/rhet/ thoughts on structure and so-called "purple prose"

[Anonymous No.22066192]

previous /rhet/ thread : >>22058695

It is the job of the reader or listener to make sense of the writer or speaker moreso than is the imperative of the writer or speaker to belittle the subject by butchering it for the sake of digestion. There are, I am sure, valid arguments against overly elaborate writing or speech but when I have looked at these claims I have always found that a mark of illiteracy and deception has occurred in the claim, though the claim 'can' be valid, where a complex subject has been written or spoken of and the reader or listener has failed to follow the structure and clauses in the text or the speech as to be unable to understand what is being said. My own approach to this has been to adopt that stance that I was talking to a foreign speaker; their words may be broken in some regards but it is not beyond my powers of deduction to understand what they are intending to say. This, fundamentally, is no more different than dealing with dialects within a native language or people with cognitive disorders who cannot speak but in short fragments, etc., if a person is literate to a sufficient degree then speech or text, no matter how garbled, should not present any difficulties for them.

Much of the so-called "purple prose", in my experience, relates to the above problem of translation whereupon a profligate society with an absent grasp of literacy has been encouraged to adopt an egoistic attitude toward text and speech, being coddled to believe in error that if they cannot read or understand that it is not their problem but that of the speaker, thus they are rendered almost incapable of understanding the majority of text or speech. It is that "majority of text" which would instruct them, of course, as to the modus and structure of the authors in far more literate times and places, in order to allowed them to recognize their influences in the contemporary to be baseless and inferior by contrast and to arrive at a clear understanding of how one is supposed to write; without this they are stuck in the local contemporary and subject to its unconscious influence patterns (coddled egoism).

[Anonymous No.22066195]

It was enough for me to be aware that Emperors, Roman Proconsuls, Chinese Generals and Inventors of Things wrote all in 'this' way, for thousands of years as far back as records go, for me to be able to disregard the opinion far less accomplished who proclaimed that "complex writing" was a "no no," and seemed to be doing so, wittingly or not, to coddle the modern race (of their day) into being dimwitted and illiterate as if it were not dimwitted and illiterate.


I suppose it behooves me, here, to offer my own impression of the "unfathomable" grammatike of such persons for the benefit of the stupid yet humble reader who at least understands that they need to take my hand on this matter and allow me to assist them in clambering up the hill a la Mars Gradivus since I am several steps higher than them by grace of having gone through this educational process myself; which I strongly advocate and remind should have been taught to us all when we were children instead of leaving us to have to clumsily come to it by ourselves in adulthood, with a toss of the coin whether we would individually possess the inclination to do so and to suffer the consequence of living in a polity subject to illiteracy; rendering the daily enterprises of life to be far more sluggish and fraught than they otherwise would be:

As said,
"It was enough for me to be aware that Emperors, Roman Proconsuls, Chinese Generals and Inventors of Things wrote all in 'this' way," in order to understand that the impetus lay with 'me' to understand 'them' if I wished to learn anything at all of what they had to say to Mankind; the wisdom and lessons, I ought add, that they took the trouble to convey for our benefit.

[Anonymous No.22066196]

First there is the most simple element to this in that the style of speech and writing are encompassing to a subject in its entirety; often when people complain of over-elaboration they are do not seem to realize that the authors are addressing vital adjuncts, conjuncts and peripherals in maximal scope which complete a subject far more fully, by providing additional information about the subject itself and clearing up any possible refutations or misunderstands on the part of contemporary or later readers. The writings of many Roman authors, for example, from whence the name "purple" no doubt arose first of all, is rich and thick with historical and contextual information upon a subject so that to read, say: Plinius, Martialis, Cassius Dio or Julius Caesar, is not merely to read a little storybook on one subject in particular but to read an encyclopedia of information surrounding that particular subject so that one comes away from the text with a college education 'in' that subject. The difference, then, between 'this' style and other styles which cauterize the context and peripherals is at once immediately apparent as to the superior benefit to the reader: both for fullest contemporary awareness and historical awareness for the later reader also.

Can we even manage to pretend for a moment that a trash paperback or popular academe produced today in the rigid format insisted upon by editor and publisher would stand at all the test of time or provide any value to future historians whatsoever? We are not even here touching upon the political bias which goes into an editing process nowadays as to make the book read entirely as a fiction even if the subject matter itself is of interest, nor of the marketing edit alongside side that which may publish a book with an interesting title but which contains nothing of the title within the pages themselves. Charles Dickens, for example, to compare an author a century ago to an author today was striking hard in his books at the unconscious mass culture which existed around him and which was, therefore, 'pertinent' to his readers, but an author today is not allowed to do so and so will be 1) pertinent to nobody today and, 2) even less pertinent to anybody in the future. I do not mean to delve into such ideo-political or ideo-religious things here, as: I do so elsewhere at length and so do not need to crudely insert my thoughts of that into this subject - only that they are very much related in peripheral to understanding the butchery in contemporary publication in the full scope of how it comes to be.

