Douglas Murray is a rational gift to the world.

Douglas Murray being magnificent, as always ❤

Listening in from Ireland. At the height of the famine ,average age for a male to die at was 37 years old.The black / American living on the plantation was 50 years old.Brilliant as usual Douglas..Dublin

@macrosense

Жыл бұрын

Ireland had bumper export crops of wheat or grains, dairy , vegetables, beef, pork, and lamb or mutton during the famine years. However, the majority of Irishmen were basically tenant farmers and ninety percent of their diets were potatoes.

Douglas Murray here doing what he does very well, exposing charlatans and nonsensical ideologies.

Douglas Murray makes so much sense and is fun to listen to.

I always am uplifted to a better life whenever I listen to Douglas Murray. Thank you, Douglas, for being one our great intellectuals.

God bless you Douglas Murray! - I'm an atheist.

What a fantastic talk and discussion. Civilised, articulate, funny in places, thought provoking. It's like stumbling across clean, cool, refreshing water in the midst of a derelict cityscape. Thank you!

Could listen to this man all day, every day.

god, that was a breath of fresh air.

As the British are wont to say, “BRILLIANT.”

Love Douglas Murray! 🙏⭐❤

To reiterate another commenter, Douglas Murray is truly a gift and a breath of fresh air in 2023.

Brilliant. I fully appreciated his objective perspective about appreciation what we have.

Unquestionably his best speech. And that's a high bar.

I don’t often miss Richmond, but do wish I was there to see Murray live. Haven’t been inside the Jefferson in a couple years.

A brilliant speaker, humane and decent. A breath of fresh air in a fetid stench of contemporary amoral " thinking". A great export, essential for these times. Despite choking over COVID,maybe?

Brilliant talk by Douglas Murray, and conversation with John Reid and really great questions and also great statements and expressions from the audience in their creative, legitimate and well worthy dance around their instructions. Many thanks to Douglas Murray, John Reid, Marion Smith, The Common Sense Society, and the audience, who I am now certain are in fact real. The last story and question so open up an interesting space and Doulas Murray draws it into a enlightening closing point. I am from the UK and have never been to the US but I felt it was appropriate to comment since, as Douglas Murry pointed out, much of the ideas here are in the UK but maybe not so extremely carried out perhaps. Also I have watched many US University Course on American History and even some on British history. I have studied physics and philosophy at University and that is was i can bring to this session. Along with that then, I hope my knowledge of American history gives me enough of a context for my understanding and my comments are to some degree at least reasonably attuned. Thanks again everyone.

Unfortunately in US an old woman with a "American history matters" in front of a statue would have been beaten & the media & democrats would have said "she had it coming"

@sudenims5235

9 ай бұрын

😢

Nice. Douglas lands all his best bits.

Excellent discussion . Thankyou.

Reminded me of George Orwell's 1984, ""If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and the mind is controllable, what then?"

Anyone have a recording/link for the radio discussion with Douglas? Can't get enough haha love Douglas Murray on the mic

Could someone please forward a link to this presentation to Anthony Albanese, the current Prime Minister of Australia. It might help him to become more informed and respectful of the value historical truth.

@Mrbobinge

Жыл бұрын

I had been thinking - 'Australia will be turning in its grave' - when they watch this from Down Under.

Roger Scruton RIP

It is important to maintain these confederate monuments and statues, so that we can be historically literate enough to be ashamed of those portions of our past.

@ZephaniahL

Жыл бұрын

That's one way to think of it, one that concedes a great deal of ground to the Left's interpretations. I have never seen the Confederacy as principally to do with "white supremacy," and it has not been (certainly before 2000) the American way to have a single dominant interpretation of the causes of the Civil War that was imposed, effectively, by coercion. But it has been the case in this century, and that is cause for shame and outrage.

