View source for Research:MDem/5.1r/1112 not-cell

<pre>------
(response)  [cr. 2025-01-31T07:32:11Z]

I think I actually have a basic disproof of the cell model
it won't be perfect but here goes:

a mitochondrion was once a free-floating organism

a Eukaryotic cell captured a mitochondrion which became stripped of some of the features that made it independent
(this actually happened in separate events for different branches of life, so there are like, more than three kinds of plastids across really obscure protistan Eukaryotes)

a free-floating business becoming captured into a party-nation superficially looks like a plastid-suitable species getting captured

but there's just one problem
businesses are made of people. businesses are groups of people.
so if a group of people gets captured into a larger organism and gutted of the things that make it an independent lifeform
that's actually exploitation

people like to believe that they are the organism, not the brainless mitochondrion that does nothing but produce energy and is not allowed to think
a Eukaryotic tissue mass makes decisions in many ways, none of which look precisely like Subjectivity, but some of which can include signals which come from nerves, or external glands
the mitochondrion has a say in none of that, it is just a tool for one purpose
as far as the mitochondrion is concerned, only the human brain or crow brain etc gets to think, and it does not.
the human body might bring in a white blood cell to tear apart an improperly functioning mitochondrion if it had to.
which would mean the mitochondrion and all its pieces are dead

the error is that businesses contain organisms that want to remain organisms
I'm pretty convinced that Subjectivity as all the Existentialist-Structuralist texts talk about is basically something all vertebrates have. if humans have individual will, so do cats. humans just possibly have a bit more  [*w]
so to be an agent is to be a free-floating organism. cats and proto-mitochondria have that in common

businesses are a really strange thing
which is just a group of organisms tied together to shove each other out of territory better
...admittedly not that strange if you've ever seen a lion pride.

and the existence of nations is even stranger than the existence of businesses
a nation is a bizarre contradiction of a place everyone is entitled to be and simultaneously only a fraction of the population is entitled to be
a nation defends its independence while covering the lie that it is the freedom from people fighting with other people for territory
sometimes, the more a nation lies that there's room for everyone, the more everyone believes it, and the more everyone resents the people who do not neatly fit into the population's current needs / "opportunities"

lion prides fighting each other over territory is one thing
but on top of that you have the contradiction of the bold lie that they are all actually part of something, right now, when they hardly are at all

honestly I have days when I think, man, I don't like lions, their ecology is so depressing
that's why I almost prefer to use metaphors like "a room full of helium atoms"
versus "a bunch of violent standoffish territorial lion prides"

it takes a certain kind of thinking to realize that many outright violent, deadly phenomena in nature are actually unintentional
no matter how "evil" they look
lions do things that we would consider crimes
but they probably don't mean to. at least, not in the specific sense of spite or malice
and that can even hold true for some situations where humans attack humans

sometimes it's all part of nature
sometimes it's all part of organisms competing over limited slots to secure their own survival
and no malice causes it
so that really requires stepping back from the notion of living, breathing animals and looking at the sheer concept of intentless, un-designed collisions
through imagery like helium atoms, etc
no theory of States or governments or morality we have today is properly prepared for that. Marxism, maybe just barely

you have to think:
if a mom is literally beating her son and hurling him down the stairs   [*rp]
is it _morally right_ to shoot the mom or is he _morally_ obligated to obey the law
great numbers of people would subconsciously assume the latter no matter how bad it gets
that Laws are just some kind of cosmic principle
but why is that?

because if abused people meet up and assemble into a new population, the population is too big for a few people to take down and a tentative peace is possible.