[Anonymous No.22066204]

Second, we must read with the frame of mind where we are reading in a literate manner; that is: reading for proof and structure (as well so as speaking and listening for it in the spoken word), and learning how to recognize this or the absence of this in whatsoever we desire to write or read or hear or say. It is, to my mind, not a difficult business at all to understand the principles of this in text and in speech and that the two formats are identical in this manner; in that: if one cannot write in it one cannot read in it, if one cannot think in it one cannot listen in it or speak in it. It is noticable, upon coming to this methodology (which is no moreso complicated than the scientific approach of Causes Of Things and Proving Those Causes), that few people today or historically necessarily make good cases for their claims in argument; proofs being absent or impartial, and so without proofs their case falls apart and can be considered at best an exercise in sophistic emotional appeal (i.e. pathos) on their part as opposed to a scientifically structured exercise in the proofs of things (i.e. logos), so that the best writers and speakers are those who have the fullest maximal scope in their thoughts and that the worst writers and speakers are those single-minded types who have trained themselves to only consider one aspect of an otherwise interconnected subject with many related peripherals which comprise the whole of the subject; consider: a doctor, post 1990's european practice, who specializes only in the hand being stymied in diagnosis because the medical condition of the perturbation of the hand has begun for the client in the upper shoulder or the nerves of the body as a whole, the doctor will provide a faulty diagnosis if this is the case as the doctor cannot and will not look at the shoulder and it may be weeks or months before the specialist doctors each refer the client along and meet with the client one by one, taking time to compare their notes (if at all) as they gradually work their way up the arm to locate the screwdriver which is embedded in the shoulder and thereby until locate the cause of the medical condition - a wholly profligate thing more akin to blindfolded divination than to the straight observation of the clear logic of the case and its elements.

[Anonymous No.22066207]

Put this consideration into the business of writing or speech, where one aspect of a new suggestion or a novel notion may take years to circulate and be read, and then expound upon that by adding in the specialist stages of revision until something near the 'full scope' has been cobbled together by a team of persons; an idea pertinent at the time may not even be reached until half a century has passed by which the idea is no longer pertinent. To limit, then, the maximal scope of a thing is to put a blindfold over ones eyes for no reason at all and to miss a thing that would otherwise be entirely evident on first glance; it is entirely necessary, then, to recognize structure and proof in writing and speech,

For example, in the above paragraph I went into lengthy detail in a particular case - I often do so but I did so more intentionally here to provide a comparable example to the "purple prose" of other writers, so: where is the structure?

The above paragraph consists of the proposition of a theory discerned from observation, a claim follows this which is then demonstrated by analogical proof in the practice of the failure on the part of the observed persons operating within the inferior dynamic or modus which I am challenging and observing is inferior; the above paragraph continues from the paragraph above it, thereby continuing the theme or "hammering in the nail," to reinforce by logic the central claim of the thesis of this text which is fortified by proofs of the inferiority of the dynamic or modus contrasted to the superior modus. In order to refute the paragraph one would require the refutation of the analogy as to show that there in fact is a superior and more efficient approach to the compartmentalization in specialty in these sorts of highly trivial cases, but this could not be shown to be so and so the proof is solid. My reasoning by analogy, of course, could not support the entire thesis as if it were the single proof in the text, but it provides an example of a peripheral or adjunct which connects to the central thesis and demonstrates the overall case.

It would be a helpful exercise to the reader to open the above mentioned authors and take a single chapter or letter written by say Martialis (who is especially helpful for this, providing over one thousand epigrams or varying style and subjects) or Julius Caesar and read through the thing looking for such structure in an otherwise "complicated wall of text" (i would provide some examples here but the linear processing format of this text does not allow for it), and then to adopt the same approach for themselves noticing that the otherwise baffling and complicated manner of writing is not even remotely as complicated it was made to seem; that the flow of logic occurs naturally once one has a feel and understanding of the manner of observation and the seeking out of true causes so as to identify a thing in its most complete and thus most actionable forms.

[Anonymous No.22066216]

To my mind the matter of logic it is as simple as a plain single-digit numerical equation; any straight matter of logic - no matter how eloquently or contrarily inarticulately it is phrased is approachable and discernible as to its structure and identification of proof or absence of proof; the words constitute the working of the equation as so that, as with a teacher of mathematics and their students, if the student is in error that the teacher may see via their working how they arrived 'at' the error in the precise point and so the student and teacher may agree on the thing. Peripherals, as I have attempted to explain them here are comparable, to double or triple digit multiplication and division in the same form of equation, i.e. if straight simple basic logic is addition or subtraction in a numerical equation, then:

e.g.
Thomas turned the tap in his kitchen, but water did not come from the tap; there were two possible reasons why, _________________
is as follows:
1 + 1 = 2 [Thomas turned the tap in his kitchen] 2 - 1 = 1 [but water did not come from the tap] 1 x 10 ÷ 2 [there were two possible reasons why]

It is of note, of course, in the matter of numerical equation as with logic in thought that there is only one 'correct' answer; a finite quantity, albeit with multiple ways to reach that correct answer, but that by contrast there is an infinite quantity of 'wrong' answers. This boggles the mind moreso of a stupid yet learned person; for example, to return to the doctor analogy we could not compare the doctor to the mechanic as the mechanic understand and works daily on the whole system rather than specialized small compartments within that whole system and so the mechanic; certainly considered an inferior to a doctor by our society, possesses a far superior grasp of the correct methodology than does the contemporary doctor,

e.g.
[there were two possible reasons why]

That is: it is either this one specific cause or it is this other specific cause, as the observed fault in the mechanism could not have occurred in any other way; i.e. the fault in the mechanism if we were to recreate the fault by recreating the system in entirety could only have occurred in two possible ways, etc.


/end of text

[Anonymous No.22066228]

table of contents
>>22066192 1/6
>>22066195 2/6
>>22066196 3/6
>>22066204 4/6
>>22066207 5/6
>>22066216 6/6

[Anonymous No.22066341]

next subject on /rhet/ : the marvelous prose of dogs who have had their brains removed and placed into human forms,

"i could smell the meat,
i could hear the tin,
it was a wondrous life i had
in spite of everything,"

[Anonymous No.22066377]

>>22066216
Go on..

