Tag Archives: validity

Participating with the Premise.

Image In debate, not only is it necessary to remain rational it is necessary to remain consistently rational.  When a person makes a logical fallacy or a cognitive bias it needs to be addressed and corrected before the conversation can continue.  If you continue the debate without correcting the error you are granting equity to the other person in the conversation.  You are acting as though they have not made an error and by staying in the conversation you are participating with the premise that they are being and have consistently been rational. If the other person in the conversation is not being rational, the conversation itself is not rational.  If one person tries to remain rational in a debate while the other person is making no effort to be rational or proceed rationally, this creates a disparate impact in favor of the person that isn’t being rational.  When you get in a fight with a clown, even if you win you lose. It is necessary to proceed correctly.  The words process and practice come from the greek word praxis.  All valid philosophies have a praxis. A philosophy by its very nature has to be self referentially consistent, if it creates disparate impact it is invalid and therefore not a rational philosophy.  If a person can’t be falsified by their own philosophy it is not a philosophy and they are not rational.  So as you see they falsify themselves by their own procedure.  A rational person proceeds rationally, nothing can be proven by irrational means, that is why due process exists.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
So, I tried to do a kind of semantic clarification in which praxis—if not on the thither side of this divide—was perhaps somehow between the theoretical and the practical as they are generally understood, and particularly as they are understood in modern philosophy. Praxis as the manner in which we are engaged in the world and with others has its own insight or understanding prior to any explicit formulation of that understanding…Of course, it must be understood that praxis, as I understand it, is always entwined with communication.  —Calvin O. Schrag[1]

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realised. “Praxis” may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of PlatoAristotleSt. AugustineImmanuel KantSøren KierkegaardKarl MarxMartin HeideggerHannah ArendtPaulo Freire,Ludwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.

 

MINDHACKING 101 #1 MIRROR TECHNIQUE

Image

I have been asked repeatedly to write down my techniques for what I learned to do with human behavior and psychology.  I think Cris Blakk will particularly find this technique interesting so I dedicate this blog to him.  https://plus.google.com/115599668920707439466/posts

When I think a person might be behaving strategically towards me, which is any unprovoked deviation from rational relationship for the purpose of maximizing what they are getting from the relationship without contributing equal value, or an attempt to establish dominance or leverage themselves, or refusing to participate, communicate, understand I have a little test to see if they are being self-referentially consistent.

Most people in trying to falsify another person do so from their own perspective making visual emotional judgements.  “I feel that you are wrong, therefore you are wrong”.  In order to actually falsify someone you have to do so from their perspective, which means understanding their philosophy if it is valid and non arbitrary, and if it is sound prove to them that their behaviors are not congruent with their beliefs.

I will use a tautology of the behavior or the strategic communication on them and see how they react to their own strategy.  If they respond as they want me to respond when they use it I know they are not intentionally being strategic, but if they don’t I know it is some manner of subterfuge.

I came up with this technique from my ASCENDING DRAGON STYLE TAI CHI that i created when I was in Washington state.  The concept is that you only turn the energy used to attack you back on your opponent.  You must make your ego very small and remove your judgments and interpretations from the interaction to ensure that they are in relationship with their own tactics through you.  I also sometimes refer to this as the silver ray technique. http://finscribeofwisdom.blogspot.com/2012/10/ascending-dragon-style-tai-chi.html

One of the tests for intelligence in animals is to see how long it takes them to realize that they are fighting their own reflection.  The mirror technique is fascinating because you get to see how the person is in relationship with their own strategies.  There is a part of my consciousness that sits back and just observes.  If you use 100% of your energy for the physical stuff or the emotional stuff you will not have the energy to sit back and learn and remember.  You can’t be completely invested in the conflict, you have to have a reserve of energy to learn and remember so that you can improve and compensate for that strategy in the future.

They are not fighting me, they are fighting themselves.  Sometimes people become aware of this.  Other times they become psychotic and feel they must destroy me.  They use as much dumb physical force as they muster and they enter a self destruction loop.  They become completely unconscious and completely obsessed with my destruction.  Paul Eckman refers to this as a refractory state, he says that a permanent refractory state is synonymous with insanity.  This is the technique I used to troll trolls and entire groups of trolls off the internet.  Right now I am apparently too controversial for facebook, lol.  They won’t let me have a single profile and it has been 6 months.  WINNING!

Image