Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2014, 04:33 PM
Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
You guys know I'm into economy and stuff. I studied the classical neo-Keynesian economy at school, but also had classes on Austrian economy (some of the best classes I ever had). And curiously enough, I am also an expert on Resource-Based Economy, the kind of economy where you don't have to work and get everything for free, there are no money and so on.

So I went to discuss these things on the Freedomain Radio forum. Freedomain Radio is a show of Stefan Molyneux, a thinker who deals primarily in anarcho-Capitalism, objectivism of Ayn Rand, politics, relationships, and so on. I have started to listen to him after hearing his debates with Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement. I must say, Stefan has got his ass so well kicked he hasn't even realized it, so there were further angry exchanges and huge ego wars between him and Peter Joseph Manola. So I started being critical to him from the start. However, I found out he has some really good stuff on relationships, parenting, politics and so on. These Libertarians are very good at solving man-made problems, not so much natural problems. So this is where I benefit from him. That's why I went on the forum, to discuss this stuff.

Right from the start on the forum, my registration had to be manually admin-approved. No free entry like here. So I posted around where they discussed Resource-Based Economy, as they had some completely misinformed ideas about this thing. I also posted my introduction. Soon I was labelled as a puppet account of another forum member - apparently he was so similar in his opinions. I had a hard time convincing people I'm not him, I had to post some my native language texts and comments to show my foreignness... No apology so far.

Next thing they did, was dismissing all my arguments based on childhood problems with parents. If parents damage their children, the children are not capable of thinking logically and objectively. If one should be able to think straight, one must go through the process of defooing (Family Of Origin = FOO). Which I must say is true to a large degree. It is something like deconversion from religion and you guys often went through it because you had religious families.
BUT STILL. It's not an argument. Not an answer. Answers that explain everything, explain nothing, as Hitchens would say. We can not ignore people until they admit being sinners and repent and admit childhood wrongs they don't even remember or can't see what does it have to do with economy. The argument is, capitalism is freedom and anyone who isn't for freedom, is damaged by parents and therefore wrong about everything. They took a very reasonable idea from Molyneux and turned it into a cult admittance ritual.

One of the problems I have with them is, that they think they have a monopoly on reason. Philosophy must be applied consistently in all areas of life. I agree with that. But they think they already do it and thus effectively they claim a monopoly on reason. Anyone who doubts logic or opposes THEIR logic is illogical, irrational.
All reasoning is dependent on language. Language is a set of concepts. Concepts are a combination of meanings, labelled with a name. However, we can manipulate ourselves by the way how we mix the meanings under the concepts. We can create a language that is completely logical, completely internally consistent, but it is a closed system of self-validation, a way of thinking which always proves us right, which always gives us good reasons to do what we do. A way of thinking which never disproves itself and which usually does not demand change from us.

Molyneux falls prey to this problem in only one single area: capitalistic economy. In all other areas he can spot this problem right away, in relationships for example. He said it himself, it is Freudism. Freudists have an answer to everything, either you want to fuck your mother, in which case you're a pervert, or you don't, in which case you're a repressed pervert. Either way, Freudism is correct and you're a pervert. Molyneux pointed that out himself and he's very critical of Freud. However,
- he created exactly the same thinking in economy, made a circular logic in a very subtle way, carefully constructing meanings of his concepts,
- he is so good in other areas that he can not imagine he could make such a mistake in any area. He thinks he is equally consistent and objective in everything.
The problem isn't that he's not logical. He is logical, but we can only be logical within our worldview, our language (paradigm)


So what is it that I have to offer him? I have nothing. Nothing tangible, anyway. What I have is another "language". Another paradigm. Another underlying electronics board under the keyboard of English vocabulary. I define my concepts differently. And I think my definitions allow to capture the economical reality in a better, broader and freer way, which allows to arrive at much more modern, free and comfortable solutions of economical problems. Molyneux is stuck with money as a principle of nature. I see money as a special case technology that can be replaced by something radically different, as long as it works within a general systems theory. Economics is a special case of a system (obviously) and capitalism is only one special case of economics.

So, should you take Molyneux seriously? Yes, definitely yes, take him seriously. In order to disagree with him, I had to become good at what I do, I had to learn so much. Which means he is almost completely right, he is a thinker to be reckoned with. He is way ahead of me in moral philosophy. The thing is, I can do what he can do, I can take his lessons. But he can't take my lessons.

