The young priest/wizard held the staff high. It was the first ceremony he conducted with it, after inheriting it from the old sage, and he had decorated it with fresh mongoose blood and falcon feathers. Read More »
Contemporary belief in science and reason (which should supposedly be deflationary ways of thinking, more common sense, less arcane) fails to tell us why shouldn’t barbarians be more scientific, since they didn’t have a big corpus of literature to make exegesis on. Of course, this blindness is a willing blindness, since part of the myth-of-science is this mockery that it is no myth at all.
One of the inventors of this silliness was Hesiod. Read More »
There is a certain prejudice — wait let me rephrase that: I’ve met with a certain prejudice against writing in the first person. As in “You can’t call rigorous an academic field which allows works in the first person” (source withhold to avoid embarrassments). But, to be blunt, this is complete bullshit from people who do not know enough about writing. Read More »
Old logics and old dialectics organized the kinds of arguments in such a way that the worst possible dirty trick in the bag was the ad hominem argument, and you became nicer as you progressed from opposing the person to opposing the person’s argument itself. Ok, but going against someone’s arguments is another way of going against this person and, also, to blur the lines between person and argument is another way of recognizing this person as a living breathing material real person. Although there is an angle to the old point of view, the game of arguments is more nuanced than that, and the rules of the game must be more comprehensive.
In fact, there’s a kind of exclusion right there, inside this scheme of arguments. Specifically, that it assumes there is only one possible set of values to orient the discussion, one set of motivations, and that therefore there is only one scale to measure arguments with. This in turn led to a bunch of misunderstandings, like turning “sincerity” into “truth” into “perfect language” into “the voice of bog”. Giving up the possibility that «truth» could be measured, we keep the measure of the intent of arguments and ideas, and this turns out to be more useful, although much less divine.
Starting from a different assumption, we instead say all arguments are equally fictional, they all stem from an alien subjective reality from which we are forever excluded. All arguments are the enemy. All arguments are forms of manipulation. And as the arguments rise in complexity they also expand our possibilities of action.
Another way to explain is that one argument on a higher level includes many arguments at a lower level. A judgement involves a lot of actions or the possibility of a lot of actions. It is a measure of complexity.
This measure can be roughly arranged into a typology that almost wants to be a scale:
- Eris, or arguments towards arguments
- Ethos, or arguments towards judgement
- Thelos, or arguments towards actions
Read More »