June 27, 2016

Paine, Popper, Orwell, and Chomsky
The real nationalist leaders like Sri Aurobindo and Tilak, were put aside by the .... named after India's avatar, a great defender of Hindus, Sri Aurobindo.

... the authors have presented old writings of Bose where he spoke against renouncing the world to take resort to a secluded life like that of Sri Aurobindo.

The Arunachal Times-22-Jun-2016
Sri Aurobindo in Letters on Yoga (page-137) said, “The religious life may be the first approach to the spiritual, but very often it is only a turning about in a round of ...

Sunday, 5 June 2016

Noam Chomsky will be ninety in a couple of years. His has been a remarkable life. Fifty years ago, his name was mentioned as the equal or Freud or Marx or Keynes- or other such meretricious Messiahs to our embattled bildungsburgertums- promising milk and honey, in one or more of the various Academic Wildernesses of utterly worthless Credentialized Careerism.

I should explain, this was at a time when Freud and Marx were considered to have made fundamental discoveries of an essentially scientific kind and Nixon had embraced Keynes to the extent of proclaiming a 'Prices & Incomes Policy'- i.e fucked up so massively he had to be impeached.

Now, however, Chomsky is considered stupider than Ali G- not because he fucked up Second language learning and, in some American School Districts, even First Language literacy- by and large both were positive developments- but because he has rigorously re-purposed the General Intelligence he alone denies he has to always says the stupidest thing possible- even when it is boring rather than funny. [...]

Popper might have had the problem Chomsky identifies, had he been unwilling to grasp the nettle of admitting that everything thought to be known is certain to be falsified. Plato can't have this problem because his theory of 'participation' can be easily recast as saying that the individual mind 'cloud sources' ideas, at Schelling focal points, on a just in time basis so as to get near zero knowledge proofs, cheap error correction etc. This cashes out as David Lewis's theory re. Conventions.

Orwell's problem, on the above view, is just the dual of Plato's problem. The protocols for 'Knowing' and 'Understanding' are costly and impose a risk because they can have intensional effects, i.e. corrupt other files- so it is better to have minimal & air gapped- or else just-in-time mimetic- doxastic commitments. 

Bizarrely, Chomsky thinks Plato's problem cashes out as Sciency stuff (as opposed to Anthropic Principle question begging) and is interesting whereas Orwell's problem is the familiar bleeding heart scandal of how like everybody knows, but nobody is doing anything, about the suffering of trillions of starving Secular Socialist Sanjeev Sabhloks who are being systematically raped, sodomized and forced to commit suttee by the Hegemonic Neo-Liberal Nomenklatura despite this being a blatant violation of the Eighteenth Amendment (coz shite like that tends to go down when I bin drinkin) not to mention Grotius's fundamental principle of Natural Law which says Dutch people get to enslave Tamil peeps and starve them to death on their Ceylonese plantations coz, fuck u Mennonites, that's just the Law okay?

Compared to Chomsky's minimalist program of telling the stupidest lies possible because Science and Politics are immiscible, Ali G's reflexive 'is it coz I iz Black?' resolves the Race Hazard of their univocity in a manner reminiscent of, the Catholic, Rudolf Rocker, resolving the central aporia of Jewish Anarcho-Syndicalism such that the doors to genuine Popular Sovereignty are thrown open at Westminster with the withdrawal of all Whips and the apotheosis of Black Rock like in dat porn film I once saw. (This is the text of my comment on a post on 'Orwell's fatal attraction to Democratic Socialism')

Orwell, like Chomsky, thought the Spanish POUMists had got it right- in other words both believed that it was possible to have a truly democratic people's movement in which the humblest private soldier or volunteer had the right to question the General and to only obey orders after he or she was thoroughly convinced of the need to rape and murder the nun or other class enemy in question.
Both Orwell and Chomsky believe in an 'i-language'- a perfect internal, intensional, language which miraculously exists thanks to some random mutation which has spread to all human beings. They think bad things happen only because evil Capitalist bastards are using 'Advertising' and 'Management Jargon' and other naughty things to pollute the pure i-language established by the Holy Mutation. They do admit that Communists can rape and murder nuns and other class enemies without first having benefited from a long discussion of why it should be done so as to create a truly humane Society in which the rape and murder of nuns and other class enemies is properly remunerated and granted appropriate Social recognition. However, the sin of these Communists is venial merely and they can be absolved of it through proper consciousness raising discussions couched in the pure and prescriptive i-language which is our common human heritage for reasons Darwin and his ilk were too stupid to understand.
However, unlike Communists, Capitalists are damned eternally because they object to the rape and murder of nuns and other class enemies. They are welcome to read Orwell and Chomsky but can never purge themselves of their Original Sin of having been caught up in the nexus of impure 'extensional' language. [...]
Thus, Orwell and Chomsky denounce Capitalist subversion of language such that extensional language, and empirical reality, gains popular acceptation. Nun-raping Communists who don't get a chance to participate in endless discussions about why nun-raping is essential for the attainment of True Socialism, will inevitably end up in cahoots with Capitalists. This is a very bad thing because they may start going easy on the nun-raping and genocide of class enemies- which is like totally not cool. Posted by windwheel at 17:42

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession
MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or never the MEANS of riches; and tho' avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

But there is another and great distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of Heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind. Posted by Anoop Verma at 10:07:00 AM


I went to the store but the shelves were empty
And I didn’t have any money anyway.
And the shopkeeper hadn’t shown up for work that day.
And the store had gone out of business a month ago.
And where the store had been there was a church now.
But it wasn’t really a church, only an altar.
Like the one that we used to have in my church when I was a kid
In the old sanctuary before we built the new one.
And on the altar was nothing
But sun rays shining on dust particles
And every particle of dust was an entire world 
Of joy and sorrow.


No comments:

Post a Comment