[Anonymous No.22066405]

>>22066192
Your writing style is pedantic and not elegant. Interspersing your words with little courtesy phrases and redundant details is an ugly practice and unnecessarily obfuscates the essential. What purpose do these trifles serve? They act as obstacles for understanding, preventing what could be a smooth and compelling immersion, and instead resulting in a clumsy and tedious process of sifting through the superfluous details of an overly indulgent pseud. My advice is to consolidate your words and use them carefully, instead of splurging all over the page in the name of eloquence.

[Anonymous No.22066408]

tl;dr was done to death before you were born
Now fuck off

[Anonymous No.22066411]

>>22066405
>Your writing style is pedantic and not elegant.
see: (entire topic)

>They act as obstacles for understanding, preventing what could be a smooth and compelling immersion
see: >>22066195
>As said,
>"It was enough for me to be aware that Emperors, Roman Proconsuls, Chinese Generals and Inventors of Things wrote all in 'this' way," in order to understand that the impetus lay with 'me' to understand 'them' if I wished to learn anything at all of what they had to say to Mankind; the wisdom and lessons, I ought add, that they took the trouble to convey for our benefit.

I don't know, my friend, either you're in concord with greatness or you're not.


>>22066377
>Go on..
you have questions? I'd prefer to have a discussion than just drone on like a performing actor.

[Anonymous No.22066416]

>>22066408
demonstrably false
Now come fight me for that lie and that insult

[Anonymous No.22066445]

>>22066405
actually fair point: there are two typos i missed until the third reading ha ... but they shouldn't break your immersion that much

[Anonymous No.22066479]

Ain't reading all that. You write like a fag. I'll give you one post to succinctly prove you ain't a fag

[Anonymous No.22066503]

>>22066479
>(coddled egoism, verbal abuse)
i'll prove how much of a faggot i am by beating you unconscious, taking your shoes and iphone for compensation and burning your house down, if you want to act like you're superior to me in any regard. In lieu of this, and in lieu of the added insult of your cowardice to say such a thing when it's impossible for me to immediately knock you out, I'll shoot you in the head with the report button instead.

[Anonymous No.22066515]

>>22066479
this might be useful for you too >>22061715 on the subject of triggered retards - connected to your coddled egoism,

consider this the part 2 from the previous rhet

[Anonymous No.22066520]

>>22066479
>you talk like a (therefore i will do this)
this might be useful for you too >>22061715 on the subject of triggered retards - connected to your coddled egoism,

consider this the part 2 from the previous rhet

[Anonymous No.22066568]

>>22066411
Many of the types of great people you mention did not write in 'this way.' Translators sometimes embellish works with niceties and decorous fluff (see Constance Garnett's translation of Crime and Punishment), and of the writers who actually wrote in 'this way,' their knowledge was not inextricably linked to their pedantic style. There is certainly a difference between revelatory elaboration and needless convolution. Are you trolling?

[Anonymous No.22066576]

>>22066192
>>22066195
>>22066196
>>22066204
>>22066207
>>22066216
Your writing is genuinely terrible and I am annoyed that I wasted my time reading it.

[Anonymous No.22066662]

>>22066576
That's fine, if you can't understand me and fail intellectually to understand the topic is of your egoistic refusal to understand and to cast insults at the speaker, then you couldn't understand anything written before 2010 either and I'm fully aware of this and am happy you sociopathic dimwits keep giving me proofs.

>>22066568
>There is certainly a difference between revelatory elaboration and needless convolution.
It depends on who you ask about it; I have seen and read ceaseless examples of people who didn't understand a text behaving in the way I describe. As structure and proof is absent from the education systems it's understandable as to why, nowadays, but even int he 1950's and early 1800's we saw the same stale critique emerge against various authors; all based upon either illiteracy or deception against the subject itself.

Are you denying this exist? Ha fucking stupid liar

>There is certainly a difference between revelatory elaboration and needless convolution.

And ... if you've just garbled your own brain into kneejerk oppositionalism against anyone writing on this subject, then you're agreeing with me that those people are 'not' writing in a pedantic way, you stupid little worm. But nice going to say so in a way that would make me smash your face in.

[Anonymous No.22066693]

This is a really high effort troll.

[Anonymous No.22066695]

>>22066662
>if you can't understand me and fail intellectually to understand the topic
That is truly an insecure cope. No one ever suggested they did nor understand you. I said your writing fucking sucks and is like reading mud. Find something else to do with your time since you have zero talent for writing.

[Anonymous No.22066703]

>>22066568
I think, actually, the difference here is between your unwillingness to admit or face the reality that the dumbing down of speech and literacy is actually real and something you should take seriously.

The conflation of
> niceties and decorous fluff
with contextual information to the subject, for example, is something I have seen said all the time of those authors I mention. In each case it is because the reader is simply stupid and cannot see the connection or, if an academic, it is because they are hostile to the subject itself.

I mean to say that, by saying this, you yourself could not tell the difference. I suggest you do as I advised here >>22066207
>It would be a helpful exercise to the reader to open the above mentioned authors and take a single chapter or letter written by say Martialis (who is especially helpful for this, providing over one thousand epigrams or varying style and subjects) or Julius Caesar and read through the thing looking for such structure in an otherwise "complicated wall of text" (i would provide some examples here but the linear processing format of this text does not allow for it),

I struggle to believe that you simply aren't aware of what's being discussed here, and it seems like wishful thinking on your part to minimize the problem.

[Anonymous No.22066712]

>>22066693
Might be a mentally ill dude who's taken meth to keep him awake studying, but has got side tracked

[Anonymous No.22066717]

>>22066695
>(verbal and psychological abuse, gas lighting)
lol I'm really pained by this, anon. I totally believe you as well.

