I’m just going to say this to trumpers outright

Ah Promethean, the little Kantian style joke thing. You see; the average man couldn’t tell the difference between a meal prepared by a Michelin star chef, and a burnt steak with ketchup. But the Michelin star chef could.

Similarly, to those trained, the first sentence of that is a red flag. “Ontological manuals”? What about your semiotic reports and anthropological primers? It better demonstrates the inadequacy of the common reader.

But we are not common, are we? (I would add that Kant, despite my being opposed to his conclusions about the Grund of metaphysics and the Transcendental, actually brought forward new concepts: no small feat. He sacrificed a great deal of his life in so doing: he stands, along with me, as one of the saints of philosophy. I exiled myself into solitary confinement and didn’t leave a single room for 15- yes, fifteen- years, during which I pursued my task and: wrote. I forgot what stars looked like. But I found the stars within. As did Kant. I deeply respect the man. Besides, I do not need to agree with someone to use his concepts. Ideas- have no allegiance to their creators. In fact, there is no better weapon to use against a thinker, than his own concepts. Giordano Bruno taught me this, in his antidialectics.)

Agreement is merely a starting place; if it is pursued in itself, for itself- it breeds stagnation and fosters paralysis. (Unless you want to form a little political party, do a little LAARPing with your buddies and ‘change the world’. Change the world? It is a phrase I can’t even recall silently inside my head without cringing and feeling nauseous. A philosopher would not condescend to such a thing- to the World; no, for that he will borrow other wills and under-wills, as Aristotle used Alexander to actualize his project of cultural imperialism,- as he used him to spread the soul of Hellas from one end of the world to the other. Changing the world: that would require for your philosophy an object outside of philosophy; gnosis demands otherwise.) And that is why modern academia is so slow to churn out anything new, anything unforeseen, anything powerful: Leftistism dominates that sphere, and so everyone tends to agree with everyone else about, well; everything. The true meat of philosophy is the agon; powerful disagreements breed energy, new ideas, and dialogue. Besides, if someone agreed with me, they would have to understand me first, and equal me. Let us not forget the first brothers of the Earth; one of them murdered the other, and nourished the soil with blood.

But the most powerful agon- the most significant opposition, is always between ideas that appear to be similar in almost every way- the slight particle separates them. They stand beyond the Hegelian mode, beyond all synthesis: asynthemata. True agreement between us- between actual philosophers, should be an agreement that we must bring into existence the mone through the monon,- bring into existence that “alien third” like the bodies of lovers flashing up in a moment of transcendence, becoming a new entity upon which, paradoxically, their individual identities depend. And that is what Jung calls the enantiodrome: for a third perspective must arise that can tell the difference between them. A third perspective, that is beyond either of them; only from that vantage, can they be differentiated. As I write in the… what is it, oh yeah the seventh volume in my philosophical encyclopedia, Monon and Mone, Foreword:

True difference is difference from itself as well. The great error is in our trying to reduce
the terms of another to our own, as reduction is not agreement. To reduce our terms;
yours to mine or mine to yours, is what actually produces unhealthy conflict between
philosophers by the obscuring of the true difference, through which all reality of a
spiritual fraternity of intellects exists. Just the same as a life cannot be reduced to another
life, one must always respect the ideal of another philosopher as the product of his entire
life-process; incomprehensible for that reason to another philosopher in its fundament,- to
be approached only by degrees of understanding, and these won through the agon and by
healthy conflict.

Watching TV… will resume ILP activities soon thereafter, when these entertaining shows end, Pedro, Prom, Perodites… all the Ps.

Uncomfortable feeling engulfs me…

P is a pretty letter. I have Synaesthesia, it was always… purple, to me. A ‘p’ itself. A royal color. Imma take a bunch of “vitamins” now and pass out.

On looking back on this thread and meditating, it occurs to me that pride is also the very basis of the Illiad.

AKA the Greek bible.

