Here is an example of the redundancy that occurs in all conventional negotiations and it’s justifications for what is true in reality. This is a great example. Communication is taken as proof of his self. And so where communication is not taking place there by doing have the persistent effort to continue in the attempt to communicate, ie faith.

But I like the thing about the ruler and force. 

It’s kind of funny though, that this short little essay actually contradicts itself, and thereby becomes redundant unto itself. 

The Ability of Men to Communicate Means that Force Must Mean Tyranny

If you intend to force your opponent to comply with your idea, you don’t actually need the idea, all you need is force. You see, having an idea is fundamentally an appeal to reason–i.e. this is true because of this rationale, which also must be true because of this premise…etcetera, etcetera. And reason is a […]

voluntarism vs force, cooperation vs force in politics, force nullifies reason

The Ability of Men to Communicate Means that Force Must Mean Tyranny

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

4 thoughts on “Redundancy.”

    1. I don’t have time right now to read your whole post but I read the first few sentences… I hadn’t commented on your part one because I felt I wanted to give you space and not bog you down in my comments and rebuttals and further considerations. Innoway my subsequent posts are kind of a reply to your post, but other people’s also . But I wanted to leave you the space to say what you were going to say, to draw out your analysis without my Direct interference. 😊.


    2. … Oh and Terrence and I I think we just meet at different moments and clash a little bit wrestle a little bit. I mean him and I could be examples of the two routes that I’m talking about. Four and it comes right down to it I definitely fall under the schema of merely talking about myself, so to speak, as he says of L, that I’m really just putting forth like my narrowminded idea of things in a philosophical sense. And so there’s no way I think that I’m going to convince Terrence for what I’m talking about. Yet also what I’m talking about is not just my subjectivity placed into some sort of stratified Omni present objective whole world. And so him and I and seems kind of an impasse. And perhaps that’s what I designate as real and not real. Because Terrence is Shirley exemplifying and indeed making significant arguments and headways into the real philosophical discussion, that I agree with 97 percent of the time probably.

      And perhaps this is really what I’m saying so far as the reason why we can’t have a science is because everyone’s with holding a sword of 3% from everyone else, but because they see this 3% as inclusive of the 97% of the talk. And what I’m saying here is that people referred themselves to the multiple first, even while they want to assert that there is some sort of central subject or subjectivity. I’m saying that it is indeed the multiple that allows percent centralized subjectivity. I can’t avoid that I live in reality. But I’m saying there’s like this 3% of me that doesn’t touch it, where that touches it through one particular point that I call the point of contention. Beyond this point is where I feel a science could arise, because what are really talking about but a whole new way a different way to think about what humanity is through what it does. And what it does right now is only considered upon the 97% so to speak.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s