Home   |         NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

The 'grim' task of writing and publishing anything of any real ('intellectual' or 'artistic' or 'spiritual') value in a mercantile feudal world.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Intellectual honesty is a good idea. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: It can help with the really important 'things in life'.

 

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Such as figuring out what you 'should' do, what you want to do, what life is - how best to live it. Unification: All of that requires intellectual honesty. Not to mention all the material scientific pursuits as well, eg how to get your precious money or live long. In the end, whatever ruses you have been led to believe in instead, intellectual honesty is your only real road through, all the way through, those battlefields.

At the root of what you should see when you look closely:

<<<

<< A few things have remained pretty constant. One is that at the core of language there must be some generative procedure: recursive, compositional procedure >> Noam Chomsky tells us about the scientific endeavour over the last sixty years aiming to understand the nature of human language.

<< The second is that the field ought to be framed within a biological context. So we're interested in what's come to be called i-Language, internal individual language, viewed intentionally, we care about the actual system of rules, not just some class of objects you might enumerate. .. In the background is a concern to try to show how this biological system could have originated. What's misleadingly called 'evolution of language'. Of course it's misleading because languages don't evolve, but the language capacity, U.G. (universal grammar), does evolve, or must have evolved .. you can derive some surprising conclusions: one of them is that the output of the generative system yields the proper forms for semantic interpretation in quite complex structures .. so that means that what's generated is essentially a language of thought, maybe, I suspect, the only language of thought. The second conclusion is that externalisation .. is just an ancillary process, it's not part of the core of language. .. (these externalisations are) reflexes of the sensory motor system and the nature of the externalisation depends on which sensory motor system you're using .. the sensory motor system is not specifically adapted to language, it was apparently around hundreds of thousands of years before language suddenly emerged and there are many ways to map one to the other and it's a hard process and in fact what we find is that the complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation .. >>

<< A third conclusion is that most of the doctrines about the nature of language and related fields .. most of them are just flat wrong. There's a doctrine which is held virtually at the level of dogma. The way it's put is the function of language is communication. It's a kind of a curious notion because biological systems don't have functions. .. the dogma is that language, uniquely among biological systems, has a function and the function is communication, but if these first two conclusions are correct that has to be false because communication is based on externalisation and if externalisation is an ancillary property of language then communication is even more so. >>

>>>

Within the internal organisation of your mind is the hub of your own personal contact with 'intelligence' such as it is - in other words that, not outside you, is the source of your intelligence and evolution. What is outside you, particularly in the misguided world where jungle law has become concrete jungle law, is what you're taught en masse to see as the 'source' of reason, intelligence, eg via 'received wisdom', etc.

In reality your mind, not the shit you chat, is where your intellectual activity resides. When you're not busy chatting shit, that's when your mind has a chance to do the voodoo which it can do so well. As one reggae singer put it to listeners of a South London rhythm and blues and jazz and reggae and hip hop music FM radio station, whether you're eight to eighty, crippled, lame or lazy, anything you love in life, gwan widdit, seen. And then he sang a song called Jamaican in New York. Or rather they played a recording of his having sung it.

Remember: "mutual aid is a voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit". It is a characteristic which played a part in our evolution and successful survival for as long as we have managed it. Be yourself no matter what they say.

The most successful survivor would, without a shadow of a doubt, be 100% open, always, to mutual aid anywhere where it were possible. You could liken the confidence and benevolence of the most successful survivor, noticeably, to the myths and legends and 'religions' portraying various 'gods' or other 'magical' beings presumed by some to only really concern 'fairy stories'.

That degree of survival takes total intellectual honesty, amongst other things. Anyone can say they believe in leading a healthy life. To do it takes extreme levels of internal honesty. Hitherto unseen levels, as far as data would appear to indicate. If you're looking for a "near 100% success", I mean. Think about it.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

2 versions:

1. Server time: 22:53:7 on 4/8/2019
2. Server time: 23:15:17 on 4/8/2019

Related points:

References:

never ever, no...

