04-13-2023, 12:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2023, 12:26 PM by casual rapist.)
https://twitter.com/MLiamMcCollum/status...2748069888
I oppose Tim Drool's manky 90s beanie.
That being said, the movement needs some new thinking on how to make progress.
Plot reveal: Heidegger has some interesting ideas.
The prevailing way by which we (attempt to) plot progress is embedded within our prevailing understanding of the world. This doesn't get us anywhere.
Our prevailing view is that the universe consists of discrete entities that are ultimately related by physical laws. We relate to other entities by either direct understanding of these laws, or mental representations of them to various degrees of accuracy.
So you get all these individuals (discrete entities) running commentary (the hot take economy) declaring what the world is, or should be. And why won't you listen?
The first part of the individual diagnosing the laws, which we take to govern reality, inherently sets up a challenge that can't be solved, that somehow the individuals stop being discrete entities.
The entire paradigm is a giant cope.
If your hot take is worth a damn, there must be some significance or necessity to your individual existence.
But the desire for politics also imposes the resolution of your starting premise, that you properly exist as one. But how does it all come together?
There must be a third thing, which itself is unitary and stable. And "proper" knowledge of this thing achieves unity among the discrete entities. Many become one. Man, thusly, is the "rational" animal. Knowing is his nature. Knowing what? The world, ya dummie. If you can't understand the discrete facts staring you in the face, then just listen.
Now insert the manner in which you, as individual or individualized unit, sub-group, want to blab about the third thing. The laws of physics. Theology. Ideology - a formalized doctrine of preference. Whatever.
And don't muddy up the fucking waters!
Anybody saying something else is my enemy!
Anyway, this is all useless.
The world is what comes into presence. Ni mas, ni menos.
As such, it's contingent on mental representation or phenomenal perception.
Man is the grounds over which presencing occurs.
This is not just yourself for yourself, but also how you understand others for yourself. This points to how you deal with those you disagree with. Their presence is the grounds over which reality occurs. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is no reference to some outside rule-set, which validates or invalidates, and therefore affirms presence or revokes presence. This judgement is a waste of time anyway; you have no ability to revoke presence. If you're following a world concept that tells you you do, then you're being deluded. The givers of hot takes are spending their time on delusion without having thought about their own position, or what role is open to them if any. Failure to cope with what you are yourself.
And it's not necessary to revoke presence. This has to be the conclusion, because anything else points to a role you don't have. You can't make progress pretending you have some other position on the gameboard. A world concept that tells you so is misleading.
So if you revoke presence, you revoke the grounds over which the world unfolds. Nothing to work with then. This has to be the conclusion, if you're going to have any influence.
"Progress" is the extension of presence.
So here we have Ron Paul on Tim Drool. And he says there's been a coup, JKF, etc. This is all good unfolding of presence.
There isn't a valid reality or invalid reality. Only a reality of those of us here, and the phenomenological impression made. We're interested in how we understand reality, the narratives told, but there is only influence and not external proof.
The benefit of this event - Ron on alt media - lessens at min 4. The narration surrounding "progressivism" is part of a package of understanding the world which was designed by our enemies.
Anyone who now has an explanatory purpose assigned to "progressivism" should redefine "progressivism" as simply "high modernism" and dismiss its role in further explanation. Step over the entire idea, unfold the conversation in a different direction. Simply doing this is progress. And the number of circles you can inject this message and move forward is large.
Modernism is the ascendance of external "facts" as truth, "falsification", empiricism. High Modernism is an intellectual moment well into this ascendance. The accumulation of empirical facts naturally inclines one to the impression (if not reality) of "progress". That's all "progressivism" of the early 20th century is. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not significant as metaphysical fulcrum - which is the purpose and foil our opponents make of it.
The reason why we wash our hands of the "progressivism" narrative is twofold. First, and most importantly, it unfolds the narrative of understanding in a direction which prevents the presencing of another reality.
Secondly, when taken on its own terms, the "progressivism" narration implies the world concept assembled according to understanding, "proper" understanding, which implies the stability of what is to be understood and its independent existence from ourselves. There is no such thing.
The two sides of the "progressivism" narration are 1) pro-"progressivism" as accumulation of facts, material knowledge, and therefore the ability to improve material circumstances, and 2) anti-"progressivism" as a categorical mistake of empistemology, of "material" and thus changing knowledge as superior to "metaphysical" and thus timeless knowledge. This debate implies some ultimate proper ordering, the understanding of which we must get right. "Properly understood". That entire paradigm as world-concept is a dead end.
Ron on alt media is now a reality. Pretty good.
He makes real conspiracy. But steers into a dead end on the questioning of Dim, who himself expects the dead end answer but also thinks it's right. Shit tier alt media personalities (read: all of them) believe themselves sophisticated by echoing this "the real problem, ya see, is progressivism". They dum.
It's all a good event to build off of. The place to pick up is stepping over role "progressivism" plays, and back up rewind, and pick a different explanation.
Plot reveal #2: It's the kikes.
But amusingly, I've been banned from Boomer blogs by simply delivering the "new" understanding of "progressivism" above. Putting it in context, indicating its historically natural, if not necessary (we do continue to increase knowledge of material "facts"). And that its emphasis as narration device is to steer into dead end - the two sides of the debate are just recycling a material vs metaphysical argument, and not really key to political outcomes. Distraction.
Getting banned for this shows the mods intentionally protecting the intellectual trap they've built for retard boomers. Final judgement: They were kikes.
