In this post, I will assume a methodological flow beginning from the establishment of what should ideally constitute the dialectical process, and using our knowledge of the female cognitive process and decision-making correlates in developing a dialectical manipulation theory suited for females. With that said, it is obvious that this post is assuming key differences between the cognitive structures between men and women, at the neurological level. I will also hypothesize some cognitive routines men and women might use foundational to their decisions, regressing from some obvious economic and social behaviors. The analysis assumed will be post hoc, as I will try to theorize the underlying sociological, psychological and anthropological mechanisms from correlations that manifest superficially.
With the epistemology set straight, I want to shed light on the dialectic method of discourse. Dialectics differ from logic-oriented debate in two key domains – one, in the fact that it’s premises aren’t necessarily rational and two, in its ability to constrict the logical flow to one direction only i.e., deductively. This has prompted some people to dub dialectics as the “corruption of deductive reasoning” – I agree wholly to this notion. While the contemporary dialectic has been attributed largely to Hegel, the foundations for this sort of epistemological discourse was laid by Kant in his Critiques. The popular attribution to Hegel might stem from the fact that this method, of corrupting the reasoning of the subject, has been politically weaponized by later philosophers like Marx and its frequent use among conspiracy theorists. The Hegelian dialectic, or more abstractly, the Kantian dialectic, when weaponized, provides the illusion of freedom of choice while simultaneously convincing the subject of the apparent rationality of their conclusions. In other words, the subject whose reasoning is reduced to a dialectic one may be easily manipulated. But there still exists a vulnerability in this seemingly fool-proof technique.
Individuals who are in high possession of rational faculties will see through the irrational premises easily. The premises often used in the dialectical method, or more accurately, the thesis and anti-thesis, are rhetorical. They appeal to the emotional faculties of the subject. I, for instance, who considers myself to be a rational individual prefers to avoid employing rhetorical devices in my speech and writing. Why? Because rhetorics are innately fallacious in their appeals to emotions and they leave a lot of information open to interpretation. They do this by reconciling with the cultural system operating around the subject. A mastery of rhetorical dialectic might only be accomplished through a post hoc analysis of the target cultural system.
dialectical thinking is the corruption of deductive reasoning…
Stoicism, to me, is far from being the pursuit of happiness. It is instead self-sufficiency attained by absolving the emotional imperative in life through an extensive and rational evaluation of oneself, which neither brings happiness nor sadness. It is equanimity.
In my previous post about coping strategies for emotional suffering and trauma, I had postulated that being narcissistic is one excellent and fool-proof way – and this was back when my knowledge in this wonderful Hellenistic school was at its infancy. Now that I can safely regard myself as a practicing Stoic, how did I tie that in with my past subscription to narcissism? The form of narcissism I’d advocated had its premises not in the reluctance to uphold virtue, in holding an ignorant and over-inflated ego but rather in the autonomy from society. Most people are evolutionary conditioned to predicate their social, economic and life decisions upon the repercussions it might have on one’s social standing. Women are particularly susceptible to this sort of social behavior. Men are too, but only to a lesser degree. Narcissism, in the context of social autonomy, refers to the individual’s ability to operate autonomously, or without the influence, from the many dictates of society. This lack of social autonomy is regarded in my philosophy as a massive hindrance to self-actualization and personal enlightenment.
internalize, internalize everything!
Education is believed to be the liberation of the mind, but is it anymore? Or was it ever? We are constantly fed with these age-old preconceived notions about education from society. And sometimes directly from the people who are meant to be educating us, almost creating a moral paradox! They tell us that school will enrich our creativity. They tell us how the intrinsic, natural creativity of the human mind is a speckles’ worth in contrast to the mind that has endured years of methodological indoctrination and testing. But are these notions valid? Or are we (they) confusing one thing for another? What are the drivers of education? How is it intertwined with the prevailing cultural and economical scene? These are some of the pressing questions that surfaces when one fundamentally re-examines the very concept of education that much of civilization has held on to dearly for decades, if not centuries. After years of school and college, it’s about time for us to step away from the tradition of receiving grades to being the ones to grade our education system.
