No, I think that your strawmen are quite funny. It’s hilarious to watch you bash on about something that no one has said anything about.
Yes, that’s all nice. But poseurs make me laugh. Thus the reason for the chuckling I do when I read your posts.
And there is a spoon.
No, you’re simply attacking a strawman. Is there any reason that you can’t be bothered to address what we write? Seriously–is there? Because it’s getting old.
This particular board has long been in need of a Rothschild-engineered baby killing cyborg disguised as an innocent looking Korean girl.
The present confusion is grammatical in nature, and solution is obvious: the abolition of singular pronouns.
O noes, Ayn Rand save us!
My answer is simpler…
I think there is an intellectual value to natural property.
For people who are not too attached to hunter-gatherer society, a balance-of-power utilizing conventions and epistemilogically valid arbitration will tend to manifest useful externalities. It apparently pisses the Hell out of some people, though. In any case, I do not recognize ‘property’ except my own in a normative sense. Though I may recognize the fact of your property - IE, that you have the power to keep it to yourself, or that I find it useful to let you dispose of it. But I do this not for yourself, nor out of difference to your ‘rights’ but in accordance with my satisfaction, with my power.
this is code for ‘dont trust me with your stuff’
It would depend on how well you think you can keep it to yourself, how much you think I would want it.
And yet somehow I understand! And I’ve been able to comprehend! O noes… How come! I see the divergences happening, but I’ve shown complete correlations between spirit and pursuit of happiness. I find the world to be Beautiful! So don’t ignore me cause I can understand both natural property and this meta-value of a Korean girl talking. So how is it you, majevska, and Vichy, may not have been able to harmonize natural property with value? Or are focused upon something else and have thrown away the common ground you know about to bridge these conventional grammatical errors that not only the “board” but you can’t seem to thread with a needle and sew either? Is this correct? How am I walking on both sides here! I know do you?
Or it’s a code for “are you going to eat that? snatches up food anyways”
No problem, have mine.
I’m glad you do this in accord with your power. And yes those not too attached to hunter-gatherer society come up with all kinds of ways to make explicit this one phrase: “Back off!” lol… Yes, I use my power to not violate somebody’s natural property. I let people have the little freedom we are niched out in this complicated State world. But natural property is helpful in not having to yell “Back off” and to be able to come to some normative conventional exchange and relations so I can move onto more important events in life. Even if I were in a hunter-gather society. Having these norms makes it easier than having to spell out, “Back off”, to each person all the time. Like fishing or something… maybe enjoying a sunrise with my wife… etc…
(I’m not telling you to back off, just making an analogy)
Don’t try to hard to explain to a post-structuralist their analogy can be used to illustrate the opposing pov. It makes their heads hurt.
Don’t try to hard to explain to a post-structuralist
Please, stop attributing views that I haven’t expressed to me. I am anti-thetical to both Analytic-Linguistic philosophy and to Derrida-esque post modernism. I’m a quasi-Aristotilian materialist. I am making the literal, ontological and existential statement that all compound objects in the Universe are nothing but their components; consequentially as there is no individual ‘conscious particle’ there is no individual ‘consciousness’; just a complex arrangement and interaction of a varying stream of particles whose behaviour constitutes ‘thinking’.
“Harmonize natural property and value”-- I don’t have a problem that. Values exist but morality is a particular type of incoherent value, which depends on these collections of natural properties somehow acting outside of their programming. If these collections of properties lead to the end result of killing an innocent pork farmer without “justification,” then in what sense can it these properties be “wrong.” You can dislike them all you want, but to say that they should act otherwise than they actually do is no different than saying you think it’s “wrong,” for the moon to revolve around the earth or for ducks to quack.
The grammatical errors so-called aren’t really a problem. I’m just poking fun at the performative contradiction people. When I say “I” or “you,” I’m talking about a specific organization of reducible parts. Most people would accept that an apple is divisible into pieces, molecules, atoms &c but wouldn’t balk at calling it “an apple,” for convenience sake.
I call horse hockey. If you’re not post-struct, then you’re really are batty. Considering I’m an Objectivist with a mix of Taoism and Information Theory. So I actually recognize the concept called EMERGENCE. Consciousness is not an incidental feature of the animal kingdom, sorry. If you want to prove your case you better start with the simplest conscious animals. Otherwise, you got no case to make.
So? You’re simply stating conventional ways of explaining the overall patterns of value. These patterns fight it out and some reason it out. You’re not saying anything quite out of the ordinary now. I understood you in a way. Yet you haven’t shown the ability to understand me. But that may not be your intent here. You’re simply lecturing and not listening. I can hear the frogs in the stream nearby. If you’re going to go the route of lecture you’re definitely going to compete with those frogs. I may walk outside and listen to them instead. Lecturers are statists in the making. They tell everybody their point of view, but don’t listen to anybody else’s. They like to argue and don’t care for the common ground.
Why? That’s what you’ve been doing to everyone else here. We can’t have you being a hypocrite, so you’ll just have to suck it up. Or not.
I think the argument is merely descriptive: The “norms” are a consequence of a balance of power - a description of it - as opposed to a cause (i.e. a cause originating from some kind of normative calculus).
…