And shit, if Achilles ain’t glory, then…

I sense another P, that of taking the Piss!

Your turn…

For the individualists.

Discrimination makes sense.
Take gypsies for example.
Gypsies commit more blue collar crime than other population groups.

Progressives attribute this to white racism (the extrinsic, abhorrent behavior or limitations of minorities are wholly the result of the intrinsic, abhorrent behavior or limitations of the majority i.e. reverse discrimination) and/or their environment.
Individualists will write it off as statistical noise.
Real conservatives will attribute it to their biology and/or culture, their clannishness, deceitfulness, low iQs, poor impulse control and so on, attributes progressives will either try to deny and/or also attribute to white racism.

So which is it?
The thing is, lots of minorities experience racial discrimination.
Jews experience comparable levels of racism, yet they don’t commit blue collar crime more than most pop groups, probably because of their high iQs, good impulse control and so on.
The Jews occupied the same ghettos gypsies occupy for centuries, yet when given an opportunity, the vast majority of Jews were able to rise out of the ghettos, whereas the vast majority of Gypsies aren’t.
So you see, there must be something different about the biology and/or culture of the gypsy, which makes them more crime prone.

Now, just as we’re more weary of say pit bulls than other races of dog (they’ve even been banned in some countries and regions of the world), because they’re more likely to bite your head off than other dogs, we should be more weary of gypsies than other breeds of man, because they’re more crime prone.
As individuals, and a society, we should be more weary of them.
Our criminal justice system, our policemen should be more weary of them.
If their rate of recidivism is significantly higher than other pop groups, which I’m sure it is, judges should focus more on punitive measures than rehabilitative, quarantining, segregating, when dealing with gypsies than when dealing with other pop groups.

We can use past group behavior to help us predict future group and individual behavior, and we should, and conversely, we can use past individual behavior to help us predict future group and individual behavior.
It doesn’t have to be all, or even most members of a pop group.
Even if it’s just a disproportionate minority of them, it may be reason enough to take action against them, penalizing, restricting, segregating, surveilling or deporting and replacing them with more of our own, and/or with minorities we can better trust.

Groups are also culpable for individual behavior, and vice versa.
Take Islamic terror for example.
Muslims are more prone to commit terror than other pop groups.
If a Muslim commits terror, and we find that his mosque was preaching hatred of whites, and other minorities, the mosque bears responsibility (perhaps not as much, but still some) for what he did.
Even the members of the mosque who weren’t preaching hate are somewhat responsible, if they didn’t take a stand against and report it.

Open the Koran, in it you will find passage after passage supporting conversion of the heathen and infidels by the sword.
So Islam itself bears responsibility.
So what should be done with such mosques and Islam itself?
I’m not sure, but it’s perfectly rational to discriminate against them.
Personally, I’d probably make things very uncomfortable for them, so most would pack up their things and head back home.
I’d do the same with Jews; by and large, they’re backbiting/stabbing, ungrateful traitors.

People are selfish, some more than others of course.
Selfishness is not bad, in fact it’s good, if beings weren’t selfish, they’d be overtaken by the elements or other, lesser beings.
I see my biological and cultural kin partly as extensions of myself, and so care about, and would rather be around them than outgroups, and I find some outgroups more compatible with my ingroup than others.
It doesn’t mean I don’t care about others, but I prioritize, I rank.
Just because I’m loyal to family and friends doesn’t mean I go around harming everyone else.
Barring desperation, everyone’s entitled to their land, just as we are entitled to ours.
And so, it makes perfect sense to want more rights for my ingroup than for outgroups on our soil.

Positive rights are just as important as negative rights.
And collective rights are just as important as individual rights.
This idea that collective positive rights are irrational, is in fact irrational.
We may have our preferences, we may emphasize one over the other, but there’s two sides to this coin, every part is part of a whole, and every whole has parts, metaphysically and sociologically, the part does not take precedence over the whole, and what I have, like a roof over my head, or some food in my belly, isn’t less important to me than my freedom.
They’re both important, and where they conflict, there needs to be compromise.