@macrosense

Жыл бұрын

The festering tension preceding the civil war was the expansion of slavery into new states. However, when the southern states did secede, many of them were pretty pretty explicit in proclaiming it was over slavery. As well as their leaders. Particularly Confederate leader Alexander Stevens. However, had the South not seceded it is likely they would have kept slavery for decades, the speed of our democracy or republic being what it was. However, had a peaceful secession been allowed by both the North and the South it is likely there would have been a war between them within a decade or two anyways. Because that is what was common when two large nations were next to each other at that time. Even before the civil war it was a recurring event for Southern filibusters to engage in adventures to conquer Latin American and Caribbean nations or territories with the dream of establishing large slave plantations:they did not have formal federal backing, but as part of a separate Confederacy it is likely they would have: this would have inevitably drawn them into wars with European powers in Latin America and Caribbean. That would have drawn the northern United States into that war, presumably allying with whichever European power the Confederate States were fighting.

@garlandalmarode6396

Жыл бұрын

The South wasn't attacked over slavery and they weren't fighting for slavery. If they were they would have won, because Lincoln said they could keep the slaves. The South was fighting to have its own nation and Lincoln was fighting to stop that. Save the union was his way of saying stop them from having freedom.

@ZephaniahL

Жыл бұрын

@@macrosense You lift from James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom as though it is the last word on the subject, rather than simply an orthodox statement of the American liberal position. Consider that of course McPherson and his fellow-travellers are going to depict the Southerners as the "real imperialists" in the fight. Their school of thought goes back before the war itself -- that doesn't mean we need to accept it at face value, any more than we do the pamphlets of abolitionists.

@macrosense

Жыл бұрын

I have never heard of McPherson. I am generally responding to what people such as Alexander Stephens wrote before and during the Civil War itself.

He has said “courteous” before. Sir Roger Scruton talked about “courtesy”.

Watching the riots as they unfolded I was struck to see how co-ordinated they were. As if they had just been waiting for the right moment and they all knew what was to be done. Also the media seemed to know exactly how they were going to report on the events - or not report on certain events. Like a huge sleeper cell that was just waiting for the call to awake and go into the streets

@cpaul6865

Жыл бұрын

Kristallnacht in Germany in 1938 was meant a spontaneous event too. Turns out it wasn't. I condemn those riots as much as the recent ones.

@carolblume5073

Жыл бұрын

Some say the tiki torch marchers were a gov't psych op. Didn't you notice how clean cut they were and that none of them were fat? It appeared to be staged. And have any of them ever been interviewed by the press?

@JG-qt3pn

Жыл бұрын

The first Antifa Rally in my city was a peaceful family day out. Grandparents with their children and grandchildren, etc. A friend who went was telling me about the good vibe of it all. Then she said that about 4pm/4:30pm the police presence disappeared. She got tired and decided to go home which was very close by. On her way home she said that about seven shiny black new Escalade type cars pulled up, blacked out windows and all. Groups of men in black got out and ran into the crowd. When she got home and turned on the news, the Antifa rally had turned violent. This same thing was reported at Alt-Right/Proud Boys rallies as well. What we are going through is a planned assault. An assault on both sides designed to pit one side against the other so we destroy ourselves. Then they'll institute an authoritarian government to save us from ourselves. The corporate coup is over and they won.

@ceecee6679

Жыл бұрын

@@JG-qt3pn I will take what never happened for $800

@JG-qt3pn

Жыл бұрын

@@ceecee6679 But of course, we'd expect nothing else from you.

A fine talk. Thank you for posting (please fix the mediocre for sound next time). I fear seeing Richmond again, the denudation, "the plinth city," as Murray describes them.

Good to hear

Attacking those historical figures is attacking Western Civilization. It's also offensive to me, and I'm portuguese.

Great vid ❤

Small correction - the Dutch Republic existed at the time of American Revolution.

His last comment was the best!

What [white] racism today? No one says no to these racism claims-- thanks Douglas.

As always a very interesting talk. One point I would take issue with is his claim that Napoleon is viewed negatively by Britons as a proto-dictator. That may be the case for the Home Counties English, but to many others he is viewed as a hero and one of the titans of European history. One only has to read Andrew Roberts' biography to realize that the propaganda image of Pitt is just that. Comparisons with Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin are always nonsendical and anachronistic. Inspiring, ambitious and imaginative but certainly no Corsican Ogre. He was the logical climax of The Enlightenment.

