C.M.M. Analytic Modelling From School Days.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Coordinated Management of Meaning theory, or C.M.M. for short, is a conceptual resource to model and analyze human interaction with the aim, of course, of mitigating problems and conflict and re-directing the interaction to better coordination.

I studied this with its progenitors way back in the early 1990s. 

What I will post here are two papers that I put together in an effort to both explain the theory and to put it into use in broad historical survey of the Cultural Patterns of Western Philosophy as they culminated through the acute problems of the day –  which were the same then as they are now, race and gender.

Now, if I was to work with and learn from these outstanding professors, I had to prioritize learning the abstract of the theory and not so much its deployment in social advocacy for White men, which was/is my aim, though I could and did to some extent manage to address problems with feminism and traditional women; affliction by anti-racism was out of the question at the time, and the J.Q.? Even though I was starting to become aware – how could you not with the media and academia being with it was – forget about any critical thoughts on that issue, and especially because one of the professors was Jewish.

I did the best I could with the constraints of the situation and the limitations of what I knew, to at least get down an OR (operational research) model to serve in further inquiries.

Don’t worry, these analytic tools will not be the only means by which I talk and address problems, nor will I be distracted from the centrality of  the DNA Nations project.

While a jealous fuck like Guessedworker would try to say that this is “bean counting” or that I am “lost in this”, all he ever does with these straw man contentions is show that he does not know what he’s talking about, as I use the theory with all the graceful hermeneutic assets of White Post Modern Philosophy, where it is useful, while I am not used by it.

What I am entering here are two versions of a paper that I was developing as a thesis back in the early 1990s; then I add a later, fairly recent effort, to use the theory indeed to analyze interaction with race broadly and Jews specifically. That, which I posted at Majorityrights a few years ago, probably wasn’t very good either, but the papers that I start out with, from back in the early 90s, will more certainly look like nonsense to many if not most readers; and to some extent, they probably are nonsense. I don’t blame you and am not concerned if you can’t be bothered to try to read this turgid mass which could cause you a lot of work to sort things out, several times, in just about every sentence.

I am not posting these primarily for the readership, but mostly for myself, as an OR model resource, tools to draw upon to analyze interactional difficulties as they emerge with the possibility of being disentangled, sorted out and hopefully ameliorated with the help of these analytical tools.

I must issue an important caveat that as these papers are so old, they should be farther back chronologically in the Slider Carousel so as not to mislead the reader into thinking this particular post is anywhere near “state of the art” with regard to my own thinking regarding our problems and these White Post Modern tools to address them. Again, this is an OR model, rather protracted at that, which I set out primarily as a resource to draw upon for deployment for more limited if not specific analyses to come. 

In recent years, Greg Johnson has prompted my attention to the fact that the western talk of Self Actualization began with Aristotle – of course, a more biologically delimited, teleological version, without emphasis on a hierarchy of needs. While I had read Aristotle, forgotten about the fact that it comes from him originally, and my professor should have reminded me, the fact of its coming from Aristotle underscores its relevance to European peoples, a relevance to our concerns that a jealous asshole like Guessedworker would never acknowledge (tried to say re-tooling self actualization was a “garden variety concern” and quickly posted some of his gibberish the same day as my first post addressing Maslow at Majorityrights).

I came to graduate school with a novel idea to retool Maslow's hierarchy of needs for the purpose of negotiating gender relations more fairly; and I endeavored to employ C.M.M. to that end.

Although my professor at the time all but required me to use the term “Story” in the title – not entirely improperly, to emphasize the hermeneutic aspect, that this was not pure description – and that was about as unsatisfying then as it is now, it is important to bear in mind that even the most serious, non-fictional accounts occur in narrative, at least if they are to have context and make sense. So, while I would not use the word story or narrative today, so as not to lend traction to critics and disbelievers, it is not that big a problem in point of fact.

This “first version” is only the first page of the paper, a later version, actually. I will follow it with a few comments that were posted with it at Majortyrights and then move on to the epoch version – so long as to exceed the posting word limit there and require me to use the comment section to finish the paper.

After that I’ll include the paper in which I tried to use this material to address race and the Jewish question. This will be a long post, as you can imagine.

Story of Intersection Individuation & Gender Differentiation (another old version, probably better)

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 15 April 2018 15:23.

I thought that I had a different, perhaps better version of this piece among my old papers. And so it is the case that with Spring cleaning I’ve found it. I will be bringing the whole thing up to date, to clarify it, weeding out some of the failed attempts at refined terminology (I will probably abandon “specificatory language games” and go back to “specificatory structures”; I will be corresponding dasein/midtdasein with Being and routine and sacrament with Selfhood and Autobiography) and setting out some of the more important ideas more clearly for implementation. Nevertheless, before then, I want to put up at least the first page of this old version, circa 1992-3.

One of the things I will be doing in subsequent re workings and implementations of this thesis, is to set out the thesis statement, or thesis statements, plural, more simply, as thesis statements are normally supposed to be.

In brief, my thesis is that the focus on individual actualization, at the expense of social concern and accountability, effects a rupturing of social, human ecological bounds; for primordial, practical reasons, females have tended to have some advantages on basic levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, while males have had some disadvantages, that they and society have compensated and overcompensated for in exchange for more male position of Self Actualization. Within the disorder of modernity effected by the implicative force of self actualization, females will increase some advantages, including to actualization; and males will be punished, in perverse irony, for trying to compensate for basic deprivation. However, while neither feminists nor traditional women have been particularly sympathetic to this, it is the effort here to try to accommodate the human needs of both genders; including our need for decent and fair relations with each other – as proposed through a more circulating and optimal negotiation of these “motives”, for both genders, including optimization of gender differentiation. To begin with, it helps to note that socialization (accountability to classification, close relationships and third person relations), being (dasein and midtdasein), selfhood (autobiography, routine and sacrament) and self actualization (achievement, authentic, functional range of autonomy, recognition, appreciation) all have pleasurable and useful aspects, as well as toxic reflexive effects if pursued too far.

Notably, both the male and the female pursuit of self actualization have served to rupture our racial classificatory bounds along with socialized accountability as such.

It wasn’t until years later, when I had to teach argumentative writing (as a substitute) that I actually learned how an argumentative essay was supposed to be structured. In defense of myself, I didn’t think I was ready for grad school, and wanted to take some more undergraduate courses, but they wanted to throw me into the deep end…

A STORY OF THE INTERSECTION OF INDIVIDUATION & GENDER DIFFERENTIATION

Introduction:

As this article examines processes actively constructing Neo Traditional, Modern and Post Modern (occidental) Cultural Patterns of gender, it does not simply reinterpret their Stories Told but puts them at risk. With apologetic reticence, if the reader would like to reconstruct Stories Told, for example, that male persons simply possess and act out from an innate constitution, say the larger hypo- thalamus and testosterone surges, directed toward derivative cultural patterns, such as religious repression or sexploitation, which have nothing to do with Stories Lived in interpersonal communication with female persons, read no further.

While this article’s rendering of Cultural gender Patterns may appear in cursory inspection to model Traditional Stories Told of causal necessity, the premise here is that these are Social Constructions. Though not as easily transformed by the agency of person positions as are Altercast moments, Episodes, Autobiographies, or second person Relationships, with due respect for the profundity of their various features, these Cultural Patterns may be responsibly changed as well {1}.

“There has been little consideration of the darker side of self actualization” – Carol Wilder-Mott

Two versions of the thesis will follow. The first will attempt relatively ordinary language; a technical version will follow.

Using A. H. Maslow’s notion wherein a “hierarchy of motives”, when people’s basic needs (“low grumbles”) are satisfied, they do not stop complaining, but only move to a higher order of complaint (“high grumbles”):

Thesis: Since by occidental culture (Socialization) females tend to be in a more Addressive Position, their basic needs (Being, Selfhood) are satisfied more readily. Thereupon, a male Hierarchizing Positition (A quest of Self Actualzation) tends to be formed. These positions have advantages and disadvantages – constraining biases and affording overcompensations; while in some cases male hierarchicalization does represent a Maslowian differentiation of fulfillment, in other cases, ignored by feminists in quest of empowerment (Actualization), overturning patriarchy, etc, or in protecting their (Being) against male resentment, it represents a Freudian/Nietzschean sublimation of privation and deprivation compulsion; and traditional reservation in compensation for proving himself despite these harder tests. True, hierarchizing upon the female addressive position has often been malevolent, hardly sublimated. But Legitimate reasons for the Traditional institutionalization have been summarily dismissed by liberal’s anachronistic Modernism. There are two important reasons why Legitimacy has been ignored. The first is due to the incommensuration between the two positions; and specifically, in this case, male complaints act into the interpretive scheme of females, their basic needs (Being/Selfhood) satisfied, as boring and immature; and female complaints act into the interpretive schemes of males, who are struggling with the basics (Being/Selfhood) or in stressful expectation toward achievement (Actualization), as conceited, superficial, or manipulative. The second important reason why Legitimacy of hierarchicization has been institutionalized has been ignored due to the reflexive disorder of Modernity – wherein the Addressive Position of females has re emerged with increased significance, exacerbating its afforded overcompenations (over liberalness, liberalization of social bounds, or un-socialization as it were, in Modernist loop; incitement to genetic competition) through increased pandering solicitation and lack of need to tolerate critical reality testing and the like “metacommunication.”

The following thesis cannot be enunciated in proper manner without its purveyors being ostracized by ordinary language philosophers – “Reflexive what? contextual force? What? I just want the straight facts!” This treatise uses Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. Readers unfamiliar with the theory are referred to the addendum where a synopsis is provided to clarify essentials of the theory and its terminological usage.

Thesis 2: The Taken for Granted Depth Grammar of both Cartesian Modernist Individuation and Neo Traditional Gender Differentiation is Traditional Ionic Teleology. Within this Ionic tradition, a telos of gender differentiation was TFG as its inference was made apparent by Charmed Loops to two separate gender positions of agentive flex-bilies which co-evolved through practical activity. This TFG teleology of two positions of differing agentive flex-abilities, viz. of Prefigurative Contextual Force over Reflexive Effect of Practical Force as bequeathed to females (e.g., “female morality”, Gilligan, 1982, more positive, as its basic flex-abilities for agency tend to be more readily satisfied), separated from Implicative force Reflexively Needing Prefigurative force as bequeathed to males (e.g., “male morality”, Kant, 1785; and “sociopathology”), contextualizes a Strange Loop; i.e., Incommensurate gender agendas of Cartesian Modernist individuation reflexively recontexting the need (“be different so you can fit in” …overcompenating and reversing modernists attempt to differ from traditional conformity; but the genders go in opposite directions), the “need” for neo-traditional gender differentiation and vis a versa.

Partition:      Part One – “Theory”


Section A. Correlates CMM actional terms into ordinary language (cultural terms) of agency in order to make CMM terminology and its communication perspective on the cultural gender separation of agency more intelligible; this also serves to deconstruct and transform the cultural terms into CMM’s alternative language game of Optimal Competence.

Section B. Is a hermeneutic of five cultural patterns obstructing Optimal Competence:

1. A Charmed Loop of Gender Differentiation inferred as a Telos

2. The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement which reconstructs these two positions to hyperbole (to runaway, as opposed to their being delimited to reconstruct homeostatic Cultural Pattern – this parenthetic phrase added 2018)

3. The Cartesian Technology of Individuation (exacerbates the rupture of social Cultural delimited Pattern – this parenthetic phrase added 2018)

4. Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Individuation (also exacerbates in same way)

5. A Strange Loop of Individuation and Gender Differentiation (reconstructs the runaway)

Part Two – “Practical”

Section A. Diagrams a modernist male and female in episode B. Conclusion C. Recommendations

Comments:

Posted by Aristotle, father of racial classification on Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:44 | # 1

Washington Post, “Artistotle, the father of scientific racism”, 6 April 2018:

“But these ideas are even older than Klein realizes. To understand the underlying assumptions of Murray and others, it’s helpful to look back to the granddaddy of all racial theorists: Aristotle. In understanding the role Aristotle played in laying the groundwork for “race science,” we can better understand how ingrained it is in Western science and philosophy, and why the alt-right’s embrace of “western civilization” has a particularly chilling edge.

Most famous as a philosopher, Aristotle — who, it’s worth noting, is Murray’s favorite philosopher — was just as influential in what we would today consider the field of natural science. Indeed, Aristotle’s philosophical and political ideas cannot be separated from his methods of empirical observation. He spent years of his life observing and classifying animals. Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.” …”

 Posted by Eco-Faggotry on Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:07 | # 2

Greg Johnson makes the classic, faggot, false either or for a Hitleresque world-view and mishandling of both Aristotle and the idea of ecology, by calling for an elitist world view placing “nature” over a people centric (anthropocentric) worldview.

Eco-faggotry

This is an epistemological blunder of the highest order and a false either/or.

Pervasive ecology, which is the platform here, puts praxis (people and their interests) at center, and recognizes that it is entirely in our interests to steward nature – our habitat, resources – and human ecology, or group differences properly.

To put “nature” and the “elite” first as the faggot does, in his blatant fetishism for outdated Hitler shit, is the road to natural fallacy unhinged to runaway uncorrected by praxis – such as the cataclysm of Hitler’s “principled” war-mongering runaway; as ‘just the way it is – if you don’t fight, if you don’t win, you are not worthy of him’… ‘you are not aligned with the “law” of nature and the “divine” purpose for which you are to serve.’

“the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.” – Hitler plucked that bullshit out of thin air; it is a natural fallacy, or a ‘god’ principle, worthy of the dumbest Christian.

…and before anyone says that I am exaggerating and seeing Hitler and Hitler idolatry where it isn’t, look at the imagery that Johnson uses with this discussion:

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:02 | # 3

With regard to the maximizing incentive of the story of Self Actualization, particularly the popular American version – “be all you can be” in the “land of opportunity” and “individual freedom” in Lockeatine empirical enlightenment, the “fiction” of social classifications (sociology and hermenteutics) be damned….

…along with Maslow’s model, in which each step progresses lineally on top of a maximal quantity fulfillment of prior need steps in hierarchical order…..

I like to offer Bateson’s caveat:

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns. That’s the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”

Patterns are not lineal and impervious, they are cyclical and open ended ..they may progress, but they may also regress..  they may stretch and reach (as in the “farther reaches”), expanding beyond normal systemic bounds or they may contract and regroup and reorganize in stasis and homeostasis.

They may be causal, as in determinism of emergence, but with humans in particular, there is a degree of agency, particularly in terms of how these processes count.

In service of stability, happiness, fairness, practicality, truth to our nature and justice – but especially in service of racial systemic maintenance, incl. negotiation of the pivotal component of gender relations – we ought to commend a circularity of socialization, being, self/auto/routine/sac/, actualization…both within and beyond the life span (beyond the life span, meaning, in this case, valuation of some as largely playing the part within the group for their entire life span, not just a segment of the process in their growth, maturity and differentiation).

Posted by TT Metzger on Fri, 01 Jun 2018 15:14 | # 4

LONE WOLF RADIO: THUS SAY’S ALAN DERSHITS

Tom Metzger <tmmetzger1@gmail.com>

4/2/17

bcc: me

What do the terrorist group Hamas and the anti-violence group Black Lives Matter have in common? What does the democracy of Israel have in common with the antisemitic Ku Klux Klan? What does the Islamic Republic of Iran, which throws gays off rooftops, have in common with gay-rights activists? What do feminists have in common with radical Islamic sexists who support the honor killing and genital mutilation of women? Nothing, of course. Unless you subscribe to the pseudo-academic concept of interesectionality.

Intersectionality – the radical academic theory according to which all forms of social oppression are inexorably linked — has become a code word for anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israel and antisemitic bigotry. Nowhere has adoption of this radical paradigm been more pronounced than on college campuses, where — in the name of “identity politics” and “solidarity” — artificial coalitions are formed among causes that have nothing to do with each other except a hatred for their fellow students who are “privileged” because they are white, heterosexual, male and especially Jewish.

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 25 March 2018 11:20

A Narrative of The Intersection of Individuation and Gender Differentiation

I wrote this article and cultivated it around 1993. Although I was generally aware that there were large conflicts of interests between White men and the YKW, that issue was impossible to address in the grad-school context I was engaged in – not all but some of my professors were Jewish and all of them were liberal and would have opposed broaching the JQ. In fact, race was nearly impossible to discuss in a reasonable way. In fact, advocating White men against feminism was almost impossible. Nevertheless, having to focus here on the history, implications and fallout of Western philosophy as it bears upon individuality, the maintenance of our European Cultural Patterns, Moral Order and Gender Relations allows for an examination of our part as Europeans in our plight – our blind spots and susceptibilities to the exploitation of other groups – including and especially YKW – and means to corrective homeostasis: which is the essence of the true (let’s call it White, to make the distinction) post modern project. As such, this old paper remains valid and relevant, despite the fact that it needs reworking for increased clarity and accuracy as an orientative model.

I was told by my professor that this held together as a “Thesis” for me to enter the PhD program. I have reason to believe that, at the time, it was shown to then Vice President Al Gore. Prior to my professor making the trip to Washington D.C., he told me, “now don’t change it any more”… nevertheless, I could not resist making a few more tweaks to the title and first paragraph, which would have made it only come across more baroque and turgid to the point of absurdity. My professor came back from D.C. disappointed and I caught Al Gore on the news saying that “we need people with real practical solutions, not a nebulous bunch of words.”

Now, I don’t think I am hallucinating because my department was doing public relations for the Clinton and Gore administration; my professor was certainly a worthy advisor and nobody was working with him more closely at the time than myself.

Though my last minute changes surely didn’t help in the way the paper came across, it may not have been presented to Gore in the best way, thus coming across wrongly to him, so that he couldn’t absorb its significance in cursory glance. That’s an interesting story for another time, as are the episodes that led to me not being able to follow through with a graduate career, operating on this thesis and related issues…

Introduction:

As this article examines processes actively constructing Modern and Neo Traditional Cultural Patterns of gender, it does not simply reinterpret their Stories Told but puts them at risk. With apologetic reticence if the reader would like to reconstruct Stories Told, for example, that male persons simply possess and act out from an innate constitution, say the larger hypo- thalamus and testosterone surges, directed toward derivative cultural patterns, such as religious repression or sexploit- ation, which have nothing to do with Stories Lived in interpersonal communication with female persons, read no further.

While this article’s rendering of Cultural gender Patterns may appear in cursory inspection to model Traditional Stories Told of causal necessity, the premise here is that these are Social Constructions. Though not as easily transformed by the agency of person positions as are Altercast moments, Episodes, Autobiographies, or second person Relationships, with due respect for the profundity of their various features, these Cultural Patterns may be responsibly changed as well {1}.

The following thesis cannot be enunciated in proper manner without its purveyors being ostracized by ordinary language philosophers – “Reflexive what? contextual force? What? I just want the straight facts!” This treatise uses Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. Readers unfamiliar with the theory are referred to the addendum where a synopsis is provided to clarify essentials of the theory and its terminological usage.

Thesis: The Taken For Granted Depth Grammar of both Cartesian Modernistic Individuation and Neo Traditional Gender Differentiation is Traditional Ionic Teleology. Within this Ionic tradition, a telos of gender differentiation was Taken For Granted (TFG) as its inference was made apparent by Charmed Loops to two separate gender positions of agentive flex-abilities which co-evolved through practical activity. This TFG teleology of two positions of wider agentive flexabilities, viz., of Prefigurative Contextual force over Reflexive Effect of Practical force as bequeathed to females (e.g., “female morality”, Gilligan, 1982, more positive as its basic flex-abilities for agency are more readily satisfied), Separated from Implicative forces Reflexively Needing Prefigurative force as bequeathed to males (e.g., “male morality”, Kant, 1785, and “sociopathology”), contextualizes a Strange Loop; i.e., incommensurate gender agendas of Cartesian modernistic individuation reflexively recontexting the “need” for neo traditional gender differentiation and vis a versa.

This was really one of the most essential, original theses of mine even at the time, and it probably should have been mentioned more straight forwardly like this at the time as thesis number two; as it is housed within the first:

2018 update: Thesis – Cartesian Individuation of Self Actualization has Implicative Force (an upward impact, Reflexively Effecting, rupturing Cultural Patterns) to rupture Western group Social Classificatory Homeostasis which causes the “One Up”, Addressive Position of (White/Western) Females to Re-Emerge with Increased Significance – Several Charmed Loops (given the human perceptual need to classify – women, fire and other dangerous things – in order to make coherent sense despite their Cartesian prohibition and rupture, gender becomes the default classification where other group classifications are prohibited, therefore female becomes more salient a difference and they are pandered to from more directions; they become more motivated; more confident (sometimes overly, and prone to cursory pejorative conclusions), articulate and powerfully positioned gate-keepers; they are incentivized to maintain that, while their base female inclination to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) is pandered to – also rupturing social group patterns/coherence – there are loops that come into play with the high contrast tropism of White females and the atavism of blacks in this disorder as well) which keep that position and its liberalizing trajectory in place, abetting Systemic Runaway – i.e., this keeps a modernist loop in place, rupturing would be maintenance of European peoples and other traditional societies..

The cure to these pernicious loops and their runaway is recognition of key aspects [topoi] of necessity, use and enjoyment in a revised social paradigm of optimized negotiation and management of socialization, being, selfhood and self actualization; with that, recognizing moderating options for neo traditional and modern trajectories of both genders; finally, the homeostatic stabilizing of the social system’s human ecological bounds.

[2018 update: I had articulated this thoroughly at the time, but it wasn’t forefronted in this 1993 version that I’m working from): Male Self Actualization, achievement, power, in position is sometimes and in part a result of Freudean/Nietszchean privation and deprivation of basic levels of Maslow’s heirarchy and not only the result of fulfillment of basic levels – as feminists have been saying – and thus some will be punished for achieving despite privation, for their “oppressive advantage!”

Conversely, females will be better positioned to advocate for their interests in achievement and influence because their basic levels are more readily satisfied.


The YKW in particular will pander to the female position, saying that women are “oppressed across the board (ignoring basic need fulfillment) while also pandering to the propensity to incite the continued deprivation of basic male flex-abilities – being “a baby”, “not a man”, “get on with your life”, etc.

On the other hand, the propensity of the sheer liberal and liberation paradigm will put some females into power, and gate keeping positions, where they are too liberal of boundaries as their basic needs have been fulfilled a bit too easily, overprotected.

And males will be more insane, aggressive, overcompensating and violating of other’s borders, having been deprived and driven as such].

Partition: 

Part One – “Theory”

Section A. Correlates CMM actional terms to ordinary language (cultural terms) of agency in order to make CMM terminology and its communication perspective on the cultural gender separation of agency more intelligible; this also serves to deconstruct and transform the cultural terms into CMM’s alternative language game of Optimal Competence.

Section B.
 Is a hermeneutic of five cultural patterns obstructing Optimal Competence:

1. A Charmed Loop of Gender Differentiation inferred as a Telos

2. The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement which reconstructs these two positions to hyperbole (as opposed to their being delimited to reconstruct homeostatic Cultural Pattern – this parenthetic phrase added 2018)

3. The Cartesian Technology of Individuation (exacerbates the rupture of social Cultural delimited Pattern – this parenthetic phrase added 2018)

4. Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Individuation (also exacerbates in same way)

5. A Strange Loop of Individuation and Gender Differentiation (reconstructs the runaway)

Part Two – “Practical”

Section A. Diagrams a modernist male and female in episode B. Conclusion C. Recommendations


“Theory”

Section One: Hermeneutic Corollaries to the Ordinary Language of Agency

To begin with, this article takes CMM and CMM compatible theoretic terminology and establishes corollaries to an ordinary language of Maslow’s “hierarchy of motives” as comprised by constituents of four cultural terms: Socialization, Being, Selfhood/Autobiography and Self Actualization.

