October 15th, 2018 10:52 AM
THOSE WHO WOULD DEFEND THE SOPHISM OF POSTMODERNISM WITH THE SOPHISM OF CRITIQUE
“The Sophism of Critique.”
It does not matter ‘what you intend’ or ‘what you mean’ it matters what changes in state occur (consequences) because of your display word and deed (actions and consequences).
If I speak in poetry (loading/framing), or code (symbolism/parsimony), or science (existential description), I can say the same things in different terms and frames. If I act according to the instructions or consequences of deductions and inferences therein, my actions are what are caused by the prose.
The Grammar of Postmodernism (semantic content and limits; its’ consistency, correspondence, non-operational prose; coherence; its rules of continuously recursive disambiguation) are simply a continuation of the evolution of the Sophisms of:
Pilpul (justification), Critique (Straw Manning), Suggestion(appeal to cognitive bias), Overloading (of cognition), and Obscurantism (untestability);
… used in:
the Abrahamic (and other) religions > Platonism (Idealism/Obscuring one’s ignorance) > Rabbinical Judgement (Pilpul/Justification) > Christian Justificationism (theology) > Rousseauian (French) Moralism (Justification) > Kantian Rationalism (Pilpul/Justification) > Marxist/Freudian/Boasian/Frankfurt Pseudoscience, Justification, and Critique > and French Postmodernism (Critique).
These Grammars are all forms of sophistry. What they are not is math(measurement), logic (internal consistency), empirical (externally correspondent), scientific(warranty of due diligence), economics(rationality), law (reciprocity), and history(evidence), that is commensurable and testable because it is consistent, correspondent, operationally stated (existentially possible), consisting of rational choice, limited to reciprocal actions, coherent, fully accounted (against cherry picking, and complete in scope (against cherry picking).
Critique Consists in: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, straw manning, reputation destruction, of enemies, and heaping of undue praise of allies, and a failure to address the truth or falsehood of the central arguments, and their outcomes, rather than proposing an alternative, superior, competitively superior, solution that is actionable, and produces superior outcomes and externalities.
Peterson cannot say in his venues anything sufficiently complex that he would lose the relatively mainstream audience. I can. Because it’s my specialty to debunk sophism (psedorationalism: pilpul, critique, loading/framing/overloading/obscurantism), supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and deceit.
Postmodernism is yet another sophism in the long line of deceits that evolved through history to compete with testimonial truth in law, and the evolution of the tools by which we limit one another to that which is testifiable, rational, and reciprocal, and therefore a truth candidate.
In other words, Postmodernism is just another cult-of-lies. Like Marxism before it. Like Rationalism before it. Like Theology Before it. Like Occult before it: a means of coercing the simple to conform to the demands of the Herd. Whereas speech that is testifiable, rational, reciprocal, and stated in operational (existentially possible) prose, like all the grammars of testimony (math, logic, empiricism, science, economics, law, and history) is and always has been, and always will be the means of DECIDING between differences of argument and opinion.
Thus Endeth the Lesson.
The Propertarian Institute