Like every other endeavor of human civilization, education is one that has had its movements and reforms. From the early attempts at systematic indoctrination in religious and philosophical schools to the modern system consisting of graduated learning levels from elementary to graduate school, there are unmistakable commonalities to the keen eyes. From the times of the ancient Greek civilization, the Platonic academy and the two men, Socrates and Aristotle who surrounded his legacy to the Huehuetlatolli of the Aztecs to the madrasas of the Islamic world to the Vedic teachings of Indus Valley civilization – the earliest attempts of systematic indoctrination were based on the moral code essential to the functioning of early society. Their teachings were subjective to each civilization and time period, and very further subjective to the teacher or master leading the congregation. Education was simply restricted geographically and lost its relevance with the natural progression of civilization and the spread of ideas. Perhaps one of the most notable cultural exchange of the early days happened with the Silk Route, in a time when education was still in its infancy.
philosophy came to be the grand unifying force for many culturally-divested schools of education
When former Google employee James Damore came out with his lengthy memo on the biological differences between the sexes in the context of the the workplace and the prevailing gender gap – what seemed like a seemingly harmless, scientifically-sound story morphed into one of the biggest controversies of 2017 from Silicon Valley after sexual allegations against ride-sharing giant Uber and Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. The left traditionally likes to throw opinions and even facts of such nature under the moral radar – often alienating the ideologically indifferent perpetrator or labelling them all sorts of nasty things in an attempt to subdue their voices – and very unfortunately for the most of us, the technological establishment has tremendously leaned left over the past couple years. This totalitarianism of an ideology is exactly what Damore and several conservative and centrist millennials like myself want to challenge and bring into limelight without the looming threat of disownment by society. Continue reading
[Also included in this section is a lengthy introduction that will be foundational to upcoming sections. I might seem to use culture and society interchangeably, but society should refer to a people’s culture, accounting for their demography while culture is an ideologically constituent part of a demography. Cultural ideology on a whole encompasses the theological and philosophical realms.]
An innate desire to creatively and artistically express oneself is among the fundamental of human wills. I’ve often emphasized my theory of cognition and religion and culture being as one closely woven net, almost like an inseparable fabric. As a result of my insistence of the mentioned, I’ve managed to offend many people. Culture encompasses the various demographic intricacies operating in one’s immediacy – these include popular theological and philosophical ideas, geography and race and complex environmental feedback mechanisms. Religion refers to the majority religion among a demography that influences their theological ideology as mentioned above. Cognition, in this context, is defined as an individual’s ability to perform tasks of reading and writing, comprehending and reproducing information effectively and efficiently with respect to some statistical benchmark. Like gravity, IQ and other metrics of cognitive ability are all relative – and it wouldn’t do justice to compare the IQ of a chimpanzee with a gorilla. Just like the animals, I believe every civilization, over time, with the aforementioned factors of complexity, developed a standard cognition among their people that we call today as average – like the international average IQ of 100. Inductively reasoning from present-day IQs of many civilizations might be key to understanding their culture and religions.
Metrics such as the popular IQ measure an individual’s ability to perform specialized tasks by narrowing down with the specifics at hand. It is iterative and systematic. You could train your brain with IQ tests for a couple weeks leading up to your counsellor’s appointment and pull off a few 10 or more points on your existing IQ. Such cognitive metrics measure how well your brain has specialized – from the time of birth, that is. I believe as one gets older and leaves childhood, IQ is no longer a complete and holistic measure of one’s cognition. Therefore, a fair measure of brain function would be accomplished through divergent reasoning. Divergent tests measure the collocially-called creativity metric – also a statistical measure of how well an individual’s brain is divisive. As one progresses in age with experience, this divergent and rather chaotic type of cognition manifests into convergent cognition. Everything from the simple essay prompts to analytical problem solving can be employed in the task of measuring this lesser-known type of cognition.
This post should help blow off some steam.
I don’t like to talk about this often – about my parents’ ethnicity and language. My parents are of Tamilian ancestry and they speak the very rudimentary language of Tamil. If you are some lifestyle blogger who’s here to read something wonderful about some exotic, far-away land and its people, I’m sorry. You certainly would not want to be here.