spatial slot hierarchies, whether in the form of lion prides or capitalism, can naturally generate abuse and violence
but populations control violence through the birth of new Social-Philosophical Systems, the genesis of tiny new nations.
each Social-Philosophical System has its own ideology and generates its own State
it's mostly a coincidence that these ideologies are often very similar to each other because people are uneducated and spit out ideology based on their current conditions

but my thinking is this:
workers' states birth tiny Trotskyisms, and Liberalisms birth bizarre Existentialist nations,
like humans birth babies
or, like deadbeat parents that don't want babies birth babies.   [*rp]

the United States is like a passed-out alcoholic parent with seven or so neglected babies
and when babies have to grow up like that, they do come to abuse each other and fight each other over what little scraps the household has

if China had a good idea, that idea was New Democracy
the attempt for multiple new nations, or workers'-state-movements in this case, to share a country

but it's like, when the conditions of survival are so bad, how do you get the seven neglected children to get along, or to consider themselves part of the same anything

we have a critical problem of multiple totally separate proletariats that are possibly incompatible
that possibly want to be sovereign
but that are bizarrely smudged and woven together with no borders such that statehood would not be feasible

it's so much more complicated than businesses and workers or bosses and workers
you can't even boil it down to race because identical White people are dividing into separate nations and shouting at each other
there is just, a whole new, separate, "nationogenesis" process that we don't yet understand.


------
[cr. 2025-04-05T21:05:24Z]

here is the thing about comparing Marxism to biology
so, we take the two-part definition of Libertarian Free Will, but we instead use it as a definition of biology.
in chapter 5.2/1111, the two-part definition of Libertarian Free Will would be the ability to initiate actions plus the ability to counter determinism. we take _biology_ to be the process of a given assembled living thing struggling against the physical laws and deterministic processes of physics around it in order to repair its biology and to grow and develop.   [*w]

if we use this definition of biology, then we run into a problem: strictly speaking, society is _another level_ of doing the same thing biology does and turning it back around on biology.

a single biological organism will willingly exterminate another population of organisms if each individual in a population of free-floating individuals needs to do that to survive.
in most ecosystems you do not see living things immediately striving to wipe out other organisms for the sake of it, because there would be no point in doing that. but say we take an organism from one area of the earth like a zebra mussel and plop it down somewhere else, all of those individuals will expand as far as the other surrounding species allow them to, even if it means the other surrounding species are wiped out. we call this an _invasive species_.
the other case that this can happen is not something that is still happening today, but which happened over a billion years ago. when photosynthetic organisms first appeared, the oxygen they produced was toxic to a great fraction of all the organisms that already existed, although at this time in earth's history all such species were single-celled organisms mostly resembling Archaea. in order to ultimately end up with algae and plants, _most life on earth had to die a horrible death_. a few people have occasionally referred to this event by the colorful name of "The Oxygen Holocaust" because, sure, whether this analogy may be offensive, it _is_ more or less physically accurate to say everything on earth that could not breathe oxygen was gassed to death. depending on your definitions of terms, wild populations of organisms in nature might or might not be capable of genocide. this should underscore the point that just because something is natural does not mean it is a good thing or something that should be allowed to happen unimpeded.

the primary reason we want to stop capitalism is actually that capitalism includes the process of individuals pushing each other out of society and occasionally killing each other to claim space. capitalism also includes the emergent, constructed process of individuals forming together into productive units of society (corporations) in order to constantly generate new countable Cultures and then proceed to push away or destroy each of these until all remaining forms of culture A) are few and homogeneous and B) have all necessarily been created through the imperialist destruction of other forms of culture, either traditional or engineered.
in the age of globalization, capitalism carefully cuts open all national sovereignties and then proceeds to populate all countries with this small-scale process of individuals and tiny Cultures pushing away individuals and Cultures until anything any country was is overwritten with a single expanding process of capitalism like a fish that has had its tongue replaced by a parasite, or an ant that has had its body overrun by a bunch of tiny interconnected fungal filaments. fitting metaphor — capitalism, in its own way, is a bunch of tiny interconnected Filaments too. capitalism is like a sneaky way of laundering imperialism by claiming that there is not actually any imperialism going on any more if nations aren't doing it and individuals or small groups of people are all free. but that is still almost precisely what imperialism is. zebra mussels don't need a government, and they can still act purely as individuals to expand over absolutely everything and destroy everything that was.  [*tsr]
the great fallacy that allows this to be possible is not realizing that every individual zebra mussel that acts independently still belongs to a population and still in a sense is taking the actions of that overall population. this is how, at the end of the day, Existentialism is the class ideology of imperialism, and even some forms of _Anarchism_ are the class ideology of imperialism.

