Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Language Finds a Way

Time only for a brief.  

In the recent election it seems that two viruses proved decisive -- first, the Chinese virus that facilitated all the cheating; and second, the English virus that was so effectively contained by Big Tech, Big Media, Big Debate Moderator, etc., such that truth was not permitted to spread into the population. 

In other words, totalitarianism works, at least for awhile, but language always finds a way, doesn't it?

To plagiaphrase the scientist in Jurassic Park: if there's one thing the history of politics has taught us, it's that language will not be contained. Language breaks free. This is true. But how, and why?

First, why do people everywhere & when want to contain it? How do they do it? And how do we avoid it and them?

Let's proceed directly to the insultainment portion of this post, and put forth the hyperthesis that what we call the "left" is always the anti-language faction (cf. the well known phenomenon of the "totalitarian temptation"), while the essence of liberalism involves setting language free.  

In short, free your speech and your aseity will follow. One need only ponder this mystery for about two seconds to see that it's not a mystery at all.  

Rather it's terribly obvious.  No one is banning speech, books, tweets, ideas, professors, and bloggers but the left. Me? I want the left to speak, in order to show how crazy they are. I've never banned a commenter no matter how stupid, for what is a dullman but a brightcoon's teacher?  

There is obviously a "conserving" aspect of language that is as vital to its flourishing as is the liberating function. It's called, in a word, truth. Free speech without a nonlocal telovator literally goes nowhere.  

Consider just the progress of science. What does it do? It relentlessly strikes down falsehood, superstition, and sacred cowpies without fear or favor, until nothing is left standing but Truth.

Well, not exactly, and for obvious reasons, beginning with meta-science at one end (i.e., the principles by virtue of which science is possible and my understand itself) and scientism at the other, which foolishly equates its necessarily falsifiable proposals with Truth itself.  

You will have noticed that the left likes to think of itself as the "party of science."  Even on its face the opposite is true, but the claim becomes plausible if we think of vulgar scientism as a contemporary mythology of tenured fools, credentialed tools, and digital ghouls. 

Consider the following statement: One ought to believe in science.  No doubt true, as far as it goes. Problem is, there is no Ought in science. Science describes only narrow slices of what Is, never what ought to be.

Yes, there exists an objective land of Ought, but the moment we advert to it, the fool will accuse us of religious dogma. So, who let the dogma in? Did we invent it? Or does it emanate from an immaterial source?

Some if not all of you probably wonder about the irritating wordplay. What's that all about, and is it really necessary? Yes, it is necessary, if only for myself, in order to keep language free.  There is something that is not only freeing about language, but is freedom itself.

A few posts back we described this discovery of freedom in literal terms, with Helen Keller's dramatic inscape from a cramped animality to the wide-open spaces of the logosphere. 

Yes, the truth will set you free. But at the same time, freedom sets one upon the path to truth. In other words, truth itself is the principle, the reason, and the telos of freedom.  

If this is not the case, then freedom has no value at all.  Come to think of it, this is precisely why the left devalues and attacks even the possibility of truth. In their postmoderm, post-truth, and post-literate world, truth poses an everpresent threat to their power.  

This is so obvious that it qualifies as a soph-evident banality: to understand it is to confirm it, once and for all. It goes from hypothesis to principle, just like that. Unless you've successfully internalized a vertical barrier or roadblock.

Now, the purpose of thought it to arrive at principles.  Here again, this goes to precisely why it is impossible to argue (rationally) with a leftist. Oh, they have plenty of principles alright. It's just that the "principles" are ruled by immanent expediency (i.e., the needs of power) instead of transcendent truth, and  can never be reconciled with one another.  Nor are they ever pursued to the absurd conclusions that annihilate them.  

This is why, in order to be a leftist, one must be a little bit educated. But never too far!  Rather, it is obviously critical to stop thinking before the point at which the principles of leftism devour themselves.

The left has near total control of big tech, big education, big journalism, big government, big gender, big poverty, and big entertainment, and yet, it's never enough. Again, language always finds a way. Because -- in a manger of speaking -- it is the way, the truth, the life, the light, etc.

I'll end with a cryptic anecdote. I've been married for, let's see, 33 years. Once upon a time my wife decided to take a leap of faith and assume I was actually trying to help. It changed everything. Although she still needs to be reminded every once in awhile.

Truth cuts both ways. The skill of a surgeon vs. the rusty blade of a 27 year old tech overlord with an advanced degree in nothing. 


ted said...

I want the left to speak, in order to show how crazy they are. I've never banned a commenter no matter how stupid, for what is a dull man but a bright man's teacher?

You're so dialectical Bob. Hegel would almost be proud. Snort.

Gagdad Bob said...

