Property Rights and Academic Titles

Aside

All things must be accepted by the general public—not just through implied consent, but explicitly through polls and plebiscite.

Property rights and academic titles were enforced on the majority by a minority and are not real/official.

I think the public, through direct democracy, can grant such rights and titles to make society run more smoothly, but it still needs to be the public that consents to such things.  Anything else is the enforcement of tyranny.

One idea is for all academic titles to be stricken and then for the public to vote for who they actually think are intelligent to be part of academia (and perhaps for this to be a process that is repeated every few years.)  This ensures people do not enter academia solely through parroting elitist ideologies and can actually defend their reasoning/logic to the people.  If you can’t explain your reasoning to the common man, you probably don’t understand it well enough, in my opinion.

Another idea is to not even have formal academia.  People who would be academics can do the same work, but just on their own time and living off community handouts.  People who are good at science/technology can gather/work together and if they know what they are doing, their inventions will be notable successes.  If they do not, their creations will flounder.  It’s as simple as that.

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

Ayn Rand


One doesn’t even have to read Ayn Rand’s work—only get a synopsis of what it’s about—to know it doesn’t make any sense.

Why did Ayn Rand write what she wrote?  She would probably say because she is advocating for ethical conduct, leading to what she regards as the best functioning society.  Her basic assumption is that people are selfish and that’s the way it should be, but with the implication that she is a well-intentioned individual who just so happens to have society’s best interests at heart.

Would Ayn Rand ever admit to being a purely self-serving human being?  I, personally, think she is.  Technically, she should be okay with me viewing her in this light.  Yet, it’s pretty obvious she would be upset if confronted with the notion that she is someone who pathologically supports the ideology of the oppressor to move up the ranks of the social ladder at the expense of others.

Her entire career is pure self-contradiction, in my opinion.

Standard

Am I allowed to criticize William Golding? ·Say that his work is poor (at least, in my opinion) and lacking in intelligence and insight?  Am I allowed to say such a thing or think such a thing?

(I have absolutely no problem if someone else reveres his work, but am I allowed to abhor it?  Do I retain that right?)

Don’t waste you…

Quote

Don’t waste your time trying to sort out the incomprehensible language academics consciously and subconsciously try to employ to exhaust and exclude the common person. If academics can’t make themselves intelligible to the common man, they can be ignored. It’s as simple as that.

If they can’t make themselves intelligible to the common man, they probably don’t understand what they are saying well enough themselves.

Is English Ethical?

Standard

I had a discussion about this before with a few friends who are involved in the humanities which is that I not only think that it is logically inconsistent to grade people on their thoughts, it may also be unethical, a hindrance to true creativity and spontaneity and an enormous detriment to society.

It really makes no sense to say you want to encourage thinking, but then look over the person’s work to make sure they are doing this correctly.

I think it’s more fair to mark on grammar, spelling and general readability of one’s writing.  However, I think marking on content is nonsensical because it hinders genuine freedom of thought.  Giving contradictory messages that there is a correct way to be original is extremely damaging to the human psyche, in my opinion.

That’s why you don’t get many true philosophers or artists coming out of formal academia within the humanities, in my opinion.

The Illegitimacy of Academia

Standard

Another reason to guarantee a basic social income is because a formal institution for the humanities is not only no longer required, but likely detrimental for human thought and progress. It’s obvious that greater truth, honesty and insight within the “humanities” is better accomplished outside of formal academia. However, this only holds true if people are free to speak their mind rather than being scared of homelessness as a result of a refusal to pander to any type of employer (whether that be employment coming from the private or the public sector.)

A better system would be for those currently on academic tenure to live off a monetary redistribution system alongside others who contribute to art, philosophy, sociology etc. who are not currently apart of formal academia.

The only departments within the current scholastic structure I feel are worth formally maintaining are basic history (possibly including aspects of anthropology and sociology) while all else within the humanities is better done away with and left to anybody within the unfettered public sector that wants to become involved in that (as will inevitably be the case over time anyways.)

Thus, without guaranteed basic income or a guarantee of basic needs those who would have been a part of scholasticism within the humanities will either be poor or will have to change their views drastically to appease wage-keepers {neologism: any gatekeeper to income.}

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

William Golding

“Lord of the Flies” is an incredible work of propaganda, in my opinion.  We need to worship a piece of artifice or there will be nothing but “jungle” madness.  All naturalness is barbarism.

One of my professors, who is a business lawyer, described the business world as a “jungle” (though he was in ardent support of capitalism.)

How does it make any sense then that “naturalness” is barbarism when our institutions of power are creating “jungle-like” conditions for all of humanity?

How does it make any sense for these “seashells of stability” to create artificial environments where only the very few get to enjoy decadence and “society” but force the rest of humanity to feel the pressures of living in a mad, chaotic jungle where we need to fend for ourselves?  (Especially when the point of entering into the social contract is escaping so-called savagery and barbarism.)

In my opinion, our conception of savagery versus civilization is completely backwards.  Naturalness is more humane and civilized than all of this artificial barbarism that tries to pass itself off as civilization.

Lord of the Flies stops people from questioning systems of power because it implies we will fall into chaos, when, in reality, our current scenario and systems of power are creating artificially chaotic conditions for everyone but the high elites.

Again, the point of entering into a social contract (which I don’t recall signing by the way) was that we were to be taken out of the “wild” rather than being conscripted from birth for a life of wage-slavery.

If Golding knew anything about history, biology or evolution, he would know that human civilization is a drop in the ocean compared to genuine human existence.  Human civilization and agriculture only began a few thousand years ago whereas humanity itself spans back over millions of years.

It’s propaganda to enforce the notion that existence outside of civilization is complete madness, ignoring all the glories of mother nature and observations that prove without fail that living organisms (and groups of living organisms) are, by the laws of natural selection, destined to reach a point where they become stable and “one” with their environment, so-to-speak, so that nature doesn’t actually feel wild, in my opinion.  The eons spent as hunter gatherers were not pure chaos.  Mother nature is not that “stupid.”  Humans were not always running for their lives.  And perhaps death itself was not so bad in more natural states of mind.  We know that the hunter-gatherers, in general, lived more calm, peaceful, and stable lives than we do today, and with far more time on their hands for leisure, activity and adventure.  Their groups didn’t need a symbol of power to maintain stability or keep everyone together.  They naturally knew how to maintain peace and stability amongst themselves, otherwise they wouldn’t have survived to be the predecessors to all of this barbarism guised as human development, in my opinion.

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

George Orwell

This doesn’t mean I didn’t learn anything from 1984 or that I disagree with his observations. Unfortunately, human beings are expected to practice what they preach, and clearly Orwell has shown that this is not the case for somebody like himself.

George Orwell’s mentality is equivalent to that which enjoys breaking a person’s legs to make them walk faster, in my opinion.