I don't think you even understood my refutation, thinking about it... that: you enter a thread about the inability of people to understand complicated text and declaring the writer is at fault, not your literacy, and you declare that you can't understand the complicated text and that it's not your fault.

>>22066693
i'm glad at least someone on here can see the humor in all of these things hahahah

[Anonymous No.22066725]

>>22066712
don't accuse me of being a drug-addled schizo, you drug-addled schizo (read: christian).

Remember: insisting upon a prejudicial delusion against proofs given to you in a case which prove you wrong, and not being able to connect the dots to comprehend that case is what Schizophrenia is.

[Anonymous No.22066910]

>>22066725
oh hey it's the weird guy from like last week who writes like shit and calls anyone who doesn't like it a christian

[Anonymous No.22067132]

>>22066192
I sometimes wonder how others are able to write 10 or even 25 page essays on a single, narrow subject. This anon is the perfect specimen to examine:
>3,5 pages
>40 sentences total (assuming perfect punctuation)
>2462 words
>61,55 words per sentence!
>over 3 times as many words per sentence as an average popular science article
Conclusion: This anon writes long, extravagantly drawn out sentences with many repetitions, but worded differently; wandering away from the subject, but always arriving at the starting point.
Example no. 1, a single sentence:
>It is noticable, upon coming to this methodology (which is no moreso complicated than the scientific approach of Causes Of Things and Proving Those Causes), that few people today or historically necessarily make good cases for their claims in argument; proofs being absent or impartial, and so without proofs their case falls apart and can be considered at best an exercise in sophistic emotional appeal (i.e. pathos) on their part as opposed to a scientifically structured exercise in the proofs of things (i.e. logos), so that the best writers and speakers are those who have the fullest maximal scope in their thoughts and that the worst writers and speakers are those single-minded types who have trained themselves to only consider one aspect of an otherwise interconnected subject with many related peripherals which comprise the whole of the subject; consider: a doctor, post 1990's european practice, who specializes only in the hand being stymied in diagnosis because the medical condition of the perturbation of the hand has begun for the client in the upper shoulder or the nerves of the body as a whole, the doctor will provide a faulty diagnosis if this is the case as the doctor cannot and will not look at the shoulder and it may be weeks or months before the specialist doctors each refer the client along and meet with the client one by one, taking time to compare their notes (if at all) as they gradually work their way up the arm to locate the screwdriver which is embedded in the shoulder and thereby until locate the cause of the medical condition - a wholly profligate thing more akin to blindfolded divination than to the straight observation of the clear logic of the case and its elements.

All in all, anon has been very helpful in improving my academic writing style. Thank you!

[Anonymous No.22067140]

>>22066717
Your writing just simply sucks, man. Whatever helps you cope with being lower than mediocre.

[Anonymous No.22067208]

The writing style is a symptom of deeper issues. If the thought process is structured and disciplined the writing will be too.
People like OP need a lot of help but in his case he's too far gone. He thinks he's in a position to educate others and doesn't absorb anything said to him.

[Anonymous No.22067214]

Your style of writing is an attempt to make the reader come to a certain conclusion about you, the author, rather than the concepts in the prose itself. It reeks of insecurity and is distracting.

[Anonymous No.22067226]

>>22066910
what up g

>>22067132
You're very welcome, since you're partly displaying an understanding here:
>drawn out sentences with many repetitions, but worded differently; wandering away from the subject, but always arriving at the starting point.
I think you've got potential.

>>22067140
> Whatever helps you cope with being lower than mediocre.
For your own edification you might turn on the television and examine the verbal IQ of your senior politicians, news readers, celebrities and academics, as well as your youtubers and whomsoever else you live and die by these days.

If you refuse to learn what proof is because you hold absurd intellectual positions that defy reason then it's fine for you to ignore logic, but don't expect not to be walked over.

[Anonymous No.22067238]

>>22067214
>(hyper-personalized, off topic)
see: >>22058705
>as: to the mind of an egotist there is no such thing as an intellectual discussion of a subject but each discussion is, instead, a contest of competing ego and it is with this framework to their own mind and to their own perception of other persons that they enter into all communication.

>>22067208
>If the thought process is structured and disciplined the writing will be too.
cite examples of what you consider stuctured and disciplined, bearing in mind this caveat;

>>22067226
>For your own edification you might turn on the television and examine the verbal IQ of your senior politicians, news readers, celebrities and academics, as well as your youtubers and whomsoever else you live and die by these days.

[Anonymous No.22067260]

What's painful is that most cannot tell elegance and economy in letters away from pretentious garbage.
You included. There's no grace in your willingness to waste the time of others with your overwrought and impetuously shallow elucidations on writing, mistaking accuracy for pedantry or detail and purpose for intellectual onanism. You're just a narcissist.

[Anonymous No.22067285]

>>22067238
>cite examples of what you consider stuctured and disciplined, bearing in mind this caveat;
It looks like your meme, given x then y. You just don't know how to apply it and don't want to learn. Like you also make clear in your meme you want to reinforce dogma so you do things like undermine clear thought through obfuscation and distraction. The long blogs are attempts to reinforce the conclusions you want with some semblance of structure.
Even in this reply you're being dishonest, you know what I'm referencing with "structured thought" but pretend you don't so nothing is communicated. You will never absorb anything said to you.

[Anonymous No.22067286]

>>22067140
desu g, the moment I mentioned, in rhet 000001, that the religious and the political hold identical thougtht and behavioral patterns I was dog-piled by the christcuck retards with alltheir usual jewish conspiracy tropes.

desu g, you are all scum and would be thrown in prison if you ever uttered your beliefs in public, so i don't really care how i speak to you at all. You could not argue anything in public and it only matters because you are a voting bloc to be used against sensible policy.