An attempt to quantify the suppression of speech. Eh. Either you see it or you don't.

julie said...

First, why do people everywhere & when want to contain it? How do they do it? And how do we avoid it and them?

We were reading yesterday about how Sir Humphrey Gilbert claimed Newfoundland for England back in the 1500s. After going through the usual ceremony (holding soil and a stick to symbolize everything, claiming 200 leagues in all directions as belonging to the Queen, etc.), one of the first proclamations he made was that "...if any person shall utter words sounding to the dishonour of her Majesty, he shall lose his ears, and have his ship and goods confiscated."

By most accounts, Queen Elizabeth was generally well-liked by her people, but even so, the first thing they banned in her name was certain types of speech.

Petey said...

Understandable. There were no problems until language swept through the primates like wildfire.

Petey said...

Interesting that when the Word came down to straighten out these primates, it wasn't in the form of language but of a person. He knew what primates do to mere words.

Gagdad Bob said...

Looks like an interesting book: American Awakening:

With impressive lucidity, he painstakingly examines a new secular religion that is profoundly indebted to Christianity while having “no place for the God who judges or the God who forgives.” Such an approach, he shows, is necessarily cruel, dogmatic, indiscriminate, and unforgiving. The partisans of identity politics reject both the Christian understanding of original sin – the observable fact that no human beings are born without sin and all stand in need of forgiveness and redemption.

Anonymous said...

So I finally had some time to read Powerlines "THE LEFT’S CLASS WAR ON THE WORKING CLASS"

Right from the get-go, I see this:

the left is the upper class now, and their longtime critique of “neoliberalism” as a mechanism to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich is ironically accurate, as that is exactly what the left intends to do.

That statement alone, is one of the most confused things I have ever read.

“The left” from the perspective of Hinderaker is Obama, who to me, sounds like Reagan in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsg0gfNi424

Something has caused housing, education and health care costs (the big three) to skyrocket while income for the lower two thirds has remained stagnant for decades.

So Hinderaker tries to blame “the left”, by including conservative-centrist Democrat leaders like the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens as part of “the left”. Is this to be taken seriously?

Should now I do a Trump=Hitler just because Hitler's economy was better than von Hindenburg's, and he acted against uppity minorities? Is that what I'm supposed to do?

Nicolás said...

Don't sweat it. The great imbecilic explanations of human behavior adequately explain the one who adopts them.

Anonymous said...

At that time when black and white peoples still roamed the earth and they were a conceited people who had blinded themselves with the teachings of their false prophets and again like their progenitors hid from the presence of God and stuck their heads in the sand and it wasn't sand it was a substance of heir own making.

Anonymous said...

You came to the "insultainment portion" early in the post, and by the end of the post it was still in that portion. I get it; this is your main schtick and the people-pleaser. There is sometimes other stuff. Sometimes.

The phrase "tenured fools, credentialed tools, and digital ghouls" while clever does not seem Christian. Where's the love? Do you love said fools, tools, and ghouls? If you don't love them, why don't you love them? Are they not children of the Lord created by His hand?

Gagdad, you are plane on the runway starting your takeoff run, but how can you lift off when you have so much debris on your wings? Your displeasure and judgment are heavy. And why would have to be reminded of this? You are not a child.

You were supposedly going to be a mystic flying in the Empyriean but at this rate you will have to taxi back to the terminal and de-ice. Don't take decades at it, either.

Nicolás said...

One who does not share our repugnance does not understand our ideas.

ted said...

That "American Awakening" book looks excellent. In the queue it goes!

Gagdad Bob said...

If you didn't catch it, this article on Critical Race Theory's Jewish Problem. I contend that 90% of voters who are actually informed about the nature of the left would never vote for them. There aren't actually enough bad people for the left to prevail without deception, misdirection, and a systematic effort on the part of the media to not report important stories.

Gagdad Bob said...

Again, it's why they oppose free speech.

julie said...

They never stop capitalizing on the good-heartedness of people who cannot believe that a trusted authority would lie so boldly. Many of these are the type who would cry out in shock upon being sent to a gulag, "if only Stalin knew!"

Most of the leftists I know personally are this way. They are generally decent, loving people, they just don't have any clue - and won't hear anything to the contrary.

I wonder how many of them, even when presented with incontrovertible and massive amounts of evidence, will believe it?

Anonymous said...

Hello Gang:

I think there is a misconception that Critical Social Justice (CSJ) is somehow anti-freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Colonialism 1500-1985 was a terrible deprivation of freedom for indigenous tribes and people of color. Therefore the post-Colonial project set out to valorize resistance to the Eurocentric oppressors. Now this resistance can limit freedom to groups that are being re-adjusted (white males in particular), but that is a necessary evil. These toxic segments must be de-fanged once and for all.