😢

Comment Part 1/4: I don’t agree with a lot of what Douglas Murray says, but I always like his talks and this is the best one I’ve seen. So I’m inspired to comment, excessively as it turns out. Its in 4 Parts. When Douglas Murray introduce his discussion of bring down statues, I guess in one sense it is the context of the time place and recent event that force him into this kind of opening topic. It is not wholly force though since I imagine he was invited to speak here, and with the knowledge that he would indeed address these contemporary events, in his customary manner. I mean he could have just launched into a talk on Bell’s Inequality Theorem in Quantum Mechanics and claimed, that this was his interpretation of the general norms or request of the invitation. I imagine though that if he was capable of such a lecture it is unlikely anyone there would be in a position to discuss it and Critique it. He could just read out something he doesn’t understand and just get away with it, unless there is a Quantum Physicist in the audience. Also there could have been a more brutal coercion on his introduction such as some significant and poignant event the day before in Richmond that would I guess demand he responds to “events” and adjust his talk in some way if necessary. There is though many unwritten conventions here outside and inside the actual talk that speakers take for granted, are “understood”, he might get away technically with a Quantum Theory talk but probably them and their friends will not be inviting him again. He will indeed be judged not so much in terms of the coherence of the lecture to the proposed title “Inequality” or to any strict rules written down, rather it would becomes question of character the person Douglas Murray. I think the notion of “common sense” is understood, if not “defined”, not just in terms of an inexpressible uncodifiable “field” of unsaid and presupposing mutual contextual “understandings, but also the actual people and Douglas Murray himself are implicated and irreducible for in any account of meaning and understanding interpretation and communication here. You can’t have a science and set of rules or axioms here that can capture meaning and interpretation without including the actual people involved. Thus the idea here that there can be an account of this in terms of facts and rules and laws without the people, is a deep philosophical error still dominant in our post enlightenment scientistic culture. Since the people are irreducible in any account they cannot be eliminated from a description of the event. They cannot be made redundant in an account. Now we may think we can put the people “in” in terms of a scientific “sociological” descriptions of rules and a “psychological” description of the people. But of course all these descriptions and facts presuppose a person. The people have to be understood not a under fact and rule descriptions but in terms of thick ethical and wide moral character and these cannot be represented as facts. The enlightenment fact/value is/ought distinctions is an error and error common sense understanding recognises as a deep error not a motive for more facts and science and rules. So it is appropriate that Murray begins in discussion of the statues being torn down in Richmond in the US, and indeed shows a certain covariance to similarly understood events in London in the UK as if by a kind of action at a distance. It is not as if by chance then but as if they were in a kind of field with a law connecting them. Murray asks why perhaps tactically would they go for the very centre of cultural significant, archetypes perhaps of key constitutive American figures from the past. He claims it might be because it aims at the heart it is directed to the soul the personal what is immediate felt. Is it then, that which we hold as a kind of real factual person in history as a non reducible fact of history is that without that person, by making them “redundant” our understanding of our world would begin to become an endless paly of ungrounded interpretations. Or indeed our very understanding would fall apart. The people the statues become almost natural kinds to understanding. It is indeed a kind of recognition that there are actual brute facts of history that have gone on to shape our meanings and understanding, that they cannot really be thought of as contingent possibly otherwise events in any coherently meaningful sense. In a way we cannot now express say within the semantics of Universal Human Rights the counterfactual that Napoleon might have become a wine maker. I think this might be a similar point to what Murray is driving at when he references someone now criticising the Founding fathers in 18the century for not having put a modern post-colonial post-Critical race theory content and structure in their version of the Constitution. It is indeed an attack on them as people an attack on their ethics and morality, their character, by both the sematic rules of the present day and the present day notions of the virtues and duty. As an attack on the person it seems congruent with the “common sense” view of how things are I have outlined, but it seems incongruent to that understanding of history, as context laden and hermeneutic, where the present pouts limits on the imagine alternative past, as such a moral and ethical judgement of a person would have to do: as if they could be sensible otherwise. That they could in Donald Davidsons terms “climb out of their own skin” or in mine with respect to the constitution “climb outside their own skeleton”. It’s not just a case of an anachronism. It’s indicative of an erred way of understanding.

Of course he meant "Oliver," not Thomas.