[Anonymous No.22067291]

>It is the job of the reader or listener to make sense of the writer or speaker moreso than is the imperative of the writer or speaker to belittle the subject by butchering it for the sake of digestion

[Anonymous No.22067303]

>>22067260
Yes, I agree with this,
>What's painful is that most cannot tell elegance and economy in letters away from pretentious garbage.

If you are sad that I've commented on this then you should do better; it should be very easy. Now go ahead and write and when you are dog-piled on and called all these names by random mentally sick 4chan trolls then you'll understand why I don't care in the least for these sorts of abusive attacks,
>mistaking accuracy for pedantry or detail and purpose for intellectual onanism. You're just a narcissist.
nor take them in the least bit seriously.

You should extricate yourself from their influence as well, if you have a similar inclination on these matters; no matter how nicely you phrase it the moment you begin to speak the truth about a certain thing you'll be treated like shit by them - so why bother coddling them at all?

pathos and the mob.

[Anonymous No.22067308]

>>22067286
As predicted the internet lolcow makes up a psychotic conspiracy theory that explains away all criticism of his severe retardation.
If anyone takes your threads seriously that person will not be served by it. You're not helping anyone including yourself.

[Anonymous No.22067315]

>>22067238
You misunderstand. You can easily be an insecure author and a competent writer; you haven't managed both.

The prose isn't an honest glimpse into the inner machinations of your mind. It's an affect you wear in the obvious hope that people will take your ideas under more serious consideration if you deliver them in some anachronistic smart-guy voice. The reader can sence the insincerity and insecurity in your own ideas. If the author is noncommittal, why should the reader commit to the task of understanding? It's bad writing.

[Anonymous No.22067316]

>>22067303
>they're scared of the truth
None of your blogs have any point except how 3smart5us you are.

[Anonymous No.22067325]

>>22067285
>You will never absorb anything said to you.
I'm consciously not going to, no, because nobody here has demonstrated a case or refutation for anything; whilst the local culture is very bad on these subjects, whilst in my personal life people have only resonated with my methods and been extremely approving - i have worked in mental health etc etc, as i've said before on other rhet threads. At no point have any of (you) given me the impression that or intellectual development hasn't halted at the age of 10 when you declare a well-spoken child to be a fag. And there is nothing more from you after that.

>meme
no idea what you're talking about

>you want to reinforce dogma
proof required

> undermine clear thought through obfuscation and distraction
proof required

>The long blogs are attempts to reinforce the conclusions you want with some semblance of structure.
yes, I have reached the conclusion and am relaying it; if you have a problem with the case given for the conclusion you may explain where the case is in error - as with anything else.

I won't pretend I am not fully decided but I am intellectually honest to, e.g. post it here for the maximal possible negative feedback, to see whether or not anybody can refute any of the arguments.


This is perfectly fair, is it not?

[Anonymous No.22067346]

>>22067303
The sun makes itself known with or without you, but it wants you.
They cannot hide its light.

[Anonymous No.22067356]

>>22067291
SIRS, DO NOT DIGEST THE BOOK!

[Anonymous No.22067359]

>>22067308
> You're not helping anyone including yourself.
I disagree, I'm an advocate against anonymity on the internet and receiving psychologically abusive messages whilst I patiently implore the sender to "stick to the topic" has given me quite a large body of evidence in my favor.

btw, stick to the topic.

I can't be bothered to talk to you to today gas-lighting schizo-poster, I recognize your wording.


>>22067315
Oh I did misunderstand, you're not replying to the topic, you're replying ad hominem - sorry, my fault, I should have just reported you in the first place for off-topic.


>>22067316
I'm glad you want to suck my cock, anon, but that's not really the point. Who would be bragging 'anonymously' about "how smart they are" in the first place? How in Juno Cunt would anybody waste their time doing that? I'm trying to demonstrate a few things here and to kick along the public discourse to a more tolerable level. It's a public service.

[Anonymous No.22067367]

>>22067346
i.e. you can't/won't, yet you will complain for those who make the effort.

ah circle of life

[Anonymous No.22067373]

>>22067325
>I'm consciously not going to
While in the next breath pretending you're not undermining communication and thought. How is this coherent?
If you have any kind of sincere bone in your body stop spamming public internet forums with your advertising of how braindead you are. If you want similar retards to jerk you off make a blog or something.
>nobody here has demonstrated a case or refutation for anything
There's no way to demonstrate a case for anything when you don't allow yourself to consider alternative premises. You refuse to even try to think and then rant about how great you are at thinking.
I feel extremely sorry for anyone that has to "work" with you and fix your mistakes since you will definitely not be aware of any of them.
>no idea what you're talking about
Even when I build on the meme image you originally posted in the OP you work hard to avoid connecting the obvious dots.
>yes, I have reached the conclusion
What conclusion? Be specific, don't obfuscate and divert. I'm talking about how you make up fantasies about every poster to dismiss anything said and then attempt to bolster these fantasies with incoherent and dishonest blogs.
>This is perfectly fair, is it not?
It's not a fair description of what you do. You don't consider anything said, you don't demonstrate the ability to think like you claim to. You don't seem to grasp the concept of exploring the conclusions of premises no matter how many times you say you do. Starting with a conclusion and working to bolster it is confirmation bias in a nutshell, the very problem these methods you appeal to but don't understand were developed to try to counter.

[Anonymous No.22067381]

>>22067359
>stick to the topic.
What is the topic? I've read your blogs and if you're sticking to the topic then the topic is you and how far above any criticism you are. Why are you giving me lists of excuses for why you're allowed to dismiss any criticism? Is that the topic?
>gas-lighting schizo-poster
Is this an example of "sticking to the topic"?

