of whom you mention, who can pull this off, but then they are highly skilled.

You are the lazy offspring of Satyr or like them. The difference from him is that when criticized, he can get clear, he can reformulate. He actually is willing to take the risk of communicating and seeing if he does indeed master whatever the subject is. You just tell people to go away and insult. He includes insults, but does make clear. You take no risks.

Virginal.

Only others in that same subculture with the same hatreds will treat this shit of your like it's already profound. And they are doing you a disservice. You're clearly intelligent. Might as well take some risks. Vague and unordered proclamations and hissy fits when people criticize, that's baby shit. 'Stay out of my threads, it's my baseball.'

You want asskissing and coddling and bowing down. You're another fragile young man who thinks he's a genius. Maybe you could be one, but the way you're behaving, no one, especially you, will ever find out.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's miss

@Karpel: please attack the argument and not the Arguer..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist

Posts: 18867
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

### Re: Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's miss

MagsJ wrote:@Karpel: please attack the argument and not the Arguer..
Sure, though I was responding to an insult aimed at me n his post above, an insult triggered by a post I made in another thread where he called Mr. Reasonable a black pig....

Thus...
Guide
referred to Mr. Reasonable
who I believe is Afroamerican
as a black pig
in a thread where Guide was
positively describing
the Nazi
Joseph Geobbels's

who was responsible for Hitler's propaganda amongst other lovely things.

by all means read Goebbel's
best bits

so in another pro in some unclear way Nazi thread, when disagreed with by a black man, little Guide calls him a black pig. then brings up his 'to the man' reaction about me calling him on that here in this thread, and I responded to his insult in this thread by discussing his personality, as I suss that personality out.

I mean, you're right. A vague, nasty little racist poster like Guide should have his arguments responded to, though if you try to get him to make his positions intelligible through questions, he insults - and he knows the four types of ad homs, so I can only assume this is a conscious choice. I figure once you praise someone who set in motion one of the most effective racist campaigns ever, and when responded to by someone in that thread, throw out some racism yourself, then call it lazy when someone (me) reacts angrily to this,
its pretty much open season on you yourself for ad homs of any of the four kinds.

If he was a racist who could actually make his points clear, in his posts of substance, rather than the ones that are just insults, that could lead to a discussion.
I am really not sure what the best response is to a highly intelligent nearly incoherent racist is.
Whatever that best response is, I didn't have it.
I'll leave his thread alone since I can't see any other response is appropriate
to one of these Holden Caulden jugen, who are so brave online, their pimple faced posts so unclear....
they'll probably clear up as he moves into adulthood, for good and for ill.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's miss

I really don't for a minute think that Guess is a Nazi sympathizer , nor is it my impression that Mr. Reasonable is Afro American. My feeling is based on my college day job with ' The Psychic Connection' where my batting average was better then 60%.
Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's miss

Meno_ wrote:I really don't for a minute think that Guess is a Nazi sympathizer , nor is it my impression that Mr. Reasonable is Afro American. My feeling is based on my college day job with ' The Psychic Connection' where my batting average was better then 60%.

I'm convinced.
Pretty sure Goebbel was one however.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's miss

I'm totally a white guy lol
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian

Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

### Re: Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's miss

"When people don't fully get your posts, to you it must be about them."

Likely you are not suited for thinking. Strong minds are very rare. So, give it up!

For the others I would suggest:

Ask short questions. Listen to the answers, think about the answer for two hours, develop what is said in a new form of your own. Learn to exercise the intelligence beyond the American idiotic scale, perhaps through paraphrasing what is said. Repeat.
Guide

Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

### Re: Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's miss

One of the infinitely unhappy posters, has, if we are positive, suggested an area of attack we can make use of. What is it one has long termed racism? It is often said this term is a ready boom of rollicking abuse, it is like an explosive, that, far from being handled with care, is blown up in the face of the deployer as often as it hits the target: either someone is accused of something along the lines of "playing the race card", or, they find themselves scorched with the fire of bigotry on their dear public face, and so, branded racist.

This popular attitude I set aside (though, one might inquire why it is so powerful). Instead, I am interested to establish (with and for the group) more manfully the distinction of congenital or personal prejudice and racism as doctrine. Dostoevsky's Smerdyakov, considering the advantages of a certain historical revisionist idea, that the French should have conquered the Russians, preferring that they had, says, "people have their preferences". What is prejudice but a kind of preference? If these two concepts are not the same, their spheres surely, at least, overlap in a large respect. One may despise the Russian, and admire the French man, through sheer spontaneous preference, as a mater of one's personality, as it were. This is no racism. I would extend this to say, one might find the body type of some group, connected in its irregular and characteristic look, the look of a Scandinavian, for instance, may strike one as pale and morose, thus disagreeable, however, one may, in equal kind, find certain features, characteristic of a group, agreeable. For instance, the American negro, the product of selective breeding for physical power, to the Brazilian, often appears, by spontaneous judgment (unsullied by the usual American attitudes) one of nature's more lavish inventions. All this is not racism, but congeniality.

Racism, on the other hand, posits a level of reasoning over and above the spontaneous attitude of the congenial. Such that, even those who find certain markedly unusual characteristics agreeable, are meant to, by reason, gain the reins of the horses of mad passion and redirect them. One may get along with the jew just fine, but he his a "financier", and as such an enemy of the Arbeiter, the common man, the jew is a cosmopolitan, he follows flows of money, he owes no allegiance to the home country! This, then, is the "ism" of racism. It is the claim to a logic that must tame congenial feelings. Never mind, here, whether what is said is true or false. I only attempt to show the distinction, congeniality, rather than the reflective. (One could consider the currently most powerful account of this division, which was, however, always known to thoughtful persons, in Kahneman's popular account.)

This raises further issues, that delve into the deep such that one has never seen such a black, even to the foot of Erebus. One begins to speak of "racist common sense", for instance, why?, it is no reflective knowing. It is because the distinction between emotion and logic is no longer maintained (except superficially, and abstractedly). It can not be maintained because it is become incredible to thoughtful appraisal. Confusion erupts over the sword of Siegfried, the human being itself, now an abiotic blinding flash of absolute steel white, like a storm of blood, spilled from the dragon's gut.
Guide

Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am