—-
2018: This article takes CMM and CMM compatible theoretic terminology and establishes corollaries to ordinary language of Maslow’s “hierarchy of motives” as comprised by constituents of four cultural terms: Socialization, Being (corresponding with Midtdasein/Dasein), Selfhood/Autobiography (corresponding with routine, ritual and sacrament) and Self Actualization.
——

“Theory”

Section One: Hermeneutic Corollaries to the Ordinary Language of Agency


To begin with, this article takes CMM and CMM compatible theoretic terminology and establishes corollaries to an ordinary language of Maslow’s “hierarchy of motives” as comprised by constituents of four cultural terms: Socialization, Being (corresponding with Midtdasein/Dasein), Selfhood/Autobiography (corresponding with routine, ritual and sacrament) and Self Actualization. This new way of looking at the human potential grammar of motives is provided for the symbiotic purpose of 1. Making everyday workings of the Strange Loop, its Charmed Loop context, and every workings of CMM terms, primarily, Contextual, Prefigurative, Practical and Implicative Logical Forces, more intelligible in ordinary language, and 2. Deconstructing the snares of these static monadic cultural terms and their human potential grammar of motives; derived of teleology, transformed and exacerbated through “Enlightenment” texts, the incorporative prohibitions of these speech genres have much to do with the maintenance of the Strange and Charmed Loops. In moving these ordinary terms and the hierarchy of motives into actional corollaries, we seek to deconstruct and transform them into a language game {2} of four constituents to the individual agency of Optimal Competence.

Thus, Socialization, Being, Selfhood, and Self Actualization, in a Hierarchy of Motives/Needs {3} are obviously Not proposed as universals, as “real” dichotomies, nor are they meant to do interpretive justice to Maslow. They are appropriated first, because they well represent epochal language games of a useful hermeneutic point of departure – the Vietnam crisis as it evinced equiprimordially emergent facets of a paradox of gender differentiation/individuation. Inasmuch, they are verifiable to demonstrate ordinary workings of Enlightenment texts as their Reflexive Effects pertain to gender in Stories Lived. This connects directly to a second, and more important point. As there is no way to discern and reconstruct a pattern without difference, these terms are appropriated for their cultural significance, as they provide a customary “way of talking”, a context so that people know what we are talking about when we “Differance” from habitual usage (“Differance” is Derrida’s deconstructionist metaphor for a contrast internally related to its context). They provide embedded textual backgrounds from which Social Constructionist Differences of this article are made. That is, the human potential narrative of these four cultural terms in a hierarchy toward “Self Actualization” is taken as it exemplifies the socially detached, mechanistic, and causal notions of necessity germane to ethnocentric Cartesian texts, their obliviousness to the constructed reality of social rules’ crowning achievement, to be thoroughly deconstructed, while certain of its strands reconstructed through re-interpretation of any usefulness they may have in interactive practice.

Against the linearity of these texts, we consider Agency possible because persons are variably entailed in and comprised of mutable and open-ended logics of meaning and action – paradoxically, pre-existent logics are funded by the affordance of interactivity to propel agentive constraint. And we define Agency as the Altercast Legitimation of flex-ability to afford and constrain, sometimes in bundles, tfg’s in using the inevitability of interaction to investigate variable entailings.

However comparable to “The Hierarchy of Motives” metaphor then, the theoretic backing of what follows does not entail a fixed progressive order, but is differanced instead to a notion of all pervasive “rule-abilities.” {4} Though not affixing an order, internal relation of rules by their “rule-ness”, or their common nature as rules, always provide rule-abilities to order and make sense of events. These rule-abilities provide logics of meaning and action (or “grammars”) affording and constraining “flex-abilities” {5} for Agency – with immanent or “horizontal” rules of Agency normally Constituting flex-abilities for heirarchical Regulation of Agency. These are kinds of agency socially constructed and potentially changeable from moment to moment largely contingent upon what can be Taken For Granted through willing suspension of Belief or Disbelief. The horizontal (Constitutive) partition is here used similarly as Linda Harris’s model (14 p. 197 – 209) of Enmeshment Competence [Shotter would describe this as acting into the shaping and crafting of specificatory structures (our profferings in any interaction are only ever partly finished, and thus are available for farther specification – specificicty; in fact, we may here farther specify the term to “specificatory language games”, from which, enmeshment competence also entails the flex-ability to act out of)]. The Hierarchical (Regulative) partition is here used similarly as Koestler’s (40) citation of the two leveled “self assertion vs. self transcendence” [Harre would describe this as TFG appropriation of open-ended hierarchies of interpersonal dialogues for intrapersonal use] (these “horizontal/ lateral notions are heuristics – not literally separable, but connected and created by “rule-abilities”).

Indeed, the reader should not want, in first reading, to enmesh too deeply in the perfunctory deconstruction/ re-construction of the four cultural terms (on the next page and a half) set out prior to any discussion of gender per se, as they encompass specificatory differancing in order to prevent their being used malapropriatiatively in the application which follows. This is a hermeneutic preparation so that everyday workings of embedded enlightenment text’s Reflexive Effects on gender, i.e., a narrative of equiprimoridally emergent “sides” of paradoxic agentive quests of gender differentiation and individuation, may be set, as it occurs, within a new language game comparable but differanced from Maslow’s hierarchy of motives metaphor, both in a more ordinary sense of the implications of its four corollary rubrics [Socialization, Being, Selfhood, Self Actualization – cultural terms corresponding with the static monadic tradition of teleology (see footnote #3 for elaboration) and farther differanced in a more rigorously theoretical sense [corollary content under those ordinary cultural rubrics culminate and are encompassed in Optima – theoretic moves corresponding with actional/agentive criteria].

Provisionally, Socialization and Being foster immanent agentive competence through action into (and out of) altercasting of specificatory langauge games conjointly constructed and coordinated from internal relation of mutable, open ended social criteria tfg of depth grammar. Basic levels typically Constitute and facilitate flex-abilities for Selfhood and Actualization’s more situation reflexive agentive competence in Regulating coordination of open ended tfg hierarchical grammars.

Stories of Socialization and Being Constitute Flex-ability for Agency by Conjoint Construction Acting into (and out of) Immanently Mutable and Open Ended Criteria Coordinated of Taken For Granted Depth Grammars.

1 SOCIALIZATION: Liken enmeshment in Stories Told of Socialization (or Self Transcendence) to Praxis. At birth, as Rom Harre says, a “person position” enters into “the one a-priori context, molecules and persons in conversation – practically speaking, persons in relation to one another”; and beginning with mutually acted into Altercasting of parents and child is the socialization of agency. The awkward metaphor of “Position” is used to counteract Locke’s equalitarian idea of “perceptual neutrality”, situating persons in process and perspective, as opposed to rendering them equally valid judges of sensibilities irrespective of the quality of their involvement in discursive structures (e.g., the dubious, “even as a small child, I knew the evils of…etc.”). Stories Told of Socialization, then, is a notion of 1rst – 3rd person “Moral Orders”, in which Person Positions occupy differing privileged vantages having acted into Regulative positions through mediation of langauge’s consensuality and open-endedness in application to experience.

Doesn’t begin with first to second person interaction?

In this ecological view of socialization, the virtues of qualitatively patterned disbursement of differing flex-abilities are honored as being necessarily opposed to a single egalitarian standard. These Stories Told are socially constructed by corprisocial acting into and out of Stories Lived in Altercastings (joint 1rst – 2nd person interaction) of immanently mutable tfg coordinations of embedded depth grammatical rules. The jointly negotiated rules Constitute (determine how activities count) and Regulate Rights of Display (or not) agentive abilities in skilled performance of criteria accounted by consensus as [Legitimate, Obligatory, or Uncertain, and not Prohibited by a culture’s deontical requirements (with Uncertainty, these comprise four Deontic Operative Topoi “universal to all cultures” – V.C.]. Formally stated, Socialization is “Social Competence”; in Actional function, socialization of agency is expressed Cultural Pattern [CP] as Constitutive Rule [CR] of Contextual force over [Autobiography].

Being & Selfhood (or Self Assertion) are taken as two cultural terms corollary to ordinary usage of basic satisfctions on the Maslowian “Motivation Mierarchy.” Corresponding and differancing from these cultural terms in CMM actional terminology are basic flex-abilities for agency in Stories Lived – agentive rules for personal assertion of contextual force of reflexive effect of Autobiography.

Being’s Agentive rules in Stories Lived are Constructed through the Conjoint Action into and out of Immanently Mutable Criteria Coordinated of Taken For Granted Depth Grammars.

2 BEING: Liken Enmeshment in Stories Lived through Being to Poesis. The Practice of Being constitutes an etiological organic tie to Harris’s model (10 p. 185 – 224). Being is socially constructed, continually corrigible, thus Socially Accountable. Being is not an etymological telos laid bare and maintained resolute. Nevertheless, after Narrative Postures of organic regulation are “calibrated”, the notion of Being is one of normally having the flex-ability to “feedback” on these patterned Stories Lived and to have them left alone. We cannot continually investigate everything but must be able to rest content Taking certain things For Granted as aesthetic technique facilitating experience.

Aesthetic Technique facilitating experience would include rationality (making ratios as opposed to universals) and “understanding” – only, beyond understanding, which tends only to move away from discomfort, aesthetics qualitatively include an optimal amount of pleasure and pain, balancing between its thresholds in practical, non-cognitive judgment (as in A’s refinement of Epicurianism).

Social Construction of Being – Where significant others Altercast from Stories Told Specificatory Language Games with sufficient Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy (ARF) – viz., temporal latitude of sufficient margin for error, time unconscientousness, personal (and momentary) idiosyncrasy, reticence with regard to practices/flex-abilities, and reservation of exclusionary rights of equal justice, then one’s Lived Story is afforded the ameliorative flex-ability to Constitute depth grammatical Rules of narrative constraint from which to take for granted the sequential meanderings of the CR’s optimal propriotorial, intrapersonal, and interpersonal flex-abilities. As these CR’s constrain the pejorative altercastings of non-negotiable accountability and afford “Right to Not Display”, their instantiated privacy Legitimates Regulative Rules of Release from from contexts where discrimination is ineffectual or release from a given pejorative story. The technique of these Regulative Rules may be used to afford and especially to Constrain Reflexive Effects of over-extension or impingement as they reconstruct Constitutive rules of Optimal flex-abilities. The formal statement of Being is Prefigurative Enmeshment Competence. The Actional function of Being is a ratio [CR] Prefigurative over Reflexive Effect of Contextual Biographical force. In this function as Altercast Biography, the Regulative Ability to Release (or stop short or move past) may make tacit use of pronominal directive; this first Agentive move in Constituting the Self Assertion of Personal Being is precursive to –

3 SELFHOOD: Liken Enmeshment in Stories Lived through Selfhood to Phronesis. Where flex-abilities of Being are not at risk (pejoratively altercast and exploited) if Constituted language games are deviated from, but its TFG’s are, in fact, Legitimated with wider ARF (Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy), incentive of agency is ameliorated, though Right of Display, to Go Into and purposefully reconstruct Autobiographically Asserted, thus Accountable Criteria (Harre 29/40 depending on bibliography), from Stories Lived in Public. The formal statement of Selfhood is Valence Competence; its Actional form is a ratio: [RR] Reflexive Effect of Contextual Autobiographical force over Prefigurative and Practical Autob. force; this in/out skill (affording the necessary being and constraining narrative continuity) prototypes deliberately abstractive “step” functions (like “deutero learning”); in addition to qualitative contiguity of poesis’ sequential meanderings, the distinguishing Agentive move of Selfhood is a “leaping” or a “jumping” character of phronesis’ practical judgment in everyday concerns. Or W (51b or 66c depending on bibl.) might characterize the experience not as a leaping, but more of a “moving into activity”, whereupon engagement in use situates episode. “Oh, now I know what to do, now I can go on.” These abstractive semiotic language games are facilitated by tfg open ended social criteria of Stories Told; e.g., deontological symbolism, words/grammars, semiotics of “emotion” {6}.

Stories of Self Actualization Regulative Agency by the Conjointly Constructed Acting into and out of Open Ended Hierarchies Coordinated of Taken for Granted Grammars (differancing from regulated constraint)

4 SELF ACTUALIZATION: Liken Enmeshment in Stories Told of Self Actualization to Theoria (“self actualization, the other facet of what we are calling Self Transcendence, is here used similarly as Maslow would use “The Esteem Needs”): Where the person is Altercast ameliorative right to display (or not) cultivated agentive flex-abilities of protracted ARF, using open ended hierarchization in the form of highly specialized, abstractive, or esoteric language games, and/or where Lived Cultural Patterns and Stories Told can be Elaborated and Transformed by individual agency (Differancing from Regulated Constraint), “upper parts” of the “motivational hierarchy” [agency hierarchy] are “reached.” The formal statement of Self Actualization is “Creative Competence”; its Actional expression is [RR] Reflexive Effect of Implicative Autob. force (it remains mutably context dependent).

This cultural terminology of Socialization, Being, and Selfhood toward Self Actualization is hereafter taken to signify directions (Constitutive and Regulative Rules) of logical forces heuristic to the problematic intersection of gender differentiation/ individuation. As the reflexive effect of Modernity’s valuation of Implicative force, i.e., “Actualization’s” ability to change Cultural Patterns, increases the unbeknownst but necessary mutability of whatever relative stability of deontical order traditional teleology might achieve, there is no Cultural Pattern in which to practice the Satisfactory Competence of taking for granted enmeshment in one of these four facets on a regular basis (14 or 10 p. 204-205) (7). It is necessary to play a new language game.

OPTIMAL COMPETENCE

Optimal Competence has/uses Functional Autonomy to use/afford all four of these Agentive Flex-abilities:

Socialization, Being, Selfhood and Self Actualization are thus used as four inseparably necessary agentive flex-abilities for Optimal Competence in Modern Society. With Modernity’s disorder, one must be “flex-able” to use these four aspects (perhaps with qualitative differances on Momentary, Episodic, Relational, Cultural Pattern or Autobiographical levels), and not be stuck fixedly overcompensating or reversing one of these two facets, if one, as practitioner, is to be Optimally Competent. Optimal Competence – the flex-ability to Constitute and Regulate Social Competence, Enmeshment Competence, Valence Competence, Creative Competence and Functional Autonomy (choosing to fit in or not) – by its conscientious participation in “Being/Selfhood and Socialization”, is distinguished from mere Self Actualization. Even so, just as individuals can be Minimally Competent, so too can social systems be. In those systems where Optimal Competence is Blocked, Optimally Competent individuals may strongly favor one facet. A critical point distinguishing it from Minimal Competence, which does not afford flex-ability to reconstruct given criteria, is Functional Autonomy. Optimal Competence can choose to not fit in a criteria even though it, Optimal Competence, does afford the flex-ability to participate. On the other hand, Optimal Competence, as it is not Obligated to be different (not obligated by the modernist paradox, “be different so you can fit in”), need not succumb to Modernistic “pangs of self loathing” for the appearance of conformity (including to one’s self interest), but can choose to participate in social criteria despite the fact that the criteria may not be new. If, e.g., the criteria is “the ability to judge the value of exchange”, then Optimal Competence, unlike Minimal Competence, and beyond Satisfactory Competence (which can only reconstruct stable criteria), can choose to exchange less or more than conventional requirements of exchange, despite the ability to judge an even exchange. Moreover, beyond the alienation of modernism, it can choose to make an even exchange though that may not appear novel (though it may appear conformist) (10 or 14 ibid.).

Section Two: Obstacles to The Flex-abilities of Optimal Competence –

A Hermeneutic of Gender Differentiation & Individuation

Where many acts lead to equifinal ends Pearce and Cronen’s first hypothesis is for a Charmed Loop. Therefore, it is hypothesized that Charmed Loops (viz. of sex and the division of labor) of Gender Differentiation became inferred as a telos. This telos, separating agentive flex-abilities, presents the first obstacle to Optimal Competence and the central context for the ensuing four hypotheses of obstacles.

THE CONTEXT OF TELEOLOGY

1 TELEOLOGICAL GENDER DIFFERENTIATION: Prohibits necessary flex-abilities; viz., separation of gender agency prohibits Optimal Competence by the very concept of teleology’s formal separations.

The Practical Division of Agency Constructs Separate Gender Positions of Advantageous Flex-ability:

It would make sense that in negotiation through practical activity of the pre-agrarian world, a gender role division was inferred of parturition divisions of agency and taken for granted as a Reflexive Need (read “Need” as rules based praxis!). Females were Legitimated in Taking For Granted Reflexive Effect of Contextual Force over Regulative Rules (because males evolved physically stronger and free to fight, while females were more vulnerable and ‘eggs are precious’, females were afforded the social taken for granted that their Prefigurative disengagement (disenmeshement) from competition was legitimate and that breaking the rule of this legitimacy was prohibited) in exchange for elevated, less brutal competition among males (Bowery’s thing about civilizational deal for boarders being taken care of in exchange fore less brutal male comp for females within); while males, because they were less vulnerable and encumbered, were obligated, thus (through “deprivation of feedback compulsion”) Reflexively Needed to prove (practices/flex-abilities) deservingess of Implicative Force on Constitutive Rules.

Display of successful consequents despite sacrifice on antecedent social levels (contextual force of reflexive effect) was institutionally compensated with Stories Told of Self Actualization [comprised through Stories Lived of both (Maslowian) differentiation of fulfillment and (Feudian) sublimation of deprivation]. This augmentation to the lack of competition from females in conjunction with deprivation compulsion (prohibiting basic flex-abilities) disproporionately represented males in acclivities of Implicative force of Autob. on Cultural Patterns reconstructing through momentarily Altercasts (“content”).

It also ostensibly Legitimated protecting the institution of Traditional Society’s Stories Told of male Actualization [Obligatory Reflexive Need of Implicative force] with Prohibitory moral orders of male Self Actualization [Obligatory Reflexive Need of Implicative force] with Prohibitory moral orders of ethnocentrism and supremacy (e.g., “god” as a punitive man; or “male morality”), and most radically, the Prohibitory (thus concomitantly Obligatory) moral order of Traditional ionic Teleology.

[CP] Traditional Teleology, The TFG Depth Grammar of Cartesianism (or “foundationalism”) & Gender Differentiation: Traditionalism is a way of life made coherent by story of permanence; takes for granted that the perfect form of any earthly object substands at its ends, inevitably to be uncovered if only one is reasonable enough to pursue understanding of those ends by continually putting at risk to dialectical critique any taken for granted custom and habit of tradition.

This Tradition Elaborated the gender division into Two Positions of Advantageous Flexibilities {8}:

A. A More Addressive Position – “The Female Position” of Flex-ability among basic human needs. The rules directed actively of the female’s being left alone, if not addressed, provides them with basic means of agency; this, the “Addressive” position, would be the position more often of females in the activities of everyday situations.

B. A More Hierarchizing Position – “The Male Position” of Flex-ability in quest of human achievement: Thereupon the rules directed activities of the female’s being left alone, if not addressed, facilitate, through altercasting of a more directive (as opposed to inquisitive) kind of address, hierarchical construction of male agency; this, the “Hierarchizing” position, would be the position more often of males in the activities of status situations.

{hermeneutic continues after discussion of hyperbolization through didactic inctitement and Cartesian technology}

THE CHARMED LOOP OF DIDACTIC INCITEMENT {9}:
  Obligates away from appealed for flex-abilities

Didactic Cruelty: A typical means of the Prohibition and Obligation which reconstruct these two gender positions would be didactic incitement. Because, though obligation and lack of altercast legitimacy, positive “motivation” (agency) is arrogated with the didactic cruelty of incitement, one must justify the instigator’s hypothesis for abuse, and can, in addition, issue forth their practices/ flex-abilities to the instigator. E.g., “the ignominious bullying of initiator in the context of Naven Ritual rites of passage produced harsh, overcompensating males” {4a}.


The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement:

[Note: a trimmed-down version of this appears earlier in the carousel]

   
Didactic Incitement of positions of narrower flex-abilities, as it forces those positions to justify the instigation by marshaling their agency into the creation of a Charmed Loop of practices/flex-abilities a) appropriating b) instantiation c) protection, and d) hedging to the position of wider flex-abilities, constructs and equiprimoridal means to these multifinal ends for the equifinal position of wider flex-abilities (i.e., a typical means to several ends by unethical folks).

The address, strict first person accountability/second and third person absolution, in quality (inciting and didactic), may be so unequivocal that the addressee cannot tell whether they are acting as an agent, or whether they are acting in accordance of obligatory conformity or “obligatory rebellion” (“disobey me” paradox). Hence, the agency of the addressee positions of narrower flex-abilities, in sharing or expending, or in trying to avoid sharing or expending resources/practices, flex-abilities, is arrogated. As the obligations and prohibitions from from the positions of wider flex-abilities (ARF) make it impossible for lesser positions to take these important relationships for granted as background issues, their agency is regulated by an inescapable {10} field constituted through reflexive recontextings of figure/ground in the charmed loop of Didactic Incitement – viz. didactic incitement contexts reflexive need for Socialization [obligatory/not agentive], reconstructs reflexive need for Being [obligatory/not agentive], recontexts reflexive need for Selfhood [obligatory/not agentive], recontexts reflexive need for Self Actualization [obligatory/not agentive]. With the Agency of their taken for granted backgrounding arrogated, the narrow position is obligated to the inagency of a “please spontaneously care/ please spontaneously don’t care paradox.

A. “Please Spontaneously Care” – wanting spontaneous, ameliorative care – largely an unconscious, unarticulated, background wish (because if they don’t just do it, if you have to make them, then they don’t really care for your being, but what you do) – (modernist half – please care to participate in the coherence of change). In this instance agency of a person position of narrow flex-abilities is Prohibited and any agency from the person position of wider flex-abilities is Legitimated.

B. “Please Spontaneously Don’t Care” – wanting to be spontaneously left alone from pejorative care (neo-traditional half – please do not care so that I do not have to devote resources to protecting the coherence of permanence). In this instance, again, the agency of the person position of narrower flex-abilities is Prohibited and any agency from the person position of wider flex-abilities is Legitimated.

The person position of narrow flex-abilities is caught in a charmed loop wherein they must justify the abuse: no matter what they do, their agency is arrogated by the person position of wider flex-abilities.

Beside destroying themselves, a combination of the four options taken to an extreme, the narrow position might attempt the following in reaction to Didactic Incitement:

I. Do “nothing”, risk pejorative altercasting 2. Prove lack of agentive being/ justify non-accountability 3. Please spontaneously care to amelioratively altercast withdrawal/not pejoratively altercast withdrawal.

The narrower position right act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement and risk instantiation of the pejorative altercasting by doing “nothing’ 1. in “doing nothing” the narrower position accepts the altercasting and in so doing proves their lack of agentive being/ which justifies the wider position’s non-accountable incitement (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive being) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] read as follows: Please spontaneously care to amelioratively altercast my withdrawal/ to not pejoratively altercast my withdrawal. 3. in accepting the altercast primary injunction of agentive being [morality of rights], the narrow position may have to live through pejorative (perhaps tormenting) {11} language games for an indefinite period and legitimates farther abuse (wimp).*

* It is this option which produces the unwanted bodily reactions of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For an obligatory withdrawal to such an extreme, the organic constitution and hermeneutic counteracts, betraying one’s integrity, perhaps to one’s own surprise and dismay.

*It is in fact this first option of withdrawal which produces the unwanted bodily reactions of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For an obligatory withdrawal to such an extreme, the organic constitution counteracts, producing the unwanted bodily and hermeneutic reactions which might betray even one’s own self.

II. Risk resources/practices for understanding of a better altercast 2. Prove lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justify appropriation exploitation 3. Please spontaneously care to protect my practices/ do not care to appropriate and exploit them (to use them as I would not).

The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by risking resources to appropriation in an effort to make it understood that they should not be pejoratively altercast thus. 1. In divulging resources/practices, the narrow position proves lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justifies wide position’s appropriation and exploitation (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive selfhood and socialization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to protect my practices as I would/do not care to use them as I would not. 3. In divulging resources/practices of agentive selfhood [morality of conative productivity] and in divulging resources/practices of agentive socialization [tribal/utilitarian morality] the narrower position may risk appropriation of resources before readied and without the sought for results – enjoyment of being, the practical uses of selfhood, the bartering of socialization and the distinguished recognition of self actualization. This strategy of acting-into the didactic incitement may construct the hideous experience of the narrower position issuing forth their best resources/practices to the person(s) treating them the worst (dupe).


III. Fight into altercast (with grudging, mechanistic compliance, or outright abuse in return) 2. Prove lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justify directive control 3. Please spontaneously care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would like/do not care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would not like.