What are you to do???? Call them out for debate!!!! Loudly and doo let go till. They do. Be like a Pitt bull. Be like a WWF wrestler. Call out often and loudly

Additional note so I call it B 1/2: I'm part way through the discussion session, and watching the UK news and another analogy for the problem of Critical Discourse Theory occurred to me. So up to now we a have not seen the audience. The President of the CSS Marion Smith who introduces Douglas Murray says "I didn't know how many of you would show up" and you hear a lot of laughter, followed by loud cheering. But I mean the whole thing could just be Marion Smith, Douglas Murray and the discussion leader John Reid, who also organised the session. It could be that, there is no audience at all! That the CSS is just Marion Smith and John Reid who’s job really was to organise the playing of a pre-recorded audience, sampled maybe from one of those massive Critical Theory sessions on KZread. I heard some years ago, that the “Canned Laughter” on some of the Sit-coms was from a library archive of recordings. Not only are the “audience” laughing at something else entirely, i.e. then maybe “not” laughing at the Sit-com, but many of them are long dead and gone. Only in the modern disenchanted world indicative of a lack of a sense of audience consent. So even taking for granted the possibility of extreme Political Realism, let’s recognise a limit to a radical scepticism: the idea of an absolute freedom of the imagination, and so the scope of Speculative Critique, from within Common Sense Ordinary Realism and take it that there is, in fact, an audience. Until maybe, the Camera Person releases their Clandestine Photos of an empty room, but then of course we could question the veracity of the photos and the honesty of the Camera Person. So then taking things as they intuitively appear, “prima facie”, John Reid’s job might well have included organising the seating, not just for himself and the presenters on the stage but for the audience too. It could have consisted in just numbers on tickets and numbers on seats. Maybe more major figures in the CSS at the front, or maybe there is a price difference on a seat by seat near continuum sliding scale, or in discontinuous price blocks, like at a Rolling Stones concert. It could be though that the audience are sitting round an array of those circular tables, maybe following dinner. I’ve seen audiences organised like that for talks. In this case then maybe John Reid’s job is much more differential complex. Maybe, he approaches his task in classic rationalist fashion. He compiles’ a list of all the audience members and does some research into each one, or more “efficiently” and organised, they are asked to fill in a set questionnaire of tick boxes in the ticket application form. For each name then it might include: age, gender, place of residence, education, occupation, affiliations, and hobbies, and favourite music, movies and art. So this could then be used to make sure everyone is sitting by people, they have something in common with. The risk is though that on a particular table they all like the Rolling Stones, but at least one person or some people really love or hate particular movies. John Reid might then want to add to the questionnaire, negatives like all the things you are not and don’t like. We now have a complex Tensor array matrix and John Reid perhaps turns to a computer algorithm to calculate by inference not an absolute arrangement but a (near infinite game) probability equilibrium balancing the least risky arrangement with the most enjoyable or productive arrangement. You might have a question like what is your purpose in attending, and what is your biggest fear in the session. In this strategy the audience couldn’t blame John Reid for an unpleasant night of discourse since John Reid says the algorithm made me do it. Maybe that data company goes broke pretty quickly. Neither can the audience praise John Reid for a fully enjoyable evening of discourse. Maybe at first algorithm companies generating least misery rise to the top of the market, but later these events are recognised as pretty boring. People just discourse and have the same stuff bounce back at them. Like one of the Leeds United football games (soccer matches) in the 1970’s where they were so dominant (The Glory Years) that they are just casualty passing the ball back and forth between themselves. I think there is a kind of “internal” metaphysical problem with this rational approach like Ken Arrows “Voter Paradox” from Game theory applied to Pareto applied to voting optimisation on the model of a possibility utility function. Where given more than two preferences, no one will get what they want. Another paradox is the Tensor Array of positive likes, and negative dislikes, generates a kind of Hemple Paradox of the Ravens. Suggesting “A” likes the Rolling Stones is the negative of “B” does not like the Rolling Stones. Its is true that p is the same as it is false that not p. this seems just a logic problem of individuals and properties, subjects and predicates, with negation as True and False. But here it is indicative of conflating liking something with not disliking something or disliking something with not liking something. Two people can have the same apparent special location as a predicate (not very Kantian), like “being on a beach” but one is there out of preference likes the other out of dislike for a War Zone. The predicate array approach will conflate this and so make the two indistinguishable. Kant on intuitions intention and the Rationalism of Leibnitz identity of indistinguishable, follows the philosophy of difference though Hegel, Heidegger, Derrida down to Discourse linguistics as a structured array of statements and interchangeable parts.