[Anonymous No.22067391]

>>22067367
You're part of a transmigrative process. You make the effort, you're part of it, but you're missing the point if you're taking dead men as example or justifying your fears by following on their footsteps, a dotted line to the grave.
It doesn't need you. No one does, get over yourself.
But it wants you. Be part of your times. It's your choice, anyways. Stay hurt forever if that's what you want.

[Anonymous No.22067422]

>>22067373
>While in the next breath pretending you're not undermining communication and thought. How is this coherent?
>You don't consider anything said, you don't demonstrate the ability to think like you claim to.
ha yes I seem like a hypocrite to you, I suppose, because you don't understand how to look for proofs in what people say before deciding whether or not what they say is valid.

your previous message, for instance, was founded upon two baseless assertions with no proof, so I 'm quite consciously not going to take your claims seriously until you offer proofs.

as you say,
>>you want to reinforce dogma
>> undermine clear thought through obfuscation and distraction
but these are proofless/baseless assertions, negative associations from an anti-intellectual disposition of resentment of "the smart fag" or whatever. A teenage child with no great reading as you have would say the same thing as you from having seen others say it on the television, for instance. It is unconsciousness.

>There's no way to demonstrate a case for anything when you don't allow yourself to consider alternative premises
I agree with this, but no alternative premise is forthcoming so... should I just take anybodys unlearned opinions as if they were equal to Cassius Dio?

>meme
I still have no idea what you're talking about, it's jargonism.

>What conclusion? Be specific, don't obfuscate and divert.
er.. the conclusion of this text?

> I'm talking about how you make up fantasies about every poster
oh

Well, no. I know all of them are coming from a certain ideological and anti-intellectual position because that is the culture of their society. If they rose above that they would be "sticking to the topic" and not calling me names and telling me I'm a leftist when they read some trigger word or get discomfuckingbobulated by not being able to read a wall of text.

I know I can't prove this to you, of course, but one day I would like to hook-up some volunteers to lie detectors, pose certain questions to them, and solidly prove these matters for the record. I mean, I would love to be able to prove for sure that a person who cannot defend themselves intellectually is consciously lying in their claims of belief in this or this. I think I could. But it'd be a long business to do so.

[Anonymous No.22067448]

>>22067381
lol an example of sticking to the topic would be to highlight something I said in the topic, related t the topic and explore that particular thing; offering alternate perspectives.

A mentally ill fag telling me I'm a fag who is mentally ill is not an example of doing this, but of an ad hominem detraction. I shouldn't have such fun telling them off, are you suggesting?

psh, deal with it.

>>22067391
No I asked you twor three posts ago to not bitch to me and to write this subjectfor yourself, to so the world what true genius on this topic would look like.

Then you followed up with poems and platitudes.

you see what I mean, >>22067373
>> I'm talking about how you make up fantasies about every poster
this is what I'm dealing with. The poster is a nihilist and solipsist who has not realized that the world around them is a material thing which is to be treated seriously. The poster may not be a christcuck per se, but we may extrapolate a great deal from these small snippets of the fragmented speech they profess.

>>22067391
nothing personal mate

> if you're taking dead men
not at all, my ancestors flow in my veins and move in my brain like golden ichor. they live.

>fear
is not a thing i possess. Give me ten men and I will take any city.


see i can do pathos poems also.

[Anonymous No.22067471]

>>22067422
>these are proofless/baseless assertions
Nothing I said rests on these assertions, the observations you "consciously choose to ignore" are attempts to explain to you the thought process leading to the conclusions.
>no alternative premise is forthcoming
Every post you make is you dismissing alternative premises without exploring them. One example of an alternative premise you refuse to consider is the idea that you don't understand the concept of proof. You won't explore the idea that you're wrong so you will never advance your understanding of the concept. You appeal to conditioned ideas of things like proof instead of structured logic you can justify.
>I still have no idea what you're talking about, it's jargonism.
This is some incredibly pretentious theatre. Remove the word "meme" and read the post.
>I know
You don't. You claim to know but don't know shit. Your attempts to explain how you know are pathetic, nothing like the "proof" you demand when anyone presents any alternative.
>I would love to be able to prove for sure that a person who cannot defend themselves intellectually is consciously lying in their claims of belief in this or this
Usually like in your case it's not conscious but it's easy to objectively demonstrate you don't act based on professed beliefs when you can't stick to any principles you claim to act based on.

[Anonymous No.22067479]

>>22067448
>lol an example of sticking to the topic would be to highlight something I said in the topic, related t the topic and explore that particular thing; offering alternate perspectives.
What topic? Why not clarify and keep things focused? The topic of the posts I'm replying to is how you're above criticism because reasons. What do you think the topic is?

[Anonymous No.22067487]

>>22067448
>No I asked you twor three posts ago to not bitch to me
I gave you an observation on personality traits I genuinely don't think you're aware of. You cried about being a victim. The rest was just to piss you off.

[Anonymous No.22067496]

>>22067448
>this is what I'm dealing with
I would read a hundred posts by that guy over one of yours. You don't know shit about the guy and made up some elaborate fantasy to divert from any semblance of a topic or structured thought to protect your fragile pathetic ego.

[Anonymous No.22067518]

>>22066216

you could not have picked a more terrible example going with specialized practice of medicine, although I did enjoy your content, your choice of example was of no help to your sermon, being that you are through and through such a fan of practical necessity by which x follows y demonstrably

[Anonymous No.22067524]

discount wittgenstein with none of the self awareness lol

[Anonymous No.22067539]

>>22067471
>the observations you "consciously choose to ignore" are attempts to explain to you the thought process leading to the conclusions.
Ah well then we agree on what we're both doing.

