Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 18, 2021 13:59:40 GMT
So, there is a kind of tendecy in marxist philosophy to de-valuate words changing his meaning an attaching to the hypothetical psychological reason for the sake of destroing a image who cannot be acepted as material real.
And if you mix that praxis with esoterism, you're in a serious danger.
So, Dugin isn't marxist but is esoteric. Esoterism in itself have no problem, the problem is the mixture between the fetishism of mercadory and the praxis itself, the main source of political problems we have.
The idea who there are some teological aspects in economy, or occultist, or whatever you like, it's obviously charming but fake, for obvious reasons.
But I will try to explain the obvious: if a thing have multiple aspects included by the mind of who is producing, there are no consequential use for that kind of object, because there is no fundamental use which all others uses articulates.
Simple, if a thing doesn't have a single use, he cannot be used in another ways, and if we see a thing as in multiple aspects, we are only projecting our emotions in that object, and not seeing the reality of what I am seeing.
And if I don't see the reality of an object, not the reality itself, and use it politically, I am only faking the own reality I am relying myself to judge.
It's charming as a siren, but is deadly as hell. It's all about a process of corruption and destruction of civilization in the basis of emotional projection.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 18, 2021 17:37:28 GMT
So, there is a kind of tendecy in marxist philosophy to de-valuate words changing his meaning an attaching to the hypothetical psychological reason for the sake of destroing a image who cannot be acepted as material real. And if you mix that praxis with esoterism, you're in a serious danger. So, Dugin isn't marxist but is esoteric. Esoterism in itself have no problem, the problem is the mixture between the fetishism of mercadory and the praxis itself, the main source of political problems we have. The idea who there are some teological aspects in economy, or occultist, or whatever you like, it's obviously charming but fake, for obvious reasons. But I will try to explain the obvious: if a thing have multiple aspects included by the mind of who is producing, there are no consequential use for that kind of object, because there is no fundamental use which all others uses articulates. Simple, if a thing doesn't have a single use, he cannot be used in another ways, and if we see a thing as in multiple aspects, we are only projecting our emotions in that object, and not seeing the reality of what I am seeing. And if I don't see the reality of an object, not the reality itself, and use it politically, I am only faking the own reality I am relying myself to judge. It's charming as a siren, but is deadly as hell. It's all about a process of corruption and destruction of civilization in the basis of emotional projection. Notice that this Postmodern forced fad of using they with a singular, such as "If a lawyer does that, they should be disbarred," is collectivist. It eliminates individualism from the speaking process. Even "he or she" is wrong; he had always been used for that, because it originally mean "this person," just as the related word here means "this place." The unnecessary and disruptive word she was coined later. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 18, 2021 17:57:32 GMT
So, there is a kind of tendecy in marxist philosophy to de-valuate words changing his meaning an attaching to the hypothetical psychological reason for the sake of destroing a image who cannot be acepted as material real. And if you mix that praxis with esoterism, you're in a serious danger. So, Dugin isn't marxist but is esoteric. Esoterism in itself have no problem, the problem is the mixture between the fetishism of mercadory and the praxis itself, the main source of political problems we have. The idea who there are some teological aspects in economy, or occultist, or whatever you like, it's obviously charming but fake, for obvious reasons. But I will try to explain the obvious: if a thing have multiple aspects included by the mind of who is producing, there are no consequential use for that kind of object, because there is no fundamental use which all others uses articulates. Simple, if a thing doesn't have a single use, he cannot be used in another ways, and if we see a thing as in multiple aspects, we are only projecting our emotions in that object, and not seeing the reality of what I am seeing. And if I don't see the reality of an object, not the reality itself, and use it politically, I am only faking the own reality I am relying myself to judge. It's charming as a siren, but is deadly as hell. It's all about a process of corruption and destruction of civilization in the basis of emotional projection. Notice that this Postmodern forced fad of using they with a singular, such as "If a lawyer does that, they should be disbarred," is collectivist. It eliminates individualism from the speaking process. Even "he or she" is wrong; he had always been used for that, because it originally mean "this person," just as the related word here means "this place." The unnecessary and disruptive word she was coined later. It's hypothetical and arbitrary. You know that, common. Grammar functions aren't in no way similar to thoughts functions. It's obvious that mental functions are essential diferent from the thought they originate. It's simple, you can think a wrong idea who is grammatically correct. You can think unicorns, be grammatically correct but wrong about the concept. You can also think logically nazism without a single error of grammar. So, there is no ethics in grammar, correct? |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 19, 2021 15:07:03 GMT
Ignorant and Dysfunctional Grammar Leads to Ignorant and Dysfunctional ThoughtNotice that this Postmodern forced fad of using they with a singular, such as "If a lawyer does that, they should be disbarred," is collectivist. It eliminates individualism from the speaking process. Even "he or she" is wrong; he had always been used for that, because it originally mean "this person," just as the related word here means "this place." The unnecessary and disruptive word she was coined later. It's hypothetical and arbitrary. You know that, common. Grammar functions aren't in no way similar to thoughts functions. It's obvious that mental functions are essential diferent from the thought they originate. It's simple, you can think a wrong idea who is grammatically correct. You can think unicorns, be grammatically correct but wrong about the concept. You can also think logically nazism without a single error of grammar. So, there is no ethics in grammar, correct? People too lazy or too stupid to learn grammar preach that it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 21, 2021 10:14:26 GMT
Wow, you know Dugin, it's cool. Along with it he sometimes supports Marxists views by saying that he regrets of sending his son to the Lenin's mausoleum to spit on his grave (in 80's). That's why be certain about his leftist attitude isn't easy.