@Ellingtonia

Жыл бұрын

Could you go into a little more detail, your response is rather abrupt?

@catiapb1

4 ай бұрын

Learn just to listen for the sake of listening you might actually learn something...

Comment Part 2/4: I must point out at his point that I am drawing on the very thinkers that have shaped Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory: Foucault’s Historical a priori and Derrida’s Trace. They argue for using factual events and people in the past for an interpretation of an historical understanding of what where and how we are in the contemporary. This is not mealy a factual description but one asserting semantic relations as well as causal relations and understanding of moral and ethical character. It is also Critical and reflective in using “significant” and meaning determining and constructing events in the past as “tools” to change the “present” state of affairs primarily laws and people. It involves then a kind of “redundancy theory of truth” (Tarskie) as it was subsequently take up in mid-century American Analytical philosophy. That is to state a fact is true in a statement e.g. “That p” is true is the same as the statement its self “That p”. Truth then is a mere psychological or sociological addition to the statement that adds nothing of real substance to the statement itself. This was seen (maybe by Quine) as meaning the statement is now really understood as a speech act a pragmatic tool or move within a system of rules and behaviours. A system where science facts and rules are changeable and even inter changeable bit by bit. What is important is that the fact the truth here must connect to the contemporary world of meaning and people and the degrees of freedom of that are really possible within the constraints of necessity. These involves rules laws and people. What is odd is that the earlier 20th century tradition of truth about facts was an equivalence of true and false. But now the pragmatic theory of use say political projects and so on has a certain priority over that true false equivalence making it necessarily asymmetric. Its not that we cannot imagine it otherwise in terms of possibility, rather that the possibility space is radically constrained by the context, a constrain that might be ignored or forgotten in the contemporary use of a statement of fact of the past and that it could and should have been radically otherwise. One way to understand this is to think the real person as an agent in a real context of possibility not an imagined one where they might not have even being there at all or existed. Here is an analogy I am working on: Clearly it seems evolution could have gone another way and many other ways. All the actual creatures are possibility after possibilities after possibilities. That is with each change many past possibilities are subsequently impossible and what was impossible in the past is now a possibility. It’s is a radically asymmetric space and time. All creatures are what they are in temporal diachronic relations and in synchronic relations to each other. There are then creatures that might have been we cannot even imagine or draw. On the one hand we could draw imagined creatures on paper that evolution could not possible create, and evolution could create creatures we can’t imagine. The kind of error then involved in the “use” of Critical theory and history is this kind of error. There are kind of transcendental limits now to the factual past, its limits both our real ability to use ideas now as alternative facts in the past and our ability to radically imagine have an idea of radical alternative histories. I can draw a face, but that doesn’t mean evolution could have created that face, or indeed that I could construct it with arrangements of DNA as if I could link DNA to facial features in any coherent ways one to one, parts to wholes: They are incongruent spaces of possibility and degrees of freedom.

