Tyb
You don't have the mind of God.
Cringe attempt to become God by dividing yourself from humanity such that all you 'see' is division sourced from outside yourself.
Division is a human made social construct extending from the mere 'notion' humanity is divided, which itself extends from a human made logic that the One Source is divided.
Division as an axiom drives the system to become inconsistent, and inconsistent systems output EVERY statement as 'proved true', thus rendering it useless outside any group other than those weaponizing it for mere hegemony and power.
>Pretending that subdivisions do not exist
Anon is not claiming that divisions are not visible by empirical data in 2022.
Anon is instead positing that the division you use 'exists' as a word to describe, is itself driven by the thought of division PRE-ENGAGEMENT between consciousnesses.
Communism always arrives with the same dialectic logic splitting humanity up PRE-ENGAGEMENT. That before any engagement between consciousnesses takes place, the dialectic inversion practitioners arrogate themselves as 'seeing' that the logic of consciousnesses in humanity are all divided based on race or religion or sex or class or political affiliation.
That the logic of the minds of 'this race' differs from the logic of the minds of 'that race', or the logic of the minds of 'this religion' differs from the logic of the minds of 'that religion'.
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Polylogism
"The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by "bourgeois" economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unsoundness of their adversaries' ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods."The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind."
"Polylogism is so inherently nonsensical that it cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. No Marxian was bold enough to draw all the conclusions that his own epistemological viewpoint would require. The principle of polylogism would lead to the inference that Marxian teachings also are not objectively true but are only "ideological" statements. But the Marxians deny it. They claim for their own doctrines the character of absolute truth. Thus Dietzgen teaches that "the ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas but the outcome of logic pure and simple." The proletarian logic is not "ideology" but absolute logic. Present-day Marxians, who label their teachings the sociology of knowledge, give proof of the same inconsistency.
If dialectic logic is superior to unity logic, then surely there should not only be no inconsistencies in your statements, but also unity logic should not be capable of exposing any if any are to be exposed.
You keep falsely projecting 'unity is a logic of ignorance', as if unity logic can only be ignorant and never informed.
You keep falsely projecting 'unity is a logic of denial of reality', as if unity logic is imaginary while division logic is the only real logic.
It doesn't matter if anyone thinks division of you or Anon or anyone else, Human logic is united, it's the same for everyone.
You are relying upon that logic of unity in presenting your statements as inter-subjectively coherent statements understandable by other human consciousnesses on this site that also extend from that same logic of unity.
You couldn't even claim to be making a coherent statement, unless you presumed that same logic to be in all humans who might read your post.
You can't even claim to be speaking meaningful statements to anons here if you didn't already conclude that the one logic your own dialectic logic extends from is the same as the one that other Anons you are sending msgs to are extending from.
If all you did was 'Let me be clear" and "I will repeat", as if the mere duplication of strings of division narrative somehow makes them more true, then just know that this is precisely the reason the old guard is also being dismantled.
It's at its core a stupid system, it was just unfortunately trusted because the REPETITION of the division narrative was sourced from 'all angles', media, movies, TV, magazines, government, and trusting people trusted it as 'the true reality', the 'informed non ignorant non denialist' reality narrative from which you're claiming to be correctly guarding as the truth, while every other consciousness resultingly put 'external' by your own division logic are all ignorant for not trusting as a reflection of themselves.
You ask for division outside yourself because your own mind is using division logic.
>This is a fancy attempt to discredit by false association.
Start with a dialectic projection of own flaw, to compare own logic against as a substitute for engaging the logic itself.
Nobody in history has ever made a proof that the logic of the minds of white people categorically differs from the logic of the minds of black people, or that the logic of the minds of rich people categorically differs from the logic of the minds of poor people.
You're referencing biology but you're not linking anything in biology to proving polylogism based on biology.
The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by "bourgeois" economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unsoundness of their adversaries' ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind.
Polylogism is so inherently nonsensical that it cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. No Marxian was bold enough to draw all the conclusions that his own epistemological viewpoint would require. The principle of polylogism would lead to the inference that Marxian teachings also are not objectively true but are only "ideological" statements. But the Marxians deny it. They claim for their own doctrines the character of absolute truth. Thus Dietzgen teaches that "the ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas but the outcome of logic pure and simple." The proletarian logic is not "ideology" but absolute logic. Present-day Marxians, who label their teachings the sociology of knowledge, give proof of the same inconsistency.
Ideas are true or false NOT based on the background of the author, but by its fidelity with objective reality.
If what you claim is 'biology 'group' determined' and not objective truth,then your own statements must be regarded as merely a product of your group biology and not objectively true
>I did not make a case that unity is a denial of reality. I said that unity based around denying that DIFFERENCES exist, and a group of people, are harmed by denying the relevance of these differences is a unity of ignorance.
So unity is not a denial of reality, or unity is a denial of reality?
Which is it?
It either is or isn't.
>I said that unity based around denying that DIFFERENCES exist, and a group of people, are harmed by denying the relevance of these differences is a unity of ignorance.
Who, other than yourself, is writing about 'denying differences exist'?
Why are you falsely imputing to Anon that Anon is 'denying differences'?
Anon is in fact saying something else, not what you imputed.
The mere empirical occurrences of different views, or different beliefs, or different statements, or different actions, has no bearing on whether logic of unity is true or false, or whether dialectic logic is true or false.
It is sufficient to analyze and understand and describe the language of speaking about itself as its being uttered.
Anon guesses you rarely if ever have engaged in subjecting your own views to its own logic, to show inner consistency.
>People can UNIFY on position X or position Y.
You're not asking how unifying on any position is possible, without unity logic presupposed in the human mind.
You have also not explained how the logic of the minds of people of one race categorically differs from the logic of the minds of any other race, for that is the dialectic logic to which all your narratives are extending from.
You have also not explained how you are able to transcend the limits you have set for the rest of humanity, where everyone else is limited to racial logic while you see above it. If racial logic were a real thing, then it would be determining your thoughts and so Anon would have to consider your statements here not as objective truth, but just as bile from a liver, just statements that are a product of your 'race', nothing more, no better or worse than the logic of any other 'race'.
But Anon knows you have INCONSISTENT logic, so you contradict your own racial logic, and elevate your logic to the status of transcending of race, objective truth logic.
Kek
They never should have ended the insane asylums.
Without asylums, the insane run loose in society.