Should you take his forum seriously? No, not really.
The way I was banned, they've got a reputation system there. Any donator can give positive or negative reputation per post. The problem is,
- it's anonymous and no justification need to be given,
- and they give negative reputation for DISAGREEING with them.
- You get negative reputation for disagreeing from everyone around, even those you weren't debating with at the moment. GROUPTHINK.
Around reputation -50 or so my posts became partially hidden (click to display) and after -100 I got banned. Not only I got a few neg reps per post, random readers proceeded to give negative reputation with what they disagreed with to my older posts. This is how they get rid of disagreement.
I don't know what creeps me out more, this system of doing away with critical thinking or the fact that very few people actually get banned that way. But that's the forum problem, not Stefan's problem.

I had trouble communicating. It culminated when I called on the radio show and spoke personally with Stefan. (I waited about a month to get on schedule, my call starts around minute 40)
http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/fee...c_2013.mp3
He was unable to understand with me and at this moment I understood why. We speak different "languages", that is, his English terminology has different underlying meanings than my English terminology. However, his English terminology does not allow him to grasp certain aspects of reality that I need him to grasp. These things I expressed in this thread afterwards.
http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/3...-feedback/
You see, people copiously negative reputation all the way down. And remember, -100 is ban. Although I did not write a single insult and I think there's some very decent research into semantics in my posts.

If I didn't know 100 % sure that Stefan is better than that, I wouldn't waste any time on him. I know for a fact, that each absurdity that his logic drives him to in economy, he recognized and renounced when he talked about it in other areas, such as moral philosophy. He is not bad at all. It's just that in one area his mind has no maneuvering room, he sees things only from one point of view and he does not know that. In all other areas I bow to his authority as a relationship expert and he helped me a lot. He has also way higher standards than his forum members. It's just that the things we deal with are extremely difficult and would take hours of talk to figure our, or weeks of being locked up in the same prison room. Semantic problems can not be figured out on the go and paradigms, like languages do not spread rationally, they spread socially, tribally. Nobody learns a second language rationally, because they don't know what knowledge can it access. People learn a second language when they marry someone from a different culture. I'd probably have to marry a Libertarian woman to get someone motivated to learn a new way to look at things. Which is a shame, because I do that naturally out of curiosity.
Why don't people seek out otherness out of curiosity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 04:58 PM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
I think that you will find that most people don't give a fuck about Stefan Molyneux or how that forum works.

That said, I watched few of his videos on YT , and even tho I saw few more that addressed topics I am interested in they are way too long to hold my attention.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
17-01-2014, 05:30 PM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2014 06:14 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(17-01-2014 04:58 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  I think that you will find that most people don't give a fuck about Stefan Molyneux or how that forum works.

That said, I watched few of his videos on YT , and even tho I saw few more that addressed topics I am interested in they are way too long to hold my attention.
Sure. But most people give fuck about government taking half of their money by force and then using it to make people stupider, poorer and dead, or a possibility that there is an economic system in which they might get everything for free, and technology would not get them thrown out of work.

I don't watch the videos either, it's too boring to look at some bald guy talking. What I do is downloading this stuff in MP3 and listen to it when I do various even more boring stuff.

"Which is why you get shunning in religious communities. Which is like "I'm shunning you because you're disagreeing with me."" - Stefan's words, not mine. By his own words, FDR is a religious community. Isn't logic wonderful? Tongue
(Show 2549, 5 Dec 2013, 01:04:30
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 09:27 AM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
Based on what you've said, it sounds like there's a huge circle-jerk and massive censorship going on there. Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
18-01-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(18-01-2014 09:27 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Based on what you've said, it sounds like there's a huge circle-jerk and massive censorship going on there. Consider

Well, maybe. But do remember, Lumi also says there is a conspiracy among scientists to ignore Wilhelm Reich, et al. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 12:34 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2014 12:40 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(18-01-2014 12:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, maybe. But do remember, Lumi also says there is a conspiracy among scientists to ignore Wilhelm Reich, et al. Dodgy
It's not conspiracy, it's natural course of science. Metaphysical reality exists, but it can be assimilated into physics in a very limited way. That is determined by development of instruments and historical coincidences.

