Miscellaneous Chatter > General Misc.

VD: Sole Interpretor

(1/3) > >>

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: Callan S. ---As in Vox Day. What VD were you thinking of?  :lol:

Yeah, I want to raise this undead carcass and try and get a lesson from me. To me, it seemed to come down to what I call 'the sole interpretor'. It's a bit like playing sport against another team - yet finding the other team is also the referee, and the referee's word is final.

Any ambiguity in english wording (and heck, past technical writing, would most people agree english can be embiguous?) and this type of person snatches up the referee/judgement hat and keeps it for themselves, making them the sole interpretor of whatever they saw. And they start building all sorts of elaborate ideas off an interpretation which is only their own (often putting words in the other parties mouth in doing so, since they are so sure what X or Y means).

The simple test is whether they would hand you sole interpretor rights - like hell they would! You can just ask for it, but are they going to sit and just accept your interpretation absolutely? Not at all. Are they happy to hand over the jugement hat to you even just to hear your interpretation? No. The person who does say "Well, okay, so what do you see when you read it?/what do you think it says?/what are you trying to say?", they are not a sole interpretor. Indeed, if they ask any questions at all (rather than just telling you over and over what any text means), it's a indication they are unlikely to be a sole interpretor. One of the keys here is actually using some sort of external metric as referee, to determine if they are not (the quoted questions above and similar are a fairly emperical test) - otherwise you'd end up being sole interpretor as well!   :shock: :o  :D

Just an identification I'm putting out there if it's of use. Just seems a very simple verbal parlour trick on the part of some to keep dropping interpretations as if they were objective, over and over.
--- End quote ---

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: Madness ---For a long time I've made a game of applying cognitive biases to everyday life, my own mostly but also the others I see around me when I can get out of my head and pay that attention. Be warned, that list is a great collection but again, by no means entire nor even are each definition necessarily in and of themselves finished completely - there are after all multiple theories of just about everything humans have decided to "know."

Otherwise, in order to learn from someone effectively, I'd wager you have understand them. I don't think Vox has actually said very much about himself in the comments on TPB in this latest salvo, despite the prodigious word count.

In my experiences with Vox, I've learned that he's not nearly as dogmatic as he's been framed by many, many posters. He actually understands his version of the Truth to be a version. He understands things like social systems theory and game theory. He's a student of history and takes great pride in the pedigree of his social conceptual structure, even the utility - something which might seem at odds with his religious leanings.

He even has a good theoretical question. How long does your social conceptual organization take to devolve during disaster scenarios of a certain threshold - in this case, "End of the World" circumstances.

Between the two of us, in the few instances I've tried to engage him, his argument seems to have been that his structure of moral certitude will stave off the degredation of apocalyptic collapse - he draws by extension that this also somehow better equips him for everyday life, however, I agree with neither contention.

So in Vox's mind, we're all just a couple thoughts from barbarism, because as soon as the *weak* foundations of our philosophic (secular or otherwise) moralities break down, we'll simply be zombies that him and his survivors then have to deal with.

It actually seemed to offend him that I held views that I might act on morally, for entirely philosophic reasons. You know, without the whip.

Lastly, I'd take in to account Bakker's words. He's often mentioned that he's not engaging these people to argue with them. He's engaging these people to figure out how to most effectively engage them. I don't think he's convinced himself of actually accomplishing either proposition. Bakker's sharpening his swords. And though that might seem like an strange way to frame the Vox/ACM clashes, its an interesting lens to see through.
--- End quote ---

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: lockesnow ---I have so little interest in either of the blogger wars Bakker started.  I didn't even read these posts.  I realize it flatters Bakker's ego and gets him off to do it, but who the fuck cares?  It's just a big wank.
--- End quote ---

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: sciborg2 ---I like the sole interpreter concept.

I think Vox is an interesting case study, but some of his followers are laughably beyond the pale.

I think it's this desire to believe that the changes in society that you dislike will be the ones that end civilization. So naturally people who don't like feminism, multiculturalism, and so on will cling to this morbid desire to say "I told you so!".

Meanwhile, the Singularity draws ever closer. ;-)
--- End quote ---

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: Callan S. ---Madness, I think there isn't much way of investigating what he actually means when he plays sole interpreter. Every time he doesn't try to align (to any degree) what he means with what you mean by something. Personally I'm thinking that is the method these guys use to draw people in - they remain masked, but invoke words that others, when they hear them, think of their own meaning for that word (ie, actually the inverse of Scott's issues with readers taking their own reading as canonical - here the effect is leveraged for profit). Like a preditory animal that pretends to be something else; like one of them deep sea fishes that has a little light on a stalk hanging just before it's many toothed mouth. I mean, in Batman: the dark knight, I think the thing the joker said about everyones okay with a soldier under threat, or a ganger under threat, but put a mayor under threat and everyone goes crazy. I think that's an interesting point - but I don't think the joker finds it interesting in the same way as I do. The point I see in it really has nothing to do with the jokers point.


--- Quote ---In my experiences with Vox, I've learned that he's not nearly as dogmatic as he's been framed by many, many posters. He actually understands his version of the Truth to be a version. He understands things like social systems theory and game theory. He's a student of history and takes great pride in the pedigree of his social conceptual structure, even the utility - something which might seem at odds with his religious leanings.
--- End quote ---
What is the behaviour of someone who understands their version of truth to be 'a version'? He doesn't seem to show such behaviour, unless it's of the 'my version is right, absolutely' kind. And to be honest, given his dodge of summerising Roger's position on skeptcism and other instances, I think he has real trouble (or is incapable) of forming theory of mind and seeing anything from anyone elses shoes. When has he summerised anyone elses views (someone who argues against him) in a way the other person would agree is a relatively apt summery?

I don't think he understands any of the things you mention, unless in some way he can interpret parts of them to his end. Then he's all over it.



--- Quote ---He even has a good theoretical question. How long does your social conceptual organization take to devolve during disaster scenarios of a certain threshold - in this case, "End of the World" circumstances.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, but his end of the world includes if everyone listens to music that decent white folk don't listen to, and everyone has names that decent white folk don't have. It doesn't take much for it to be the end of the world for him. The lack of tolerance is pretty amazing.

lokesnow,

--- Quote ---but who the fuck cares? It's just a big wank.
--- End quote ---
Hopefully. But I just imagine this sort of person wheedling their way into the political infrastructure that provides my life support and wheedling their way into the police system that decides it can apply martial force to me when it wishes (and it has a great deal of martial support in any resistance to their claim). How about the next protest you go on, where you just walked along peacefully but then a policeman version of VD comes along? Along with the word games which let him bullshit long enough to get deeds (his kind of deeds) done, because people will act before they finish sifting through BS?

Saajan,

--- Quote ---I think Vox is an interesting case study, but some of his followers are laughably beyond the pale.
--- End quote ---
There's kind of a rainbow of types there. Most of them, I'd guess, weren't set up by their mad dad with a job in a company the dad had shares in, so they can't all trumpet their inner rage without fucking their life up/losing their jobs. And so VD is the outlet they latch onto.
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page