The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by fighting into it. 1. Using reactive flex-ability to fight into it, the narrow position proves their agentive selfhood and socialization/ justifies the wide position’s directive control over the use of flex-abilities (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive selfhood/ socialization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would like/do not care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would not like 3. In having their flex-abilities directed to fight in, agency may not languish in specificatory language games naively shared or pejoratively altercast, but the narrow position reveals their hidden lack of innocence, i.e., the “hypocrisy” of self interest, and is thereby subject to pre-emption of agentive selfhood’s incentive [morality of conative productivity] to enter into a temporal story, or pre-emption of agentive socialization’s acceptance of a discursive structure [tribal/utilitarian morality] (e.g., through “forced identification”). Unlike the pre-emptive antagonism of the incited narrow position, the wide position has orientation to make sense of retaliatory antagonism. Beside dignifying the wider position with unmerited consideration, this strategy of acting into the didactic incitement risks having flexabilities maneuvered into extremely narrow ranges of functional autonomy, obligating vulgar pragmatism or criterial genericism to an extent which might leave the narrow position susceptible to blackmail [undermining Warrant (and the ability to object)] or exhaust and prohibit easy reconstruction of flex-abilities (pig).


IV. Transcend the altercast didactic incitement 2. Prove lack of agentive actualization/ justify didactic cruelty 3. Please spontaneously care to admit that this was not what I need/do not care that it was not so bad that I could not get over it.

The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by transcending it 1. In transcendence, the narrow position proves lack of agentive self actualization/ justifies the wider position’s use of didactic cruelty (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive actualization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to admit that this was not what I needed/do not care that it was not so bad that I could not get over it. 3. If the narrower position transcends the context of didactic incitement, they justify the altercst didactic incitement as being “not that bad”, at worst, if not a necessary lesson or even an inspiration which takes credit for the achievement. This strategy of acting into the didactic incitement pre-empts Agentive Self Actualization’s [morality of honor] effect on cultural patterns such that the better one’s accomplishments are, the more they justify the abuse. An effort to find background TFG in transcendence of even this final justification of the hypothetically necessary abuse might re-construct a loop of runaway aberration (permanent puerile initiate).

3 THE CARTESIAN TECHNOLOGY OF INDIVIDUATION:

Legitimates imperviousness to the flex-abilities of Optimal Competence through the “unassailable god” and the furtive Prohibitive mechanism of provisionalization.

As Implications of Self Actualization made teleology’s elusive quest more evident, technologies such as the following two moves of Augustine were apparently instrumental in facilitating the Cartesian mechanism which served to maintain the Prohibitory punctuations of teleology despite ramifications of infinite regress. First, rather than an immutable and perfectly aligned telos, he hypothesized to god an Archemedian point above good and evil. But instead of qualitatively social consensus, a sensible limit to extremes, in lieu the formal telos, the concept of “individual” was to be governor of ethics as the truth of god was relational and separate from them, not relative and connected in qualitative patterns wherein the virtues of flex-abilities were recognized as they were ecologically dispersed. Second, of this Archimedian schism he inferred a primordial relationality. Coherent direction of ethics toward this Archimedian point was to be facilitated by the mechanism of relationality as opposed to relativity. With this parceling-out mechanism, certain pejorative elements within an individual’s orientation, as in the most critical example of hypocrisy, were not the ultimate qualitative limitation to their moral orientation {12}. This technology likely hyperbolized the two separate gender positions of greater flex-abilities.


{Resumption of hermeneutic: gender separation takes turn wherein it may be more usefully discussed as a quaternary system among gender differentiation and individuation}


Self Transcendence
: With the addition of Cartesian technology, another way of looking at the hierarchical position more assumed by males would be to describe it as “rules directed activity pejoratively altercasting (provisionalization in addition to didactic incitement) and transforming basic male agentive levels.” He is compelled to Self Transcendence through a) privation (Prohibition)  of Being compulsion, incitement (Obligation) to genetic competition, and b) deprivation (provisionalization of what might otherwise be) Selfhood (and Obligation of excellence – i.e., something above mere reconstruction – to Legitimate enmeshment). The (need or “motive” to) Elaboration of Self Actualization probably contributed heavily to Reflexively Effecting Transformation to the less outwardly ordered society of Modernity.


The Context of Modernity

[CP] Modernity (Cartesian) TFG Depth Grammar of Individuation: Modernity is a way of life made coherent by the story of change; it takes for granted that transcendent “mind stuff” (and later empiricism) found Archimedian logics which are inevitably to be uncovered if only people have courage to pursue them by continually putting at risk the taken for granted customs and habits of tradition.


Modernity’s ostensible rejection of teleology (that is, the connection of body to its “ideal form”) and its valuation of Self Actualization’s ability to transform cultural patterns also risked traditional culture’s customs for female safety and male achievement, and thereby reconstructed Reflexive Need to re-emphasize the practical gender separation with a co-evolutionary Cultural Pattern of Neo Traditionalism.

[CP] Neo Traditionalism (Teleological Cartesianism): Neo Traditionalism is a way of life made coherent by the story of permanence; takes for granted that maintenance of faith in an Archimedian logics’s foundation of empiricism is what has been done by folks to successfully preserve them through history; thus, it will work again if only one has the will to not put at risk these taken for granted customs/habits of tradition (Neo Traditionalism must function in context of Modernity).


Thus, with the Reflexive Effect of Modernity, the Gender Dichotomy of Agency is usefully changed to a quaternary heuristic of agentive intentionalities, “individuation”. These coevolutionary patterns present a fourth obstacle to flex-abilities of Optimal Competence – miscoordinated as a result of Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Cartesian Modernistic Individuation and Neo Traditional Gender Differentiation.

4 INCOMMENSURATE GENDER AGENDAS OF INDIVIDUATION & DIFFERENTIATION:

Obliges Prohibition of flex-abilities through infinite regression of the paradoxic notion of “be different so you can fit in” (14; 51a), i.e., be a modern individual, versus the reflexive effect of ever more closed notions of neo-traditional gender differentiation (be the same as others so that you can fit in).

The intersection of Gender Relations/Individuation reconstructs, at least in occidental culture, a symmetrical paradigm of Incommensurate Gender of Individuation. A) The language game of Neo Traditionalism tries to conform the technology of individuation to teleological gender differentiation, seeking to separate and protect 1) female reflexively effected contextual forces from 2) male reflexively needed implicative forces; while the language game of Modernistic males and females use the technology of individuation to differance from traditional rules of gender separation B) Modernist 3) females – overcompensate reflexively effected contextual forces or reverse to reflexively needed implicative forces of Autob. and 4) males – overcompensate reflexively needed implicative forces or reverse to reflexively effected contextual forces of Autob. Whether Neo Traditionalist or Modernist, gender agendas of individuation are likely to be incommensurate.


With the disordering context of Modernity, perhaps Addressive positions more often occupied by females re-emerged with increased significance.
 In position where she is left alone, if not addressed, “the” female is 1) Not Obligated to display (risk practices/flex-abilties) excellence – she spontaneously moves in a qualitative sequence of practical personal need 2) As narrative significance of her proprioceptive being is Legitimate, she becomes articulate as of the wish, will and intentionality of her sensibilities 3) In basic position of wider flex-abilities, she is solicited (pandered-to?) with Specificatory Language Games to cultivate or reject, “shape and craft” 4) Altercasting, identification, and confirmation of Autob. from the posture [Prefigurative force] of Being is thereby socially reconstructed Selfhood. In the manner of this contexting, basic flex-abilities (Being/Selfhood) reflexively effected contextual forces {13} of Autobiography [over RC, Ep, Alt and narratively reconstructing CP] were/are achieved comparatively easier and sooner by females.

Through the temporal [in governing contextual force of Autob. (over RC through Alt Cn & reconstructing CP)], females were likely to become more: sensibly acute, happy, articulate, involved, caring and motivated than their compelled male counterparts [for many (Traditional) females, the indirectness of their reflexively effected implicative force (influence on Cultural Patterns) was relatively unimportant; that is, compared with their motive to protect context forces (Being/Selfhood)].

Self Assertion {14}: Addressivity of the female position, that is the Altercasting of specificatory language games, fulfills its basic flex-abilities for the agencies of being and selfhood, and creates flex-ability for strong prefigurative force [Self Assertion]. In this position she tends to prohibit “metacommunication” [talk about talk which allows for the power to clarify, revise and integrate one’s premises (65) Barnlund] as there is no immanent need to risk discursive practices/flex-abilities in that manner; moreover, high context orientation is abundant and uninteresting to her; further still, perhaps she has a vested interest in maintaining modernity’s disorder to sustain the advantage of the addressive position and its flex-ability to play males off one another – inasmuch, she dismisses the conversational implicature of metacommunication as weak or unmasculine. She is inclined instead to cursory pejorative conclusions (this overparticularity is discussed in note {15}), which, from the position of basic flex-abilities, tend to project justice, freedom and permanence. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional morals since, on an everyday level, more or happier opportunities exist to break its rules. This bias may construct cultural criterial narrowness and broad natural conservatism (especially in Modernity, when less can be taken for granted).

Despite resistance to that bias, varying Autob.‘s (industrial epoch) outside of male prohibitions and control of birthing, diminish [Traditionally TFG] natural/social barriers to female Self Actualization into mere custom and habit – as opposed to practical necessity or supernatural mandate. Whether they were sensitized through violations of their [Traditionally instituted] Being/Selfhood, or they were sheerly perceptive, perhaps more females than previously recognized that Self Actualization [Autob.‘s reflexive need of implicative force beyond RC] was not vain, but essential to full competence in modern society.

In compliment, rigidity and militarism which continued post World Wars constrained some Modernistic males from “rational blindness” {16}: I.e., they could not blind themselves to the fact that the Traditional TFG of 1) the young male’s sacrificed Being/Selfhood was too profound to be legitimated by potential Self Actualization; further 2) that the modernist/ethnocentric (paradox) position of Self Actualization is now obsolete, even abetting destruction of these premises – without (Autob. reflexively effected context forces) which, Self Actualization was improbable in the less outwardly ordered society of modernity. Without a story of intrinsic value, he still had to prove his practices/flex-abilities according to extremely positivistic and generic standards (e.g., enlistment) or risk insuperable loss of personal justice (even de-sexing); i.e., either exclusive intrinsic rights or credibility and status – the only apparent societal competition and means back to his early Prohibited Being/Selfhood. {17}


The relationship between these four ways of life within the anachronistic TFG of the Traditional Story Told of Teleology and The Story Lived within the reflexively reconstructing foundational context of Modernity creates a fifth obstacle to the agentive flex-abilities of Optimal Competence.

5 A STRANGE LOOP OF INDIVIDUATION & GENDER DIFFERENTIAITON:

The Reflexive Needs of This Unwanted Repetitive Pattern – call it “The Strange Loop of Post Modernity” – Obligates the Prohibition of flex-abilties

This Strange Loop of “Post Modernity” works within Strange Loop of Modernity* as described by Pearce and Cronen; the difference being that this loop functions as a relation between the Ways of Life of Modernity and Neo-Traditionalism.

Modern and Neo Traditional accountability to the teleological context’s impossible quest for a complete and consistent theory can reflexively reconstruct a Strange Loop in perpetuity. As Accountability to Teleology implicatively forces search for non recursive separations (forms), the language games of Modernistic Individuation tend to harshly overcompensate and (then) or reflexively Reverse whatever TFG’s founded by the language games of Neo Traditional Differentiation [e.g., the language game of unhappy modernist female tends to fixate reversal to prefigurative contextual force or harshly overcompensate implicative force – by any way, the Autobiography of the Modernist must context Relational Characterization and vis a versa [i.e., the language game of Neo Traditionalism fixates its own harsh reinstantiation of gender (hierarchicization) – for a Neo Traditionalist, a Relational Characterization must context Autobiography].

As this context’s reflexive recontexting precludes taking for granted Satisfactory Competence through either the language game of Differentiation (incl. overcompensation) of Reversal, it is necessary to cure its snares with a new language game of Optimal Competence (e.g., for persons of either gender to have the flex-abilities of changeable enmehsment in all four forces). Although this loop is synonymous with the status quo of what is commonly called “post modernity”, it is actually used synonymously with the term “modernity”, for in absence the instantiation of stable, unifying Accountable Ways of Life (Autob., RC. and CP), we CMMists (13) do not presume modernity has been surpassed.


* Strange Loop of Modernity (51a) – Change counts as progress to foundation: “This is not new” – “Work to change it” – “This is new” – “Celebrate novelty” – “This is no longer new” – “Work to change it” etc.

PART TWO: “PRACTICAL

EPISODIC ANALYSIS: Discussing Consequents of “Taking The Ten” (in the prisoner’s dilemma)

Although this analysis uses concrete elements, it is more a prototype episode as it does not situate an actual sequence of events, it only lays out a typical sequence of events. This proto-episode takes individuational language games from the Strange Loop of “postmodernity” and sets them out within a Consequent of the “prisoner’s dilemma” to illustrate an interaction between the language game of Over-compensating Modernist Male [OMM] and Female [OMF], showing how it reflexes a reverse in Regulative Rules – i.e., if they are to differance and thus fit in they must each become Reversing Modernist [RMM] [RMF], finally, in the last sequence, the cycle of the Strange Loop is completed as both start to adopt trappings of New Traditionalism. Note: Though the analysis of this proto-episode exploits coherence through the consistency of language games which, in this case, modernist types would use, another modernist female comes into play, taking the place of the Overcompensating Modernist female after the antecedent proto-episodes, and assumes the Reflexive Effect of that Episode by enacting the Consequent Autobiographical pattern, the language game of Reversing Modernist Female.


I. First, it is necessary to set up the Antecedent [A] Cultural Patterns: Contexting this proto-Episode is The Strange Loop of “Post Modernity”. As used for Autobiographical purposes, Constitutive and Regulative Rules of the two Cultural Patterns comprising the Strange Loop would read as follows:

[A] Modernity [CP] Celebrative Change [CR] Be different so you can fit in [RR] continually put practices/felx-abilities at risk in quest of foundations.

[A] Neo Traditionalism derives its Cultural Pattern [CP] from the Traditional [CP] Sacramental Form [CR] Be faithful to the permanent, ultimate, and authentic form of one’s existence (be the same as others so that you can fit in) [RR] find the will to refrain from putting practices/flex-abilities at risk.


II. Second, as this is a discourse regarding Consequents of “the prisoner’s dilemma”, it is also necessary to set up the Antecedent proto-Episodes:

The Prisoner’s Dilemma {62c; 51a}: As applied in this [Ep] – Does one act as a Neo Traditionalist and try to be fair, “take the five”, in preserving the “sacrament” of one’s anticipated “true love” [sacred RC contexts Autob.]? – Male takes the five of achievement, female takes the five of basic human flex-abilities. Or does one act as Modernist and try to bring the most to any anticipated relationship by “celebrating” life to the fullest, adopting pragmatic relationships along the way in support of individuational achievement [Autob. contexts pragmatic RC]? – “take the ten” prior to discovery of [permanent RC]?


III. Third, the Autobiographical Language Games:

Overcompensating Modernist Female [OMF]: Autob. continually put practices/flex-abilities at risk in the direction assuring basic human needs – Self Assertion [Contexual Autob. over Prefig/Practical force]

Overcompensating Modernist Male [OMM]: Autob. continually put practices/flex-abilities at risk in quest of achievement – Self Transcendence [Implicative Autobiographical force]


Antecedent Episodes

[Ep #1 reluctant foil]

1. [OMM] in hope to retain at least the five of achievement [DO] Obligatory – Transcend Self, accept attribution men privileged/ women disadvantaged – [RR] Please Spontaneously Care that this (dilemma) is not what I needed. [Act] reluctantly overcompensate Sacral Form [CR] Patriarchy

2. [OMF] “Patriarchy” [CR] Prohibitive Male Morality – “Arrogant; pretentious” [RR] “not new”


[Ep #2 sacred ministry of betrayal]

1. [OMF] [C] [DO] Obligatory: In liberation from fetters of immanence, women need transcendent achievement [RR] Subvert obstructive patriarchy [Act] Take The Ten – [CR] “Sacred Ministry of Betrayal”: (obviously another male) [RR] …..”Not kneeling before a man, only kneeling before a symbol of virility.

By the act of taking the ten, the language game of Overcompensating Modernist Female Reflexively Effects [C] [DO] Uncertainty, Transforming a reversal in modernistic individuational quests. Read her contextual force over the modernist male as follows:

Antecedent [A] “You will never inflict on me anything as hateful as I have already inflicted on you.”


The Episode [Ep #3]

Discussing Consequents of Taking Ten in Antecedent Gender Relations/Individuational Achievement

{At this juncture the overcompensating modernist female of the antecedent episodes, having taken the ten, has moved on to bigger and better things, and a different modernist female acts into the discursive structure of the Reflexively Effected language game of reversing modernist female RMF, and thusly equipped, engages in episode the downed, and therefore reflexively reversing modernist male RMM}

Autob. +10 Reversing Modernist Female [RMF]: [CR] “The right to do what I want” RR Change [CP] “Stable Heirachical Pattern of Patriarchy [Contextual Force] [Effect Implicative Force against it]

Autob. -10 Reversing Modernist Male [RMM]: [CR]“Authentic rights have not been considered” [RR] search for Authentic foundations of “Being” [Prefigurative over Contextual force]


1. [RMM]: [Ant] [DO] Oblig: [RR] make sure incipient [RC] doesn’t repeat past mistakes. [DO] Legit. Seek “Confirmation” [Act] – Comical illustration of disillusionment with being downed ten in prior [RC]

2. [RMF]: [C] – [CR] Talk about old girlfriend [DO] Prohibited [RR] not new, boring [CR] immoral [Act] “All they want to do is talk about their old girlfriends”….[Oblig.] [Act] (scream!) “You bore me!”

3. [RMM] – [C] [CR] insulated by Altercast [Antecedent] of permanence and tactlessness – [RR] Please spontaneously care that this isn’t what I needed: [DO] Oblig [Act] Assert basic right to genuine “feelings”

4. [RMF] [C] – [DO] Prohibited – [CR] male expression of feelings counts as manipulative.

5. [RMM] – [DO] Uncertainty [A] – [Autob.] [DO] Obligatory – search for the reason behind this insouciance [Act] – Try to reason things out through “metacommunication

6. [RMF] – [C] – [DO] Prohibited by [Autob.] – [CR] metacommunication = controlling [C] [Oblig] [Act] (scream!) “Relax!!”

7. [RMF] [Antecedent] – [DO] Obligatory – [CR] – “Refreshing candor” of pragmatic directive – [Act] “Are you jealous? It’s just her prerogative. Get on with your life. It’s that way for everyone.” [DO] Legit. [RR] “Help to do better” – [Act] Wholesome and mature expression of delightful sexuality: “women have plenty of lovers, but they complain that men aren’t good lovers. Are you a good lover?”


Consequent Episode [Ep #4 egregious analogy of Rape to inspiration]

[Ant] The importance of getting things right, “accurate and ameliorative”, become acute at this juncture for the [RMM], if, along with the incapacity to discuss the pejorative experience of his prior [RC] with his “girlfriend”, you add, say, his familial Relationship, characterized by pervasive negative Altercasting (also likely to be Prohibited by modernist and neo traditional discourse as controlling, manipulative, wimpish).

With Depth Grammar’s potential for making incommensurate paradigms comparable, take the point of view then of the reversing modernist male: if he is to assert his basic flex-abilities, the Obligatory response to the Acts in segment 7 can accurately read as follows:

1. RMM: [CR] – Mechanistic, indifferent: Like telling a woman who has been violated (in some form) “Never mind him, he was just a pig; men have all the women that they need, but they complain that women don’t (expletive) them correctly” * [C] [Oblig] [Act] Rage

* As if this “advice” is not bad enough, imagine the following scenario: Given the factors of pervasiveness and the hegemony of this CP [separating gender flex-abilities for agency] a good comparison would work like this – a rape which produces the unfortunate involuntary bodily response of an orgasm (only later to be interpreted for her as “consummatory bodily satisfaction”!), which, in turn produces a hysterical reaction (only to be later interpreted for her as “liberating happiness” !), which, in turn, Obligates an anti-rape crusade (only later to be interpreted for her as having been “inspired by the rape” !).

2. The RMM’s [Act] toward

Caveat

The RMF’s acts in segments #2, #6 and # 7 of Episode 3 exemplify ordinary everyday kinds of “didactic incitement.” Within this context [Enlightenment texts first to third person accountability (Are you jealous? It’s just their prerogative. Get on with your life. It’s that way for everyone.”)] of Cartesian Modernistic Individuation, (Garfinkel describes as) “rational blindness” to moral an factual indebtedness for the social construction of “individuation” [Autob.‘s] has created, by Episode 4, segment #3, an asymmetrical relation quantified to hegemony. It might be inferred that the foundational context’s quantifying absolution of forms (e.g., deprivation compulsion of didactic incitement), of positivistic individual rights, in connection with the rules directed activity of the female’s being left alone if not addressed (the addressive position increased with modernity’s disorder creating less need or ability to trust – in fact, a motive to perpetuate disorder in order to sustain addressive position’s basic flex-abilities, e.g., to play males off of one another), similarly as in this episode [its Prohibited against discussing past RC’s made more pervasive if it is Legitimized by power positions (e.g., a “therapist”) and/or comports contextual force over an additional Antecedent RC of a pejoratively Altercasting family], males (viz. more highly “class” dependent, and having a view toward a wider arc of contingencies and “farther reaches of human nature”) will “lose” to females disproportionately. This might make worse the incentive and the power structure. [this coming sentence needs work, but it seems like I was grasping at concepts like “hypergamy” though I didn’t have that word at time] A “polygny or hyperprogeneration of ameliorative Altercasting,” through which males not necessarily meritous are Altercast positions of influence (perhaps for fear of being left behind and susceptible to a hegemonic genetic “arms build up”), explains how this can happen. The concern of the worst case scenario being that if the more broad demographic of males continue to be taught to deaden their basic flex-abilities, and with that, their selectional bias (see note 14) is disproportionately Blocked, that as they attempt to appeal to Accountability to Justice, cast into the role of the oppressor of an all too talented lady, they will become demoralized.

This possibility is not a matter of “human nature”; it is a matter of the logics of meaning and action. These are grammars, and where they prehend the interpretation of action, depth grammars of language games in which persons find themselves variably enmeshed, comprised and accountable (24 ibid). After the conclusion, in order to augment the proffered grammar of CMM’s Optimal Competence, seven more suggestions are going to be made to ameliorate the language games outlaid through teleology as described in this article’s hermeneutic.

CONCLUSION

The taken for granted depth grammar of both Cartesian modernistic individuation and neo traditional differentiation is traditional Ionic teleology. Within this ionic tradition, a telos of gender differentiation was TFG as its inference was made apparent by charmed loops to two separate gender positions of agentive flex-abilities which co-evolved through practical activity. This TFG teleology of two positions of wider agentive flex-abilities, viz., of prefigurative contextual force over reflexive effect of practical force as bequeathed to females separated from implicative forces reflexively needing prefigurative force as bequeathed to males, creates a framework which 1) prohibits optimal competence of itself 2) contextualizes a charmed loop in its reconstructive maintenance, i.e., didactic incitement, which hyperbolized to 3) the Cartesian technology of modernistic individuation’s imperviousness 4) reflexively effecting incommensurate gender agendas, their quests prohibiting coordination of optimal competence 5) which contextualizes prohibition of optimal of optimal competence through a strange loop of incommensurate gender agendas of individuation reflexively recontexting the “need” for neo traditional teleological gender differentiation and vis a versa.

The notion of reflexively effected contextual forces as bequeathed to females and reflexively needed implicative forces as bequeathed to males contextualizes a great deal very radically. With parsimony, it frames ideas ranging from ‘female morality” (Gilligan 1982) – more positive as its basic flex-abilities for agency are more readily satisfied – to “male socio-pathology and male morality” (Kant 1785) etc. {19} Despite its efficiency, I shall take credit for inventing its formulation in application with Professors Vernon E. Cronen and W. Barnett Pearce {20}.

