Is the stupidity of the professoriat beyond repair?

I am often critical of the realm of professors, given the evidence of academic confusion over Darwinism, but beyond that I am simply baffled at what appears to be an ingrained and closed mindset.
Among others of Kant scholars. My thinking on what I call Kant’s Challenge in World History and the Eonic Effect, and then in a separate book as above, remains de facto censored (canceled) by academic circles. These books point to a clear answer, I would say more, ‘solution’ to the challenge he raised in his classic essay on history.
In the twenty-one years since this book was self-published via POD, not a single historian or Kant scholar has commented on this clearly outlined solution. Zero. That’s remarkable. It says something about Kant scholarship and historians in general, but finally on academic structures. It shows the way peer-reviewed publication as an academic monopoly backfires and keeps thinking enclosed in rigidly closed mindset. Apparently that’s even true of Kant scholars in Germany who seem to consider independent scholars as vermin apparently and wouldn’t descend to mention my work in any way, let alone comment. The result here is that professors closed in their system can’t think anymore, and that results in slow but steady distortion of general opinion. Here the grave dignity of the professors is mere Tom Sawyer to the yankee Huck Finn, making faces, and about to tend to his dead possum.
And it leaves the field in some ways to outsiders. Strangely, in many cases, professionals can’t compete with amateurs and can’t above all acknowledge that.

Let me say at once that I am not as such a Kantian, and have never taken a college course in Kant: I am self-taught in Kant’s thinking and find his Critique of Pure Reason needs a slow reading course in a university. The sections on the transcendental deduction are difficult, although a simple glimpse is possible: it is a distant relative of Advaita thinking. With that Kant is all the more remarkable. Let me note that a figure like Schopenhauer tries to simplify. But this is not our topic. None of this difficulty is needed for our discussion. But I have a rough outline understanding of his work find his work on the antinomies essential. And in any case not much Kant is required to read, and explicate his essay on history. The solution to what he is saying is to see he is asking a question. Unfortunately, Kant subtly blunders by suggesting his own answer, apparently, in the concept of ‘asocial sociability’. But the question Kant is asking requires a far broader range of thinking. And the eonic effect begins to answer that. It should be said that without a larger data set including the Neolithic, no solution can be considered final. But the eonic effect is a good start, and you will find slowly but surely that there is probably no other solution, granting that in such a vast subject that it is hard to even reference the whole data set, let alone explain it. But the solution to Kant’s question is actually rather simple, because it seems to succeed by default.
Here, by all means, disagree. But in this environment, since you can’t even mention certain people you can’t reference their work, and probably won’t ever hear about it, and cannot deign to comment in any way. A fatal trap in this case.
But there are reasons for all this, as I can only guess. The reign of professorial authority via peer review etc is not able to contradict reigning paradigms. For starters, no professor as far as I can see (as a Kant scholar) can disagree with Kant’s own view, which is almost incidental in any case, and wrong. He in fact is asking a question. Kant is pre-Darwin, and any comment is likely to challenge Darwin, not least for its teleological query. Kant of course had his own problems: he is harsh on Machiavelli and dislikes lying in politicians and ended in a debate over that, with Benjamin Constant. That’s a tough one and requires careful assessment of his classic ethics, but in the age of Trump, one has to wonder at Kant’s insistence or prescience here. But none of this pertains to his question which requires no Kant at all (although I have wondered in the eonic model if some macro  mechanized evolutionary process doesn’t do something resembling the categorical imperative at the level of evolutionary directionality????) But one can cite this to acknowledge that challenging Kant is entirely possible, but mostly forgotten in the tide of Marx, Hegel, Darwin, Nietsche, Heidegger, etc…
Leave that aside and we see that the eonic effect shows a directional system, an evolutionary creativity, a clear outline of the transitional driver of civilizations in sequence and parallel, etc…
As an empirical demonstration, the result is on solid footing even if incomplete. An incomplete table puzzle often shows its overall pattern even if partially completed. The solution is too simple and too obvious to reject completely.

At this point, one needs to give up on professors if only to laugh instead of hate, and only contempt for academic structures remains. This is unkind but such people would kill critics if they could. This kind of confusion in the end is dangerous to society.

I think that as the Darwin paradigm starts to collapse the world will have to ask, how could so many experts be so idiotic? The social construct could collapse. Perhaps then the issue of Kant’s challenge might come to the surface. But it need not wait and takes a half hour of your time. In the classic saith-he of Patton, nuts! Oh well, try again, another email to the journal Kant-Studien.

Email exchange on Marxism, marxmail…for archive here…

Fwd: Marx beyond theories of history…neo-communism, and the context of evolutionary civilization
From: Nemonemini
Cc: cc to a small group of listmembers
Date: Sun, Sep 26, 2021 8:40 am
I have just completed a short interaction with a list member: j.alan.x responding to a series of questions that I was at first willing to answer
but which suddenly in retrospect seem like a crypto-stalinist vetting by the group or the ‘moderator’ (is this fair?): this is the confusion you create when
you are not on the level with someone who is being ‘moderated’ (censored, or pressured to conform), I would like to know again what’s going
on here in a devious situation of a group that is apparently in a state of post-Proyect confusion.
If I get no answer I will have to assume this was indeed an effort to vet an outsider wishing to contribute to the group but who is likely to not conform
to some intangible standard yet to a high probability a marxist ‘opinion meat grinder’ censor/cancel culture…

Perhaps forget the above and consider the larger question of how anyone could hope to proceed along marxist (or in general any other) lines to a revolutionary
social transformation: if someone dissents on historical materialism and other seemingly now doctrinal issues?

This group has been unfair to me and vice versa, but there is no way to communicate across the confusion created by this ‘cancel’ culture.
Continue reading “Email exchange on Marxism, marxmail…for archive here…”

latest_9_26_21 : Beyond coal Freedom Cries in Contradiction Continue reading “latest_9_26_21”

Postcapitalist futures: online texts

Postcapitalist Futures: The Last Revolution: postcapitalist_ futures_NWBK_ver2a_LFT_2021
Post Capitalist Futures: Notes Toward a Critique of Marxist ‘Stages of Production’ Theory

Decoding World History_ED1

Toward a New Communist Manifesto_jlandon_kindle_10_11_16_PDF_ver2

WHEE_abrdg_kindle_johnlandon_PDF2A (1) (1)


Capitalism, Communism and the Evolution of Civilization(1)


The Anthropocene and The Coming of Postcapitalism ver 12
The Crisis of Modernity_ver6
Out of Revolution_text_kindle_johnlandon_wbf_pdf
WHEE_5thed_pdf (1)(1)Kants_challenge_resolved_nature’s secret_plan7xa_web
R48G_The Coming_Of_Postacapitalism_pdf

The Last Revolution

postcapitalist_ futures_NWBK_ver4a_LFT_2021

From the Conclusion

The prophetic period of the 1848 period foresaw the problematic of capitalism but the phenomenon outstripped their revolutionary intent/ Perhaps the escalation of extreme climate will prove the tipping point to action however belated. The current US system is doomed, and the echo chamber of fascist ghosts. The American Revolution was one of the very few that came to a successful term. A republic if you can keep it, as the Founding Fathers noted. We may thus allow ourselves the thought that a new revolution is founded in a hidden lemma of our Constitution, to the consternation of dismal reactionaries and capitalist hyenas. And with a new knowledge bequeathed from the era of the 1848 period, that democracy without a socialism is not democracy and that a new revolution must be the last chance for the Last Revolution, the men in three-cornered hats, now socialists in a new democratic socialist republic, to once again be a model to the world.