What institution are you representing right now?

You know, since you’re not an individualist?

A vast amount of Modern institutionalization, “education”, is spent teaching children White-guilt, to hate being ‘white’, if you’re “white” then you’re bad, privileged, and a nazi – and that minorities ‘deserve’ to be privileged but not white people. The amount of dogma, energy, money, focus, and power that goes into this, is unbelievable. A very severe pressure is applied, to keep the ‘white’ (European) category divided, infighting, suspicious, and if you even step into the direction of ‘white’, then again, you are a nazi-white nationalist-skin head-kill 6000000 jews-etc. There are many reasons for this. Enemies of ‘white’ people, want to push white people down, and elevate themselves. Even many ethnic groups within the ‘white’ category, want to do the same, and do do the same.

Much of the reason for white “individualism” is because of these institutions, designed to destroy and exterminate ‘white’ grouping, tribalism, and nationalism.

I’m not representing anything but myself, my ideas and ideals.
I’m a populist, a national social democrat.
I believe in moderation, in balance between individuality, liberty, hedonism and materialism with collectivity, authority, health and nature.
I think the Visegrad Group is heading in a better direction.
In the coming decades, I hope North America and the rest of Europe joins them.

Yup, radical individualism = divide and conquer.
Progressivism is even worse, progressivism = collective masochism/suicide.
Mass immigration = divide and conquer.
And you-know-who’s at the center of these ideologies.
Never get sick of posting this video, because it illustrates it perfectly.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G45WthPTo24[/youtube]

South Korea and Japan have low birthrates, and they’re doing just fine.
I’d rather be poor and homogenous anyway, as long as I have enough to get by, which’s all I have now anyway, in fact mass immigration makes us poorer.

No, mass immigration = the death of Europe.
It’s time to take the gloves off with these people.
Individualism is insufficient when outgroups have declared war against your ingroup.
Detain, and deport.

“I’m not representing anything but myself, my ideas and ideals.”

Well now… that’'s a… Mighty indivualistic thing to say.

I’m an individualist too, it’s varying degrees depending on the context.

Only a simpleton is an absolute individualist, or an absolute collectivist.

Only a simpleton is absolute anything.
Except absolute geniuses. They’re not simpletons, one bit.

Pretty much.

I am going to take a terser and more blunt tone without directly insulting you or anyone else; this is because I feel that, after having been asking to provide arguments for things, people have then simply avoided them and just went about going more into their own case.

“Progressives attribute this to white racism (the extrinsic, abhorrent behavior or limitations of minorities are wholly the result of the intrinsic, abhorrent behavior or limitations of the majority i.e. reverse discrimination) and/or their environment.
Individualists will write it off as statistical noise.
Real conservatives will attribute it to their biology and/or culture, their clannishness, deceitfulness, low iQs, poor impulse control and so on, attributes progressives will either try to deny and/or also attribute to white racism.”

–
You then temper your statements with this: “Only a simpleton is an absolute individualist, or an absolute collectivist.”

That… doesn’t mean anything. This is one of those cliches people use to cover their tracks epistemologically, that doesn’t actually do anything. Individualism already incorporates the insights from both the progressive and conservative camps,- (rendering that comment redundant) simply investing in a metaphysical foundation (free-agency) that permits a much more robust overall philosophy to develop, that is: a genuine ethos, thereby escaping the pitfalls of reductionism and ideology.