[2018: The revised thesis statement above captures more vividly the original contribution: the technology and instigation of Cartesian individuaton instigated through didactic incitement to “self actualization” ruptures the homeostatic stability of social classificatory patterns, whereupon the basic one up position of females reemerge with increased significance, and charmed loops kick in to reconstruct this situation to runaway as she and her propensity to incite genetic competition is pandered to exponentially; part of his loop is the increasing preclusion of basic male ‘grumbles’ – male being, and the routine and sacrament -patterns good enough if not sacred – that allow for socialization and are necessary to actualization. This calls for a redefinition and reworking of the whole paradigm of self actualization – which actually began with Aristotle – with valuation and the use and enjoyment of the social classification, being/dasein (organic being among one’s folks) and selfhood and self actualization routine/sacramental episode – part of what would make the quest of self actualization less toxic would be its goal as contributing to socialization and its recognition as an episodic thing that can and should be relaxed after an episode; the valuation of the other levels will also allow people to step into them as need be without feeling that they will be left behind or exploited; these four elements are to be negotiated in circularity as need be, seeking an optimal management of them, as optimally reliant upon one another, as opposed to a maximization of one aspect – the paradigm is based on Aristotle’s assessment of human nature, that humans are biological creatures, concerned for relationships and needing optimal levels of need satisfaction.]     

Further, I should also add very fundamentally, that regarding the thesis statement itself, the 1993 version that I am using may not have been the only version from the time, since I was legitimately criticized (subtly mocked) for the form of the thesis and then adjusted it to two pithy theses – thesis one and two.

A thesis statement is supposed to be like a sentence with a limiting condition that orders all subsequent paragraphs and makes the whole paper coherent – I will adjust this very piece later-on to the extent that it needs that, or maybe just revise the whole thing with an updated version (although the whole thing makes sense to me even as is and I can explain it, as is, for whom it may concern]

RECOMMENDATIONS [in addition to Optimal Competence]

1. Prefigurative Language Games which foster the Flex-abilities of “Unused Potentiality for Change”

A) A co-evolution of Sex as Celebration version Sex as a Sacrament {21}: An imperfect distinction of this kind “made common” might throw light on certain conflicts. Consider the rage of those who are perhaps young and not wanting its meaning decided for them, those who are perhaps struggling with daunting circumstances and not in a position affording the flex-ability to “celebrate”, or those who would simply prefer not to treat sex as other than a sacrament, only to find ubiquitous the celebrating debauchery of their would-be sacrament. B) Voluntary Secular Language Games of Single Sex Partner for Life Hopefuls. Public Recognition for the Legitimacy of activity chosen conjunction of negations (exclusive rights) – e.g., patterns, enclaves, signifcations, language games, or institutions of single sex partner for life hopefuls outside the constraints of religion might alleviate the stress of celebrative tropism in free society. This is not at all impractical. All that has to happen is for persons in public circumstances to mention this as an option.

2. Concerted attention to issues of physical appearance and bodily make-up. Problems of undue privilege with regard to consensually attributed “beauty” and “physical prowess”, and more importantly, abuses with regard to consensually attributed “unattractiveness” should be discussed more actively. It is probably too burdensome for persons, in the latter position especially, to make the case without well promulgated support. Perhaps this difficulty provides one explanation as to why issues of this kind, e.g., “looksism”, have incorrectly fallen under the rubric of “sexism” – As if females are not culpable of unjust physical discrimination.

3. Equitable trade-off of forces: As females justifiably need more Self Actualization there should be greater challenges to their Contextual Forces so that they might have a better appreciation of what of what they might be giving way when making decisions of Implicature. Conversely, and preferably as an emphasis, males ought to be granted easier means of Contextual Force so that they might have a greater appreciation of what they might be giving away when making decisions of Implicature. {22}

4. Distinguishing “Stories Lived from Stories Told”: When talking in terms of Stories Told, its third person panoramas, there will undoubtedly be cases in Stories Lived in everyday going on, of persons who are disadvantaged being sanctioned as if they are advantaged, and conversely, persons who are advantaged only to be compensated for Stories Told of their disadvantage. In this treatise application, males disadvantaged in Stories Lived, will be punished for Stories Told of their privilege; this will occur at the same time that females and males designated as underprivileged in Stories Told, who are actually quite fortunate in Stories Lived (perhaps even abusive to the designated “privileged” male), disingenuously use The Story Told to exalt over the “hubris” of the supposedly privileged male.

[2018, though I’d articulated this thoroughly at the time, it wasn’t forefronted in this 1993 version that I’m working from: Male Self Actualization, achievement, power in position is sometimes and in part a result of Freudean/Nietszchean privation and deprivation of basic levels of Maslow’s heirarchy, not only a result of fulfillment of basic levels – as feminists have been saying – thus some will be punished for achieving despite privation, for their “oppressive advantage!”

Conversely, females will be better positioned to advocate for their interests in achievement and influence because their basic levels are more readily satisfied.

The YKW in particular will pander to the female position, saying that women are “oppressed across the board (ignoring basic need fulfillment) while also pandering to the propensity to incite the continued deprivation of basic male flex-abilities – being “a baby”, “not a man”, “get on with your life”, etc.

On the other hand, the propensity of the sheer liberal and liberation paradigm will put some females into power, and gate keeping positions, where they are too liberal of boundaries as their basic needs have been fulfilled a bit too easily, overprotected.

And males will be more insane, aggressive, overcompensating and violating of other’s borders, having been deprived and driven as such].

Pervading American society are three Stories Told, which, in particular, seem to exercise strong enough contextual force to keep in place a stable hierarchy, diverting from and making challenge to the sort of problem mentioned above difficult: {23} 1. The Male “Permanent Puerile Initiate” 2. The Female “Panacea” 3. “Male Supremacy” A) The CMM Quaternary System: By breaking discussion of Cartesian individuation and gender relations into an internally related quaternary system, a way of talking is provided which is 1) simple enough to “make common” acknowledgement that not all males ought to be classified among a “patriarchal elite” deserving to be brought down; in connection with that, that not all females and designated oppressed males ought to be considered underprivileged (if that sounds simplistic, it should; it’s addressing embarrassingly simplistic and superficial arguments). This can alleviate the rage of those who are punished a second time for the Story Told – as revision of these stories would entail accountability for co-construction of the hierarchical male position 2) complex enough for the multiplicity of its interfaces to make its use alluring, while overly simple stereotyping is made virtually impossible. In all it provides a way of talking which can include a multitude of views without minimizing the integrity of their prospective agendas.

B) A platform providing articulate critique of females: “Made common” ways of talk, entering among American Stories Told, which provide young males compelled to appropriate language through popular culture for their poor interpersonal conversational resources in Stories Lived, with a counteractive to overly ameliorative Stories Told of females (“Panacea”) are a necessary predation in an ecology of discourse. Disillusionment with contrasts between the Story Lived and Stories Told of panacea, permanent puerile initiate, and male supremacy may account for many of the Story’s hypertrophied extants (reflexive reversal of quest to Self Actualization and socially recognized esteem to social aberration instead) thereof of brutality. These Stories Told create an overwhelming labyrinth of all too readily available excuses. Inasmuch, these torrents of rhetoric make the initial abuse of the male and the ignoring of that part of the process, seem deserved. It might not be intolerable for the inarticulate male to find females as they can be within the Story Lived if there were better preparation through closer interpretation and critique of Stories Told. Within this grammar (see Burke, 10; 65) (not a placation of hard earned ideas, but such a thing as articulate critique (e.g., feminism might usefully be looked-upon as “inverted guilt”; another, e.g., the accusation of “homosexuality”, which may incite inarticulate young males to overcompensate, might be assuaged with a notion of homosexuals being less competition in the realm of sex {24}), anxiety which abets importunate vying for females may be moved to a better order of premises. He would have a permanent direction of growth to guard against the arbitrariness of her pejorative altercastings. He need not put hope in females to the degree of being unskeptical of negative customs and habits, or to the degree of unconsciously setting them above reasonable moral and ethical [‘ethnical’ was a happy typo] standards. The sought for result would be a more remarkable interaction and a more qualified participant.

5. As Cultures evolve in ecological circumstances through millennia, the Traditional notion that cultures are naive (though they can be) needs more critique. More Accountability to and of cultures than is currently afforded should be Legitimized.

6. Undoing Dewey’s notion of democracy as a way of life (it shatters and destabilizes necessary patterns) and placing persons first and making democracy the most important tool in their assistance. Returning money to its ancillary function as an abstract guideline for exchange. Socialism. Ecology. Two children. Hermeneutic turn.

7. CMM’s discussion of the importance of “Voice”  in “Post Enlightenment Ethics”


CONTENT FOOTNOTES

{1} Of primary example, there are, of course, many women who favor “male morality” and men more disposed to “female morality”, etc.

{2} Language Games are fundamentally actions. The ubiquity of rules guides immediacy of use.

{3} Socialization, Being, Selhood and Self Actualization. The perjorative connotations of these static monadic cultural terms will only be adumbrated. Socialization as a science has been looked upon as a monolithic telos, the non-acquisition of which meant we were immature or physically deformed, and not perhaps constituted for other flex-able preferences. We were expected to transcend nature in genocidal collusion, as if our capacity for self trancendence to social criteria should be unlimited. Being, as I see it, the obfuscated agenda of the hippie-freak movement (witness semiotics such as Haight Ashbury “Be-ins”), was most acutely about the right of the male of the species “to Be” (and to be weird, thank goodness). Unfortunately, it became entangled with Heidegger’s rigid and anti-social reification wherein Being was to be pursued to its ownmost guilty, gloriously violent death. Selhood sounded like such a fundamental human right that perhaps many a “hard hat” fought mightily to reconstruct what could amount to an everyday kind of slavery. And Friedan, 1963, took Maslow’s story of “Self Actualization” to be imperative to the liberation of women. No wonder feminists actualized the nightmare of no alternatives by practicing language games every bit as prone to self righteousness and imperviousness as those of Neo Traditional women.

{4} If it would make things easier for the reader, just think of “grammars” as rules, better, “rule-abilities.” These rule-abilities provide logics of meaning and action. Persons are simultaneously or variably enmeshed in these logics which have different entailments. These rule-abilities are internally related by their “ruleness”, or their common nature as rules. Because persons are themselves comprised of these rule-abilities, they are able to use them immediately, at least in some crude fashion. That is not to say that these Immanent Constitutive Rule-abilities are not Mutable and subject to various interpretations, affordance and constraint as Regulated through the logical force of Open Ended Hierarchicization. Language then, is socially constructed semiotics of “depth grammars” – immanently available rules (these embedded rules are also, of course, socially constructed).

{5} “Flex-ability” is approximately synonymous with Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy [ARF] and the Deontic Operator, “Legitimacy.”

{6} Being/Selfhood are Not too passively defined; prerequisite relations to these processes are amplified for the purpose of integrating the substance/context paradox, especially during early stages of “individuation.”

Of course, you, young man, have the right to reject a woman on the basis of the men that she has dated.

{7} Thus, for example, through Self Actualization might remain the most conspicuous, it is no longer simply the finest achievement. With the reflexive effects of modernity, Actualization’s criteria are transient and unpredictable. In absence the stable criteria of traditional society, Actualization’s need for Socialization, Selfhood, and especially for Being [CR] Reflexive Need for Prefigurative Contextual force are increased. Without those incorporations the modernist paradox makes Actualization prone to reflexive reversal or overcompensation to Social Aberration; i.e., to be Actualized according to Modernity is to be especially different – the modernist paradox (14; 51a: “Be different so you can fit in”). But again, it is not just Self Actualization which is dangerous. In tacit reply to Heidegger’s “ownmost being toward death”, Bateson observed that “nature rarely works within lethal variables.” Take that to implicate that any of these four notions quantified can be toxic.

{8} This tradition Elaborated the gender division into two Positions of Advantageous Flex-abilities.

In this contemporary language’s abbreviated way, this would read like two different “one-up” positions (and corresponding “one-down” positions), one with regard to the security of human needs, the other with regard to quests of achievement. The individual in position of wider flex-abilities has more affordance and Legitimacy with regard to their agency (in other words, a wider Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy (ARF), the position of narrower flex-abilities is subject to more Constraint, Prohibition and Obligation to their agency (narrower ARF).

To avoid ordinary difficulties of gender comparison, unfortunately, this article feigns a quantitative scale. It postulates that identical gradients of “physical, emotional and intellectual” circumstances would produce a story of occidental females being (in “ordinary language!”) “one up”, i.e., having a position with greater flex-abilities (affordances, legitimacy, wider range of alternative acts) than do males in the significant episodes of initial interaction and partner selection. Problems of operationalizing and concluding from this postulate are appreciable – beginning with meaning clusters of its words and proceeding through issues of time, etc. This trichotomy may be impossible or unnecessary in determining gender positions of greater flex-abilities re: a particular situation. Presumably, positions of greater affordance and constraint might reverse or converge at certain gradients, and at certain junctures on the Life Span; they probably would change in moment and episode too, but the concern here is to characterize Cultural Patterns.

{9} “Didactic Incitement”: Perhaps the crux of didactic incitement is antagonism for not adopting a pure first person account; i.e., strong obligation of 1rst person accountability coupled with 2nd and 3rd person absolution (either through prohibition of accountability or legitimization of non-accountability). Imperviousness and tangential responding being instances of Taken For Granted (making them all the more important) E-text pure 1rst person procedure. This incitement can take the form of anything from: boot camp, to the ignominious bullying of Naven Ritual Rites of passage producing harsh, overcompensating males; to shrill indignation to trifling indifference (the metacommunacative belch) [Legitimacy is neither antithesis nor indifference]. It can take form in condescending “tact”, it can take form of “humble” intervention of an supposed “absolutionist.” It can hold logical force though sheer power of obligation/ prohibition – in which case the nature of the address (inciting and didactic) may be so intense that the addressee cannot tell whether they are acting as an agent, or whether they are acting in accordance with obligatory conformity; or, paradoxically, obligatory rebellion; it can divert into stories of “primary process” [DO Oblig.], “orientative response” [DO Uncert], it can captivate by flattering one’s capacity for resolve, or through its interestingness – its intellectual bedazzlement as new tfg’s can always be provoked.

This section perhaps separates matters too much. Further, this is not to suggest its constituents should always be as written here. The reader should consider the “Both/And” suggestion while reading this quaternary system. These are paradoxes, so options I, II, III, IV, can (and usually do), happen simultaneously (in different narratives or different “levels” – e.g., Alt, Ep, Autob, RC, CP) and can (and usually do) occur separately over protracted spans of time such that the dynamics of the loops are hard to discern. As G. Abeles, in her review of double bind analysis (57 p. 147) has observed, the investigator cannot parcel out factors and still have them work as they would, i.e., simultaneously and pervasively though time within the qualitative patterns of important relationships. “The double bind (we talk more in terms of loops here) is about background issues.” Any attempt to clarify them to the fore changes what the “victim” is attempting to do in their bind. They are having a difficult time protecting their resources/flex-abilities – the last thing they might want to do is clarify them to the fore. I.e., they might want to be able to take a relationship for granted. Nevertheless, in the qualitative setting of the loop, all attempts to [TFG RC] are subject to constant “figure ground reversals which prevent background issues from being background issues as their stability is continually put into question.”

In Bateson’s model, the “schizophrenic” is “punished for being punished.” I believe that this didactic cruelty and the Cartesian mechanism are instrumental in constructing and abetting the “phony and crooked disease of quantification”, of which he spoke. “As teachers are we wise?”

This is not a gender specific phenomenon. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional (Kantian) morals, as more or happier opportunities exist to make mistakes. And as they are in a basic position of wider flex-abilities, at least on everyday levels, there are more or happier opportunities for females to exact this punishment for being punished. In this way, for example, males are made (constructed) “immoral” (giving females a wider Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy to exploit?) Note 23 retraces a charmed loop wherein, given that this is necessarily a just world (relatively to her), the suffering of the male proves his guilt and justifies more punishment (Scarry). The cycle perpetuates itself more as the disconfirmer has left herself susceptible to retaliation and must continue the disconfirmation with increased intensity (Lang).

Pontifications: “Deprive persons (metacommunication) the power to clarify, revise and integrate their premises and they will suffer for it” (D. Barnlund). “The road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well” – “and it isn’t funny.” G. B. [Telos (“good intentions?”) separations constrain and therefore also abet competition and quantification; (subsequent to my initial writing of this treatise, Cucciari’s article in Ortner and Whitehead’s “Sexual Meanings” would lead me to add only this, which, should have been obvious)]. Though the scribe is not a Christian, the statement, “if you had known this, they ask for sympathy not sacrifice, you would not have punished the innocent”, is noble. K. Burke argued that we should seek a war so peaceful that it is more peaceful than what we now know as peace.” And he asked, “when is the teacher too harsh, the victory too easy?”  ….“rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is ‘emptying”… “The Stoic acceptance was aimed at the transubstantiation of the excremental, in an attempt to proclaim even the repugnant aspects of existence essentially divine.” We should not construe a test for health with the means for its achievement. The sociobiologist David Barash contented, “scratch an altruist and watch them become a hypocrite.” It would seem, rather, that the altruist has just cause to be provisionally non-altruistic if their ability to carry on their good deeds are obstructed thus. See also Whitehead, 1933 p. 25 (63); human sacrifice and slavery are instances of religion aligning itself with the inherited brutality of instinctual behavior, which may happen too easily without the aid of speculation disentangled from current modes of behavior and conscious entertainment of ideas. Civilization is the advancement of persuasion over force.”

{10} Read “inescapable” as “profound and complex”, not absolutely inescapable and leaving no agency. It depends upon contextual force of the circumstance, the position of wider flex-ability, hegemony..

{11} As language games afford and constrain the course of human activity, to be tormented by non-accountability (e.g., the non-accountability of “objectivism”) does not necessarily represent feebleness of thought. This may provide one account for schizophrenic voices; elaborated still further; since they are without the median feedback of socialization and perceive themselves abused or guilty, schizophrenic voices may be pejorative speculation as to what they might be “doing wrong” to deserve such altercasting. It is extremely difficult to judge how things count from this position. The “schizophrenic” may have a profound and complex sense of exposure: as they are apparently having a difficult time protecting resources protecting resources, incompetence might be one means of achieving those ends. From the schizophrenic point of view, when what little agency (prefer talk of agency to change for that word’s causal, inhuman implications) they do have is moved into causality, for what little orientation they have, possibilities that they may well be entitled-to are being removed. This wish to preserve the possibility from fatalistic causality, concomitant with the ineloquence of the predicament has been interpreted as “grandiosity.” To be sure, the complex bundling of their talk is, of necessity, highly symbolic, and likely to be wanting to preserve possibility) would be in addition to the phenomenon discussed by Watzlawick, wherein the schizophrenic is divided between the fixation of wanting to maintain the accuracy of their disconfirmed perceptions versus their wish for relational assurance.

It is in fact this first option of withdrawal which produces the unwanted reaction of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For in withdrawing to the extreme, the organic constitution counteracts, producing the unwanted bodily and hermeneutic reactions which betray even one’s own self.

As a lesson in didactic cruelty, it might read like: [Act] A Rape [C] Female has an orgasm [CR] Bodily pleasure [C] Hyseria [CR] Happiness [C] The victim goes on an anti-rape crusade [CR] Inspired by the rape’s lesson.

In that sounds perverse, it should. Yet that is the sort of logic which is being applied to males. And then people wonder why men are going insane and doing terrible things.

{12} For the purposes of Stories Told this alleviation of hypocrisy remains a useful idea. However, these moves taking for granted Traditional Teleology have much to do with the notoriously impervious notion of coherence, and paradoxically, by adding the furtive mechanism of provisionalization, the brutal relativism of the enlightenment legacy within Stories Lived. For relationality is liable to ignore the Aristotlian non-cognitive feel for qualitative balance between extremes.

{13} Context Force: Solicitation (Pandering?) and tolerated reticence not just from males; the contextual force of Autob. accommodates inquiry into its eloquence and influence (esp. Re: RC) recursively derived through other females and customary felicities, etc.

“Addressivity” (like the original notion of altercasting – Pearce, Cronen, Harris, 1981, p. 210) does represent a narrative improvement over the Lockeatinism of Cissna & Sieberg’s confirmation/disconfirmation research (Wilder & Weakland 1981, 254 – 282); but, for its theoria outlook neglecting the multi-interactive qualities of poesis and phronesis to these contexts it does not address the kinds of stability and changeable complexity of various, simultaneously functioning narrative narratives as attempted, but not yet thoroughly described by Johnson, Cronen & Lannamann 1982. See our revised notion of Altercasting in the synopsis. The notion of “shaping and crafting” of specificatory structures – rough language games proffered for refinement comes from Shotter (24 ibid.).

One can look upon female contextual force as, for example, being a contextual force over the species, or one can look at a group of secretaries exercising contextual force over employment candidates, etc.

With S. Freeman, I’ve adumbrated a way of talking about this wherein it might be said that, even nowadays, females tend to be without voice on Actualized levels, but on everyday levels of Being and Selfhood, they might often tend to be more articulate than males.

The interaction of these gender positions can provide an account for the social construction of the larger male hypothalamus and the more interfacing female corpus collossum.

This can also provide an account for the apparent injustice of the traditional “double standard.” As it is qualitatively and quantitatively easier for females to valence partners., she is, according to tradition, conducting herself as a bully if she is lewd or promiscuous. Against those who might argue that “there is nothing wrong with it”, one might reply that there can be a lot wrong with injustice; there can be a lot wrong with confirming bad men (i.e., those whose considerations view a relatively narrow arc of contingencies). Perhaps this can add a clue as to one narrative at work where prostitutes are targets of serial murder (this is not an endorsement of the murder of prostitutes!).

“They would call insolence good breeding, shamelessness courage, and extravagance good will” – Plato

{14} Self Assertion: For purposes of comparison, contrast Gilligan (26), in her discussion of “Mr. Right and Mr. Wrong” p. 61 where she equates Claire’s going out with Mr. Wrong as an act of non-communication and devoid of Self Assertion. This view would hold quite oppositely that Clair was communicating, demonstrating strong Self Assertion in taking recourse apart from any direct conversation with Mr. Right. Had she given Mr. Right a chance to talk about talk, the she would have been enacting more a “Self Transcendence” than “Self Assertion.”

Take note of the insensible if not brutal males that young females queue up for while blaming men for hierarchicization. This emphasis on “breaking the rules” might be looked upon as a kind of selection having particular bias toward narrow individualism; it may necessitate counter-rhetoric and perhaps forms of Prohibition at times – “the road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well” … “and it isn’t funny” G.B.

Is it possible that females tend to select with a functional bias?, selecting males undaunted no matter how toxic the environment?, while males tend toward the subtle, formal, sensitive and cooperative? If so, whose bias do we prefer?

E.g., what is the confidence which females seem to so strongly Obligate good for? I observer Milan’s team of Boscolo & Cecchin interviewing an “anorectic family.” In my alternative hypothesis, the father was very decisive, “confident” (and this was apparently the quality which his wife most admired in him). He Obligated his daughters to either stay or leave home (but he did not care which); the anorectic daughter, starving herself to death, was apparently looking for a caring situation in which she could Legitimately stay or leave the home for new environs. One (in this case the father) cannot care much for Consequents, if one is going to be decisive or confident – this is an extremely counter intellectual valuation.

{15} Cursory Pejorative Conclusions: This is just a handle, really. This position is not so much prone to cursory, i.e., quick and sloppy conclusions as it is to conclusions which are quick and overly precise. The Addressive position of flex-abilities basic for self assertion constructs in females a tendency to “over discriminate and come to decisions too quickly” (applying Barnund p118). In Alternative requiremental criteria from females, males are expected to act into specificatory language games (see 24 ibid., for discussion of accountability to the constraints of addressive specificatory structures) highly constraining, (acute Obligatory and Prohibitions) with narrow alternative affordance of flex-ability Legitimate.

Thus, from this position, she may have a predisposition to project quick, overly precise pejorative conclusions of justice, freedom and permanence (in the temporal, for males of her own group); as her basic flex-abilities of enmeshment/valence competence are relatively satisfied, the adroitness of her in/out skill may be presumed to be equally available to the male. And she may project permanence – the basic solidity in the contextual force of her self assertion may give her a tendency to construct (“perceive”) stable hierarchies; further, she has desire to assume credit for her justice and freedom, for her specifications (thus, that cultural patterns of everyday deontology are as they should be. Projection of permanence is also increased in that she might construe the comparative slowness of the male’s in/out skill as permanence (or intransigence).