There’s so much I wish I could tell you – or more honestly, want you to see because the things I’ve seen and experienced can only be believed through physical sight and are of such extraordinary magnitude that it only can do justice. This is one of those situations that some fine poets will not be able to adequately capture.
Some cultures are backward. Some people are disgusting. Some languages are inadequate. Some demographics only exist to rot! Continue reading
In my previous writings, I have shown self-reliance and narcissism as wonderful methods of coping with emotion turmoil. However, they fail to remain foolproof as I’ve stated if one of two conditions are met,
- you are a minor still
- you operate in medieval legislation i.e., Islamic and Hindu countries
This method of self-reliance and narcissism which I’ve claimed to go hand-in-hand cannot work if the political system of your country prevents you from enjoying the liberties of a forward-thinking, contemporary culture – where you rely on yourself for everything. With that duly noted, this post will help formulate alternative measures for the temporary – until such time you can leave to a better place. Most conservative cultures – such as Islamic and Hindu – have deeply rooted ideas that the legislation cannot practically do away with – even the legislative ideas of an advanced and open form of government such as a secular republic – that it claims to be. In a country like India – the world’s most ignorant country by all measures – there is a cultural consensus about heirarchy – a belief that people of a higher order are perfect and it is unlikely from a moral place that they would ever do something you should accuse them of legally. So much that this cultural idea affects how willing a lawyer would be to take up your case, how much interest your local city police will take in your report given they even consider you for filing a report in the first place, and ultimately effecting your verdict by the judiciary.
the Indian judiciary is one steaming hot pile of cow shit!
There have been many bad connotations to narcissism and I wish to give new meaning to it – as a way of life, a way of functioning in society without legal consequences. I define narcissism as the trait that makes one care for oneself and put the priorities of theirs or whatever they chose to associate with first regardless of the moral dictates of society. It so much easier to function this way as I will explain later and with this you are insured against heartbreak, betrayal and other emotional trauma of such. Narcissism is a fundamental trait of LaVeyan Satanists – practitioners of Satanism as made popular by LaVey. This is a philosophy where you are asked to indulge in what you see required for your emotional and physical gratification with no regard for others or society inside the confines of law.
The whole premise for high-functioning narcissism is to fulfill your Freudian ego alternatively through a favorable build-up of your symbolic selves. While the average theist or social being earns ego from social acts of heroism through philanthropic attitudes and acts, the narcissist works independently with his enlightened selves to earn gratification. Ernest Becker’s Pulitzer Prize winning The Denial of Death discusses the psychological mechanisms that lead to a fulfilled death. Despite sounding so controversial, it does make sense when approached with good old Freudian theory. In order to be able to fulfill our egos effectively, we must take back and reign control over our symbolic selves and not let God or society dictate our ultimate redemption. Therefore, a fundamental rework of the superego is required – and this is where one is required to adopt a new moral philosophy. High-functioning narcissism allows healthy functioning in a society that traditionally doesn’t cater to individuals with such superegos.
Don’t carry the load that will eventually destroy you!
Folks, today I want to document (this is really for my own future reference, or for the future me who will have had time-traveled, whichever comes first) the bargains we make, very sub-consciously toward happiness. Before you judge this article for being one of those lame posts on how to think positive, no, that certainly is not what you’re going to be finding in here.
The bargains (of happiness) are those you perform with little thought. You often see people from war-torn countries with little to no sense of empathy. One might satisfying conclude this person to be a psychopath. But they’re really not, these people have grown a skin, a metaphorical emotional shell so thick all around that nothing, good or bad can permeate through. It’s like the Trump wall, but a bargain with your self over Mexico. This so-called shell as I’d like to call it renders them incapable of showing any sense of appreciation for good, and equally not able to take in good given to them.
the bargain of life aligns with my interpretation of the law of averages
We are supposed to be talking logic this time. More specifically, I’d like to talk logic and people – how they use and understand logic.
While most people aren’t necessarily logical, they seem to have a decent grasp of what is logic. You and I are capable of everyday reasoning. But we find ourselves making decisions seeing past conventional logic – and it really has more to do with human psychology. Sometimes, nasty people exploit this loophole to win an argument, make a point, or even manipulate us like some theatrical puppet.