Middle Ground

 Some people postulate overpopulation as a justification for a certain kind of behavior. I postulate a “middle ground” that looks like this: at the very least a planned economy means that heterosexuals know when to have one child, two children, or more. At the very least this is what a planned economy looks like, otherwise it’s not planned, it’s reactionary. The alternative is that homosexuals will find a way to bend a hysterical nomos to their design. Is there a future for heterosexuals outside of this constraining perspective? I’m skeptical, unless they learn how to interpret the irony of Plato's Symposium and avoid the fate of Alcibiades. 

Don’t fall for the Phaleron wall

 If anyone ever tells you that I am a homosexual or bisexual,  have been one, in the closet, or would be under certain circumstances, you can rest assured that you are either talking to someone who doesn’t know or is emphatically a god dammed liar. Laurence Lampert confused his own shadow with the evil intentions of my mother to belittle my negligent father. 

I can only guess this has to be said. 

Eros: the origin of the ontological priority of being

- Will to Power is the Copernican revolution of the Ontological priority of Being. However this is understood, it is the details of these aspects that are being used as tools to deconstruct the western tradition: in particular the psyche and eros mythos. Plato’s symposium: body and spirit equal mind. The fundamental document used by Nietzsche as the fulcrum to deconstruct and to frustrate mental development in accord with logos, logic. Hegel’s “system”was the last straw for Nietzsche in a tradition where deduction has failed as a model of reasoning, and spurred the revaluation of all values. 

The One Law of Mind is, I dare say "complete-ish," countermeasure. Peirce’s semiotics is based in anti-psychologism and communal standards of assent.

Someone might claim that the Ontological priority of Being is a Heideggerian term. Yes it is. But how was it discovered and whom is it about?

(Perhaps some day I will get to study rhetoric and become a more apt writer)

Sign: 213

The new Hermes, without Dionysus. 

RE: Peirce and Constitution, not Plato.

Outline

 Abduction:

Aristotle’s scope of rhetoric as the force which appeals to emotion that warp judgment.

Lampert's, or his crew if he's not with us any longer, use of Homer, i.e. Nietzsche’s deconstruction: re: noumena and phenomena. (Harari’s PPN from Sapiens:“The wandering bands of storytelling Sapiens were the most important and the most destructive force the animal kingdom has ever produced.”)

Conclusion: Harari's PPN that humans can be hacked.

Note: Harari’s book Sapiens has a nice review on Amazon, where David Zetland suggests Harari lacks appreciation for Institutions. Instutions are a core theme in Strauss’ interpretation of Machiavelli. Can Harari be sock puppeted by the fister.

Poetry vs. Philosophy

Note the similar structures of the Greek myth of Orpheus to that of the structure of the Symposium, by Plato. A feature Plato owes to Aristophanes, and ultimately Homer. Orpheus goes to Hades to retrieve his lost love (female), but returns empty handed. Due to the nature of the trip he no longer valued the gods, only One, Apollo. Orpheus went to pray to Apollo, but in a temple of Dionysus. Dionysus is angry and has him killed.

Dionysus is the key to the Symposium also. Substitute Alcibiades for Orpheus and you get the same logic. But who is Dionysus? None other than Socrates and his satyr Plato: [note the logic, not the narrative. Strauss says "The place of Dionysus is taken by Alcibiades who decides in favor of Socrates. So you see how elegantly Plato pays Aristophanes back." Remember the mysteries "... and the man who divulged them was Socrates himself" p. 24. A lesson on how to read irony.] 

How is Alcibiades punished? By slander, which results in the death of his political career, and subsequently the loss of the Peloponnesian war with the Spartans. This has become the paradigm of the subversion of Western Civilization by a group of resentful males known as homosexuals and is being played out today in the division of the Straussians into West and East coast versions. The East Coast nihilists are emerging as victorious. Dividing the Straussians is too close to the division of humans into male and female by Zeus, as told by Aristophanes in the Symposium, to be merely coincidental.

Hopefully, rereading Strauss will open a path forward.

X

 Q1)  (video @ post) Should you allow these people to rise up and embed themselves in the most important positions in your country, when they literally oppose the existence of your nation-state and everything you believe in? And if you call them out, you're the bad guy!

A1) In philosophical terms it's called "the One and the Many." But the homosexuals are far ahead of the Jews, hence your video the other day about homosexual "Jews", if there is such a thing. Strauss, and perhaps Nietzsche, saw it coming. Perhaps you should read more and post less.

The big picture is on East Coast vs. West Coast Straussians.

https://newrepublic.com/article/137410/pro-trump-intellectuals-want-overthrow-america

What you are so unhappily experiencing is the emergence of the East Coast Nihilists.

1/2 The nimble balance is letting some people do what freedom entails while maintaining a hegemony on family. This is the big picture, one that I have to struggle through every day because the distinction between “east and west” is so subtile.

2/2 You can’t have that balance in a homophobic environment. Homophobia is a force used as leverage against Freedom. When there is a compulsion to be "normal," in a socially constraining sense, unintentional instincts are bred into the mix. Homophobia is used as a force for an intentional design of breeding, in an ironic sense. This can be looked at as a more "user friendly" (not personally) version of the "annihilation of the mass" than biological warfare. It is, however, imperative that a clear theory of healthy heterosexual culture needs to be made due to the fact that some people are heterosexual and reproductively sensitive to the quantity of the population. Hence, a tradition that focuses on healthy family.

 

In short: the evolution of the heterosexual mind.

Also called "Natural Right."

A semiotic theory of definition

  Second-ness gives continuity to interpretation. 

This is based on my interpretation of Peirce’s categories demonstrated through his Existential Graphs in the order, outside to inside: 2,1,3.

This offers a fruitful perspective on the semantics of the term ‘Lord’: “denotes the head of a household in his relation to servants and dependents who ‘eat his bread’.” O.E.D.

Lord 2nd-ness. Not too catchy, but sound.

N.B.: This is not the good in-itself and wise of Plato’s Timaeus.

Nous

 Mind is the measure of all things.

A Definitive Political Solution

“If we survey the cognitions of our understanding in their entire range, then we find that what reason quite uniquely prescribes and seeks to bring about concerning it is the systematic in cognition, i.e., its interconnection based on one principle. … One cannot properly say that this idea is the concept of an object, but only that of the thoroughgoing unity of these concepts, insofar as the idea serves the understanding as a rule.”

A645 - A646: Kant Immanuel Paul Guyer and Allen W Wood. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Emphases Mine. Peirce’s terminology for this idea is the (Final, in some cases) Interpretant. If the world ever gets tired of the Nietzschean sophistical abuse of ideas, let me be the first to say there is a definitive solution, or should I say, a final solution.

N.B. The one concept that gave Nietzsche nightmares was that there could be ideas and expressions that lead to sound conclusions.

No one/no mind: Song of Polyphemus

Terence McKenna was wrong about the ego. Without ego, there would be no epistemology. Without an object of error, there is no sign to discover and recover by. Nietzsche understood this and inverted discovery and invention, philosophy and poetry, playing on the history of resentment as a political tool.