Try it and see!
I oppose Tim Drool's manky 90s beanie.
That being said, the movement needs some new thinking on how to make progress.
Plot reveal: Heidegger has some interesting ideas.
The prevailing way by which we (attempt to) plot progress is embedded within our prevailing understanding of the world. This doesn't get us anywhere.
Our prevailing view is that the universe consists of discrete entities that are ultimately related by physical laws. We relate to other entities by either direct understanding of these laws, or mental representations of them to various degrees of accuracy.
So you get all these individuals (discrete entities) running commentary (the hot take economy) declaring what the world is, or should be. And why won't you listen?
The first part of the individual diagnosing the laws, which we take to govern reality, inherently sets up a challenge that can't be solved, that somehow the individuals stop being discrete entities.
The entire paradigm is a giant cope.
If your hot take is worth a damn, there must be some significance or necessity to your individual existence.
But the desire for politics also imposes the resolution of your starting premise, that you properly exist as one. But how does it all come together?
There must be a third thing, which itself is unitary and stable. And "proper" knowledge of this thing achieves unity among the discrete entities. Many become one. Man, thusly, is the "rational" animal. Knowing is his nature. Knowing what? The world, ya dummie. If you can't understand the discrete facts staring you in the face, then just listen.
Now insert the manner in which you, as individual or individualized unit, sub-group, want to blab about the third thing. The laws of physics. Theology. Ideology - a formalized doctrine of preference. Whatever.
And don't muddy up the fucking waters!
Anybody saying something else is my enemy!
Anyway, this is all useless.
The world is what comes into presence. Ni mas, ni menos.
As such, it's contingent on mental representation or phenomenal perception.
Man is the grounds over which presencing occurs.
This is not just yourself for yourself, but also how you understand others for yourself. This points to how you deal with those you disagree with. Their presence is the grounds over which reality occurs. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is no reference to some outside rule-set, which validates or invalidates, and therefore affirms presence or revokes presence. This judgement is a waste of time anyway; you have no ability to revoke presence. If you're following a world concept that tells you you do, then you're being deluded. The givers of hot takes are spending their time on delusion without having thought about their own position, or what role is open to them if any. Failure to cope with what you are yourself.
And it's not necessary to revoke presence. This has to be the conclusion, because anything else points to a role you don't have. You can't make progress pretending you have some other position on the gameboard. A world concept that tells you so is misleading.
So if you revoke presence, you revoke the grounds over which the world unfolds. Nothing to work with then. This has to be the conclusion, if you're going to have any influence.
"Progress" is the extension of presence.
So here we have Ron Paul on Tim Drool. And he says there's been a coup, JKF, etc. This is all good unfolding of presence.
There isn't a valid reality or invalid reality. Only a reality of those of us here, and the phenomenological impression made. We're interested in how we understand reality, the narratives told, but there is only influence and not external proof.
The benefit of this event - Ron on alt media - lessens at min 4. The narration surrounding "progressivism" is part of a package of understanding the world which was designed by our enemies.
Anyone who now has an explanatory purpose assigned to "progressivism" should redefine "progressivism" as simply "high modernism" and dismiss its role in further explanation. Step over the entire idea, unfold the conversation in a different direction. Simply doing this is progress. And the number of circles you can inject this message and move forward is large.
Modernism is the ascendance of external "facts" as truth, "falsification", empiricism. High Modernism is an intellectual moment well into this ascendance. The accumulation of empirical facts naturally inclines one to the impression (if not reality) of "progress". That's all "progressivism" of the early 20th century is. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not significant as metaphysical fulcrum - which is the purpose and foil our opponents make of it.
The reason why we wash our hands of the "progressivism" narrative is twofold. First, and most importantly, it unfolds the narrative of understanding in a direction which prevents the presencing of another reality.
Secondly, when taken on its own terms, the "progressivism" narration implies the world concept assembled according to understanding, "proper" understanding, which implies the stability of what is to be understood and its independent existence from ourselves. There is no such thing.
The two sides of the "progressivism" narration are 1) pro-"progressivism" as accumulation of facts, material knowledge, and therefore the ability to improve material circumstances, and 2) anti-"progressivism" as a categorical mistake of empistemology, of "material" and thus changing knowledge as superior to "metaphysical" and thus timeless knowledge. This debate implies some ultimate proper ordering, the understanding of which we must get right. "Properly understood". That entire paradigm as world-concept is a dead end.
Ron on alt media is now a reality. Pretty good.
He makes real conspiracy. But steers into a dead end on the questioning of Dim, who himself expects the dead end answer but also thinks it's right. Shit tier alt media personalities (read: all of them) believe themselves sophisticated by echoing this "the real problem, ya see, is progressivism". They dum.
It's all a good event to build off of. The place to pick up is stepping over role "progressivism" plays, and back up rewind, and pick a different explanation.
Plot reveal #2: It's the kikes.
But amusingly, I've been banned from Boomer blogs by simply delivering the "new" understanding of "progressivism" above. Putting it in context, indicating its historically natural, if not necessary (we do continue to increase knowledge of material "facts"). And that its emphasis as narration device is to steer into dead end - the two sides of the debate are just recycling a material vs metaphysical argument, and not really key to political outcomes. Distraction.
Getting banned for this shows the mods intentionally protecting the intellectual trap they've built for retard boomers. Final judgement: They were kikes.
Try it and see!