This was your proposition: >>22067285

You claimed this,
>you also make clear in your meme you want to reinforce dogma so you do things like undermine clear thought through obfuscation and distraction.
I asked for proof twice (actually three times) and you've not provided it. So because of this, having given you opportunities to explain your position, I am forced to conclude that you have no proof and that your entire case is (much as i suspected in the first place; we're both 9 and you're calling me a fag for knowing how to read).

Anon, if you refuse to make a case this does not mean that a case will not be made for you, using what you have said and have not aid to construct your position in lieu of your position being made by you.

>Every post you make is you dismissing alternative premises without exploring them.
repetition and accusation; accusing me of what you have done.

I, again, have asked y for proof three times and it was not forthcoming; you follow up with an accusation or projection, rather, of your actions upon me, and so this is deception.

I have already explained to you that I am consciously not going to take serious any statement that has no proofs, whilst every word you write that is not immediately providing those proofs is a loss of credibility for your position; you are delaying and evading the matter at hand.

>You won't explore the idea that you're wrong
Offer proofs for what you say and I will.

>You claim to know but don't know shit. Your attempts to explain how you know are pathetic, nothing like the "proof" you demand when anyone presents any alternative.
Yes those awful fucking proofs; those things that you would be able to readily state without any hesitation if you actually had any basis for your prejudicial view toward the subject (and about me, in ad hominem).

> pathetic,
I am not moved by the pathos of erroneous prejudices or emotionalism or social popularity points on this matter, my friend. I could care less for such things.

>Usually like in your case it's not conscious
I am glad you're a fan of my work, I have observed this often, see: >>22058695

and when I am asking for proofs, consider that to not provide those proofs is Anti-Discourse; your response thus far without proof is character attack, for example, unsubstantiated and based at best on a sense of my unpopularity because a handful of cardboard cut outs are calling me names.

> but it's easy to objectively demonstrate you don't act based on professed beliefs when you can't stick to any principles you claim to act based on.
Again, proof needed.

>What do you think the topic is?
oh anon, oh anon

the topic: >>22066192
>thoughts on structure and so-called "purple prose"


come along now

[Anonymous No.22067573]

>>22067524
ha I love that


>>22067518
Well the analogy was to demonstrate that an ordinary person is capable of grasping a thing in totality, at almost first glance, whereas a learned person struggles with totality and seeks obstacles, or is trained to hold back arbitrarily from putting his mind to work in a logical problem-solving way when any normal Man is inherently capable of this.

>, although I did enjoy your content
go forth and burn carthage, citizen-soldier


>>22067496
>I would read a hundred posts by that guy over one of yours.
that's because you can't read in the first place bazinga

wow, sorry to upset you about your boyfriend there hahaha holy shit

<(full of lies and bad hom as usual)
yeah yeah, go bark at traffic


>>22067487
You do look especially lovely in that dress, anon, I just want you to know that. You really should take up a pen and write this entire subject for me though, I believe you that yo could do a better job than I have managed here this afternoon. I want this topic to enter the minds and culture of all People, and I do not want to have to do it all myself really. I welcome a superior mind and I await your manuscript. May the Gods bless you with felicitas and genius and may you shine such light upon your People.

[Anonymous No.22067576]

>>22067539
>I asked for proof twice
You didn't even acknowledge the existence of a meme even after being told this is a reference to the image in the OP.
This makes it seem like you don't understand anything about the claim I made, this undermines communication. After your long posts nothing is clarified, everything said is made less clear. Everything is in the air and I have no idea what I'm supposed to "prove" or what standard of evidence is needed or why since you apparently don't need any evidence for any claim. You know all of us intimately and can safely dismiss everything said based on things not actually said.
Like my original post said you will not absorb anything said to you, every post will reliably be some excuse for why you don't even need to consider any alternative perspectives to what you decided is objectively holy truth based on personal revelation.
>there's a gas station around the corner
>prove it! I know it's a church!
ok

[Anonymous No.22067603]

>>22067576
>(no proof was given after being asked 3 or 4 times)
I'm sorry anon I must remain constant and ignore you now, and I would encourage you to not use this an opporutnity to declare victory but to question, to your own premise about me, why you could not provide proof as to the baseless of your opinions about me and where those opinions came from.

cough cough, peer influence of the braying mob.

[Anonymous No.22067640]

>>22067539
>thoughts on structure and so-called "purple prose"
If that's the topic you want to stick to why don't you? Most of what I've said is structured and about structure with the occasional insult sprinkled in. Instead of focusing on the parts you say you want the thread to be about you prefer to jump on anything you consider a threat to your ego, even when it's just the base standard for anon insults.
>>22067603
This is not how communication works. You can't prove anything you've said to my standards. You're not appealing to common premises like when people communicate.
You won't ever even make clear what your arbitrary standards based on premises you think are too fundamental to question actually are. If they're too clear you can't dishonestly apply them.

I don't understand why the standard of proof is different for you than for me. Why can you maintain random claims you know you can't prove but any alternative has to be proven definitively before even being discussed?
Can you prove anything for me right now? Just to show me how you think proof works. Anything at all.

[Anonymous No.22067708]

>You won't explore the idea that you're wrong
>Offer proofs for what you say and I will.

>prove to me that I'm wrong before I even explore the possibility
This is not possible no matter what standard of evidence we use.
>he will not absorb anything said
This is an example of a claim I made in the thread that's now demonstrated. It's "proven" even if the standard demanded is high.

[Anonymous No.22067938]

>>22066195
didn't prevent Voltaire or Rousseau from going overboard.

[Anonymous No.22068187]

>>22067938
I haven't read Rousseau in years, good suggestion.

