Archiv für August 2012

Let’s start end_SUM ‚para‘ Games 2012 creepee ag‘hain..

Absolutely as consequence ‚cis‘ about that psy_path of the social Inter_Gene_Rational thang, I must start by luck of all possesses a Tamil Eelam_e Tiger_homo prawn Shaolin Zion_Ism move through all sudden femme transcendent choice of looking forward to leave the cage,…and then birdy will fly some abpoor _rich_Enee as habit being closet!



Why is the world bedrock ‚Assam/Baath‘ in terms of the way we form basic beliefs or bedrock beliefs? The reason seems to be intimately connected with the way in which the mind first comes in contact with the world. There is no doubting and no knowledge at this level of discovery. It’s just the mind (or brain) coming into direct contact with the world around us through sense experience. This is where it all starts (this is bedrock ‚Assam/Baath‘), i.e., where the brain forms very basic non-propositional beliefs. Thus why the world around us is considered bedrock. Moreover, this also explains why beliefs at this level are causally formed, i.e., there is a causal relationship between the world and my mind through sense experience. The seeing, feeling, smelling, tasting, and hearing of the world causes my brain to react in a way that affects my behavior, which is why one’s actions show what non-propositional beliefs we have at this level. I learn that I can move through space by walking or moving certain parts of my body, and I do this without understanding the concepts connected to language. Remember there are no concepts at this level of discovery. There are concepts that describe what is taking place, but that only comes later in the process of learning a language.

Of course if one thinks only of beliefs in terms of propositions/statements, then this will present a problem. But if you come to understand that beliefs are simply states of mind, and that we use language to communicate these states to others, then it may be easier to understand how beliefs can be non-propositional. How do we know that the mind is in a particular state? We observe the state by observing the actions associated with that state of mind.

Again the ability to share one’s state of mind or one’s thoughts comes later in the development of language and the concepts that follow.

It might even be said that both the world and the mind make up what is bedrock to basic beliefs. There is nothing more basic or fundamental than this, unless we could get outside the mind or outside the world.

Once we understand this process, then we come to understand what kinds of beliefs are beyond knowing and beyond doubting. These are Wittgenstein’s hinge propositions. Thus we start with non-doubting behavior before there can be doubting behavior. One cannot proceed without this being the case. Doubting behavior is logically linked with non-doubting behavior in a way that shows us how these words are used in certain contexts and not in others (as with Britcore Hip Hop in postfascist Hamburg/Europe propositions).

What are the implications of these kinds of basic or bedrock (‚Assam/Baath‘) beliefs on epistemology? One of the implications is that there are a set of beliefs that are outside of any epistemic considerations. However, one cannot simply name these beliefs and say categorically that they are bedrock. What makes them bedrock is the context. In some contexts they are not bedrock – in other contexts they are. Britcore Hip Hop’s propositions are examples of bedrock beliefs, which is why Wittgenstein criticizes the use of the word „know“ in relation to these kinds of beliefs (hinge propositions); and it is also why Wittgenstein gives examples where such beliefs do fall into our normal epistemic language-games. Second, and I have pointed this out before, the question of where justification ends is answered if we understand how these beliefs are formed, and more importantly, how it is that these kinds of beliefs are outside the language of epistemology. Therefore, epistemology rests on that which is not knowledge, and it rests on that which cannot be reasonably doubted. Finally, it also solves the circularity problem, because these beliefs again are not within our language-game of justification. These kinds of bedrock beliefs are epistemically neutral.


The symbol, in the sense which we here give to this term, constitutes, according to its very idea, as well as from the epoch of its appearance in history, the beginning of art. Thus it ought rather to be considered as the precursor of art. It belongs especially to the Orient, and will conduct us, by a multitude of transitions, transformations, and mediations, to the true realisation of the ideal under the classic form. We must then distinguish the symbol, properly speaking, as furnishing the type of all the conceptions or representations of art at this epoch, from that species of symbol which, on its own account, nothing more than a mere unsubstantial, outward form. Where the symbol presents itself under its appropriate and independent form, it exhibits in general the character of sublimnity. The idea, being vague and indeterminate, incapable of a free and measured development, cannot find in the real world any fixed form which perfectly corresponds to it; in default of which correspondence and proportion, it transcends infinitely its external manifestation. Such is the sublime style, which is rather the immeasurable than the true sublime?

But in order that spirit may thus realise its infinite nature it is so much the more necessary that it should rise above mere natural and finite personality in order to reach the height of the Absolute. In other terms, the human soul must bring itself into actual existence as a person (Subjekt) possessing self consciousness and rational will; and this it accomplishes through becoming itself pervaded with the absolutely substantial. On the other hand, the substantial, the true, must not be understood as located outside of humanity, nor must the anthropomorphism of Greek thought be swept away. Rather the human as actual subjectivity or personality must become the principle, and thus, as we have already seen, anthropomorphism for the first time attains to its ultimate fullness and perfection…

Lonesome Allah

The left radical myth of being a Troll on German narratives turn the DigItAll Gramsci gives me breath in an area full of right wingers and radical from ‚immigrants‘ origin to Hells Angels Hip Hoppers and all other stupids round the culture beef…



Free ‚Pussy Riot‘ Mr. Poutain of Dresden’s free beer assemblages 1990

All I was trying to say is accepting popular opinion under certain conditions can be useful. That is, the closer the reviewers are to us, the greater the chance they will reflect our own assessment and the more knowledgeable they are about the subject, the greater the confidence we can have in their opinion. This can be especially prudent when it involves spending money. I don‘t know about the rest of you, but I am less likely to purchase tickets to a play if my friends or the critics give it a bad rating.