Comment Part 3/4 Now I have looked briefly at the scientific basis of Dangelo’s Critical Race theory work. I have never read it I’m going by Wikipedia. But I do know the method to an extent, that of Critical Discourse Theory. In a similar way CDT has its structural approach of Language use pragmatics and effects detecting asymmetries. There is in the educational program a kind of view of correcting and substituting single word and phrase use in the social setting of a class room or training program as a part of work training. It gets people to use words and then reflect through examples from discourse linguistic science to show inefficient use described as symptoms of and productions and reproductions of power asymmetries both between speakers and in wider society. The real target though is not intentional use of asymmetric discourse but unintentional the un written pre reflective speech acts, that which the speaker themselves do not recognise and cannot reflect on without the application of the linguistic sciences. The empirical data of linguistics and the semantic structures provide the content and form of legitimacy for correction of the subject. As scientific discourse linguistics it is meant as mere factual changes for efficacy, as Critical theory the ethical moral tone is though the descriptions as power relations and asymmetry. It is not understood as an attack on a person since it is expressed in pragmatic scientific vocabulary. The discourse power relations are from Foucault’s discourse “theory” which was based and drew on theories of micro-physics. It is not immediately meant as moral and ethical about the person in the end it is an image and schema of Justice as equality that is the driver here and this is a legal notion not in the first instance not a moral or ethical one. it accepts that this is unintentional and as such slides to claim external to the subject unrecognised and unreflected. It is like a habit we are within evidenced by language use beyond our possible powers of reflection. As such the reflective schema of CDT is the external criteria for reflection, outsourced if you by us to the teacher the text books and the ultimately the science. Or since we are in the world of Marx here as far as an inner agent exists at all in semantic materialisms of power, the agent to achieve emancipation from distorted history, must paradoxically transfer or alienate their reflection to another. Since the in-efferent use is unsaid and not part of our reasons for action, we have to reflect, mediately, though a teacher and instructor and text book on linguistic theory that is of course ever changing developing new empirical content and new structures. It is then presented as not originally an ethical moral project of change of our souls but as a rights and science project of efficiency and equality. So in one register we should approach it just like that as disinterested training technology and critique it at that level when discoursing with them. However in reality, since the science is not separable from the ethical and moral characters and social rules of the people involved the legal factual presentation masks its ethical and moral meaning. Our discourse is placed in a structure of possible sentences as if they were individual statements in chains and then laid out against alternative words and phrases. It can even be described as akin to Grammatical correction. Substitutions in the structure derived from empirical facts of use and its assessment are then recommended or required by the subject in their discourse. Since at bottom the language use is seen as subconsciously biased as a symptom of asymmetric power, it is as if they have placed the Marxist superstructure ideology by substitution into the Freudian subconscious and as a kind of political neurosis. Or indeed as if it’s not our good we alienate to the transcendent as in Feuerbach’s it is the evil that has descended into us as if we have been taken over by a demon and we don’t recognise it. They have personalised the superstructural ideology into our souls and only they can recognise and exorcise it. Very congruent with a kind of liberal individualism and even Thomist Aristotelianism in a way.

please get the audio right next time, terrible sound

At one point, around 1:01:55, where Douglas suggests that we should leave it to the experts to have opinions, I experience a very rare instance of visceral disagreement. We are called upon, as citizens, as voters, as participants in society, to develop and maintain viable opinions on all of the topics that he mentions and many others. And it is through synthesizing the data and analysis presented to us from a wide variety of sources that we are indeed capable, with considerable success, though hardly with any greater infallibility (or honesty) than the experts themselves, of doing just that. We are probably watching this very video mainly in our capacity as informed and capable generalists. And we are also very likely prepared to engage in precisely the unrestricted discourse and debate that he celebrates earlier on. I am sure that Douglas does not actually mean to deliver the prevalent admonition, coming from all sides, that the "experts" have determined this or that, so sit down and shut up. Given a little more time to reflect, I expect that he would sense the undesirable overtones that resonate from his blithe dismissal of the amateur, democratic opinion, all of the malevolently and willfully ignorant ideologues surrounding us and even Norm MacDonald notwithstanding.

@ceecee6679

Жыл бұрын

Weird, I did not hear him say anything like what you wrote.

Is he trying to sound like William F. Buckley?