E.g., while the female darts in and out of stories, the male may not know what to make of it – though enough reiterations, eventually, he snaps. A concrete example of this would be a case where an Italian American couple are going on their third or fourth date. The female shrills critically at the male who recognizes this right away as traditional ironic Italian display of kindred friendship… and then, with him feeling relaxed affinity (Pearce 1994, 51c) citing Eric Berne – “Now I got You Son of a Bitch”) the female slyly makes the inflection serious.

In position where her basic flex-abilities are relatively satisfied, she tends to Prohibit metacommunication (the flex-ability to “clarify, integrate and revised premises”, Barnlund 65) as there is no immanent need to risk discursive practices/flex-abilities in that manner; moreover, the high context orientation is abundant and uninteresting to her; further still, perhaps she has a vested interest in maintaining modernity’s disorder to sustain the advantage of the (“one up”) addressive position and its flex-ability to play males off of one another – inasmuch, she might dismiss the conversational implicature of metacommunication as awkward, graceless, weak and unmasculine.

She can ignore processes and look only at ends.

{16} The term “rational blindness” derives from Garfinkel (24 ibid), and describes means by which persons accountable to Enlightenment texts of objectivity must, for example, in regard to self ascription of individuality, blind themselves to its interrelated source through other people for whatever “individuality” which they may ascribe to themselves in order to affix a a theory of the transcendent sovereignty of their individuality.

{17} 1. Take a) Bateson’s idea of a cultural bias being influenced by a peculiar agent/agency to a predominating side of a diachronic of revolutionary significance to people and b) Harre’s (1993) similar notion of “person position” given felicitous hermeneutic context, being able to issue forth a discursive structure to which then other persons are accountable; viz., given the hermeneutic context of Darwinian evolution, de Beauvoir was successful in establishing a speech genre positioning women as “The Second Sex” 2. Extend these notions – first, noting that de Beauvoir, apparently, at least in part, was responding with symmetrical cynicism to Schopenhauer’s Darwinistic and NeoTraditional complementary designation of women as “the second sex” in his article, “On Women.” In de Beauvoir’s establishment of a hermeneutical context of an Obligatory/Prohibitive agenda for female Implicative force to which others were then accountable, two intantiations were of especial significance: 1. de Beauvoir’s rejection of Aristotle’s “optima”: P. 672 – “this utility of the housekeeper’s heaven … is why she adopts the Artistotlian morality of the golden mean – that is, of mediocrity.” This became a point of departure for Friedan, 1963, who treated Maslow’s story of “Self Actualization” as being imperative for the liberation of women (and indeed, Friedan was a student of Maslow’s). And 2. de Beauvoir rejected “male morality” (e.g., Kant 1785) for what she asserts is its arbitrary chosenness posing as rationality: p. 681 – “…but she knows that he has himself chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend … but she refuses to play the game …she knows that male morality, as it concerns her, is a vast hoax” – which Gilligan, 1982, took as her point of departure.

With that a story can be derived of: Equiprimordially Emergent Sides of a Historical Paradox of Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Individuation as Evinced During the Vietnam Crisis:

1. Because a) solicitation (pandering?) in the Addressive position increased the disorder of modernity; i.e., Altercast granting of being and “confirmation” of selfhood created a more articulate and morally forcible person in the female b) and with that, the fact that those abuses which are enacted against females tend to include kinds which are more physically manifest and easier to articulate than those typically enacted against males 2) Because self actualization was, in the context of America, a more socially acceptable objective to articulate [as of 2018, I would say quite obligatory in that context], and more consonant with the everyday language of the Enlightenment texts [2018: and in fact, self actualization itself derives exactly from Aristotle and his teleological background] to which persons are accountable 3) Because the mavericks of revived feminism adopted the ethnocentric modality in reaction to neotraditional male ethnocentrism, thereby making their argument more coherent as it was not troubled or risked with coordination (“reality testing”), the feminist agenda became the disproportionately promulgated side of the historical paradox – [Story Told, strictly dichotomizing an advantageous male position/ disadvantaged female position. E.g., de Beuvoir enviously interprets, as “adventures”, what might as easily be empty minded, compelled and harrowing activities on the part of men. Exemplary of her psychologisms, a male derives overweening confidence from his capacity to urinate from a standing position] – unfortunately, as the needs of the male were at least as important and perhaps more accommodating.

In contrast, the male objective of Being was complicated to enunciate for its strictly “ontological” nature, for the uninterestingly basic or even stigmatic semiotics of its nomothetic motive – e.g., it seemed indolent within the freedom of America. Moreover, with all females “one-up”, and feminists ethnocentric among a complex of heterogeneous cultures and the many vulgar simplifications inclined from capitalist/democracy, the male became more entrenched in his inarticulate stupor. His objective did not correspond to those of traditional women, nor with feminists – also from whom these modernist males felt compelled to tolerate the bypassing of male reflexively effected contextual forces. For the feminist drama was no less the agency of revolutionary change – therefore, being “new” it was obligatory for modernist males to assent despite the fact that it precluded their well being; further, they were hated by neotraditionalists as putting women at risk to the ruthless.

In the context of this precluded Story Lived, where there advantages and disadvantages to each gender position, an individual male could have the horrendous experience of finding himself in extremely brutal and tangled circumstances, but still punished for the Story Told – of his being at an oppressive advantage! This occurs while females and designated oppressed males, both of whom may be privileged in Stories Lived, unite in exalted triumph over the “hubris” of the supposedly privileged male. Perhaps he has “achieved” through sheer Obligatory desperation, yet he is contextualized as arrogant and overly privileged.

For example, how do Italians and Poles play into mainstream American privilege and guilt? What if a person is half Italian and half Polish, and not able to enmesh deeply in either of their inherited cultures?

{18} A loop of this sort might be look like: [A] [RR] “Men should be confident” – [DO] Obligatory: “confidence” – [C] [CR] confidence counts as “arrogance”, therefore, etc.

Another loop might work like: [A] [RR] “Women like jerks” – [DO] Obligatory – be a jerk [C] I don’t like women who like jerks – [A] [DO] Obligatory – be a wimp.

See W. Barnett Pearce / Sharon M. Rossi (51b) for a discussion of the “wimp/pig” dilemma within the problematic practices of feminism: Briefly, within the practices of feminism, a male can always be construed as either wimp or pig; if he treats a female as “one of the boys”, he is “a male chauvinist pig”, as he ignores the special quality of her gender; if he treats her gently, he is a “wimp”, and insulting to her individual autonomy.

{19} CMM quaternary system of agentive flex-abilities, mutable through internal relation and open ended hierarchization thereof provides a clue to Harre’s (1983) research menu 9 #3 as to how two moral orders might function simultaneously.

Immanent Depth Grammar’s internal relation extending into open ended Hierarchical grammars. In this treatise’s example, gender differentiation/individuation can reconstruct and internally relate alternative moralities to traditional discursive order. Grammatically, rules seem often to be Altercast in a manner of didactic incitement – obligating first person “behavior/cognition” (causal/mechanistic) acting-out of possessive selves (toward a third person passive) – apparently to display their abilities. Being prohibited from developing everyday flex-abilities through the manner of didactic incitement reconstructs a male who does not then “deserve” to participate in an effort to develop the lacking abilities for which he is prohibited. What if he does ‘get on with his life’? Not being Addressed confronts him with the self referential paradox [I am a liar (Russell & Whitehead proffered “Logical Types”; W – action and demonstration; G. Spencer Brown – imaginary numbers; Varela – ironic in/out movement; the Buddhist solution takes the stance that all propositions are artifices (lies) to begin with, so that designating one’s self a liar is not inherently problematic. If one claimed to be truthful, that would be problematic to a Buddhist)]. Applied concretely to these circumstances, it might read as: “if you are hurting so bad, how is it that you are able to etc.?” If he is not even being addressed in an inquisitive manner, how can he anticipate the other to be concerned enough to discuss complex issues (e.g., processes and not just products)? It is extremely difficult to judge how things count from this position (for what he knows, a wrong move might mean “hell forever”). Thus, he pursued the ultimate and the fixed outside of nature, an inasmuch, he probably reflexively implicated the “Cartesian anxiety” – the Platonic/Kantian morality. When it failed, teleology remained in the background of Heidegger’s obsession with Being (poesis) and his claustrophobia toward selfhood and socialization – (phronesis and praxis) – “enframing.” 6b.

{20} Advocating the democratic notion of “Voice”, they have granted me voice. But I am accountable for my voice.

{21} Sex as Sacrament – Legitimacy of serious Prefigurations are risky – but so too is its Prohibition. This is not to say that there are not myriad other ways of talking about sex. J. Money dichotomized a “universal” of “purifying love and defiling lust.”; sacrament vs. celebration has the advantage of not being quite so ambitious and thus amenable to narrative amelioration beyond moment and episode.

Frank Zappa, for another example, discussed sex in terms of the neo-positivism* of “a normal bodily function.” That might be a more sane way of talking. But luckily for me, since I find it disgusting, it is not necessarily the real reality that Frank asserted. There are other stories to tell.

Rather than engage in a censorship debate, it is preferable to continue with the theme of “making common” the alternative Voice of Secular Sacrament.

Sex is sexy, therefore almost anyone can be sexy. If the voice of sacrament were more available, it would first help by maintaining that flex-ability for those who favor the story but consider it ineffable   …as it is sacred and not to be spoken of, stigmatized as the position of the weak, or because they, as individuals, do not want to put their use of the story at risk (toward that end, the central elements of sacrament, faith and loyalty, might well be accompanied by an attitude of tough, cool, a little mean pride – that I have the best, I don’t want to share or waste my time in furtive pursuit. I like exploring the world with my partner). Incidentally, monogamy and loyalty to one’s culture are not closed systems – life will still evolve, and perhaps this faith will allow for greater diversity (as opposed to the global baboon ideal).

Second, attention to the disempowered voice of sacrament might throw light on certain conflicts. It is not hard to imagine the rage of those (perhaps struggling and in pain) who find radical disconcern for their rarefied preference placed against matter of fact celebration. That is not to say that sex as celebration cannot be an equal or, perhaps in situation, a preferable moral stand. It tends to be more tolerant, it makes more use of life’s possibilities, and it can open new possibilities (or is it that sacrament opens more possibilities?). However, being the strong tropism that sex is, especially for persons in the insecurity of interpersonal information poor environments, where compelling alternative stories are not available, sex is very difficult to mandate as a matter of individual will: “just turn the channel” or “say no to porno” are socially irresponsible suggestions. People should probably, somehow, have the opportunity to not have the taken for granted sojourning of dead metaphorization foisted upon them; they should probably have an opportunity, when they come of age, to treat sex as a live metaphor. It is risky, thus the distinction should be imperfect.

* Harre has rightfully criticized the misuse of “depth grammar” as representing only one grammar. Internal relation also means that it is not necessary to learn from “doing” in the most overt sense of the word. There is an immediate social constructionist sense of “use”, but there is also internal relation to hermeneutic language, less bound to immediate physicality, which can also provide semiotics as to how things count and what to do. Internal relation, taken too narrowly, does lead to behaviorist positivism (and people are mammals, and mammals care about relationships more than episodes; further, deprive people of Autobiographical coherence, even a bad childhood, and you deprive them of their distinctive humanity – Taylor (59 p. 525), whereas language can construct differing units of analysis; e.g., casting “undesirable” traits into a different scheme (the “wimp” might have beautiful daughters). Perhaps the “desirable trait” is simply latent in the genetic past or in the phylogenetic past (as in the stunted growth of touch deprived infants; bronchitis from smoking parents) and due to resurface again at some future date if need be – or easily furtively interwoven through some future pairing [RC]. Perhaps it enables flex-ability to avoid being induced into a bad situation – or to cooperate in a group which is more viable overall. In the meantime, one can argue on behalf of Aristotle’s Optima for a distinctly human existence [a good life].

{22} As M. Mead said, given internal relation, “what is bad for one gender is bad for the other.”

{23} These Stories Told: Perhaps opportunistic exploitations of capitalist democracy among heterogeneous cultures, or perhaps the vulgar inclination of low common denominator.

1. The male “permanent puerile initiate”: exploits/transforms female desire to actualize and compete – “intolerance/arrogance & solicitousness/dangerousness (male “animal” – Plato) “requires” to be interfaced with stern ethnocentric subreption (overdiscrimination and cursory pejorative conclusions).

2. The female “panacea”: exploits/transforms the male desire for simple access to being/selfhood (vs. transcendence of paradox) – “indifference/insatiability & impervious competitiveness/masochism” (female “animal”) “requires to be interfaced with intrepid use of practices flex-abilties (underdiscrimination and cursory ameliorative conclusions).

3. “Male Supremacy”: simple dichotomy of advantageous male/disadvantageous female position.

Deviation counteractions 1) female impervious competitiveness/ masochism 2) male social impotence*/harsh overcompensation (* we should, of course, prefer the phrase, “social I don’t-want-to-ness, but everything is pressuring me to think I should want-to-anwayness”).

As her basic wants are relatively satisfied, the story of “permanent puerile initiate” lends coherence to her projections of permanence, justice and freedom in gender relations.

Thinking he is going to find easy access to being and selfhood he is instead pejoratively altercast. For the reasons mentioned prior, she Prohibits conversational implicature.

The pejorative altercasting and incitement implicate a sacrifice of transcendent – i.e., not merely factitious – mystery, magic, and meaning.

This incitement to mere action may produce an antithetical effect – mystification, a passive coordination of unassimilable precepts (social impotence) – or hyperbolous action, i.e., harsh overcompensation. With the ethnocentric teaching of othering and her perception of justice, permanence and freedom, a charmed loop is created in which the suffering of the male (“since his is necessarily a just world”) proves his guilt, and therefore justifies more punishment” (Scarry, I believe, on torture). This cycle perpetuates itself more as the disconfirmation with increased intensity (R.D. Lang).

In the example of the young female, she often rebels against obsequious purity and into vulgar calibration of self protection (not sufficiently self corrective) – nevertheless toward Self Assertion, and usually toward organic need (eating disorders being a notable exception). The male often rebels away from organic need and into conceptual vicissitudes; this can produce a litany of destructive aberrations.

A possible result on the social dynamic would be a reanimation of atavistic (not primordial, but antecedent branching of rude breakthrough compromises toward subtler gender assignments of first civilization) gender relations.

{24} However, there is Legitimate reason for critique and Accountability toward the phenomenon of homosexuality. First, it seems given the fact that they do not choose to take up the challenge of heterosexual relationships that they might not empathize sufficiently with how difficult they can be. As a result, they may tend to gravitate toward easy liberal (i.e., causal) opinions; and concomitant with that they might abnegate a critical stance toward those who can be quite bullying and quantifying in the realm of heterosexuality. Further, they may be depriving the populace at large of their qualities – separating the genders and creating a more masculine populace where a more gender neutral and feminine populace might be preferable. Finally, if there is homophobia, some young males will overcompensate and do stupid things in order to prove that they are not gay.

If I were a cynic, I would suggest that not unlike von Baer’s corresponding stages or Haekel’s recapitulation, that the younger female tends to choose partners who would have had survival value correspondingly ten thousand years ago. If I were a cynic, I would say that the reason Christianity has reined in popularity for these past few millennia would be because puerile females like seeing males with a view toward wider cultural patterns nailed to crosses. If I were a cynic, I would say that feminism is the institution of the celebration of the excruciating annihilation of ….(White, I didn’t write “White” then) men who aren’t cute enough, so that females can …(I didn’t write miscegenate then, though I implied it) ..Big (Mulatto..I didn’t write Mulatto then, but I meant it) Bro is watching. I highly recommend her agenda.
……
Note, I’m not a cynic; this was written 25 yrs ago during peak PC and pre-Internet times; recourse wasn’t available. I’ve found my way to like women generally as people (always did physically); the calm writer will observe that even then, I was setting out a fair and free way for both genders to actualize and relax in basic needs as well. Now that this old material is down, I’ll have occasion to update and apply it to current circumstance.

SYNOPSIS

Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory

Think of rules (or “grammars”) as logics of meaning and action. Persons are simultaneously or variably enmeshed in these logics which have different entailments. Rules are internally related by their “rule-ness”, i.e., their common nature as rules. Through all pervasive rule-ness, persons have “rule-ability.” That is to say, because persons are themselves comprised of these rules they are able to use them immediately, at least in some crude function. That is not to say that these Immanent Constitutive Rules are not Mutable and subject to various interpretations, affordance, and constraint as Regulated through Open Ended Hierarchicalization (e.g., “some stories work better than others”). Language then, is socially constructed semiotics of “depth grammars” – immanently available rules.

Internal relation of all pejorative rule-abilities, though not providing any strictly ordered rules always provides the ability, the rule-ability, to order and make sense of events (to construct language games) on the one hand, and on the other hand, these ordering language games, if they are of any complexity, cannot be both complete and consistent (or unambiguous).

These pragmatic dual necessities, that a theory (language game) of any complexity must be either incomplete or contradictory, and are semiotic interactivities constructed of internally related, all pervasive rule-abilities, constitute the parameters of CMM as social constructionist communication criteria oriented in furtherance of practical action.

CMM is 1. A method of investigation, a communication perspective, as there is no Archimedian overview – we live in communication. 2. A Communicological method of investigation – Non-transcendence means that criteria cannot be homeostatic or self sustaining, which implicates ultimately, that there can be no private language. We must “live in communication” through a world “made common” in the etymological sense of the word communication. Communication is the primary social process. Thus, rather than focus on the products of communicative process, as if it were an absolutely stable reality, CMM uses 3. A social constructionist communication’s perspective – which makes its special contribution by focusing on those processes by which (acts, interpretations, stories and) practices reconstruct flex-abilities (and resources) in continuous reflexive creation and maintenance of social reality. Reflexivity of internal relation means that we construct and are constructed by our interpretation of procedures. Given the impossibility of detachment and continuous reflexive changes then, CMM uses discursive models of logics of meaning and action of a given language game as parts of processes orienting practical action. Therefore, CMM’s communication perspective is most fully stated 4. A social constructionist communications perspective oriented within furtherance of practical action. Although reflexivity – i.e., the changeableness and open ended relation of our heuristics resulting from internal relation, means that any perspective (including CMM’s) is, according to its social interactive use, a made common perspective, a language game, variably enmeshing with others, each entailing different potential logics of meaning and action, or grammars – provides the ability to move into another language game to reflect on antecedents, it also means that part of these grammars are and must be taken for granted; we cannot continually investigate everything, but must rest content taking certain things for granted as depth grammar, the unstated rules, mutable through all pervasive rule-abilities of internal relation, nevertheless, always providing logics of meaning and action.

These made common perspectives are not mere hermeneutic interpretation; they are made real as they afford and constrain activity according to their social interactive use; these uses become more or less conventionalized as moral rules comporting logical force hierarchically ordered through the contextualizing capacity their enmeshings entail. Logical force is determined by rule-abilities of physics, biology (social constructionism is realist, not idealist) and, more especially, by how it is that those rules come to count. Because of the mutability and open-endedness in what are, for their internal relation, essentially heuristic topoi to begin with, there are a limitless possible number of changes and interpretations which must be negotiated in practical situations through social construction of de-ontological moral rules. As opposed to transcendent, universal ontological principles, deontics are non-universal moral rules which cannot be separated from the temporal; every act is a moral act. Nevertheless, internal relation’s mutable/open endedness, subjects even contextualizing capacity of topoi themselves to reflexive change in qualities, sometimes suddenly like a reflex, sometimes more slowly like a balancing effect, stifling, extending, or changing them as they enmesh into various other interpretive games. This mutableness and reflexivity give CMM its special mandate for rigorous attention to the two pragmatic actional topoi of making sense and getting along. Sense making and getting along with activities are problematized as reflexive tensions between Coherence and Coordination.

Coherence are language games making sense through emergent constructing jointly acted into by differing person positions and viewpoints. As one cannot attend to everything at once, coherence is dependent for its construction on the joint action from different positions to cover lapses in attention. These coherent, joint conversations, are fundamental in a pragmatic sense and in a hermeneutic sense – the two senses being imperfectly distinguished as Stories Lived and Stories Told. Stories Lived make sense and are constrained from nonsense by confronting interlocutors with the brute pragmatics of physics, consensual usefulness, situational peculiarities and interpersonal differences in interpretation. Internal relation of language games to the social use of person positions makes them immediately accessible phronesis by which to make sense of The Story Lived in ordinary situations of everyday goings-on. Thus, internal relational also means that these coherences are mutable to the agency of person positions and thereby providing the means of liberation from logics too particular or too general to be useful – atemporal “snares of the language” – for it is Suspended Disbelief (allowing for Enmeshment) or Suspended Belief (allowing for Dis-enmeshment) in the usefulness of what Stories are doing in the first to second person activity called Altercasting, which, in the first place, generate conventions and contrasts of Stories Told, whether they remain useful or go on to become anachronistic folklore. However, as language can construct differing units of analysis, through Stories Told, heremeneutic Narratives maintaining continuity through non-attention to every little brute fact, joint notion, or mere convention, which might interrupt their Coherence, a second liberation is possible – i.e., from mere facticity, without that, “people would be little different than wolves.”

Coordination is the flex-ability of people to use the co-evolutionary sameness of internal relation (of its sameness and differences) to get along despite differences in coherent Stories Told. People can make use of “conversational implicature” to agree upon taken for granteds in the discursive logics of their conversation, to clarify, revise and integrate their premises (D. Barnlund), but unlike the foundational modernistic notion of “metacommunication”, coordination does not assume that a singular vantage of a fixed higher level can be invoked, nor that there is a fixed, real reality, logic of meaning and action that can be understood of one another if that higher facility were invoked. These naivetes aside, Coordination is the ability of people to get along, to negotiate activities without having to put the interpretations, Stories, Practices, Flex-abilities and Resources of their Coherent interpretive procedures At Risk. Resources, flex-abilities, practices, stories and interpretive procedures can be “at risk” of being exploited before they have been fully cultivated. They can be at risk of being appropriated or expended without the sought-for result. The can be at risk of hyper-extension, making facile reconstruction difficult. Or, the coherence of these valued logics of meaning and action can be at risk to the Suspended Belief of those unsympathetic or even antagonistic.

Related Story: Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas

Synopsis of CMM continued  –

Note: As it is a very important idea, the notion of “flex-abilities”/practices/resources being “at risk”, if reified, can become a blueprint for artificial possession and paranoia. Further, it is a culture specific notion of a post modern condition. By contrast, Modernist communication treats all people like Natives, continually putting Resources at Risk (even to the detriment of Coordination) in quest of universal foundations. Ethnocentric (Neo Traditional) communication does not put Resources at Risk, buffering itself through strict notions of moral order (such as the “places of each citizen) and formalized procedures for dealing with Non-Natives. Monocultural (Primitive) communication does not put its Resources at Risk since they are not brought to the fore; as it does not recognize other cultures (interpreting them according to a singular criteria), it does not see the need to coordinate with Non-Natives.

Practical Theory: The reader has gathered that CMM rejects foundational theory. However, in using Aristotle’s classification of Poesis, Praxis and Theoria, it retains an approximation of “Theoria” with topoi, taking it into the realm of Praxis (open ended social patterns, contingent but making sense of interaction with others for the sake of practical judgment – Phronesis): That is, CMM takes the ironic stance of “practical theory”, treating theory as socially constructed with others in interactivities having practical limitations. Thus, unlike traditional theories, CMM valences internal relation’s reflexivity: The continual incompleteness, ambiguity, and/or contradictoriness of classifications, their context contingence, variable enmeshings, limitless possible interpretations, and their embeddedness; with that, it readily acknowledges and actively engages interrelation to the subjects of its practices and is Accountable for its Reflexive Effects. Despite changing analysis upon its enacted engagement with other sense making, agentive creatures, it also recognizes that some classifying of patterns which make sense must be taken for granted if we are to get on. Further, some of these schemes will be more useful than others in their power to contextualize and make sense of events in practical negotiation – i.e., phronesis. The more useful schemes in aid of phronesis become Topoi – orientative heuristics acting as hypotheses and specificatory structures that help to locate, shape and craft according to the qualities of circumstances in the narrative form of deontic enthymemes what the data of circumstances are doing.