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.

Simple text version.

The 'grim' task of writing and publishing anything of any real ('intellectual' or 'artistic' or 'spiritual') value in a mercantile feudal world.

Intellectual honesty is a good idea.

It can help with the really important 'things in life'.

Such as figuring out what you 'should' do, what you want to do, what life is - how best to live it.

All of that requires intellectual honesty. Not to mention all the material scientific pursuits as well, eg how to get your precious money or live long. In the end, whatever ruses you have been led to believe in instead, intellectual honesty is your only real road through, all the way through, those battlefields.

At the root of what you should see when you look closely:

<<<

<< A few things have remained pretty constant. One is that at the core of language there must be some generative procedure: recursive, compositional procedure >> Noam Chomsky tells us about the scientific endeavour over the last sixty years aiming to understand the nature of human language.

<< The second is that the field ought to be framed within a biological context. So we're interested in what's come to be called i-Language, internal individual language, viewed intentionally, we care about the actual system of rules, not just some class of objects you might enumerate. .. In the background is a concern to try to show how this biological system could have originated. What's misleadingly called 'evolution of language'. Of course it's misleading because languages don't evolve, but the language capacity, U.G. (universal grammar), does evolve, or must have evolved .. you can derive some surprising conclusions: one of them is that the output of the generative system yields the proper forms for semantic interpretation in quite complex structures .. so that means that what's generated is essentially a language of thought, maybe, I suspect, the only language of thought. The second conclusion is that externalisation .. is just an ancillary process, it's not part of the core of language. .. (these externalisations are) reflexes of the sensory motor system and the nature of the externalisation depends on which sensory motor system you're using .. the sensory motor system is not specifically adapted to language, it was apparently around hundreds of thousands of years before language suddenly emerged and there are many ways to map one to the other and it's a hard process and in fact what we find is that the complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation .. >>

<< A third conclusion is that most of the doctrines about the nature of language and related fields .. most of them are just flat wrong. There's a doctrine which is held virtually at the level of dogma. The way it's put is the function of language is communication. It's a kind of a curious notion because biological systems don't have functions. .. the dogma is that language, uniquely among biological systems, has a function and the function is communication, but if these first two conclusions are correct that has to be false because communication is based on externalisation and if externalisation is an ancillary property of language then communication is even more so. >>

>>>

Within the internal organisation of your mind is the hub of your own personal contact with 'intelligence' such as it is - in other words that, not outside you, is the source of your intelligence and evolution. What is outside you, particularly in the misguided world where jungle law has become concrete jungle law, is what you're taught en masse to see as the 'source' of reason, intelligence, eg via 'received wisdom', etc.

In reality your mind, not the shit you chat, is where your intellectual activity resides. When you're not busy chatting shit, that's when your mind has a chance to do the voodoo which it can do so well. As one reggae singer put it to listeners of a South London rhythm and blues and jazz and reggae and hip hop music FM radio station, whether you're eight to eighty, crippled, lame or lazy, anything you love in life, gwan widdit, seen. And then he sang a song called Jamaican in New York. Or rather they played a recording of his having sung it.

Remember: "mutual aid is a voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit". It is a characteristic which played a part in our evolution and successful survival for as long as we have managed it. Be yourself no matter what they say.

The most successful survivor would, without a shadow of a doubt, be 100% open, always, to mutual aid anywhere where it were possible. You could liken the confidence and benevolence of the most successful survivor, noticeably, to the myths and legends and 'religions' portraying various 'gods' or other 'magical' beings presumed by some to only really concern 'fairy stories'.

That degree of survival takes total intellectual honesty, amongst other things. Anyone can say they believe in leading a healthy life. To do it takes extreme levels of internal honesty. Hitherto unseen levels, as far as data would appear to indicate. If you're looking for a "near 100% success", I mean. Think about it.



never ever, no...