Reversion to the Titanic Age…abandoning the Olympian Age.
Increasing entropy…chaos.
Disappearance of order.
Linear time - movement from near-absolute-order - incomplete singularity, i.e., duality - towards near-absolute-chaos ([size=85]not complexity[/size]).
Patterned energies interacting produce attrition, contributing to an increase in complexity and non-patterned energies.
Order is a restriction, reduction, of possibilities, i.e., probability.
Within this expanding possibility - reducing probabilities - the possibility of a new near-absolute-order emerging - as a spontaneous event - increases.
Cosmic cycles.
Now that is comedy…a caricature imitating a caricature of itself.
Mocking, dismissing, negating, destroying, rejecting…and leaving behind a hole…a trap. Motive: to destroy confidence and make its utopian postmodern delusions palatable to the desperate, because it cannot rationalise an absurdity unless the mind is made so insecure as to be willing to accept anything, rather than nothing.
Neo-Marxism - opportunism.
Feminine competing strategy - linguistically undermine the opposition until it capitulates.
Undermine language itself. Make the irrational feel rational, the nonsensical feel sensible.
When Hicks describes a theoretical postmodern, he is describing an actual experience with such brain-dead, deceptive minds.
But this is what objectivity is…to describe a subjectivity with a description of a general rule.
It’s, as if, he had met iamalyingcunt, of ILP when he described postmodernism - and I doubt if he’s ever had the displeasure of coming across this specific moron.
Philosophy doesn’t occupy itself with the particular, but with the general. Objectivity is a pursuit of what remains outside the subjective - the real.
One can never become god, no more than he can attain absolute objectivity…no more than his pursuit of power is absolutely attainable as the realization of omnipotence.
Just as fre-will is never absolute, perfect…complete…but always a matter of degree, expressed via choice.
Our perceived options and which ones are attainable, accessible, a product of our awareness and our power.
Since we can never be omnipotent nor omniscient we can never be absolutely free from causality, but can only participate in it as willful agents increasing or decreasing the probability of an object/objective being attained - never certain that it can be attained, never certain if it is attainable.
This has happened before…only this time technology makes it worse.
Every empire, within its defining civilization, collapses.
During such periods decadence and degeneracy increase or come to the surface - out of hiding “out of the closet”.
Americanism’s culture-of-no-culture will be far worse.
Superstitions, end of the world prophets, human repressed anxieties brought forth to find relief.
What was repressed is now declaring itself the new norm, as law & order deteriorates and social cohesion fragments.
Sex is the primary expression of this social collapse because societies impose rules that force individuals to self-repress, to conceal themselves, to control themselves.
No order is forced into concealment, as the empire implodes to be replaced by another.
Ah, I see! A theoretical postmodern. And what in particular was this theoretical postmodern theoretically doing. Was it theoretically related to race or gender or sexual orientation? Let him describe this actual experience.
Then [of course] straight back up into the stratosphere of his very own general description intellectual contraption rendition of “philosophy”.
Into the “world of words”, “definitional logic” “autodidactic” real.
I challenge – dare! – one of Mr. Fun’s admirers here to take this “theoretical post-modern” out into the world of actual conflicting goods revolving around an actual set of circumstances most of us here will be familiar with.
1-No…she’s a liar. The worse kind…a liar that believes her own lies. Deception made efficient through self-deceit.
2-What matters most is vengeance against a world she could not understand, pretending to want to help the world change…to make it ideal…to save it before she dies.
She already gave us her cover story - her self-deceit.
2-Is what matters most to this person what should also matter most to others if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings.
And, given what this person claims to be honest about, how would one make the proper distinction between a modern man, a postmodern man and a man that Hicks is likely to embrace as a rational and virtuous human being?
How about it, Mr. Fun?
Or anyone else here who is part of his KT clique/claque.
Debate between realism and idealism, of the worse kind…nihilism.
In theory the idea/ideal linguistically, semiotically, usurping the real - gauged by popularity…which one, not convinces but coerces, seduces, bribes the majority.
2-Is what matters most to this person about this idea/ideal what should also matter most to others if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings?
And, given what this person claims to be honest about in regard to this idea/ideal, how would one make the proper distinction between a modern man, a postmodern man and a man that Hicks is likely to embrace as a rational and virtuous human being?
How about it, Mr. Fun?
Or anyone else here who is part of his KT clique/claque.
Note to others:
Again, ask yourself why this chickenshit keeps avoiding what I’m asking of him here. Out in the real world where “theoretical thingamajigs” don’t mean jack shit, he is ever and always in way, way over his intellectual contraption head.
And no one is his clique/claque at KT has the balls to confront him with it. On the contrary, they don’t even have the intellectual gonads to confront themselves with it.
Fortunately, there are still those like Magnus Anderson here who will spar with him up in the clouds. If only for what’s left of this festive holiday season.