Deontics – Analytic Topoi: Deontics are CMM’s most elemental Topoi for Analysis. Unlike ontological moral rules, Deontics do not impute transcendent permanence or universality of themsleves, but function within praxis as open ended, context contingent and socially negotiated moral rules of “Deontic Operation” [DO]. In the realm of human agency DO’s can Block, Extend or Confuse interaction. Deontic Operators are formed into Constitutive Rules [CR], which, similar as calibration reads like “counts like”, and Regulative Rules [RR], which similar as feedback reads like “then this makes sense to do.” These rules have logical force – reads like “downward” (interpret the subsumed activities under these rules), Implicative force reads like “upward” (change the interpretive rules of the context), Prefigurative force reads like “because of”, Practical force reads like “in order to.” Constitutive and Regulative Rules contextualize Deontic Enthymemes of Antecedent [A], Action [Actn], and Consequent [C]. Enthymemes are like syllogisms, only, again, they function within the realm of praxis as open ended, context contingent, and socially negotiated if/then statements – if (counts as) then (this makes sense). Deontic rules are used to afford and constrain “Rights of Display” (next pp), empowering some Voices and disempowering others according to their “Position” in discursive order (Harre & Davies), and according to their momentary interactive position (Shotter); Voices are points of view Warranted symbiotically through Legitimized Accountability of Attributions (Biog.) to their corporeal Person Position and Accountable Autobiographies asserted by their private corporeal Person Position from public Narratives. As these Voices occupy differing Positions, different forms of Consciousness [———-] are reconstructed according to the embedded discursive structures that they afford and constrain. These forms of consciousness become observational topoi.


“Observational” Topoi – Altercasting (Alt), Episodes (Ep), Relational Characterization (RC), Autobiography (Autob.) and Cultural Patterns (CP):

Altercasting – is the Minimal Topoi of observation. It is this conjoint first to second person interpersonal unit of language game which provides the first differences necessary to make sense of interactivity. Rather than confirmation or disconfirmation of immediate Lockeatine perceptual truth, Altercasting makes a more modest claim as in Brownwyn Davies (anti-cognitive developmental) notion of acting into “Rights of Display.” It is also approximately synonymous with John Shotter’s notion of “Addressivity”, i.e., the interpersonal co-construction of enmeshment rules – “specificatory structures” to be mutually acted into. But in contrast to Shotter’s notion, what is Altercast are specificatory language games – like specificatory structures, these profferings can be “shaped and crafted” for their “specificity” (only partly finishedness) as they are “acted into”, but provide implications which, unlike Addressivity, grant alternative ranges of functional autonomy [ARF] [flex-abilities] that can be taken for granted and used (when afforded rights of display) beyond singular instantiations and within the intentionalities of various stories. Nevertheless, Altercastings, having the multi-interactive qualities of praxis, are always mutable and incomplete constructings, which will mesh in other narratives simultaneously, sometimes in conflicting ways. In addition to this mutableness of internal relation’s variable entailments, Altercasting always assumes that reflexivity can change in an instant an act’s meaning by casting it within the scheme of a different context. Still, reflexivity and internal relation can also facilitate instantiation of very stable language games which resist pejorative or ameliorative Altercastings.

Though the Altercast moment [Alt] is the minimal unit of observation, again, these conjoint actions cannot be analyzed with less than the enthymeme’s sequential unit of three: Antecedent – Act – Conseqent. When these Altercast language games of analysis are hypothesized into discursive models of a situation isolable, more temporally durative span, the observational topoi are called Episodes. In a non-isolable, still more protracted span, they are called Ways of Life. Though CMM actually finds Episode [Ep] to be the most useful primary contexting of observation, it is invariably necessary to take into consideration something of other contextings. Hence, the Antecedent – Act – Consequent of deontic enthymemes are indicated as being “in the contexting of” – [        ]. The language games of the more protracted spans, called Ways of life, are known as: Cultural Patterns [CP], Relational Characterizations [RC], and Autobiography [Autob.] – these latter contextings can function as the primary unit of observation as well. With these discursive modelings taking the conjoint action of Altercasting into the variable enmeshments and hierarchical orderings differently entailed, simultaneous conversations, CMM can both proximate the complexity of ordinary interaction and avoid the limitations of positivism by constructing differing units of observation as language and narrative afford. E.g., as opposed to the trivializations of positivism, acts can be recognized as “confirmation and disconfirmation” at the same time “as they usually are” (Ken Johnson).

Thus, CMM is concerned with the quality of Stories [e.g., whether agentive or causal (as in the case of “anorexia” being treated as “a disease” – i.e., caused)] and CMM is concerned with which Story contextualizes which. The higher order Stories being those which are more resistant to change and available to rearrange subsumed Stories.

Finally, the discursive structures of these contextings can be Commensurate or Incommensurate (criteria which do not mesh or jibe, such that what is important and what is trivial will be different, and perhaps even so much as reversed, by the two criteria), but they are always potentially Comparable as they are constituted of depth grammars through practical activity. Thus, any contextual topoi can be analyzed with the narrative diagrams of the deontical enthymeme in order to Compare and estimate not only the praxia necessities of their Regulative Rules, but changes in Constitutive Rules – i.e., Reflexive Effects and Reflexive Needs.

Change in Discursive Structures Entail Reflexive Effects & Needs:

The deontic enthymemes of these contexts comport Reflexive Effects, i.e., the Unknown change or the change Legitimated in the contexting as a result of the activity, and Reflexive Necessities, i.e., Obligations and Prohibitions of activity as a result of the contextings change (Besides the personal agency which facilitates Coordination and Coherence as explained above), Reflexivity can facilitate Loops, Dilemmas, Stable Hierarchies, or Tangles. Loops are contexts of contexts the equal contextual and implicative forces of which reflexively recontextualize the necessity for one another in perpetuity – enactment of one context reflexively recontextualizes the necessity for the other (Charmed Loops are characterized by multiprimordial acts continually re-contexting the need to equifinal ends; Strange Loops are characterized by an act recontexting the need for its opposite act and vis a versa). Dilemmas are simultaneously relevant but mutually exclusive contextual forces (characterized by a learching back and forth). Stable Hierarchies are strong contextual force over weak implicative force. Tangles are complex contexts where there might be several Loops, Dilemmas and Stable Hierarchies at work simultaneously.

Agency is possible because persons are variably entailed in and comprised of mutable and open ended logics of meaning and action – paradoxically (two facedly), pre-existent logics are funded by the affordance of interactivity to propel agentive constraint.

Agency is defined a Altercast Legitimation (conjointly intersecting with the other end – of pre-existent physical, corporeal being) of flex-ability to afford and constrain, sometimes in bundles, tfg’s in using the inevitability of interaction to investigate the entailings of variably enmeshings.

Provisionally, consider this Altercast flex-ability to afford and constrain investigation of tfg logics of meaning and action to include:

The realist tfg’s – physics – 1) Physical level (Bohrian and Heisenbergian), and of the biological sort – 2) biological (Maslowian) level [at the other end of Altercast Legitimacy, i.e., pre-existents, esp., corporeal individuality (the exceeding of its rule-abilities meaning death)]. It is due to the constraint of pre-existent corporeality, the largely constrained, multifarious flex-abilities of its fleshy and mobile make-up that locus of individual agentive assertion (incl. memory) is provided – e.g., the assertion of autobiographical criteria (Harre) constraining accountability to coherent narrative individuality. So, for humans, the physical levels do not entail a fixed progressive causality: Persons are internally related beyond their largely constrained corporeality, finding themselves first and foremost “corprisocial.”

This means that despite even the most legitimate warrants of individual locus, Accountability, Agency, Emotion and Memory and Memory are always more or joint creations. As opposed to a strict Maslowian order then, a person may be deprived of “basic need for affection and good nutrition” and only more determined to fulfill their “esteem needs”. For in addition to “brute facts”, there are the grammatical (or hermeneutic) sort of tfg’s [from which one may Suspend Belief/ or Disbelief] depth grammatical (or hermeneutic) sort of tfg’s [from which one may Suspend Belief/or Disbelief] depth grammatical tfg’s of internal relation’s all pervasive rule-abilities – that is a 3) depth grammatical level of internally related “rule-abilities.” – Constitutive Rules characterize as “lateral” and “mutable” (adjectives correspond to immediacy and readily available use); and the more situational reflexivity of tfg open ended hierarchical grammars (language games) – That is a 4) reflexive grammatical (Godelian) level, its semiotic language games, Regulative Rules characterized as “hierarchical” and “open-ended” (adjectives correspond to heuristics and their potential for differing units of analysis).

To Elaborate this notion of Agency then – Agency is possible because persons can use the inevitability of interaction to investigate more than one taken for granted mutable and open ended logic of meaning and action which they are variably entailed (enmeshed) in and comprised of. Specifically, agency depends upon interaction, Legitimacy as Altercast with others, affordance of entropy, then choice and coherent maintenance and coordination. Thus, there is not pure Agency – it is socially constructed and changeable from moment to moment depending upon what can be taken for granted with Altercast Legitimacy. It is this allowing of entropy and interaction to propel investigation of variable enmeshments which is paradoxically the source of agentive constraint – i.e., agency.

One can then use pre-existing and emergent logics of meaning and action in the Altercast Legitimacy to afford and constrain (or Suspend Belief/Disbelief in) one another tfg flex-ability etc. On a physical and biological level: the sense of countervailing (cybernetic) action against the opening rifts created by affordance of Bohrian irreconcilability (wave/particle) and Heisenbergian (uncertainty) in previously established structures creates the ability to use these impetus’s as agentive constraint, again, by means of affordance behind the two extremes of the rift’s opening once they have been moved back from. This counterbalancing apparently works into the hermeneutic level as well. As opposed to understanding’s tendency to move only away from pain, aesthetic technique includes and balances an optimal amount of pleasure, use and reverence, both through the mutable, lateral tfg’s of depth grammars and in the differing units of analysis of reflexively open-ended hierarchical tfg grammars to manage the flex-ability of Agentive Competence in enacting Coherence and Coordinations.

CMM uses three topoi for the flexabilities of this agentive competence (which can apply to individuals or to larger patterns): 1. Minimal competence has little ability to control enmeshment, to valence (reconstruct a desirable pattern), and is given to Unwanted Repetitive Pattern [URP] or random systemics. 2. Satisfactory Competence cannot always control enmeshment but has the ability to valence (go into and reconstruct) stable patterns and has some creativity within those patterns. However, in being dependent upon singular patterns, satisfactory competence lacks the ability to negotiate variable enmeshments, therefore, like minimal competence, it is susceptible to the interenactment of URP’s 3. Optimal Competence uses the flex-ability of its functional autonomy to control enmeshment in many stories and it can valence reconstruction with creativity (with the reflexive disorder of Modernity, there is no satisfactory competence; one is either minimally or optimally competent).

The biggest revision, a note really, that I’ve indicated already, has to do with Being and Socialization corresponding to Dasein and Midtdasein; and Socialization/Selfhood/Autobiography corresponding to routine/ and sacrament/sacral episode.

…….


This was really one of the most essential, original theses of mine even at the time, and it probably should have been mentioned more straight forwardly like this at the time as thesis number two; as it is housed within the first:

2018 update: Thesis – Cartesian Individuation of Self Actualization has Implicative Force (an upward impact, Reflexively Effecting, rupturing Cultural Patterns) to rupture Western group Social Classificatory Homeostasis which causes the “One Up”, Addressive Position of (White/Western) Females to Re-Emerge with Increased Significance – Several Charmed Loops (given the human perceptual need to classify – women, fire and other dangerous things – in order to make coherent sense despite their Cartesian prohibition and rupture, gender becomes the default classification where other group classifications are prohibited, therefore female becomes more salient a difference and they are pandered to from more directions; they become more motivated; more confident (sometimes overly, and prone to cursory pejorative conclusions), articulate and powerfully positioned gate-keepers; they are incentivized to maintain that, while their base female inclination to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) is pandered to – also rupturing social group patterns/coherence – there are loops that come into play with the high contrast tropism of White females and the atavism of blacks in this disorder as well) which keep that position and its liberalizing trajectory in place, abetting Systemic Runaway – i.e., this keeps a modernist loop in place, rupturing would be maintenance of European peoples and other traditional societies..

The cure to these pernicious loops and their runaway is recognition of key aspects [topoi] of necessity, use and enjoyment in a revised social paradigm of optimized negotiation and management of socialization, being, selfhood and self actualization; with that, recognizing moderating options for neo traditional and modern trajectories of both genders; finally, the homeostatic stabilizing of the social system’s human ecological bounds.

Clarification of a basic thesis point of mine:


[2018 update (although I had articulated this thoroughly as such at the time, it wasn’t forefronted in this 1993 version that I’m working from: Male Self Actualization, achievement, power, in position is sometimes and in part a result of Freudean/Nietszchean privation and deprivation of basic levels of Maslow’s heirarchy and not only the result of fulfillment of basic levels – as feminists have been saying – and thus some will be punished for achieving despite privation, for their “oppressive advantage!”

Conversely, females will be better positioned to advocate for their interests in achievement and influence because their basic levels are more readily satisfied.


The YKW in particular will pander to the female position, saying that women are “oppressed across the board (ignoring basic need fulfillment) while also pandering to the propensity to incite the continued deprivation of basic male flex-abilities – being “a baby”, “not a man”, “get on with your life”, etc.


On the other hand, the propensity of the sheer liberal and liberation paradigm will put some females into power, and gate keeping positions, where they are too liberal of boundaries as their basic needs have been fulfilled a bit too easily, overprotected.

And males will be more insane, aggressive, overcompensating and violating of other’s borders, having been deprived and driven as such].

Though I’ve said it many times before in permutations of this thesis, let me repeat here that the this thesis holds that tradition had legitimate reason to reserve some places for man at the top, and not just to honor their having proved themselves through harder test on basic levels, though there is that, but some will arrive there simply because they are excellent – in either case, the feminist disposition that you find in de beauvoir and Friedan is such that they are there, particularly as Friedan sees it, as a differentiation of fulfillment on basic levels and a merely corrupt, chauvinistic habit and tradition; as indicated, their is the aspect of deprivation and privation that feminists did not take into consideration – such as the deprivation of being/midtdasein in the draft to Viet Nam – and with that, there is the fact that this makes some men go over the top into social aberration as they are compelled to achieve and looked upon, ridiculed as privileged oppressors, despite basic deprivation, of needs that are in fact necessary to authentic self actualization. I will be addressing this in the context of the Mai Lai massacre and other atrocities of the Viet Nam war.

..there is also the issue of the conceitedness of first and second wave Feminism in not acknowledging female advantages on basic levels, on wanting self actualization for themselves, taking the one thing held up for males as incentive…

The high grumbles (complaints of needs higher on the heirarchy of needs are called higher as opposed to lower grumbles) that these feminists were on about was torturous to a male perspective grappling with such low grumbles of their having no intrinsic value assigned to their being.

Nevertheless, I do believe that there are fair ways of working this out fairly – but the crucial first move is to understand post modernity, its performance requirements by contrast to other forms and ways life. I do believe that women should be able to pursue self actualization should that be their thing and their talent but the intersection of gender relations and individuation has to be worked out fairly – first of all by understanding the crucial role that post modernity (proper) plays in reconstructing social classifications to protect their human ecologies, by negotiation neo tradtion and modernity – offering ways within the post modern paradigm for more traditional men and women and for modernists, whether they be inclined to overcompensate or to reverse in their differentiation.

What good is the confidence that females are so enamored of? It is rather a largely non-intellectual valuation. I.e. a platform in critique of base/puerile female inclinations/predilections and those who pander to it is eminently valid.

And a question for right wingers who place so much emphasis on I.Q. –

Are blacks and Whites with the same low I.Q. equally disposed to violence?

My guess is no. And that sublimation, if not the essential matter, is a much larger aspect in contributing to the quality of way of life (or not) than right wingers give credit for by contrast to their emphasis on I.Q.  …and in fact, I guess that it is a precursor of higher I.Q.

…interestingly, this probably could be studied within Rushton’s framework: his talk of age of sexual maturity (obviously corresponding to degree of sublimation) in the different races; corollaries of sublimation (or lack thereof) to R and K selection will almost certainly be shown as well.

 

Posted by Classification Models on Mon, 02 Apr 2018 09:32 | #7

Posted by Aberration, reflex of OverValued SelfActualization on Thu, 05 Apr 2018 05:30 | #

Social aberration, reflexive effect of over valued self actualization

It is a central component of my thesis that the instigation to Self Actualization (be that quest for realization of full potential, authenticity, achievement, fame, fortune, and new break-throughs as per modernist instigation in valuation of the new, beyond and despite tradition) at the cost of sufficient Coordination with others within and without the group; in instigation of modernity’s narcissistic universal of all human potential in quest for the new and maximization absent respect and valuation of the optimization of: Socialization (accountability to a social group classification and its broad human ecology and boundaries) as it connects with (Routine/and the historically, time in memorial Sacral) and thus Selfhood (a Coherent, stable Autobiography, which values normalcy and balance in optima, not only achievement and new break-throughs of new bounds) and being/midtdasein (organic, meandering being, as poesis amidst one’s people, its bounds), can be particularly disruptive to social group homeostasis, rupturing its patterns time and again, and, absent sufficient accountability to these fundamental levels – socialization, being/midtdasein, selfhood (autob. routine/sacrament) can result in the reflexive effect of social aberration.

            

….“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns. That’s the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”

The greater level of violence among males is an indication that it is more stressful, that there is more pressure and burden to being a male in contradiction to what feminists have said, that males are sheerly privileged and occupy powerful positions from Maslowian differentiation of fulfillment of basic levels (as opposed to some measure of deprivation and privation of basic levels).

8 Posted by The Sacred Cows on Thu, 05 Apr 2018 08:48 | #

Posted by Big Problem: Anti-Racist White Women on Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:36 | #

As ethnonationalists in service of human ecologies and their fair negotiation, this is one of the greatest and most poorly articulated challenges that we are up against – namely, the self righteous anti-racism (read, anti- protective, accountable classificatory bounds of human ecologies) of White females as they are pandered-to and empowered as gate-keepers of the liberal system; pandered to enforce its liberalism with the narrow, opportunistic incentive that the opening of bounds puts them in a increasingly powerful position as gate keepers; and makes them less accountable to the bio-system which, in fact, had exponentially more to do with whatever beauty and biopower that they might have than they do as individuals. This woman is depicted as a “hero” by the liberal system for beating another White woman, more at risk (because she is not as good looking), who is trying to invoke (perhaps in an inarticulate way) human ecological bounds.

This is a challenge for ethnonationalism as its hard to not get caught up, even for fairly sensible White males, in order to do politics with this sort, to try to bring her and keep her on “our side” – you may find that the price of getting through her gate is to espouse “anti-racism” – i.e., the liberalization of bounds and borders; the increase of genetic competition; the unaccountable trashing of people who might be quite decent, but arbitrarily marginalized for the time being, particularly as the modernist juggernaut runs rough-shod over traditional and inherited forms and ways.


While many of these women do pay the price eventually, being held to account, so to speak, by racial reality, they have been overprotected as a policy by the liberal system enforced by right wingers/liberals ..and with that, YKW, of course.

12 Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 15 Apr 2018 11:10 | #

How would Ms Dagg have reacted in this situation?

“A woman who was talking to her friend in Spanish was attacked and told to speak in English in a racially aggravated assault. Two women shouted at the twenty four year old when she was on a Central line train on the London Underground on the 7th April, police said.

The victim was pulled around by her hair, which resulted in injuries to her scalp and cuts to her face.

British Transport police said the women were black and had braided hair. They are believed to be in their late twenties and one was wearing a brown jacket, while the other was wearing a black jacket. A police spokesperson said the women shouted at the victim, saying she should be talking in English when in England”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43766985

Cerebro derretido ?

13 Posted by It’s a way of life on Sun, 15 Apr 2018 14:16 | #

A way of life that every mudshark deserves to be a part of…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te-35uzV8UA

Marcinblack: I doubt that it would be Ms Dagg’s instinct to fight the sheboones; and she’d be better advised not to – they don’t have a lot of beauty to lose in such confrontations…     

..and don’t you just fancy black women in exchange for White women and White way of life – good deal, huh?

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 18 July 2019 06:05.

Wage War by Deception: A CMM rules based analysis of altercast White identity & didactic opposition.

Contextual Force (from top down force of context) provides –

[Constitutive Rule] Normative Rule Structure –

Cultural Pattern [CP] Modernity/Liberalism:

 

Modernity/Liberalism has precedents in northern Europeans particularly, as they were evolved more against the challenges of nature and not so much against other tribes, the northerners being much the same, a liberal mindedness to mixing with others who were not so other was not a big problem.

But there are precedents in the Classical Greeks as well, viz., non interactive teleology and in (apparently Jewish promoted) Christian notions of individual souls being equal, the undifferentiated gentile other (as GW observes), pacifism, notions of pure morality, conceived apparently, to overthrow Rome. Christianity thus, was an early Jewish weaponization – war by deception – of White liberal mentality and controlled opposition against them.

But modernity’s characteristic prejudice against prejudice (as Gadamer astutely referred to it) reaches its apex with Descartes and markedly with Locke’s prejudice against social classifications, considering them non-empirical fictions of the mind which should give way to individual civil rights. This “Enlightenment” prejudice against prejudice found [Implicative Force] beyond the British Aristocratic Class which Locke resented, as the “empirical” concept of individual rights over discriminatory social classifications made its way into the hegemonic [Contextual Force] of The American Constitution; and then was weaponized by Jewry (Alinsky style “rules for radicals”, i.e., while the union of Jewry and its coalitions are solid enough, make the enemy live up to its rules ad infinitum to prevent it’s solidarity/ unionization) in its [Implicative Force] against Whites with the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act: which, practically speaking, prevented White men only from classifiying in their interests and discriminating accordingly (as other groups were granted permission to classify on the basis of alleged historical grievances – [Cultural Patterns]). This prohibition of social classificatory bounds (for the White majorities) effectively ruptures accountability to group homeostatic maintenance and Reflexively, Recursively Effects the Disorder of Modernity, abetting systemic runaway.

Deontic Operator [Obligatory] promote Modernist/Liberal project ad infinitum: continual testing of gentile (non-Jewish) social group bounds from within or from without; encourage and flatter characteristic European predilection for objectivist quest and concomitant notion that putting resources at continual risk in experimentalism necessarily leads to foundational progress. [Regulative Rule] Change counts as progress, celebrate change [Strange Loop] Reflexive Reversal of Context – “this is no longer new” [Obligatory] work to change.

Contextual Force of modernity/liberalism predominantly upheld and initiated by –

1. Jewry: through bottom up [implicative force] as a small, biological-systemic tribal pattern/ nation – Israel – ensconced among (perceived/conceived) hostile others, thus highly ethnocentric of perceived necessity; and with that, believing in their divinity as ‘the chosen people’; when scattered – in Diaspora – take on a messianism as such and develop an antagonistic disposition to insubordinate gentile nations by way of top down [contextual force] rule structuring of ethnocentric middle-man / elite niche occupation among largely (perceived/conceived) alien and hostile others.

Deontic Operator [Obligatory] Disrupt and re-direct (the greatest potential threat to Jewish power and influence) potential of European/ White ethnonationalism to marshal social systemic homeostasis, non-Jewish coalitions and hegemony thereupon – make tacit deals/enticements with –

2. White right-wing elites/ and rank and file White liberals; both going by pseudo warrant of objectivism

– both rule structures, right wing and liberal are liberal with regard to their group interests; liberalism defined as the opening of social group boundaries to other influences or subject to influences beyond social account (thus maneuverable against group interests by those not quite so naive).

Objectivism (really pseudo objectivism, the prejudice against prejudice) renders people susceptible to this (liberalism) as it facilitates the pragmatic convenience of paying short shrift to social accountability and relative interests with facile (often fairly credible, hard to efficiently counter without appearing like a weakling, would-be despot), “that’s just the way it is” accounts; while those of its less theoretically ambitious, more pragmatically liberal offshoot are disposed to its facilitation of over rationalized liberal deviations (thus prematurely dismissive as trivial) and are more programmatically bound according to objectivist rule structure to experiment for themselves; the more theoretically ambitious, the right wing practitioners, are prone to rational blindness to broad perspective and social accountability to relative and interrelated interests as they similarly conceive of themselves as based in the fate of detached experiment, thus not especially quick to respond to differences among their group, prejudiced against prejudice as their perspective is as well.

