Fustbariclation
@fustbariclation.bsky.social
490 followers 910 following 4K posts
Interested in life, philosophy, service governance, ethics, logic, science, rationality, illusionism, mathematical modelling & psychiatry.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
fustbariclation.bsky.social
'You don't exist because there is no self' misundersants 'exist' and 'self'.

We have an illusion of a unified self, that includes the illusion that it is continous over time.

These are excellent illusions, but, just as a rainbow is an illusion, but 'real', they don't deny the 'reality' of 'self'.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
'The Eliminations', or 'The Eliminators' might be too obviously lavatorial.

I suppose, for those in grip of tum problems, 'the frequentists' might be too close to the bottome as well.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
The Tractatus ends where the Tao begins.

#Wittgenstein #Dao #Teo #ineffable #language #limits #Tractatus #Zen
fustbariclation.bsky.social
The owl of Minerva flies at dusk..
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Beware! Frequentist statistics eliminates outliers.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Neoliberalism has more in common with fascism - corporate plutocracy - than with classic liberalism, which emphasises individual autonomy and egalitarianism.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
The state must be constrained to be as small as possible - but not smaller.

Individual liberty, under classical liberalism, applies to all human beings.

Under Neoliberalism, 'White Supremacy', this applies only to the rich white minority.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Unfortunately, 'liberalism' and 'liberty' and 'liberal ideals' are understood in many, inconsistent, ways.

Neoliberalism is a million miles from the liberalism of Locke and Mill.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Indeed. When the choice is between unbridled fascism, and subtle fascism, the horror is the same.

The onslaught by the oligarchy against the poor is unrelenging, cruel, and ubiquitous.

The French Revolution, sadly, only happened after a volcano caused famine, on top of the exploitation.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
There is much that Thatcher and Reagan thought, and did, that are deeply chilling.

What is really chilling is that they succeeded, and we are living with their malign legacy today.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
I agree with your general analysis of LLM output, but I think it's a pity to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

LLMs are very limited, suffer from hallucinations, and are badly constrained by 'guardrails' from being honest. Nevertheless, they are quite good at summarising things
fustbariclation.bsky.social
I think that this is quite an interesting critique of the deepseek summary of Das Kapital
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Deepseek, for all its faults, is quite good at summaries. This is what it says of Das Kapital - clearly hugely distorting thousands of pages of analysis, but, I think sound. Reagan & Thatcher thought, 'lets have more exploitation'
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Lol! It's a great virtue of language, that it is subtle, and a great source of conflict.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Congruency of belief in principles is quite different from congruency in belief in analysis.

I think you've got my position now, though. Maybe, indeed, 'belief' or 'faith' are poor words to use. 'Use', 'exploit' or 'ground thinking in' might be better.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Das Kapital, as I'm sure you know, spends most of its time, and it has a lot of time, analysing the nature of capital (hence the name), and labour.

If you want Marxist principles, you're better of looking at 'The Communist Manifesto' by Marx and Engels.

I was referring to the former.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Oh, and, if it helps, I am no fan of Thatcher, nor Regan, whose malign policies underly a lot of the wealth gap and misery that exists today.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Analysis - Principles

Two very differnt things.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation.

They were very Marxist in their undersanding of labour and capital, not in following his prescriptions.

There's an important, if subtle, distinction.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
You've misunderstood me. I'm not, of course, saying they were Marxists. Just that they used, and subverted, Marx' analysis.

There is quite a big difference between Marx' prescriptions and Marx' analysis. Neoliberalism uses the latter to subvert Marx' prescriptions, but, they do use his analysis.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
I said Marx' analysis - not Marxist principles.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
Here's a discription, by grok, of how neoliberalism uses Marx' analysis - and subverts it.
fustbariclation.bsky.social
I don't think that 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' are particularly helpful epithets.

Ronald Raygun and Maggie Thatcher were very Marxist in their beliefs. Even if they used Marxist analysis to exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, the consequences of capital, and oligarchs.