(FB 1542125801 Timestamp)
GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY NONSENSE CONTINUED.
Of course it’s nonsense. Postmodernism’s “Social Construction” + Chomsky’s Generative Grammar (From Turing) = “Generative anthropology”. A bit of wishful thinking masquerading as an “hypothesis” – a contrivance as means by which to advocate for Relativism, Undecidability, Arbitrary Truth, and Internal consistency without external correspondence. In other words yet another iteration of the attempt by the literary, continental, theological, essayists and moral fictionalists (desperately in search of a science ) to continue their revolt against anglo empiricism, science, economics finance, law, and darwinian evolution given the series of failures of europeans to produce a fictional or mythological, or spiritual, pseudo rational, or pseudoscientific method via Derrida, foucault, Adorno et al, marx, boas, freud, rousseau, kant et al. There is some (mentally unhealthy ) group of people that demand a continuous narrative dream world providing analogistic (literary) rather than descriptive (scientific, organic, mechanical), as a means of preserving the means of deception and coercion available when the narrative diverges from descriptive to analogical. This divergence creates opportunity for the cunning to manipulate or deceive or provoke submission under pretense of knowledge that parents employ over children and professors over students and priests and politicians over adults. All of postmodern thought seeks nothing more than to continue the priestly method of getting status, poser, advantage and income from persuasion by these frauds. Alinsky is the most honest postmodernist. The rest are simply less honest. In the case of Thomas and Spencer and crew this is just secular empty verbalism as a replacement for theology for the reasons I stated – because they lack insight into knowledge, policy, or process and invent fictions for themsellves and others by which to sedate themselves and obtain attention from the … unsophisticated … as a cover for powerlessness alienation, and failure to compete seually, socially, economically, and politically. Which means they are little different from the rest of the postmodern academy: publishing fairy stories as means of getting grants and selling nonsense courses to young women easily falling victim to non existent tragedies that can be rallied against verbally without surviving in the marke for a productive good. Pathetic really.ï»¿
—“Can you offer a Steel man on the essential claims of GA? That is, can you provide your most positive interpretation of such, and then show why it fails? You don’t have to write an essay, this is YouTube, but I didn’t find much meaning in this comment you have made.
In this post you use a lot of abstraction and relation to other intellectual movements, without directly attacking the critical points where GA is making false claims. You even go so far as to invoke ad hominem on those professing the ideas of GA, which is blatently dishonest.ï»¿”—-Zach Undisclosed
â Zach Undisclosed Smart Question.
1) STEP ONE: METHOD OF TESTING Three points test a line so to speak, which is a simple logical means of stating the general rule, that a proposition is falsified by it’s competitors rather than it’s construction. Or another way of saying, like numerology, astrology, scriptural interpretation, rational philosophy, fictionalism, cold reading/tea leaf reading, – but UNLIKE science and law – an internally consistent narrative does not necessarily ALSO survive coherence, correspondence, operational possibility, or a full accounting of inputs and outputs. A STORY may be MEANINGFUL but not TRUE. One of the tests of consistency is whether one is engaging in deception by use one of the GRAMMARS OF SUGGESTION that call upon the individual to perform substitution or appeal to intuition rather than reason. The second is, as in any criminal prosecution, to determine if one has means motive opportunity to conduct a manipulation rather than trade, or fraud rather than trade, or theft rather than trade. In other words, the standard of testing an argument might be like fiction: entertainment, or philosophy: choice, or science: truth, or law : Testimony. The question is whether one is conflating the method with which one argues, with the argument he makes with it. In this case, the general criticism, is that the sequence of deceptions in the ancient and modern world were the same: abrahamism (Judaism>Christianity>Islam) was a counter revolution against greek philosophy, roman law, reason and engineering, and greco-roman imperialism, the same way that the continental christians (rousseau, german phenomenalism, and kantian rationalists) and the continental jews marxism, libertarianism, postmodernism feminism and neoconservatism reacted against ango-empiricism and science, and germany science and technology under imperialism colonialism and prussianism. And that the Grammars used, means of manipulation used, and the thefts and frauds attempted, are all the same. Meanwhile Math, Science, Law, accounting, finance and economics have evolved into the universal language of truthful speech – because they provide decidability independent of cultural loading and manipulation. Whereas the sophisms of theology, pseudoscience, and rationalism, provide means of cultural loading and manipulation. Although it is agreeable to say that the anglos invented legal-empiricism and anglo legal analytic philosophy as a more direct comparison to jewish legal-pilpul and critique (via positiva and negativa sophisms).ï»¿
2) STEP TWO : GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY CLAIMS
(a) GA claims that the language event (which no one disputes) was a singular event (likely), (b) that evolved using the frame of human experience, and we socially construct those frames. Frames are a social science or linguistic equivalent of the term paradigm in sciences. Meaning a set of internally consistent relations providing individuals and groups with decidability. The reductive version is that individuals do not produce meaning on their own, but through negotiation on a contract for meaning using accumulated shared experiences. This is true and has to be, and no one disagrees with it that I know of. (c) The origin of this work is, as I stated, to take Social Construction (1966?) produced by the postmodernists (Derrida[jewish tradition], Justificationism, Relativism, social construction, arbitrary truth (meaning pilpul) ) to which Gans and [?] incorporated Chomsky’s “Generative Grammar”, to explain the ORIGINS of the postmodern relativism and social construction.
3) STEP THREE: COUNTER However, all peoples are subject to limits on the divergence of their frames (paradigms) from reality by the behaviors that result from their continous application. Henc the vast list of dead gods, dead tribes, nations, states, and civilizations. Hence the differences in velocity of different civilizations. Hence the different demographics of civilizations. Hence the different frames civilizations make use of given geography, economy, competitors, resources, and demographics. MOREOVER the west was more successful thatn the rest due to the high correspondence in the ancient and modern worlds between vocabulary and reality, with china a bit farther behind, and all the rest of peoples displaying stages of progress (Or regression) that reflected the correspondence of their frames (paradigms) with reality. We still see this today as the most truthful high trust and scientific societies still out pace their opposites.
4) STEP FOUR: TEST OF CRIMINALITY. Given that GA is expressed in a Grammar of deception, and given that it expresses relativism, … etc. In other words, I wont repeat my ad hom against ‘the talking class’ that teaches internally consistent but incoherent, non correspondent fictionalisms. I won’t address (again) why their need for status does so, but one can always and everywhere describe human actions as economic and financial statements in pursuit of some acquisition or other (or defense of investment or malinvestment).
5) RULING As far as I can tell, GA is just an other attempt to counter truth telling which would lead to darwinian policy giving priority once again to the intergenerational family as the central unit of society for which policy is produced.ï»¿