* Note, of course you want/need to be objective, provisionally, to understand what’s going on irrespective of your personal and relative interests, but you also need to be accountable to your group as to the purpose of these inquiries, their applicability to personal and relative interests thereof – forgetting and paying short shrift to this has caused a kind of estrangement, as Heidegger calls it, which leaves us vulnerable as an organic system. Objective truth inquiries should provide feedback to serve the default calibration of relative, group interests (which entail sufficient coordination with other groups).

Group Autobiographies:

Jewry: Initially, traditionally and generally claiming warrant and authority over others as ‘the chosen people’, chosen through their Abrahamic god [de-ontic operator], which they propose as THE god, above (other people’s) nature;

Abrahamic god consecrates them as beacon unto the world, the chosen people to bring light and their perfection to the world and its people – as “undifferentiated other” ( G.W.) and thereby easily pacified gentile others; and as compassionate Davids, the chosen fancy themselves representing those oppressed and misunderstood by the rigid, hegemonic Goliath of straight, White right-wing male reactionaries; nevertheless, as Jewry themselves are a minority [ontic constraint] among this coalition up against such ungodly, uncivilized Philistine masses, they see it as Legitimate [de-ontic operator] to wage war by deception.

Which also suits the ontology [ontic operator] of their evolution as manichean – waging war by deception, trickery and rule changing – since they were evolved in the middle east, where the most important challenge was not so much shelter from the elements and attainment of resource to sustain them through seasonal and other natural challenges, but rather competition with other tribes, therefore requiring them to look after themselves more ethnocentrically, to be in high vigilance to defend against outside attack, to develop and cultivate adeptness with trickery/deception.

[Deontic Operator] Prohibit Whites (i.e., Europeans), as majority, from discriminating in advocacy of their group interests; compel them to live up to their penchant for objectivity ad absurdem; while rendering [Legitimate] non-European group advocacy, positive discrimination for these “oppressed” minorities with the “proviso” (a proviso that is rather ongoing) claim of Obligatory compensation for their having been subject to historical discrimination and exploitation.

Promote new religion installing the Abrahamic god and worship of the Jew incarnate thereof – sacrificed at hands of new Babylonian oppressor of Jews and other minorities, i.e., Rome, to be overthrown in favor of undifferentiated submission to the Abrahamic god, its universal and obsequious golden rule, purified Noahide Law; embrace and renounce original sin of (not being Jewish but having the nerve to have) subjective and relative interest at once, on pain of eternal hell for non-compliance; and proposed reward of eternal heaven in a life hereafter for sacrifice of concern for political ambition, group autonomy and material well being for one’s people and legacy.

[Reflexive Need] [Deontic Operator] Impose the Contextual Force of “The Moral Order”

“Christianity” – pure law and warrant in they eyes of god; born with “original sin” (of not being Jewish) even if you think of transgressing Noahide law, you are so culpable that you are better off plucking-out your eye.

The manichean penchant of Jewry was exacerbated by horizontal transmission as they were moved from their primeval habitat.

Beginning with Babylonian captivity when, as a small group captive and scattered among conquering/host nations, they were [blocked] from vertical transmission of skills and cultivated resource from their native grounding upward to national sovereignty and began evolving into and for elite niche control [from top down contextual force] over other nations instead.

The shifting over national boundaries created a horizontal transmission as they had minimal vested interest in the host nations; they developed a hostile, parasitic and exploitative relation to alien host nations, playing native nations against one another to their advantage; usurping native resources, shifting them over borders if threatened, a horizontal transmission that was exacerbated by Rome’s scattering them into Europe, where they made their way into control point niches; followed by continued horizontal transmission with the pogroms, the inquisition and then the holocaust, which continued selection against the more integrated, those Jews in position to interbreed with natives (a form of miscegenation which their more orthodox would detest), those situated for accountability, in favor of selection for their more virulently parasitic types, shifting many of their more virulent into pursuit of elite American niches.

8 Power Niches, Contextual Force from which Jewry establishes and maintains Constitutive and Regulative Rules:

1. Religion (viz. the Abrahamic Religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam), a massive coup for Jewish control to impose the moral order (if you can call Christianity moral or ordering as opposed to yoking and confusing) of Europeans 2. Media (Bowery Notes, Abrahamic Bible was the media in large part esp. prior to printing press) 3. Money/Finance (markedly with the exponential effects of usury) 4. Academia 5. Organized Crime 6. Law and Courts (e.g., the egregious “Disparate Impact”) 7. Politics 8. International Business. The niches branching into NGO’s, foundations, government programs, industrial, military, genetic technology …the professions (and professional societies).

As ‘light unto the world” [Autob.]

As light unto the world [Prefiguative Force] and beleaguered group [Autob.] among hostile others, Jewry become [Practical Force] experts at organizing and maintaining their group interests; also adept at marshaling others, where opportune, in coalition with their interests. This marshaling [of Implicative and Contextual force] is done by control of the idea of unionization (“leftism”), (unionization facile/ or literal) and prohibition/disruption [Deontic Operator] of social systemic organization, homeostasis by unionization (“leftism”) for other ethnonations/ethnonationals, especially European peoples.

What unionization Jewry allows and coalitions it forms, in advocating their designated oppressed are largely constituted and regulated by themselves to Not allow the concept of unionization to be organized on powerful ethnonational lines, especially not for Whites, but on the contrary to get them to react negatively to the concept of ethnonational unionization in the abstract altogether, with facile, provocatively distorted, didactic misrepresentation of unionization and coalitions of perceived groups and grievances against White male authority.

[Reflexive Need] Deontic Operator [Obligatory] Disrupt White social systemic homeostasis

Altercast European/White identity, at once allowing them to flatter themselves [Autobiography] of their objective merit; further induced through complicit deals with right-wing elites, payoffs, and with enticements and license for rank and file liberals to stray from tradition and inherited moral standards. Thus, Altercast:

European/White Identity = “The Right” and Far Right (later Alt-Right and Dissident Right)

To be right wing means to be as acutely (narrowly) and purely warranted in one’s autobiographical/group [CP] claims to authority, truth, analysis free of the messy, agentive, socially trammeling rhetoric (“sophistry”) and its Reflexive Effects as possible, whether connecting the smaller group or individual above nature, perhaps above themselves even, in pure principles or god; or in immutable laws of nature, below the agentive flux, semi-disorder and negotiation (at its most severe, below the correctability) of human praxis.

White right wingers and liberals, both: maintain [Constitutive Rule] of liberalism with the assertion that they have what they have and are able to do what they do by dint of their objective, individual (or narrowing group) ability and virtue which owes little to their broader genetic/racial group in the way of fact or account.

[Implicative Rule] Modernity, objective experimentation and liberalization/change leads to progress

Modernist/Objectivist tradition began in the European South with the Greeks and in the North, with early Europeans pitted more-so against the elements of harsh nature (Augustinian devils) than other tribes; it reached its sine qua non with Descartes. Locke took the empirical end of Cartesianism to assert (for his prejudice against the English Aristocratic class prejudice) that social classifications were a fiction of the mind that should give way to individual rights – since all individuals have the same perceptions they should have the same civic rights. This Cartesian notion (technologically separating individual from their varying ecological positions in systemic process of relation and essential indebtedness to others of their group and beyond) was taken and became essential to America’s Constitutive Rules (the [Implicative Force] of which would become world hegemonic with the unleashing of rampant, unbridled competition to runaway as interests are unconstrained by group account) as it was written-in by Thomas Jefferson.

* Of Historico/Autobiographical note, given the Norman take-over in 1066 and lording of themselves over the Anglo-Saxons and Celts ever since, there would be a great deal of logical force [Implicative] to Locke’s “prejudice against this prejudice” …. and provided that it would remain a prejudice against inter-English class separation in favor of integration with ethnonational constraint, it is a well founded prejudice. The problem comes in where it was weaponized in the American context (by YKW) to extend as a prejudice against prejudice beyond ethnonational and racial bounds.

[Reflexive Need] [Obligatory] Prevent this rule of hegemonic majority from rupturing Jewish group (classificatory) organization; [Legitimate] Wage war by deception: turn, weaponize liberalization of Aristocratic social classificatory bounds against them.

Implication for Jewry: [Regulative Rule] Make their rules work against Whites; flatter their objectivity and at once, make them live up to their penchant for objectivity and pure warrant ad absurdem.

[Reflexive Need] [Deontic Operator: Prohibition] Prohibit Whites, as “hegemonic majority”, from discriminating in advocacy of their ethnonational group interests; render Legitimate group advocacy, discrimination for “oppressed” minorities.

[Reflexive Need] [Constitute Rule] secular opposition formed by Jewry:

A similar notion of minority and “internationalist-worker unionization/coalition” advocacy had been advanced by Jewry in the Russian/Marxist revolution of international communism. In America…

[Reflexive Need] [Legitimate] Weaponize Lockeatine, individual “Civil Rights” – prohibit Europeans/White Americans to begin with, from classifying social groups and discriminating thus for themselves.

[Prohibited] “Racism” – the prohibition of White people to classify social groups and discriminate thereupon.

[Reflexive Effects] Rupturing of social classificatory bounds and discrimination thereupon effects the Disorder of Modernity, Over-Valuation of [Momentary and Episodic] skills as waiting for protracted yield is too unreliable, increases atavistic values and pandering to females exponentially (especially White females), over-representation of their puerile predilections, intoxication of increased empowerment (increased one-up position in partner selection) causing a [Charmed Loop] of puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition – incitement itself causing a pernicious charmed loop if the hegemony indeed has sufficient contextual force) as White men are Prohibited from discriminating.

[Obligatory] Wage war by deception

[Legitimate] “Liberating tolerance” (Marcuse): Obligatory to tolerate anything from the Internationalist Left/ Prohibit Corrective feedback from Right Wing reaction.

[Obligatory] Distort beyond reason, even reverse all socially organizing and coordinating theories as presented to Whites, any proposal meant to mollify rigid, inhumane rendering of natural law, represent social advocacy theories as unnatural, anti White, international Leftism. … get Whites to react against social organization, including in their own best interests.

European/White Autob. [Obligatory] – Identify with the Right, with “The Truth.” White identity is right wing (never mind Heideggerian liberation from mere facticity and all that – that “nonsense is for “The Left”, for colored people (never mind why they in their YKW led coalition has routed us; we could never be so impure as to be “racists” …as to be so non empirical as to classify social groups and discriminate thereupon!

[Constitute Rule] secular opposition advanced by Jewry:

1. Marx, Freud, Frankfurt School – i.e., cultural Marxism, P.C. victim group advocacy, starting with blacks, women and gays; later extending to Muslims, etc.

Capture and re-direct human potential movements from White ethnocentrism along with feminism and black civil rights, maintaining culture of critique against traditional White/European societies.

Human potential movements are a particularly compelling narrative in coincidence with the American dream, land of individual opportunity, compounding civil rights propensity to obliviously rupture social systemic homesostasis; particularly hard for a male to renounce but also females who are under the influence of second wave feminism, Friedan having been a student of Maslow and prescribing individual self actualization as necessary for women’s liberation from oppressive, inhumane societal gender role constraints.

Reflexive Effect: As social group classificatory bounds are ruptured through weaponized “civil rights” and “human potential”, the natural one up position of White females in partner selection and address is pandered to from all angles, causing it to re emerge with increased significance; they become more articulate, confident and powerful gate keepers, knowing that they can maintain their very powerful position by letting through only liberal males, call in the thugs with any contention of their liberal prerogative – a constraint of their rule structure largely pandered-to by Jewry. They pander to their base and puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition (which would be mitigated in a bounded, controlled society in the empathy of motherhood of their kind). The puerile female tends to pose a litmus test in initial interaction episodes: what do you think of blacks (the oldest and maxed-out masculine form/test), are you a racist?” Hence the runaway disorder of modernity is exacerbated by this increased female one up position as she is encouraged [in a Charmed Loop] to maintain the opening of social borders and bounds.

And because the category of female gender is harder to ignore, along with blacks, because they are so markedly different, the human necessity to categorize classify with these groups is singularly amplified for the erstwhile prohibition of classifications; an over attendance to group interests exacerbated by the high contrast tropism of black and white. This strengthens their coherence to the expense of others who would be more cared for in bounded system.

2. Randian “Objectivism” (really subjectivism) as an extension of Austrian School economics, Hayek, von Mises and so on; the “invisible hand” guides the economy (Alan Greenspan).

[Obligatory[ Capture, control and re-direct “Conservatism”, conservative reaction

[Regulative Rule] Controlled opposition:

1. “Paleoconservatism” – Frank Meyers (Jewish)’ proposed “fusionism”of Judeo-Christianity and Enlightenment values – i.e., conserving the American values, conserving liberalism (liberal democratic rights/neo liberal capitalism).

[Legitimate] Take the already Jewish usurping “moral order”, enmeshment with Christianity – it’s obligation for gentiles of pure law and warrant in the eyes of god; e.g., even if you think of transgressing Noahide law, you are profoundly guilty – and entangle it still further with whatever angle of it is best for Jewry to ensure that their enemy will not fight back.

[Obligatory]Reinforce its ties to Jewry with Scofield Bible and Evangelical Christianity, tying salvation to Israel.

2. “Neo-Conservatism” – Irving Kristol (Jewish, obviously). Similar as paleoconservatism, with even less emphasis on traditional Christianity and more the evangelical version, in pursuit of aggressive foreign policy for Operation Clean Break (to secure the realm around Israel). While conserving liberalism (liberal democratic rights/neo liberal capitalism).

………

[Legitimate] Use Media to promulgate the notion of what the “progressive fifties” and the “swinging sixties” were about.

The “Progressive fifties” were about “Civil Rights” which began with [Obligatory] school integration 1954, 58.

Frankfurter was instigating Earl Warren’s ‘Activist’ court on behalf of “Civil Rights” to liberalization of White boundaries, e.g. opposing school integration.

[Legitimate] Use the language of the enemy and make them live up to its own rule, weaponize it against them – “Civil Rights” becomes a weapon, basically a “right” to violate White freedom from association.

[Prohibition] of Whites from organizing as a group and discriminating in their interests; while it is [Legitimate] for others to organize in their group interests and broach traditional, even if only implicit, White boundaries given [Autobiography] ‘the history of prejudice against them and their having been discriminated against accordingly.’

“Civil Rights Activism” continues into the sixties, with “Sit-Ins” at Woolworths in 1962, leading to legislation [Prohibiting] private businesses from discriminating (America, land of freedom and all), culminating in “The Civil Rights Act” of 1964, The Immigration and Naturalization Act 1965, and Rumford Fair Housing Act 1968.

(((The Media and Academia is going along with Law & Courts and Politicians, Religion, big Money ..and international business, too))) in saying this is all good, all progress against backward White male bigots (who are ‘whining’ when they should be picking themselves up by their bootstraps as rugged individualists in pursuit of all America has to offer).

[Obligatory] Capture American Dream and Human Potential Movement

Abraham Maslow captures Aritotle’s concept of Self Actualization, which was based in a teleology of human nature (as biological creatures, in need of optimal, not maximal need satisfaction and as mammals ensconced in praxis (human relations) needing and caring about our relationships most fundamentally.

[Obligatory] Capture the feminist movement from its world wide apex in the Marxist Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, who had the nerve to attack European males as if they were singularly privileged in the wake of two World Wars in which millions of them were brutally expended. With her point of departure as de Beauvoir’s statement, “this utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is why she prefers the Aristotlean morality of the the golden mean, i.e., of mediocrity.”….

Abraham Maslow’s student, Betty Friedan, depicts the maximizing pursuit of self actualization as necessary to women’s liberation; and in accordance to Maslow’s lineal hierarchy, that any achievements by men would follow from their satisfaction on basic levels, no sacrifice or overcompensating for deprivation. At the same time it takes for granted what advantages that females have on the basic and mid-range of “the hierarchy of needs” … it does great damage to Aristotle’s profoundly important observation that humans are evolved for Optimal, not Maximal need satisfaction; and the implication for a circulating concern in systemic homeostasis of optimal levels of need satisfaction; furthermore, in flouting Aristotle, it shuns the concern for relational complementarity, e.g., in niche complementarity, if a woman is not strictly bound there, she might choose and enjoy being “a house keeper”, in complement to her husband, with time to look after some of the fundamentals of a smooth running society, at the PTA and so on…

[Prohibited] Still, with the Vietnam war raging and draft still in effect, it was a bit too obvious that being a White male was not a strict privilege across the board. “High grumbles” coming from women, expressing the “need” for the top of the heirarchy of needs would be particularly offensive to men who could scarcely articulate [Prohibited] their “Low grumbles” for the basics on the hierarchy of needs.

[Legitimate] But while black men were also drafted and serving in Vietnam, amplification of the black power movement and civil rights for blacks (Katzenbach) went full speed ahead.

It is interesting to note that just as the controlled feminist movement was incommensurate with White men, as feminists sought the top of the hierarhcy while White men sought the bottom, so too was black civil rights and power incommensurate – as their civil rights sought ordinary level participation and “dignity” (compare that in awkward contrast to the weird organicism of the white hippy motive for fundamental organic being); and black power, which sought the top of the hierarchy in extreme, militant form.

[Legitimate] It was also legitimate to go full speed ahead with the Frankfurt’s school’s subversion of The (White male) Authoritarian Personality with the concept of “free love” and polymorphous perversion (Marcuse extrapolating Freud) – free love is anathema to the organic motive of Being (Dasein) and Being among our people (Midtdasein) for White males. As you’ve got men from all parts vying for your would be natural partners and no protection to them being there for you unexploited or jaded, when the meandering of your being comes ripe to maturity for marriage.

It is particularly irritating thus, when the hippies motive as being about “free love”, when, in fact, that was Marcuse’s motive in high antagonism to White male Being amidst their people.

[Obligatory] Obfuscate and re-direct these incipient movements which are corrective for White/European social systemic homeostasis following World War II. 

As America was particularly war weary and the Vietnam War was particularly unpopular, ripe to stimulate a re-thinking and corrective to concerns for midtdasein (White social systemic homeostasis).

[Obligatory] Control opposition to unpopular war with SDS (Jewish led “Students for a Democratic Society”).

[Obligatory] Obfuscate the organic motive of White men for Dasein and Midtdasein (expressed in the hippie movement, i.e., for the Being (Daesin) and Being amidst our people (MidtDasein) of White men as opposed to the Tradition of being considered so intrinsically valueless as a male as to be subject to draft into a speculative war far removed from clear and immanent danger to our people.

[Legitimate] Allow for some outlet for expression of this protest (for organic Being for White men) and relief thereof while the Vietnam War is going on.

[Prohibited] Do not allow it articulation as an incipient White male movement; not even so much expression as a men’s rights on pain of stigmatic violation, invoking not only the Traditional trajectory of Masculinity, i.e., toward the top of the “heirarchy of motives”, but also stigma to masculinity for turning away from the American dream of “being-all-you can be” as an individual in your human potential; no thought is to be given as to how that quest might impact White social systemic homeostasis, perhaps become toxic, causing [Reflexive Effect] of social aberration, even rupture it to runaway.

Do not allow it to go too far in violation of Traditional stigma where it would, in defiance of that stigma by contrast, pursue and satisfy its “low grumbles” on the Maslowian hierarchy and Turn into a White social systemic corrective to achieve authentic existential balance of White manhood and peoplehood (White social systemic homeostasis); by contrast to the estrangement of the right wing’s Universal Maturity”, which is more easily directed away from White interests and for the group interests of others.

[Legitimate] As the Vietnam war and the draft ends, obvious doubts about alleged White male privilege are more easily set aside, feminism in PC coalition with blacks and other groups arrayed in critique against White men are stepped-up through the 1970’s, 1980’s into the 1990’s.

Meanwhile, the controlled opposition of Paleoconservatism is ushered in with Frank Meyer’s protege, Ronald Reagan. Along with Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Sam Francis and the Jewish Paul Gottfried, they offer only weak opposition to liberalism, conserving liberalism as the fusionism of paleoconservatism does.

Reagonomics moved (((the invisible hand))) of Austrian school economics through boom/bust cycles to the increasing power of Jewry…

With Jewry having effectively placated White conservative corrective by the 90’s (effectively conserving liberalism instead), there was a Reflexive Effect of preparedness to exercise greater influence over American foreign policy in Jewish interests, specifically to deploy American military to more offensive strategy for its Zionist aims …

Neo-Conservatism was drawn into the forefront to hoodwink Americans, especially Christian Zionists, into wars to secure the realm around Israel – regime change to Israel compliant regimes in the nations around Israel – Operation Clean Break/Project for a New American Century).

[Legitimate] Hypnotize a David McGowan with the idea for a best seller, that (to paraphrase) ‘the hippie movement was all a contrivance of the military industrial complex to turn off the mainstream anti-war movement through representation of it by dirty hippies, that there was no organic motive to it (as if it was not an organic motive to not want to be drafted to die in a foolish war on behalf of greedy corporations). Anything, even a stupid idea like that, is considered legitimate compared to allowing White men corrective being (Dasein/ MidtDasein), organization and discrimination on racial grounds – anything but a White Post Modern Turn in contrast to the Tradition of Cartesian, Objectivist estrangement (conserving liberalism) for White men.

Episode [Ep] 2008 Financial Bust

Inevitable reactions [Reflexive Effect] to the PC and Randian onslaught on White men, growing awareness that this is Jewish steered activism – the Jewish controlled opposition of the Neo “Conservatives” being blatant – and further awareness that it was beginning to intersect against their own conservative Jewish interests grew as the boom/ bust cycle culminated in the 2008 financial crisis – when Jewish niche power and influence achieved its greatest hegemony, bringing with it a major intersectional problem from their culture of critique and the Reflexive Need for damage control and a re-tooled controlled opposition.

Enter The Alternative Right.

[Reflexive Reversal]

With the 2008 financial bust Jewry cleaned up and ascended to greater hegemony than ever in its niche power positions; to present themselves as the underdogs was more difficult [Reflexive Reversal] and they become frantic to do damage control and stave off revenge; they need to foster the right wing narrative that their achievements were objectively merited (as opposed to nepotistic) and identify “The Left”, particularly its organizational capacity against those in power, as “The enemy.” They need Whites in power and aspirants as such, to identify with them in a new kind of Right, and Alternative Right (a big tent including and going beyond Paleoconservatism as it were) objectively merited beyond social accountability against “The Left” – marketing an anthropomorphized characterology of it as “unnatural, against science, objective truth and morality” etc (as if something “leftist” like a hypothesis doesn’t have a certain momentary detachment from empirical testing, which can then be subject to testing against the veracity of science, nature, truth and the corrections of morality in the social realm).

They had to capture and control a new generation of reactionaries, those reacting to Political Correcteness (anti-White unions and coalitions) and NeoConservatism’s marshaling of U.S. military for Israeli interests.

As a result of the Implicative Force of Jewish steered Modernity/Liberalism and the Left unionizations and coalitions it had previously extolled and marshaled for this end of overthrowing White power, these left organized social unionization and their critiques are no longer “needed”/wanted by Jewry to be quite so thorough, especially not as they intersect with Jewish interests and may be used conceptually (including by Whites) against their hegemony and traitors in tow, whether right wing or liberal.

While Jewry always had Altercast White identity and interest advocacy as “Right” and “Far Right” in order to get them to react into rigid, socially disorganizing and stigmatizing objectivist rule structures above or beyond the social correctability of praxis, it became imperative for the new hegemony for Jewry to [Altercast Right of Display] of animus toward “The Left.” With that concern, Paul Gottfried saw the need to call for a revised paleoconservatism, 2.0, an “alternative right.”

The great concern being that if Whites gained a sense that beneath the concept of the left is unionization, not “equality”, that Whites would unionize (ultimately ethnonationally), organize their power and see who is on top and oppressing them – the YKW from their biopatterns and power niches in tandem with right wing sell outs and liberals taking the license offered of objectivism (“that’s just the way it is” …little or no social account to broader implications and impact).

[Regulative Rule]

Maintain paradox to mystify potential White organization – construe the left as liberalism (unionization conserves, it is not liberal).

Wave the red cape (straw man) for White reactionaries to chase after, of the left being about an unrealistic quest for “equality”, misdirecting them and making them look bad at once, as they are pitted “against equality.” …(as opposed to negotiating niche complementary of commensurability and incommensurate qualities within and between groups, which could provide means for amicable coordination as opposed to false, symmetrical comparisons which abet disrespect, conflict and reciprocally escalating diatribe).