------
[cr. 2025-04-21T06:01:10Z]

Free Will, in general, is indistinguishable from the will of a physical thing to continue existing, or to continue existing in the same form. people will inevitably complain they don't have freedom whenever they feel less able to exist. however, biology easily has the ability to be inherently destructive, as with the disaster of photosynthetic organisms. this means that the exact same impulses that drive people to pursue freedom easily drive them to hate and destroy others.

that said, there is still reason to believe this process can be stopped.
for biology to exist, biology must defy physics. it must constantly rebuild itself against physics and do everything that physics "believes" biology should not be able to do.
for society to exist, society must defy biology. society must constantly rebuild itself against biology and do everything biology "believes" it should not be able to do.
no constructive process actively working against a destructive process gets to do it for free. there is generally always some small loss over time in being able to work against entropy and create specific kinds of order instead of just anything at random out of the set of all possible orderings. somehow, everyone has come to accept that for biological life, and for individual technological machines, and yet, we haven't quite come to accept it for society.

most people use the wrong definition of societal entropy, and effectively tell everyone that tearing apart society is good and building society is bad.

if you want to know why modern societies are less "impressive" than the Roman Empire, it's because of the entirely wrong idea of internal competition. feudal orders like the Roman Empire, in their own rather harmful way, intentionally constructed together. patricians, knights, peasant types, and conquered lands they decided to turn into their slaves were all deemed to be part of the same thing. there was certainly great harm in these kinds of spatial hierarchies. but the key insight is that everyone's primary paradigm for dismantling them has been totally wrong. the most common way to fight empire circa 1800 was simply to assert it was bad because it was big and it would be less bad if it was only smaller. the United States broke from the British Empire and made it smaller. corporations increasingly went on and on about monopoly and anti-trust and greed and proliferating multiple smaller corporations to supposedly improve things. the Confederate States of America broke from the United States in order to make it smaller and... oh. choppifying things to break up authority really isn't all that good, is it?
forming the Confederacy was perfectly consistent with the notion that power comes in the form of monopolies, bureaucracies, Elites, and "centralization". but the Confederacy owned slaves. any subpopulation first exists materially, experiences needs materially, and exerts a certain kind of biological will materially based on its needs, which it will present to everyone else as the definition of Freedom. but such maximally trivial definitions of Freedom make Freedom totally irrelevant to anybody such that nobody even wants Freedom or Free Will any more. when Freedom is just population-societies materially surviving at each other's expense and perhaps trying to kill each other, people will turn around and decide to destroy Freedom, because _the alternatives to Freedom are better_. people will give up their freedom to fight for the _previously determined_ conclusion that nobody should get to Freely Will that the Confederacy gets to keep existing, no matter whether that is anybody's authentic will or not, no matter whether that makes anybody happy, no matter whether that's what anybody fights for under the belief they can change the future. the United States Civil War was a gross violation of the concept of Free Will. and that's exactly why everyone is glad it happened. because in some cases you simply don't get a correct national history or correct populational structure out of individual freedom. of course, without Marxism, history operates through the mandates of empire and what population is best qualified to beat up other populations and coerce them into the best shape to operate together as some sort of empire or globalized economic structure. when empire exists, the shape of squashing undesirable wills looks like empire. so, that's how the Civil War happened. the United States North simply had to decide to become the United States empire and squash the rest of the United States because everybody knew two United States flailing around would be worse. the United States still does this. every fake hero narrative about the United States having to send troops to save somebody is just the United States asserting the right to claim power because for any particular conflict there is always a particular Manifest Empire capable of doing the job.