1-No…she’s a liar. The worse kind…a liar that believes her own lies. Deception made efficient through self-deceit.
2-What matters most is vengeance against a world she could not understand, pretending to want to help the world change…to make it ideal…to save it before she dies.
She already gave us her cover story - her self-deceit.
Now you, separately, have your own personal experiences with this liar’s deceptions. It all leads to frustration, repeating the same mantra, and then a victory dance…followed by mockery to repeat the process. I cut loose the minute I realized what she was doing.
You know that she isn’t really trapped in a dilemma - a hole - and that she isn’t really interested in getting out. You’ve seen this…you know this. I am not telling you anything new.
No, you know she wants to pull you into her hole.
Bring you “down to earth”, she calls it.
Interpretation = level all down to a uniform nothing.
Hicks asks you what do you know of this person?
Well, in this case, she’s told you.
She wants to change the world…and she can’t…she’s always wanted to change the world and she was impotent. She failed repeatedly.
From Christianity to Marxism and now to neo-Marxism, postmodernism, she is struggling to change the world, i.e., mankind, 'cause she rejects a world exists outside mankind.
She’s told you in her own signature quote.
She calls this her “objectivist phase” which she’s “outgrown” - another lie, because she was told about a new strategy…how to undermine what she could not defeat and replace using reason. She was given a feminine method of warfare.
It was there in Abrahamism and Marxism but not so overt - not so clear. It was concealed beneath rhetoric and allegories.
She’s the idealist, up in the clouds…with no foundations on the earth. She wants to stay there…not come down. She thinks up there she has an advantage.
She wants you to think that all perspectives are like her’s. Abstract and totally void of substance.
Equalization of her ideological impotence.
Her project is not to find truth - she’s told you she doesn’t believe in it - her project is to bring you into her untruth, as THE truth - her nil world view.
She undermines, rejects, discourages, denies, mocks, all feminine ways of psychological manipulation.
Her motive is to bring you down to a level of uncertainty and desperation that you are then willing to abandon reason and find her nothing world the only emotional alternative.
She moralizes because emotional manipulation is all she’s got.
She’s a Neo-Marxist…an opportunist. She doesn’t want to build…she wants to destroy and leave nothing in the place of what she brings down…down into the abyss of her mental hole.
It’s psychological manipulation.
Anyway, since Mr. FUNdamentally a chickenshit knows full well just how embarrassing it would be for him here if he ever did take Hicks down out of the clouds, all I can ask of others who have watched the video is to focus in on what he seems to be saying about the relationship between honesty, ideas, ideals and this theoretical postmodern man of his.
Note to others…this is the thesis.
Watch her squirm out of it. She has no philosophy…she has anti-philosophy…the end of philosophy.
The end of the world…the Last Man’s last philosophy…last conviction…his last god.
God of Nil…Nil as God.
Now you, separately, have your own personal experiences with this liar’s deceptions. It all leads to frustration, repeating the same mantra, and then a victory dance…followed by mockery to repeat the process. I cut loose the minute I realized what she was doing.
You know that she isn’t really trapped in a dilemma - a hole - and that she isn’t really interested in getting out. You’ve seen this…you know this. I am not telling you anything new.
No, you know she wants to pull you into her hole.
Bring you “down to earth”, she calls it.
Interpretation = level all down to a uniform nothing.
Hicks asks you what do you know of this person?
Well, in this case, she’s told you.
She wants to change the world…and she can’t…she’s always wanted to change the world and she was impotent. She failed repeatedly.
From Christianity to Marxism and now to neo-Marxism, postmodernism, she is struggling to change the world, i.e., mankind, 'cause she rejects a world exists outside mankind.
She’s told you in her own signature quote.
She calls this her “objectivist phase” which she’s “outgrown” - another lie, because she was told about a new strategy…how to undermine what she could not defeat and replace using reason. She was given a feminine method of warfare.
It was there in Abrahamism and Marxism but not so overt - not so clear. It was concealed beneath rhetoric and allegories.
She’s the idealist, up in the clouds…with no foundations on the earth. She wants to stay there…not come down. She thinks up there she has an advantage.
She wants you to think that all perspectives are like her’s. Abstract and totally void of substance.
Equalization of her ideological impotence.
Her project is not to find truth - she’s told you she doesn’t believe in it - her project is to bring you into her untruth, as THE truth - her nil world view.
She undermines, rejects, discourages, denies, mocks, all feminine ways of psychological manipulation.
Her motive is to bring you down to a level of uncertainty and desperation that you are then willing to abandon reason and find her nothing world the only emotional alternative.
She moralizes because emotional manipulation is all she’s got.
She’s a Neo-Marxist…an opportunist. She doesn’t want to build…she wants to destroy and leave nothing in the place of what she brings down…down into the abyss of her mental hole.
It’s psychological manipulation.