Maintain this ambiguity further with other misrepresentations of group and marginal advocacy as liberalization of White bounds, by proffering utterly bizarre candidates to scab would be unionization – wave the rainbow flag for these bulls to chase after, trans-sexuals, 57 genders to distort would-be correctives to overly and unnaturally rigid gender assignments, univeralisms ill-fitting for particular races, including White – to underscore the promotion of the stereotype that “The Left” is not dealing with reality and “not dealing with nature.” …when, n fact, working hypotheses are a normal part of empirical inquiry, subject to verification. A social group, a race, [Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy] among gender assignments are minimally speculative working hypothesis as such.

Autobiography Number 2 Promoted by Jewry: While they have always wielded this autobiography as well, as of 2008 it became amplified. Deny intersectionality of “leftist” critique of supremacism, imperialism, nepotism (e.g., at Harvard) and toxic ethnocentrism, promote the story that Jews and others are on top because of Objective merit and that “THE” Left is the problem; point to the way in which Jewish academia misrepresented advocacy, group and individual, and say this represents “The Left”, so that Whites who fancy themselves objective, who are comfortable with the Altercast anti-social identity as Right Wing, will be primed to join them through pay off, enticed by license (licentiousness, if you will), and finally intermarriage against any would-be ethnonational unionization and coalition to threaten their power, all the more hegemonic since 2008.

Reflexive Effect: The Alternative Right is sufficiently disorganized for its right wing, anti social litmus test – [Regulative Rule for Inclusion – some stigmatic, anti-social position] – that it makes it hard to counter and control its sniping, now that it has served its function to help get Trump elected so that he could un-do the Iran Deal.

Enlist TRS to Market (((Madison Ave. memes))) to gain adherents against “the left” and to the right, displaying anti-Semitism with vulgar impunity in order to gain control of the reaction, encourage Richard Spencer (a protege inheritor of Gottfried and Francis’s Paleoconservatim with the Alt-Right) to dog whistle Nazism: Enoch starts straight-arm salutes, Richard, “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory…over the lugenpresser…we’re going to party like it’s 1933”…etc.

Reflexive Need: “Unite The Right” …

Reflexive Effect: effectively ends the credibility and effectiveness of the brand name.

Reflexive Need: Maintain White disorganization and reactionary rigidity by proposing a re-branding – e.g., “Dissident Right.”

Wage War by Deception:

A C.M.M. rules based analysis of White identity Altercast as right wing against THE left in order to rupture White social social systemic homeostasis.

Rupturing White Social Systemic Homeostasis through Altercasting as Right, doubled down as such in reaction against THE Left, Didactic Misrepresentation thereof – Social group advocacy as strictly anti White.

A rules based* analysis of anti-social altercasting, incitement through didactic misrepresentation and distortion of social group advocacy.

Anti-social rigidity, inherently unstable bereft the correctability of praxis as they cling white knuckle after perceived pure warrant beyond Jewish rhetoric and casuistry, only more ready for rash, headlong misdirection into destruction.

Misrepresent the anti Cartesian means of social systemic homeostasis.

Moral Order: Christianity, inspired by Abrahamic god beyond nature, misdirect Whites with golden rule of obsequious self sacrifice; disruption of cause and effect. Altercast non-Jews as “Gentiles”, the ever more undifferentiated (de-unionized as a racial group) other.

Hermeneutics – misrepresent as anti science and trivial flight of fancy rather than a necessary means for coherence and authenticity despite Cartesian estrangement and arbitrariness.

Social Constructionism: misrepresent it as solipsism, that one can make of themselves and events what they want; when in reality, that kind of “pure agency” would be Cartesian in the way that social constructionism was meant to cure; social constructionism is meant to centralize our attention through the praxis of our social group, our interrelatedness, indebtedness and accountability to our people – where you CANNOT just make of yourself and events whatever you merely wish/want.

The left: Misrepresent as liberalism and a quest for universal equality, anti nature and anti reality…when, in fact, it is about unionization of the broad people against would be elite abuse and rank and file betrayal as well. National and ethnonational boundaries are perfectly analogous to “union.”

Hence, Whites would be well served by ethnonational unionization of our relative interests (viz. as white left ethnonationalists: the white class) not a defense of mere, objective truths.

Human Bio-Diversity: misrepresent what should be a concern for the horizontal, qualitative diversity of niche evolution, its potential for coordinating coalition building on the basis of respect for divergent necessary functions of in favor of a lateral concern for I.Q. – to serve elitist Ashkenazi interests – precipitating false comparisons, disrespect and conflict.

Post Modernity: a means to negotiate and maintain groups of peoples through modernity’s narcissistic oblivion to differences (and penchant to run rough-shod over them in “service of progress to universal foundations”) and also the means to coordinate/negotiate inherited forms and traditions, maintaining them where helpful, leaving them behind where not, coordinating with the differing, sometimes antagonistic traditions of other groups. This necessary Post Modern Coordination is instead misrepresented as ironic, hyper relative da-da nonsense – really a hyper modernity to divert Whites from necessary understanding of post modernity for their social systemic homeostasis.

Multiculturalism =  monoculuralism.

Diversity = integration and blending of peoples.

Marginals to be included: means Not our own marginals, those just within our (would-be) union boundaries, who are of good will to our people, who can provide valuable perspective and feedback on the system, what is necessary for its maintenance, knowing acutely where the shoe pinches – or more nobly, acting as centurions as it were, on the frontier of where the systemic boundaries are encroached – but rather “marginals” become a weaponized notion of sympathy for those outside or of bad will to our systemic union, potential scabs to be included ….you can see how a mere, brutal, right wing laws-of-nature-position toward these people (i.e., our own marginals), rather than reaching out to them, would fail to rally popular support and thus be encouraged in the war of deception.


*  It is important to understand that when we talk about rules that we are more interpretive/descriptive in attempting to ascertain and analyze the logics of meaning and action at work in interaction, particularly group pattern interaction, though of course we might hope to draw some prescriptive implications as well.

Comments:

DanielS on Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:17 | #

This post is a work in progress. I will be developing it today and in days to come;

I beg the pardon of those who might be bothered by this approach.

On the other hand, proceeding in bits should be more digestible.

2 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Jul 2019 06:59 | #

To whom it may concern: while adding thoroughly completed bits as new sections upon what was the previous last paragraph might have in fact been a more “digestible process” for the reader, I’m afraid that I have been mainly working back in and developing sentences and paragraphs already posted. That is, this process might not make it “easier” for the reader as they would have to re-read things to follow changes. The saving grace is that it is not a very long piece (and will not be).

At this point, I have reworked it to the part that is now above the fold, where it says:

[Deontic Operator: Prohibit Whites, as majority, from discriminating in advocacy of their ethnonational group interests; render Legitimate group advocacy, discrimination for “oppressed” minorities]

Posted by White Left Ethnonationalism/ vs Third Position on Sun, 28 Jul 2019 05:58 | #

In a discussion yesterday, I was asked to justify the distinction between White Left Ethnonationalism and Third Positionism.

First of all, for the purpose of starting afresh, leaving behind association with Nazism, supremacism and other foibles that many third positionists embrace, but more abstractly I have argued, that it facilitates infiltration and destabilization of the unionization which is the crucial component of the left aspect.

It was objected that third positionism is not susceptible to infiltration as I have contended. Even where that might be so, right wing aspects introduced by third positionism tend toward an objectivist/idealist rigidity beyond nature or within nature below praxis that pay short shrift to social accountability – at least for leadership positions, which can in turn, lead to the nightmare of over accountability for rank and file – and an overall social rigidity that allows for their maneuvering and steering into reaction, e.g., by the YKW into traps of reactive aggression, ill conceived war (catastrophe for the group).

The basis must be the bounded ethnonation, the union, and its praxis which allows for ongoing correctability in accordance to its maintenance – that is the essence of the systemic homeostasis which we seek.

DanielS

White Left Ethnonationalism is distinguished from communism/Marxism by several lines as well.

While the same interlocutor claimed that Marx endorsed nationalism, I believe that would only be seen as a step in a process. Rather, “the withering away of the state” was seen as the ultimate end state of communist utopia.

In further distinction from communism:

White Left ethnonationalism would allow for private property (while recognizing that some natural assets and industries are best run by the state).

White Left ethnonationalism recognizes that some blend of socialism and free enterprise is natural, unavoidable and optimal in order to leverage freedom in the sovereignty that our paradigmatic conservatism offers (paradigmatic conservatism: borders are tight, individual liberties within, fairly free).

For those who recoil at the mere term “left”, I understand, and propose a synonym with “The White Class” to further represent the fact that we are not dividing the ethnonstate by classes – workers are crucial, no doubt, but we want to reward them for their account in a way that does not exclude other nationals from the union and the reward and rightful honor that their part in its maintenance merits.

This would require another distinction from Marxist / communism, i.e. that there be a religious and sacral aspect institutionalized – particularly featuring the important option for monogamy as deeply respected by the union members.

This kind of thing, giving reasonable protection to all stages in organic developmental processes, staves off cynicism, facilitates loyalty to the union and maintenance of the systemic pattern.


5

 Posted by Memory & Intelligence on Thu, 15 Aug 2019 06:02 | #

… as Social Construct

With all the right wing reactionary hoopla (encouraged by YKW) about the significance of I.Q., it might be worthwhile to examine other qualities that go into a healthy system, individual systems and necessary systemic connections beyond the individual’s head.

Focusing on the significance of I.Q., so convenient an emphasis by YKW in an attempt to exonerate unjust ascendance to rule and hegemony – as illustrated by their phony ruse to depict the concept of “HBD” in lateral, narrowing, quantifying terms of I.Q. as opposed to an honest examination of the niche human biodiversity indicative of healthy systems – serves also to flatter and co-opt White right wing reactionaries who’ve done well for their individual selves despite systemic toxins; facilitating disingenuous emphasis on their individual, independent merit as opposed to systemic indebtedness and accountability; leaving taken for granted and uncritqued it’s inclination to narrowing, lateral, quantifying, potentially oppressive and exploitative hierarchicization over and against our marshaling of systemic unionization through respect and account for all necessary systemic qualities. It might be worthwhile thus to examine other qualities that go into individual systemic homeostasis and necessary systemic connections beyond the individual.

Individual qualities besides I.Q. extend through

Health

Strength

Sensory Acuity

Immuno-efficiency

Longevity

Fecundity

Beauty

Virility

Agility

…to name just a few qualities, which are yet laying on an assumption.

An assumption that memory and intelligence are strictly located in the head.

Once the obvious inference is made that all memory is not located singularly in the head but is rather reconstrucable from without and that feedback can come from an array of individuals contributing to systemic intelligence, the perspective arises of potentially elevating the significance of those with honesty, loyalty and good will toward our people (good will to our people meaning effectively that they are accountable and caring enough to require account of others as to what is necessary or not, or downright destructive to our systemic maintenance) – a good elevation of value, to take Kant in a White post modern turn, for without good will toward our people, the responsibility of good will to our ‘system’, recognizing indebtedness therein, other individual qualities only make a person more terrible.

And without accountability to our people, our system, we are not going to be able to marshal accountability in respect of other peoples and other systems beyond our group.

We might then have necessary patience, therefore, where I.Q. otherwise emphasizes speed and efficiency to the ignorance of protracted systemic concern, patterns which “the lower i.q.” might be necessarily attending to in our long term systemic interest.

6 Posted by Women’s psychology: “safety pragma” on Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:33 | #

Posted by Hermeneutics on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:38 | #

I have not listened back to this discussion that I had with Josh Neal (NAL #76: Responding to Joel Davis w/Daniel Sienkiewicz) ..and perhaps made a mistake for winging it without more adherence to my careful notes. So as not to have important points missed then, let me make this clear.

In service of a clear take-away from hermeneutics properly understood: Hermeneutics (the anti Cartesian deployment of narrative engagement in a circulating process of inquiry from broad, imaginative hypotheses (beyond the moment and episode, into the pattern and then back into empirical verification as need be) facilitates a liberation from mere facticity (providing means for amendment beyond the arbitrary confusion, apparent paradoxes and contradictions thereof), which facilitates coherence (of both individual and group), which facilitates accountability, which facilitates a degree of agency, which facilitates warranted assertability.

Coherence is certainly a pre eminent feature of what Heidegger is talking about with “authenticity” (as facilitated by the liberation from mere facticity)…but more broadly, it seems to correspond to Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy (in CMM terms) which would include some of the benefits of coherence, i.e., accountability, agency and warrant.


9

 Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:00 | #

So what has that got to do with securing the existence of our people and a white future for our children?


10

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:20 | #

It allows us to engage in a process of surveying all relevant variables necessary to reconstructing our social (group) systemic homeostasis (securing the existence of our people and a future for our children) as opposed to getting fixated on one variable in reaction, which would leave us tactlessly imbalanced, vulnerable on other fronts, susceptible to misdirection, headlong overcompensation against our own interests (immunity, borders, bounds) and against our own people in ‘service’ of reactionary quest of ‘pure’ (Cartesian) warrant above nature (in principle or deity above nature) or in nature (e.g., might makes right) below praxis – our people.

…which is not to say that we should not prioritize (in that hermeneutic/systemic survey) that one variable, right along with a critical eye holding to account the right wingers/liberals who sell out, or are blinded by their objectivism, hoodwinked, enticed away from accountability to our people.

In other words, it has everything to do with it.

 Posted by Unionization works against Marxists too on Sat, 31 Aug 2019 09:38 | #

Unionization works against Marxists too…

Including ethnonational unionization against Marxist communism, with its deracinating, liberal totalitarian agenda..

Jim Slater@69mib
30 AUGUST 1980
Striking Polish dock workers led by Lech Walesa won the right to form independent trade unions & the right to strike. The Solidarity movement was seen as a defining moment in the struggle against Communist rule in eastern European.

Posted by Memory interactive on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:40 | #

…elaborating and correcting further the question of the “where of memory”, comment

I might have added that memory is not singularly located in the head, though there will, of course, be associative neural clusters, which are expressions of co-evolution that are triggered by interactive phenomenon, which can, in turn, provide feedback locus of additional storage to reinforce the memory from the shared social realm, whether in language, writing, computers, or indeed, in the neural networks of other people and creature’s brains and their adaptive networks.

DanielS

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:55 | #

Lyceum Round-Table #2: Problems with Liberalism

They don’t quite arrive at “a substantive view of the good” being a fostering of human well being through human ecology (which naturally corresponds to pervasive ecology), a protection and fostering of historical social/genetic capital (incl. non-human resource), most powerfully sustained from neoliberal forces by an ethnonational level, approximately synonymous with group unionization of that level of borders and bounds.

But they are apparently coming into line, compelled by the better understanding brought to bear here, to focus on the pervasiveness and destructiveness of liberalism as it has gained hegemony through the Modernist, Cartesian/Lockeatine notion of civil individual rights imbued in The American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and jurisprudence.

Preston does well to point out that the notion of rights went off the rails to over-liberalism onset by modernity; when the concept was conceived as universal, taken off the rails of group concern and responsibility – which would entail not only group privileges for the taking but also entailed the flip side of rights, that is obligations and duties – specifically, obligations and duties to the group delimitation, e.g., the nation. But Preston does not quite emphasize duty and obligation a means of responsibility to the human ecological group; instead, his examples are cast in terms of civic duty and obligation, such as the draft, voting, paying taxes.

Locke, as written into the Declaration of Independence and so on, proposed to found civil individual rights on universal principle, inalienable to all men. Kant attempted to rescue the moral order from the arbitrariness that would result from this non discrimination, non recognition of group delimitation and interests, to rescue moral order from that arbitrary rupture of group bounds with the prosthesis of universal foundations, proposing that principles, duty and obligation could be demonstrated as imperative (you are obligated/have a duty to) as the principles were tested for their foundational value to hold up against the arbitrariness (flux, disorder implicated by unrecognized, ruptured group bounds) if the principles were universalizable, i.e., if they could be good for all people at all times – then the obligation and duty is not something you could opt-out of, it is a “categorical imperative.” This attempted rescue of the moral order failed because it was still Cartesian.

Thus, while Preston is correct to point out that duty and obligation is a flip side of rights, his anarchism inhibits him from taking the step to the effective means of human ecology, social historical genetic capital, and group accountability thereof, that coordinated coalitions of ethnonationalist unions provides.

14 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:44 | #

Considering the emergent qualities not only of the individual but also of the social group system, viz. from their DNA system, the fact that the emergent whole is of different qualities, and greater than the sum of its parts, non-reducible to natural fallacy such as “might makes right”, it is conceivable that war is not the inevitable means of conflict resolution.

Most of day to day interaction is of a cooperative nature, not at all belligerent, and most social systems are typically cooperative as well – this would seem to be an expression of the emergent qualities of praxis, which, together with hermeneutics liberation from mere facticity and episodic/momentary myopia, provide the means for ethnonational coordination as opposed to war.

Sperm battle for the egg. Only one wins. The emergent quality of humans, especially in the social realm of praxis, is of a very different quality.

Recall once again Plato’s rejoinder to the concept of might makes right – i.e., the collective, union, as it were, can offset the tyrant’s might and make it wrong.

Posted by Barbara Spectre Is Back on Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:31 | #

Barbara Spectre Is Back

…in summit with Jewish luminaries, held in Israel to unite worldwide Jewry in a “foundationalization’ of their common destiny.

…also discussed will be the obligations for the rest of mankind – the renewing of Noah’s covenant, The Noahide obligations incumbent upon all mankind.

…an international court based on biblical principles.

Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:16 | #

@15 An answer to the question “what would the reaction be if Europeans said the same things” wasn’t long in coming.

The incoming European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, has come under intensifying pressure to drop a controversial mission to protect “our European Way of Life” from the title of the commissioner in charge of immigration.

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2019/0912/1075533-way-of-life/

Elsewhere, an unnamed Dutch MP has called the proposal “disgusting” and a spokesperson for Amnesty International said it was “worrying”.

Posted by Oswald Mosley on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:27 | #

Mosley addresses a post modern concern in this quote.

It is an interesting question as to how to manage White post modernity, and one that is eminently worth commentary, would have commentary feedback if White Nationalism could muster a modicum of intellectual pragmatism.

For particular reasons (falling for deceptive language games profusely slathered over the public, stupidity perhaps), the struggle can’t get past reactionary mode yet..

Perhaps an age, a period, would not decide entirely what to maintain and what to leave behind, but clearly Mosley meant that there are times for a people to band together in defense, to drastically curtail the more experimental ventures in order to protect their inherited forms, and those ways which remain conducive.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:55 | #

In fact, the emergent qualities of our genetic patterns into the social realm of praxis (the whole being greater than the sum of its parts) is a great argument against over emphasizing individualism ..as parts of the system will complement each other and rely on each other, being incomplete as they are, in need of completion and systemic correction as they are.

The correction (homeostasis) of our system requires the White post modern turn away from Cartesian estrangement and into the praxis of our social systemic homeostasis.

.. an epistemological correction that is facilitated by hermeneutics and social constructionism.

Epistemology … how to think …

Social Constructionism centers our outlook in the praxis of our people, our group(s) interests.

It is a later version of Aristotle’s argument that “Politics” should be the first concern, as all else is moot if the realm of praxis is not in order.

In Praxis (the social world), phronesis, i.e. practical judgment is required (because people have agency and motivations which are not as deterministic as physics models).

This is not against nature, science truth and facts, it only maintains that at very least, there is a modicum of agency in the determination of how facts come to count post hoc and how facts are framed.

This is not a small matter when you have blockheads purporting that “Truth” and “Nature” should be our religions. Well, which truth? and isn’t natural effect, e.g., disease or injury, or conflict over resource, something that we try to correct in service of our social interests?

The answer is yes, of course, and Hermeneutics facilitates broader reframings to transcend momentary and episodic short sightedness, consternation, paradoxes, dilemmas and so on..

It also facilitates the agency, accountability and correctability that can stave-off the disasters of deterministic logics that are for some reason held to be more important than human interests.

Recognition of the emergent qualities of praxis (from our DNA) will indeed allow the second epistemological realm, of Poesis, to function properly as the default mindset (in calling back from the Cartesian estrangment, Heidegger stated that poetry was more like thinking than science).

In Poesis, intuition is the dominant means.

And then the third epistemological realm, Theoria, its instrumentality aimed at arrival at pure and strictly determined logic, can be relegated to its proper place to serve in the assistance of praxis, as need be, and as Poesis and Praxis turn attention to issues requiring its rigorous methods.

Daniel Sienkiewicz on Hermeneutics

As I recall, I did poorly in this discussion, but will clarify the matter once again.

First of all, apologies for the terrible audio glitches: again, I was under the impression it had been straightened out. On a content level, the title of this bit is somewhat of a misnomer as being about hermeneutics, as I am only here touching on certain aspects of hermeneutics as being misrepresented to Whites as a kind of solipsisistic nonsense wherein people can interpret events however they like where, in fact, hermeneutics’ anti Cartesian purpose, its circulating process of inquiry, would not accept the rejection of empirical, interactive verification (but would insist upon it as need be). Hermeneutics is a crucial factor in the post modern turn – also a crucial necessity to understand properly for our group interests –  facilitating the management of the best and rejection of the worst aspects of modernity and tradition in order to facilitate our group maintenance against the ravages of modernity and destructive traditions, but misrepresented to Whites as hyper relative dada nonsense.


Hermeneutics allows us to overcome the arbitrary flux of the empirical end of Cartesianism, by facilitating the transcendence of momentary observations, the limited perspective of episode and the paradoxes, contradictions and confusions thereof, taking us rather into narrative coherence – a liberation from mere facticity (as Heidegger would call it) which is the first task not only of any person in order to establish accountability and thus a degree of agency and warrant, but also for the group – markedly, for the racial group social systemic homeostasis which is otherwise under attack. It is a non Cartesian process of inquiry which allows us to make use of imaginative and working hypotheses (e.g., as to our group’s existence beyond the episode) of the group pattern and then moving to and engaging empirical, interactive verification as need be. These shared narratives provide for the management of our historical capital as a people, again, crucially, facilitating group coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

This achievement of coherence through hermeneutics is thus crucial to be understood properly – whereas even KMac was under the impression that it was anti science. It is not anti science, it is rather the facilitator of the hypotheses beyond moment and episode, so crucial to our survival as a group system in its necessarily protracted, historical form.

Coherence is aligned with what Heidegger calls “authenticity” – more broadly, alternative range of functional autonomy, for both individual and group.

With the hermeneutic process, we are able to transcend the arbitrary thrownness, our existential condition, in which we find ourselves as a people, as our peoplehood is somewhat arbitrary given that we can interbreed with other races – recognizing our importance, our genetic capital nevertheless,  it is necessary to distinguish crucial patterns beyond moment and episode as hermeneutics affords in order to maintain our difference, our group social systemic homeostasis – which is under attack by “anti racism”…

Anti Racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice against prejudice (as Heidegger’s student, the hermeneuticist Hans Georg Gadamer observed), it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Hermeneutics is the means of engagement that takes us back from the Cartesian estrangement, the objectivist purity spiral and susceptibilities thereof, that has been weaponized against Whites by YKW.

2 Elliott Blatt

11 minutes ago
I need a team of lawyers to explain to me what the hell he was saying to me.

Daniel Sienkiewicz

7 minutes ago (edited)
Nice try Elliott, if you are honest (and I don’t think that you are speaking in good faith) all you need to do is re-read my comment above. It isn’t so hard. But maybe its hard to for you to figure out how to re-mystify this subject matter all over again and that’s what your overture is about.

 

Posted by ZOG: The Bush Years on Tue, 01 Oct 2019 14:27 | #

ZOG: The Bush Years

22 Posted by Aid to Israel and… on Fri, 08 Nov 2019 09:46 | #

Inasmuch as it is true that key beneficiaries, if not ‘the greatest beneficiary’, of U.S. aid to Israel and its pugnaciousness, are White ravens of the U.S. military industrial complex, it is nevertheless consonant with this platform, which maintains an ongoing recognition of complicitness of White right wing elite with Jewish interests even where they conflict and sell-out White interests.

WHO BENEFITS MOST FROM U.S. AID TO ISRAEL?

https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2019/11/who-benefits-most-from-us-aid-to-israel.html