'Postmodernism' as Existential Threat.

version

Who loves ya, baby?
@version To your point about enabling elitist opinions by treating them as valid:

To be sure, by valid I don't mean exempt from criticism, I just mean exempt from being dismissed entirely. They had to have arrived at their opinion somehow, however diligently, under whatever circumstances, informed by whatever lopsided influences - but all opinions stem from the same general software, and their developments are executed in the same world, a world that is seemingly becoming increasingly homogenous.
How do you do that though? How do you validate the opinion that Trump didn't say something there's direct evidence of him saying? Strikes me as getting into the territory Craner described at the start of the Nick Land thread re: the danger of being locked in a world of ideas if material conditions aren't necessary to validate an opinion like that.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Also, how much time and energy are we willing or able to expend perpetually challenging opinions like that?
 
Last edited:

kumar

Well-known member
i guess a ground rule might be that there are some facts you can hold as universal, eg president trump is called "president trump" rather than "dr piss" but that universalising breaks down when it comes to morals, what we should do etc.

attempting to develop the compassion to treat every opinion as valid could be more of a linguistic practice of avoiding the stumbling blocks that peoples poor reading comprehension and sloppy use of language leads to. sort of along the lines of korzybski/robret antonn wilson not using the word "is".
 

kumar

Well-known member
i would always try and employ that tactic when i lived with someone who was just really neurotic and incorrect during arguments, i found out later that they told several people i was using neuro linguistic programming on them
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
attempting to develop the compassion to treat every opinion as valid could be more of a linguistic practice of avoiding the stumbling blocks that peoples poor reading comprehension and sloppy use of language leads to. sort of along the lines of korzybski/robret antonn wilson not using the word "is".
How do you factor in bad faith?
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Obviously they have genuine opinions which lead them to pretend to hold other opinions, but do you just sidestep what they say are their opinions and validate the opinions driving their operating in bad faith instead?
 

kumar

Well-known member
well someone could have valid reasons for being disingenuous and trying to obscure the truth and obliterate your rational capabilities, and i suppose those reasons are what you would ideally try and tease out
 

kumar

Well-known member
for example if you have to deal with someone in the midst of a psychotic breakdown who is aggressively targeting you as the source of their panic, you are probably not going to be able to get out of that by puting on a sweet voice and using the word "seem" instead of "is"
 

kumar

Well-known member
but there are certain ways of carrying yourself and measuring your tone which might be more helpful than shouting at them to behave and calling the police
 

kumar

Well-known member
i guess that is the general idea constant excape might be getting at, how to wear non patronising kid gloves
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
I'm thinking in more general terms though. I'm talking about Trump supporters etc collectively. Surely there comes a point where just running round in circles treating every opinion as equally valid completely paralyzes a society and causes bigger problems than just telling them they're wrong does? Case in point, climate change.
 

kumar

Well-known member
yes well we dont have the numbers yet to assign a case worker to each american citizen to work through these issues, but you can imagine a kind of ideal communicator, some sort of ferris bueller style can-talk-to-anyone intellectual judo approach that might be the sort of mythological hero to guide us out of the culture war
 

kumar

Well-known member
but yeah you can obviously tell people theyre wrong thats what i meant about president trump not being called dr piss
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
yes well we dont have the numbers yet to assign a case worker to each american citizen to work through these issues, but you can imagine a kind of ideal communicator, some sort of ferris bueller style can-talk-to-anyone intellectual judo approach that might be the sort of mythological hero to guide us out of the culture war
His name is Jesus.
 

kumar

Well-known member
I'm thinking in more general terms though. I'm talking about Trump supporters etc collectively. Surely there comes a point where just running round in circles treating every opinion as equally valid completely paralyzes a society and causes bigger problems than just telling them they're wrong does? Case in point, climate change.
but yeah the boring point would be that universal truths dont apply to things we should do but of course can be relied on for explaining climate change. obviously near total breakdown in trust of all recorded media spices things up a bit
 
Top