(To Gloom) Did you not hear me say a few posts back that your little taxonomy was arbitrary first of all, because individualists don’t believe that; and more importantly, while recognizing BOTH the structural component of marginalization that progressives emphasize, AND the element of biological, cultural, and familial attributes like IQ and genetics, as well as epigentics, which conservatives emphasize; the individualist recognizes also that human agency is the most important factor, on a purely metaphysical basis, which trumps all else- for the reason demonstrated in my goddamn three-step modal sequence that I’ve repeated ten times and nobody’s rebutted because there is nothing to rebut. That is what makes the individualist perspective philosophically viable and renders the other two as mere ideology. [Not to Gloom, but to Ecmandu, who began this thread: I see, going through your user posts, that you like to talk about the importance of IQ: I think it’s important too. (Though I would prefer my works and actual statements to speak for themselves: that is why I’ve never disclosed the actual number, except that it is ‘yuge’.) So unless you want us to both go get some evidence together for our IQ tests, or even the name of the psychologist and administrators under which they were conducted and analyzed, so that we can compare and determine who has the bigger IQ-dick, I would very much enjoy you in particular to, more than skirting the periphery of my posts as some have done, actually deal with something I’ve said. Like this post regarding the metaphysical tenability of individualism vs. its two alternatives. ]

“I believe in moderation, in balance between individuality, liberty, hedonism and materialism with collectivity, authority, health and nature.”

Moderation is a bullshit philosophy. But I don’t want to get ahead of myself.

Is math a social construct?
Why of course it is.
What is math but a series of concepts in our heads, etchings on paper or chalkboard and sounds in our mouths?
It’s a quantitative language, more about how much of something there is than what it is and does.

Is it more objective, which’s is to say do these concepts, etchings and sounds represent the world more accurately than other languages, like say the English language?
Not necessarily.
Math and English are binary, simple, the world is fluid, variable.
Our symbols can only approximate or relatively represent the world, they can’t perfectly capture it, especially binary, simple symbols.
The arts are more objective than math and English in a sense because they’re fluid and variable, like the world, but even still, they can’t perfectly capture it, nothing can.
Representation is always inferior to the represented, in terms of objectivity, definitionally.

Take geometry, are there Euclidean shapes in nature, tetrahedrons and so on?
Absolutely, no, there aren’t, no shape in nature is a perfect tetrahedron, only approximately perhaps, or relatively.
Examine a tetrahedron under a microscope and you will find all sorts of bumps and curves, fluidity, variability.

Even shape itself is a bit misleading.
Even a rock is a process, rather than a static thing with a shape.
The trillions of, or infinite processes taking place are too subtle for us to notice, but they’re there.
Rocks are energy, everything is, every part and the whole of it is interacting with everything within it, and without, even with the whole cosmos indirectly and directly through gravity and radiation.
There isn’t a spec of it that’s static, not in motion.

All things are eventually broken up and recombined again and no two things are identical.
Nature never repeats herself, but she rhymes.
However from a distance things can give the appearance they’re identical.
Strangers can’t tell twins apart, but to those who know them intimately, they can’t help but notice details distinguishing them.

Arguably the quantum world works this way.
We’re dealing with the smallest sorts of things we can perceive, we don’t possess instruments capable of distinguishing them, yet, but I suspect some day we will.
I think matter/energy, space and time are infinitely divisible, every whole is part of a greater whole, and every whole made up of parts.

From what I gather, the quantum world is full of stuff that has particle/wave duality, so they’re not the discrete units some philosophers and scientists like Democritus imagined.
Quantum objects can be cut, but they explode when you cut them.
To a being trillions of lightyears across in dimensions, galaxies, stars and planets may be the smallest things it could perceive, and if he were able to cut them, they’d explode into what he supposes is pure energy, but what is energy?
All is energy, in motion, affects and is an effect.

"Our symbols can only approximate or relatively represent the world, "

Our symbols don’t represent the world. They represent an abstraction of the world, and other symbol-systems or mathematics represent an abstraction of that abstraction, and an abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction, all the way up to the infinite. These supra-physical abstractions, outside of space and time, can be used to deconstruction both the world and any other symbol-system lower than them on that hierarchy, which is useful as much as in philosophy as in the sciences.

So I guess this was at least equally addressed to your own szzelf?