biology is empire, and empire grows to fill Manifest Empire.
the link in the middle is the population-society as a pseudo- biological organism — the Social-Philosophical System as a material object physically consuming supplies and excess land.
society is not empire. not in the case it is able to overcome the population-society from inside, the way that the inside of biology overcomes physics.
this is why party-nations work, at least to an extent, while things like forming a sheer Existentialist International of nations (the United Nations) or bringing everybody in to sign an emissions treaty don't really do anything. Existentialist societies form for people to aid each other in raw survival. producing stuff at a nasty factory, making money, and employing people creates survival, while ordering people to close down the factory feels like it's betraying the national population and breaking it apart. and that whole problem comes from defining society as a group of Subjects. Subjects eat. Subjects burn fossil fuels. when you join together Subjects, you potentially produce climate disaster, and no amount of "intersubjectivity" can fix that, because the polluters will all refuse to change because they're Subjects. Existentialism simply has to go.


------
[cr. 2025-04-21T22:09:17Z]

> the United States North simply had to decide to become the United States empire and squash the rest of the United States because everybody knew two United States flailing around would be worse.

another way to say this which is less depressing is
every event of a royal family or empire installing itself is a crude attempt to effect the most obvious or likely course of history   [*g,*d]
Liberal republicanism also claims to be able to take over this ability to effect the most obvious course of history.
_without holding the claim to a crude form of historical materialism, Liberalism is worth nothing._
alchemy : chemistry :: mandate of heaven, Manifest Empire : historical materialism

the dirty truth Liberalism doesn't want to admit is it's basically the same thing as medieval empire with less organization — instead of having kings, a whole political subpopulation tries to convince everybody that dominating and subordinating another entire artificial political subpopulation people have been pushed into will end conflict and produce the most obvious course of history, as well as supposedly getting everyone to compromise and agree. although this never happens in such a system of constant conflict, re-establishment of spatial hierarchy, and resentment.


------

[*tsr] this is the greater point I'm always getting at whenever I bring up _Dragon Ball_ and Saiyans. Saiyans and zebra mussels both operate internally as a cloud of independent individuals, more or less sharing a Bauplan.

[*rp] _A brother's journey: Surviving a childhood of abuse_. Pelzer, R. (2005/2007). Time Warner Books.

=> youtube.com/watch?v=Ai6w4EBOQFM  n. Origins of CALYREX 👑 The King of Galar? [British history] ;
;    nearly irrelevant, but made me think about what causes kings to be installed.
;
=> 1684614380  *g. v4.3/ democracy is authoritarian / is history the arrangement of people-groups?  ; 4064 enforce
=> 1732481586  *d. v5.1r/ what even is "Our Democracy"?: deep politics            ; 1112 deep-politics
=> 1744536196  *h. v4.4r/ when people agree, the history of democracy ends        ; 1012 end-of-democracy
=> 1717200304  *t. v5.1r/ YOU have a predictive theory of society                 ; 1031 theories
=> 1744442543  *L. v5.1r/ principle of least action defines physics & the future  ; 1112 least-action
=> 1733689698  *w. v5.2/ okay, relativity is nice, but do we have free will??     ; 1111 FreeWill</pre>

<div class="bop-foot" style="margin-top: 3em; padding-top: 1.2em; border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1);">
<dl class="bop-meta" style="margin-top: 1em; font-family: monospace;"><!--
{{BopFwd|Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.4r/NNNN ennard|link}}
; {{BopComment}} -->
{{BopCreated|2025-01-31T07:32:11Z}}
{{BopHandle|not-cell}}
{{BopHandle|nationogenesis}}
{{BopHandle|v5-1_1112_not-cell}}
{{BopCommentTitle|v4.4-5.1 scraps/ society is not a Eukaryotic cell}}
</dl></div><!--
-->[[Category:MDem v5.1 entries]] __NOTOC__