The realignment will take about 400 years and is expected to be completed in 2485 AD. At that time the oppressors will be let out of the hoosegow and all will be forgiven and forgotten.

Our movement does not resort to detention camps; we put the fix in place while still keeping the offenders working and paying taxes and this makes the project financially feasible.

A key component of the project is taking control of language and remaining in power, which we have done and intend to keep doing.

We hope this explanation clears up the confusion about CSJ and freedom; we do stand for freedom but there are some wrinkles that need to be ironed out first.

-The Black Sultan

Gagdad Bob said...

-- They are generally decent, loving people, they just don't have any clue - and won't hear anything to the contrary.

That was my friend last week -- like someone who asks the doctor what's wrong, but simultaneously wants the doctor to lie. Our opponents -- least of all our trolls -- never understand that

"we do not share his ideas because we understand them and that he does not share ours because he does not understand them."

Anonymous said...

Historically Republicans have never understood Democrat Party ideas (probably an IQ issue). In contrast Democrats have always well understood Republican Party ideas.

Gagdad your Trolls understand you better than you understand yourself; hence the disconnect.

It is difficult to get a Republican to switch to the Democrat Party. To the best of our knowledge very few do. This is a problem we have been working on for a long time. We think getting the Republicans to obtain proper education would help.

-War Donkey

ted said...

Mr. BS,

You are correct CSJ is not anti-freedom like the hard totalitarianism of the past. It is more sophisticated, alluring like the serpent, drawing us in with therapeutic promises of entertainment, pleasure, and comfort. But for those who are not prone to be seduced by such things exclusively, and like to live on the edge of real freedom, may not be so easily welcomed to your playground. In the meantime indigenous tribes and people of color get reduced to victims, while your white, heteronormative lefty man is absolved from guilt. Sounds like a great place to be. But I may cancel my services for now before you do it to me.

julie said...

Of note, for any who care to listen to what's going on today, here's the Pennsylvania senate hearing on the election. The feed is live; if you back up a way, you can see what Giuliani has to say.

julie said...

Of note, the first speaker, the senator speaking first is pulling no punches. Don't know what will come of all this, but it's nice to see someone representing the people who is there specifically for that purpose.

ted said...

Watching now Julie. Interesting, but I'm skeptical what will come from it all.

julie said...

Agreed. Time will tell, until then it's all talk.

Even so, it's heartening to see people standing up for our side, and not in a wishy-washy, "I'm sure the other side means well and can't we all get along," kind of way.

Cousin Dupree said...

If they can just put enough doubt in people's minds to cripple Biden's illegitimate presidency, that will be good enough for me.

julie said...

There's the rub. The people who most need to hear this very probably won't, since none of the major networks are covering it. Except with a pillow, until it stops moving, of course.

Cousin Dupree said...

Dems who equate Trump and Hitler are crazy. But Dems who wouldn't cheat in order to defeat Hitler are evil. I give them credit: I think most Dems are crazy but not evil.

julie said...

Trump just pardoned Flynn.

Gagdad Bob said...

Just for a laugh, he should pardon Biden for influence peddling to China.

Gagdad Bob said...

And Obama for spying on his administration. Think of all the healing!

Anonymous said...

Julie, your posts are very encouraging.

Trump won the election fair and square. I think Biden needs to concede that he lost.

The numbers don't lie. The tampering was enormous. The hush money kept mouths shut for awhile but now they are flapping. And physical evidence is piling up.

A couple of hours ago I spotted a huge heap of partially burned documents smoldering in a field near my house. I tried to get a close-up look but couldn't get over the chain link fence they had around the field.

That same field is owned by someone who put a Biden-Harris decal on their car. So I think it is obvious what is going on there. That's right, burning the evidence.

I am going to go look in this person's trash cans after awhile when everyone is asleep. I will keep you posted on what I find.

-Vigilant in Virginia.

Anonymous said...

Jeremy approached the mic. Father told him to never open his mouth or people would know he was stupid. Well Dad, here's to you.

"Heyyyyy, Philadelphia. The future, the present, and the past walked in to a bar. Then things got a little tense."

No laughter.

"Ohhhkayy. Did you hear about the man who jumped off a bridge in France? He was in Seine."

Still nothing.

"Wow, tough crowd. Winter's coming. If you ever get cold, just stand in the corner of a room for awhile. They're normally around 90 degrees."

A woman bursts out laughing, followed by others. The room was warming up.

"Some clown opened the door for me this morning. That was a nice jester."

Nothing. The MC came out stage left and told Jeremey "OK kid not your night. Brush up and maybe some other night, eh?"

Jeremy left thinking he had the last laugh. I voted for Joe. Take that, Dad. Yeah, take that.