Actually Voltaires "absurdism" formed part of the premise in my approach to /rhet/ where: wrong-headed opinions or beliefs of people, which they cannot defend or explain, will result in hostility on their part and attrocity in their actions. i.e. if Men are sensible then (many of the awful actions we have witnessed in the last century) would not have occurred, whilst we can observe the refusal of discussion on their part at the time by people who always did predict what would happen; the guilty party insists that consequences cannot be known, that their absurdism is equal to anybody elses opinion, and they carry out awful actions only to feign ignorance afterwards; whilst the absurdism creates in their brain a defiant opposition (in clinical terms Oppositional Defiant Disorder) to proof-based inquiry.

Note that we have still not prosecuted that perps of the Iraq and Afghanistan War (which is the Alcibiades affair for the West, losing all of their influence, freedom, power and wealth) which was based on such mentalities as this; which demonstrates itself that there is no difference between feigned ignorance and criminality in the outcome of actions, both of which rest on a refusal to examine a thing in the first place.


I mentioned also, may times, of the identical thought-process and interpersonal behavior of anybody with nonsense beliefs, comparing religion to leftism and rightism, etc. any gaggle of idiots who cannot explain 'why' some core proposition they hold they actually 'do' hold will necessarily oppose all forms logic at every opportunity, as: if they come to logic they cannot maintain their delusion and they realize this. I believe it is not true dissonance or mental illness per se but small-minded socially-orientated egoism, in the Huxleyan "coddled egoism" and Reichean "ego armor" where they merely care for how much praise they receive from the mob around them, see: >>22058695 and >>22061715
>>as: to the mind of an egotist there is no such thing as an intellectual discussion of a subject but each discussion is, instead, a contest of competing ego and it is with this framework to their own mind and to their own perception of other persons that they enter into all communication.


>>22067640
>>22067708
As I have told you: >>22067603 I am not going to waste my time saying the same thing a 5th time or trying to reason with you on the matter anymore, the 3rd instance of refusing to answer was the end of the matter as to demonstrate your conscious deception to refuse to simply state the proofs for those two assertions.

You are free to answer the original matter, of course, at any time and we can try again because I can't stay angry at you, boo.

[Anonymous No.22068351]

This guy can't communicate wtf lol

[Anonymous No.22068739]

>>22068351
Have you considered that your opinions and culture are both completely in the wrong, and that this just what anybody would say to you if you danced around shouting "nigger" and "jew" in public?

As said, /pol/tard, you are scum who would be more valuable to your society as a plate of biscuits, and your parents should be whipped in public for raising you to be so disrespectful.

[Anonymous No.22068747]

>>22068739
Holy ESL topkek

[Anonymous No.22069276]

stopped reading this retard's posts at >>22066195
you're not in 'concord with greatness' by virtue of ballooning every last phrase to the maximal extent your vocabulary allows, and your inability to distinguish between "complex writing" and "atrociously turgid English prose" is your own problem
for the sake of the people you interact with on a daily basis I hope this is a troll

[Anonymous No.22069858]

>>22069276
>stopped reading this retard's posts at
I see. So you were triggered by the phrase "coddled egoism," realized it was accurate, then launched into verbal abuse against the speaker.

> your inability to distinguish between "complex writing" and "atrociously turgid English prose" is your own problem
2nd reply like this, are you just unaware that this is the common stance that "complex writing" is often cast as "atrociously turgid English prose," citing the phrase "purple prose" to demonstrate this issue?

Again, when you read what I wrote and in your brain it reads as,
> ballooning every last phrase to the maximal extent your vocabulary allows
and not as "precision"

then you are displaying the exact same fault in reading/speaking as described in OP

[Anonymous No.22069866]

>>22069276
>stopped reading this retard's posts at
I see. So you were triggered by the phrase "coddled egoism," realized it was accurate, then launched into verbal abuse against the speaker.

> your inability to distinguish between "complex writing" and "atrociously turgid English prose" is your own problem
2nd reply like this, are you just unaware that this is the common stance that "complex writing" is often cast as "atrociously turgid English prose," citing the phrase "purple prose" to demonstrate this issue?

Again, when you read what I wrote and in your brain it reads as,
> ballooning every last phrase to the maximal extent your vocabulary allows
and not as "precision"

then you are displaying the exact same fault in reading/speaking as described in OP ... it is illiteracy on your part to not understand the language to a sufficient level and to attack a speaker over it, as if your illiteracy was a form of valid critique. This is literally the topic and it's hilarious that you don't understand how stupid you are to actually respond with an angry claim that the wording is somehow "bad".

[Anonymous No.22069884]

CONCLUSIONS FROM TESTS THUS FAR
>>22066192
a/o 24 hours published on 4chan.org /lit/

So far in this thread we have discovered nothing new from the responses, two on-topic responding parties have fell into the (hilarious) trap of dismissing the subject whilst demonstrating themselves to be guilty of the errors described in the subject; both were verbally aggressive demonstrating hostility in dissonance and coddled egoism, confirming the theory as to their behavior put forth in the subject, see: >>22069276 >>22066568 and partially >>22066695

Remarkably this has been the most successful /rhet/ post in terms of people replying "on-topic" and not merely with "off-topic" verbal abuse, even if those 2.5 responses (see above) contained verbal abuse they were technically still "on-topic."

Some minor positive feedback interspersed through the replies, at approx. 4 of the 16 (total count thus far).

Does the author consider this a success?

"It was valuable in a technical sense, due to the theory being confirmed by three independent actors,"
11:24am 24th May 2023

[Anonymous No.22069888]

>>22069884

[Anonymous No.22069892]

>>22069888