Comments on: Ruin

By: Kgaard

Kgaard — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 16:59:46 +0000

I have now read this German essay three times. It is staggering in its implications. I basically agree on all points. However … I do have to add … that the kind of implosion he’s expecting in Latin America is not really happening. Mexico City is getting better, as are Bogota, Medellin, Santiago and especially Lima. Perhaps smaller family sizes in Latin America are offsetting dysgenic breeding patterns. I’m pretty sure that’s what’s happening, actually. I will say that Buenos Aires is precisely the dystopian hellhole one would predict from his analysis of historical processes …

By: Contemplationist

Contemplationist — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:03:08 +0000

Elysium FTW

By: Scharlach

Scharlach — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:42:29 +0000

Dear Mr. Puzzle Pirate

lol.

By: Scharlach

Scharlach — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:41:43 +0000

I’ve climbed a long way up it, too, but whenever I get the “we need more education” tinglies, I fly home for Christmas and hang out with my family who never escaped South L.A. And I leave thinking, “This is why I’m a reactionary.”

By: admin

admin — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 15:39:31 +0000

Comprehended cybernetically ‘oppositions’ are entirely real (as marked by ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ feedback links). Dialectics systematically scrambles these real polarities, however, until the resulting mess seems compatible only with subjective attributions.

“There’s a point where, eventually, people just have to agree to disagree.” — a commendably civilized conclusion.

By: Hypothetical

Hypothetical — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 15:28:58 +0000

Oppositions, or binaries, are products of thought; they don’t subsist in reality. We establish binaries as concepts in order to deploy thought and/or moments of critique. Through the interrogation of these binaries, we can see how they interrelate and break down.

Outsideness is also an illusion; any time you critique something, you participate in its existence and thus alter its ontology, even to an infinitesimal degree. There is no such thing as entirely objective critique; or, rather, objectivity can only be asymptotically approached through our realization that we participate in the object of our critique.

I’m not attempting to convince you of anything, and I don’t expect to; this has been more for my own understanding of the concepts at work here. There’s a point where, eventually, people just have to agree to disagree.

By: etype

etype — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 09:36:13 +0000

I think you’re almost there – it is a pseudo-teleological geodesic – only the corruption of the original Ursprach or tongue by various philological experts has caused this fact to become unclear and undefined

By: admin

admin — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:02:23 +0000

As a dialectician, you cannot conceive critique without opposition.
As a xenomist, I am quite confident that it requires only Outsideness.

By: SGW

SGW — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 07:53:55 +0000

I’m not sure, as the average IQ increases the repressive mechanisms would presumably also become more effective. Just think of the joke where a person gets to choose between going to German hell and going to Indian hell, with there being no difference except that Indian hell is run by Indians and consequently the torturers slack off frequently and there often are shortages in critical supplies, while in German hell everything runs like clockwork.

A repressive IQ boosting state run by Germans would in all likelihood be capable of greater repression and greater IQ-boosting than a similar nation run by Indians. In the same way a repressive IQ boosting state run by homo superior would be better at what it does than a similar state run by ordinary Germany. Perhaps I’m overlooking something, but to me an IQ increase seems to have a neutral effect when it comes to this issue.

By: Lesser Bull

Lesser Bull — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:48:54 +0000

As the average IQ increased, it would have become increasingly difficult to sustain the repressive mechanisms that caused it to increase.