For sure, Marxists do it. Re-evaluation of the words is a known ideological taftic, and the Marxists among many others are the ones who shamelessly use it elsewhere. The role of a man, a woman and a family in the society is constantly being attacked by the Marxists during their as political life so attempts of interruption to the political life.
Somewhere previously I've already posted that the Marxism is a sect and a fake religion system. No surprising that any system of theirs all over the world has a tendency to devour a country to either totalitarian, or authoritarian system.
The most disgusting thing is that their fake notions and ideas are getting popular widespread among the youths. It's like a work of sects – to convince and to recruit new adepts to its legacy.
What do you think of the resistance to their filthy actions? How can we withstand the Marxism agenda's undeclared war?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 21, 2021 18:14:15 GMT
So, there is a kind of tendecy in marxist philosophy to de-valuate words changing his meaning an attaching to the hypothetical psychological reason for the sake of destroing a image who cannot be acepted as material real. And if you mix that praxis with esoterism, you're in a serious danger. So, Dugin isn't marxist but is esoteric. Esoterism in itself have no problem, the problem is the mixture between the fetishism of mercadory and the praxis itself, the main source of political problems we have. The idea who there are some teological aspects in economy, or occultist, or whatever you like, it's obviously charming but fake, for obvious reasons. But I will try to explain the obvious: if a thing have multiple aspects included by the mind of who is producing, there are no consequential use for that kind of object, because there is no fundamental use which all others uses articulates. Simple, if a thing doesn't have a single use, he cannot be used in another ways, and if we see a thing as in multiple aspects, we are only projecting our emotions in that object, and not seeing the reality of what I am seeing. And if I don't see the reality of an object, not the reality itself, and use it politically, I am only faking the own reality I am relying myself to judge. It's charming as a siren, but is deadly as hell. It's all about a process of corruption and destruction of civilization in the basis of emotional projection. Notice that this Postmodern forced fad of using they with a singular, such as "If a lawyer does that, they should be disbarred," is collectivist. It eliminates individualism from the speaking process. Even "he or she" is wrong; he had always been used for that, because it originally mean "this person," just as the related word here means "this place." The unnecessary and disruptive word she was coined later. The most interesting thing is that how rage were the Soviet scientists and so on about that program in USA and Poland that was called the Common Semantics (by Korzybski & others), and all the same programs. Surely that such semantic therapy schools deserved correct critics within US and some others European countries some time after that school of the Common Semantics had arisen. The initiators and the authors of this schools later admitted that they were wrong about many points of their work. However, their results were important. Such philosophers like R. Carnap, W. Quine and the others explained the importance of such language the incorrect usage. And we can see the fruits of "the wrong usage of language" in marketing, in political propaganda, etc. I'd say that level of interruption is much more deep if to remember that the propaganda does under conceptual level of that: by producing "the new and fresh ideas" and "absolutely new products", etc. That's funny, but at this semantic level there is no difference between capitalism and socialism (or communism). |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 23, 2021 6:41:21 GMT
It's hypothetical and arbitrary. You know that, common. Grammar functions aren't in no way similar to thoughts functions. It's obvious that mental functions are essential diferent from the thought they originate. It's simple, you can think a wrong idea who is grammatically correct. You can think unicorns, be grammatically correct but wrong about the concept. You can also think logically nazism without a single error of grammar. So, there is no ethics in grammar, correct? People too lazy or too stupid to learn grammar preach that it doesn't matter. I can see your close-minded silver spoon with no real grasp on reality so ill help you out a little bit. I am a deep thinker and i have had several different jobs in where i instructed and oversaw several people that had College degrees in the particular field that we happen to be working in And i say that in order to establish some form of external evidence to my cognitive abilities so when i say that grammar and the ability to think do not correlate hand-in-hand I am saying it out of first hand experience. for instance I am very knowledgeable in several different fields and yet I have terrible grammar And the reason that i have bad grammer is for several reasons like extreme dyslexia And an unfortunate childhood where i received 0 formal education and had to teach myself how to read without help or proper learning curriculum so because of that i obviously missed some things here and there but my penmanship in no way reflects my cognitive abilities in daily life or the job. So next time you get annoyed when somebody misspelled the word you can Pat Mommy and Daddy on the back and thank them for all that money they poured into your brain and realize your spoiled and close-minded |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 25, 2021 15:21:07 GMT
Ignorant and Dysfunctional Grammar Leads to Ignorant and Dysfunctional ThoughtNotice that this Postmodern forced fad of using they with a singular, such as "If a lawyer does that, they should be disbarred," is collectivist. It eliminates individualism from the speaking process. Even "he or she" is wrong; he had always been used for that, because it originally mean "this person," just as the related word here means "this place." The unnecessary and disruptive word she was coined later. The most interesting thing is that how rage were the Soviet scientists and so on about that program in USA and Poland that was called the Common Semantics (by Korzybski & others), and all the same programs. Surely that such semantic therapy schools deserved correct critics within US and some others European countries some time after that school of the Common Semantics had arisen. The initiators and the authors of this schools later admitted that they were wrong about many points of their work. However, their results were important. Such philosophers like R. Carnap, W. Quine and the others explained the importance of such language the incorrect usage. And we can see the fruits of "the wrong usage of language" in marketing, in political propaganda, etc. I'd say that level of interruption is much more deep if to remember that the propaganda does under conceptual level of that: by producing "the new and fresh ideas" and "absolutely new products", etc. That's funny, but at this semantic level there is no difference between capitalism and socialism (or communism). I dismissed the Semantics fad because they themselves dismissed grammar, which is the foundation of meaning and should be the first course in studying Semantics. |
|