One of these instruments is language. We can be rational all we want, but only within a language, this is the nature of our communication and thus collective knowledge. And so far all the languages we ever had were less or more irrationally constructed and acquired. (perhaps except programming languages) This is why individual subjective knowledge can transcend science, at a price of inability of objective proof, but objective knowledge can't.

People who don't know these two things tend to be rather dogmatic. And these two things are the reason why I am so irritated by all kinds of dogma, religious, economical, social and scientific.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(18-01-2014 12:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 12:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, maybe. But do remember, Lumi also says there is a conspiracy among scientists to ignore Wilhelm Reich, et al. Dodgy
It's not conspiracy, it's natural course of science. Metaphysical reality exists, but it can be assimilated into physics in a very limited way. That is determined by development of instruments and historical coincidences.

One of these instruments is language. We can be rational all we want, but only within a language, this is the nature of our communication and thus collective knowledge. And so far all the languages we ever had were less or more irrationally constructed and acquired. (perhaps except programming languages) This is why individual subjective knowledge can transcend science, at a price of inability of objective proof, but objective knowledge can't.

People who don't know these two things tend to be rather dogmatic. And these two things are the reason why I am so irritated by all kinds of dogma, religious, economical, social and scientific.

There you go again: " Metaphysical reality exists". Seriously? I dismiss your assertion since you have provided no evidence.

Language is a tool for communicating. What has that to do with your subjective/objective dichotomy? What you call 'subjective knowledge' is human experiences, including hallucination and delusion. You can use language to describe these experiences. That does not qualify them as 'knowledge'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 12:56 PM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(18-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  There you go again: " Metaphysical reality exists". Seriously? I dismiss your assertion since you have provided no evidence.

Language is a tool for communicating. What has that to do with your subjective/objective dichotomy? What you call 'subjective knowledge' is human experiences, including hallucination and delusion. You can use language to describe these experiences. That does not qualify them as 'knowledge'.
Metaphysics simply refers to the whole of reality, not just that currently known by science. It is the place where scientific discoveries come from. It is a philosophical concept, which means it's an umbrella term, it's true, general, certain and necessary. What it isn't, is informative. Wink

That being said, how do you define knowledge?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(18-01-2014 12:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  There you go again: " Metaphysical reality exists". Seriously? I dismiss your assertion since you have provided no evidence.

Language is a tool for communicating. What has that to do with your subjective/objective dichotomy? What you call 'subjective knowledge' is human experiences, including hallucination and delusion. You can use language to describe these experiences. That does not qualify them as 'knowledge'.
Metaphysics simply refers to the whole of reality, not just that currently known by science. It is the place where scientific discoveries come from. It is a philosophical concept, which means it's an umbrella term, it's true, general, certain and necessary. What it isn't, is informative. Wink

My apologies, you are right; I stand corrected.

Quote:That being said, how do you define knowledge?

I will have to think on that, but it will be connected to the actual.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 01:45 AM
RE: Semantic wars on Hemlock Island (or how I got banned from a philosophy forum)
(17-01-2014 04:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Freedomain Radio is a show of Stefan Molyneux, a thinker who deals primarily in anarcho-Capitalism, objectivism of Ayn Rand, politics, relationships, and so on

No, Molyneux is not a thinker and neither was Ayn Rand. Molyneux is a cunt just as "Ayn Rand" who was actually Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum was. Rand's Objectivism is just Jewish Kabbalistic nonsense pretending to be philosophy.

The thirty-six inhabitants of "Galt's Gulch" are Rand's version of the Talmud's lamedvovniks, i.e. the thirty-six righteous people in each generation for whose sake--and only for whose sake--the universe is sustained by Yahweh. I urge you to pause and think about just how ethnocentric and exceptionalist that idea is: Yahweh sustains the entire universe merely for the sake of 36 Jews, everyone else is just a "passenger" but other Jews are of course first class passengers.

What is funny about you Luminon is that where there are genuine quasi-conspiracies to subvert European culture and identity you completely miss them and your attention is consumed by imaginary conspiracies.

All that Rand did was secularise Jewish Kabbalistic myth and superstition and retain the numerological mumbo-jumbo so that other Jews can recognise it for what it is. Molyneux is critical of Jews and Judaism but his promotion of Rand's bullshit negates that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: