Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Labour's Islam Blasphemy Council Must Be Stopped. Trump Sends Shockwaves Across America u0026 The World" video.

I'm somewhat a head in my comments to your shows, compared to actually watching them. That will be rectified in a few days. However, i want to make a general point about the so called legal control of free speech. That is a point about the real major purpose, or implicit direction of this. I do not think the purpose is immediately totalitarian in the traditional historical sense we are familiar with. Or its there just to silance opposition, or for street use in shaming and gaslighting for the use of those it deemed to protect as a triangulation law to use in exchanges. i think it ahs to be viewed in terms of the German Romantic project to first to embrace and preserve common language and traditions of folk tails stories and so on (von Helmholt(?) The Brothers Grime ). After Hegel's rationalist intervention into this re-discovery of traditions projects it became the object of the State to sublate traditions for the sake of, on the grounds of efficiently and equality under instituional public reason. The project was primarily educational or re-educational in the 19th century, but became increasingly legalised in the 20th centaury. It involvers viewing language use in terms of efficiency of its receptions and communicative discourse. This is a linguistic version of Hegel's master slave and the other. What is important is not intention and traditional menacing and understanding but rather the effect on the listener. This informed the linguistics program in the soviet Union till Stalin said it was mad. They are projects of disenchantment and sublation to institutions of human nature or human second nature. Even early analytical philosophy entertained such views of reconstruction, with the idea of constructing a perfect language free of ambiguity etc. and pragmatism also when applied to the field of linguistics after world war two, approached it in terms of efficiency. Applied this to sales and political discourse in the beginning. so with the rise of multiculturalism and so on this project was re tooled to create a project to promote language use that was accessible to all and easier for non native English speakers eg English as a second language. not only must immigrants learn a basic English as a second language but also native English speakers must learn this English as a second language to replace their first learnt English language.. Thus the learning of "English as a Foreign Language" a language very scrubbed clean of nuance and colloquialisms slang and so on, is not just for the arrived but for the already here who speak English from being raised by parents and so on.. I have written extensively on this in the last few years hear and else where. They want us to talk clearly and distinctly in terms primarily of sales contracts and human rights and law and utility and little else..
1
So there is a kind of irony or self defeating effect of debating this issue in terms of political and legal concepts and there implicit transformative metaphysics and ontology. for such debating will require us to engage and learn the very discursive limits and language use they are seeking to impose on us. Their "purpose is in the process" and so opening up this debate for those on the eft, whoa re in the loop, has an aim not to get us to agree or disagree with definitions, rather the debate we are drawn into is a form of our re--education its self. They are playing a longer and different game than it appears on the surface. if you are unsure what the purpose of the debate is then its probably you. We have to engage in the debate but keep in mind what they are actually doing. though most on the left have no idea of this higher intellectual project and its aim.
1
I want to try and show, what i am showing here. It will be repetitious of much i have written in the past, but a sketch of the big picture might help even though a drawing or draft architecture is probably impossible. As the field is beyond and before representations or its re-presentation though representations. it is common enough for subject/patent people to draw on a mixture of an ordinary common traditional language(s) with its vocabulary, and the various political economic vocabularies eg free market individual economic vocabulary and social justice political economic vocabulary, along with different conceptions of law that both make these vocabularies possible. Surprisingly both these vocabularies and variations and mixtures thereof of representations of man, impose on man an ontological vice ontology. The relations between ordinary people are then maintained externally and mediately by the representational architecture. the binary logic over character (represented/representing) then bestows representationally on itself the space of virtue. if we have free market ordinary people relations are represented as originally related by self interest schematised by the legal architecture and quasi causal forces of contract. The good here tend to be the growth and efficiency of the total utility of the field eg say GDP. Social justice sees relations as more conflictual, but the schema for them against an ontology of vice in conflict is legal economic justice. Thus justice takes the place of virtue here eg equality. it is odd that the representations as agents over patents were thought of as virtuous by station in accord with the cosmological picture. no one believes that any more so why believe that ordinary people are ontologically vice laden? it is remarkable how the whole representational picture(s) is still medieval in this virtue and vice ontological split. Now more concretely we can see how ordinary language is a mixture of vocabularies (eg Paul Grice), but this generates ironic comedy eg I must pay my mum and dad back for the debt of their care in my formative years. Or i must take my parents to social justice court for not teaching me to give all my money to just causes. Monty Python's original title was "JC lust for glory". The aims and effects of the various process rationalist representational vocabularies is to try and have representational vocabulary ubiquitous and so the irony disappears. Indeed ironically when we are drawn into the battle between free market and social justice, we are not unaffected by this engagement. such engagement will "train" us in diluting or eliminating all other vocabularies, and make people into one or the other represented ontologies. The fierce political economic debates then are also a training into the expanded use of the vocabularies of Citizenship" the debate is our re-education. That it is an argument a them and us, is not then an escape from their vocabularies, but is a mask of a representational conflict, that disguises the fact that both are process of eliminating our ordinary talk that mixes vice and virtue. they are process that seek to transubstantiate our mixture of private and public discourse into wholly a public discourse. When we argue about free speech we are ironically being trained into a wholly pubic discourse. For the representors we have not yet grasped the cosmology or ontology of representors. We only have a recourse to their use of their public station for some private aim. eg when they malfease we merely place this a as private vice, which can look like free market ontology in action, or left take over of the institutions for social justice. We have no vocabulary for properly expressing malfeasnace except to re-present them as if only private subject or patents. This needs work to expand their vocabulary to properly place them when they error and malfease. It is only by virtue of there station their pubic role that they can error at this scale, this kind of error or malfeasance is not possible for non stationed agents. I cannot error or malfease as civil servant as i do not have that possibility, but then when a civil servant is malfeasant they do not become like me in their fall. they do not fall out of their office when malfeasant. Their private use there is not our private position. it is incorrect to describe them in just terms of charterer and vice and virtue in there. its a grammatical error or category error or ontological error. More serious though is when the representors mix up the virtue a vice sub representational vocabulary with the representational vocabulary with resect to us. This was partially elucidated by I. Berlin "Two concepts of liberty".
1
Its too early and I've just accidently deleted the next comment. Here's another go: We need to 1. Find a way to talk about those who error in station and office, that is not simply as if they fall out of office in malfeasance and are transformed into natural people as represented as vice. When we Critique people in pubilic office we allow them to become like how they represent us eg private vice. But we outside of office cannot malfeaset in the way those in office can so they are not like us when malfeasant. So in speaking out a criticism of those in power we at once represent them incorrectly as if they are suddenly natural subjects eg as if mearly ordinary criminality. Thus their erroring and malfeasance ironically becomes "ours" not theirs. 2. We need to a) introduce the use of vice terms for non male non white subjects. But at the same time for non female non ethnic people learn to use again ascriptions of virtue and avoid being drawn into describing each other in wholly representational pubic vocabularies of vice and injustice. This is not the same as "snow flake" vulnerability vocabulary. Don't people who paly football describe a player in their own team in virtue terms if they score a great goal. The generation before me had no problem in even clapping a great goal by an opposing player. eg George Best playing for Maun U. in the 1960's i was told. and it was in a movie too. My point is not to talk about political rivals in this way at once, rather it is to re-enchant our use of virtue against modernist vocabularies ubiquitous programs. 9.55 am Sunday 09 02 2025 jsut made it in time.
1