Sack the audio guy

Additional note B 2There are also two ontological problems, where and with what justification does John Reid sit. He might refer to the algorithm for this but who created the questionnaire. Maybe outsource the creation of the questionnaire to an “independent” company then he has an exculpation at least as not appearing to have placed his own preferences surreptitiously though the structure and content of the questionnaire. But the more serious ontological problem is that the audience are not in any way in a real intentional role in where they sit. Its all done for them. They are not responsible in the sense of using imagination and creativity and movement in arriving at their own seating arrangement. They don’t in any sense own it. This does come up in the discussion as a kind of rationalist fear of chance and luck. I am trying here to bring this important point into view. I am trying to make explicit the importance of it, if I can. It’s a work in progress here as you have probably realised. Maybe I can put it like this drawing now on some of my previous thoughts. We can say the degrees of freedom of possibility in the array of positive and negative predicates is highly restricted in contrast to degrees of freedom in a real discourse between “contingent” people who meet. The Critical Discourse Theory conflates their strict matrix of (periodic table of elements) with the possibilities in the real world of much greater and of a different “kind” of openness in real discourse. The CDT have to view discourse statements as really single event in a discontinuity chain. The chain has to be thought of under the schema of modality for it to model scientifically. It then transposes this scientific requirement of symmetry on the real world. The very idea of this conceptual scheme then as taught to people , has the effect of making them view their own ordinary conversations as in accord and closed as positive and negative, in the same way the Tensor matrix does. They start to talk to each other like the bizarre discourse sessions struggling over the role of teacher a student judge and suspect in ordinary discourse. Intention is forgotten for adherence to the schema. So not only does CDT obliterate intention in discourse and place an original unknown un reflective prejudices (the Marxist superstructure ideology made carnate) within us, that only CDT can exorcise. CDT also trains real people to take discourse down to the freedom of the Tensor matrix, and puts them in an Hegelian/Marxist master/slave struggle for self consciousness by placing their other as student and person under the law. Its an asymmetric game because it’s arsenal is competence in the latest CDT a real market creation scheme for them. This is not some abstract arrival from philosophy I have seems this change in how people naturally talk particularly in metropolitan cities. They indulge and interoperate all talk as possibility leading to the scheme, and the scheme becomes as tactic of trying to get peoples conversion into it. In my experience in these massive cities this CDT is just taken up not as justice but as the latest thing in how to further ones owns self interest and knock down the guy in front. In the end the schema is not really over the real world but is just a gadget in among the real world of people and things people ironically play with, within their real large open and changing space of real degrees of freedom, but like trainee teachers who have become like children, and the text book is just an object that is thrown around in their imaginary class. If I was going to “organise” the audience I would use the open and fluid but lightly guided model of those New York parties back in the day where they invited all kinds of different people in to a house and they wandered around. So in 1988 I think Mike Tyson is hassling Naomi Campbell, and the now very old A.J. Ayer intervenes and says “I think the lady has had quite enough of your advances” and Mike Tyson says “Do you know who I am” and Ayer says “Yes and I am the Emeritus professor of logic and metaphysics at Oxford University. We are both experts in our chosen fields. So lets sit down and talk about this like rational men” So they sit on a settee and have a long conversation. Now what Tensor matrix algorithm would have put A.J. Ayer next to Mike Tyson. This is not rationalist order but neither is it “disorder”. it is not a "disorganised" party.

Buildings of the 18th and 19th century? He obviously longs for the "glory" of the British Empire.

All these code words..just racist talk coded!

@simonmartin3433

Жыл бұрын

Only in your head.Tommy

Pity that Murray's morals undermine his credibility.

@Ellingtonia

Жыл бұрын

Pity that your bigotry gets in the way of reasoned critique!

@ZephaniahL

Жыл бұрын

@@Ellingtonia Of course such a charge is easy to respond to. That only certain narrow categories of disapproval should be considered ‘bigotry,’ those involving race, sex, and penchant for sodomy, is itself a straitjacket. I hope you don’t walk around thinking of yourself as a bold and independent thinker, to lapse into such banalities. And there are an awful lot of people worldwide from the past we dismiss as bigots, thinking along your lines.

@Ellingtonia

Жыл бұрын

@@ZephaniahL I suspect from your response that you are a follower of some kind of faith, so I will quote form one of the major faiths "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".............do look into the mirror and reflect!

@ZephaniahL

Жыл бұрын

@@Ellingtonia Yup an odd way to try and manipulate someone’s own beliefs against him- yawn. What tortured logical process leads you to think sexual immorality is just A-ok? Because a lot of people engage in it? Small wonder, after the pseudoscience of over a century has claimed to them that it’s fine.

0p Please,. Nì

OMG he's lying. Oh dear, he's lying. Who would believe it? Inconceivable. Has he always lied? Doesn't that make everything he's ever said full of shit?

@maxcharles6354

Жыл бұрын

No only you mate