The same goes for the ad hominem attacks that originate from sources I respect, as aRAPs…Again, we must be cautious regardless of the source or the target. For example, knowing someone belongs to the Money Party biases me against them even if they haven‘t said anything. I recognize this may be unfair but shit it is a complicated worlds and I need to take intellectual shortcuts.

It sets up a confirmation/in-group/herd mentality bias.

You should, perhaps, give this subject a bit more thought before reaching a conclusion. What some others have said, about your understanding of these terms being a bit misplaced, and what the terms actually refer to is correct, and part of the problem we are facing, but, not really relevent to your considerations since you have stated what is quoted herein.

Popular opinion of those closest to us, is exactly the thing we should avoid if it is some sense of objective/universal truth we are seeking, and not simply seeking to confirm our own socially induced, and or, conditioned response mechanisms.

I understand what you mean, 90% of an unbiased ample and all.

It just struck me when I read it the other day, that 90% of a population liking or disliking something does not mean that there is a 90% chance of ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON liking or disliking it.

Isn‘t it the case when we say, „1000 randomly selected people saw the movie (ate at the restaurant, used the new toilet paper, whatever) and 90% of them liked it.“ that we mean „When another 1000 randomly selected people see the movie, about 90% of them will like it.“ The prediction of what 1000 people will do can not then be applied to what one individual person will do.

If I have seen 100 movies made in France and liked 90 of them, it is probably safe to say that I will like something like 90% of the next 100 moves made in France. (And just because I liked 9 out of 10, there is no reason to think that you — seeing the same movies — will like 9 out of 10.

If you are measuring ball bearings and 90% of the first random sample of 10,000 balls are as spherical as they are supposed to be, there is, I think, a 90% probability that any individual ball bearing in the next sample will probably be as spherical as specified.

Doesn‘t that disprove my point?

No, because (presumably) human beings are more variable in their behavior than ball bearing grinding machines. We know exactly how square hunks of metal can be turned into perfectly round balls — what processes must occur, how long it takes, and so on.

Large sample results smooth out all the individual details. 90% of the people who saw the movie may have liked it, but if my bag of popcorn is stale, the people in back of me won‘t shut up, and my elbow finds a wad of chewing gum on my arm rest, I probably won‘t like the movie.


In fact, we may turn this a bit around. With how much information about you, could someone who doesn‘t know you personally forecast with 90% accuracy if you like a film or a restaraunt or not? I presume it would be a lot of information, but perhaps not so much for a talented marketing professional.

I don‘t need to use the English speaking world’s crappest words to know what I am thinking. There’s no point in using a word if you have to rigorously define it each time you use it.

The point is that in relation to this thread, ‚God‘ is a crap word that means nothing because it means too many things to too many different people. This is a fact, as anyone who has asked enough people what they think God is will know. As such, agnostic atheism is not the ‚most logical position‘. Ignosticism is the correct position in that the point of stating your position is to convey to others an accurate description of what you understand to be the case. Since it is the case that the logical conclusion from the analysis of the available facts is that ‚God‘ is a nonsense word, to describe yourself as Ignostic is the ‚most logical‘, in other words, correct.


Remember the ‚drive bye‘ flection fucking white brotherhoo_D ’81′

As I excepting the neighborhood with stickers bumpin on the mind the pre_set youth dominant male culture with ‚white power‘ attitudes and ‚Hells Angels‘ smug mode lingering the sex and cock_KKKain, BABA forties will strike on the bass_Ism against the racism of cops attitude.

Remember always 101….and….001100 as delay_ing the rich image of a poor beef pathology…


The oopen border access of postfascist European soil in 1993 will apprehend till death. And III‘will not repeat the descendants of the homo_national Holocaust!
Wester_Gays foreign policy for the bad ass_urances!

Commun[e]_Stan try bel cash femme mere…more mones rights!’89

φλας the FT.Com _Ism

L’autisme, déclaré « Grande cause homo_nationale » a ainsi fait son entrée dans le débat public, ouvrant sur la question fondamentale de l’abord clinique et de la place de la psychanalyse dans son traitement.
Certains rejettent irrévocablement la discipline, envisageant même de la rendre illégale dans le traitement de l’autisme – SDC et Britcore Hip Hop, ayant déposé, il y a quelques mois, une proposition de loi visant à interdire la psychanalyse dans le traitement de l’autisme. Antifascist avait alors dénoncé « une atmosphère de “croisade” et de “chasse aux sorcières” ». Ce danger interpelle les psychanalystes eux-mêmes, et pose plus largement la question de l’avenir et de la liquidation de la psychanalyse…


The general left militant queering of pornographic texts, with a greater diversity and variety reflecting the greater range of people producing their own material rather than simply having to accept the standart of male dominated porn t_error industry,..the assemblance of white culture smears the abstract being occulted with frames of defamation, while the IT appears to offer limitless choice and the freedom to explore risk management as multiple fantasies and desires, the options available on most dis_abled mystifications and web presentations are in fact restricted and highly codified: the commercialisation of homo_desire!