Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q34,67/aslan - Revision history

Reversedragon: meta-Marxism? that's just postmodernism

2026-11-11T06:31:43Z

meta-Marxism? that's just postmodernism

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:31, 11 November 2026
Line 72:		Line 72:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX\|dimension=S0\|Q=10,2,90\|Q2=10290}}{{int:sitename}} influence <!-- LithoGraphica influence --> {{9k\|RD\|Q10,2,90}} -> I moved the general explanation of what Items and propositions are here so it would be easier to find.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX\|dimension=S0\|Q=10,2,90\|Q2=10290}}{{int:sitename}} influence <!-- LithoGraphica influence --> {{9k\|RD\|Q10,2,90}} -> I moved the general explanation of what Items and propositions are here so it would be easier to find.

			{{li\|I=S1/MX/ML\|Q=70,44\|Q2=7044}}meta-Marxism? that's just Stalinism {{9k\|RD\|Q7044}}

			{{li\|I=S1/MX/ES\|Q=70,47\|Q2=7047}}meta-Marxism? that's just postmodernism -> this one is very situational. what it applies to is usually cases of insisting that two separate populations are fully countable objects with fully separate behavior, resulting in tentatively treating them as separate worlds, although not treating them that way eternally. I thought I was being really smart with this one because it seemed like it was a decent foundation for non-binary logic even though it later turned out it wasn't a fully accurate way to study populations. but, by now, it is clear at least that that method of modeling logic can't justify itself based on how populations function, and all you can really argue is that the limitations of the math objects themselves justify it because it's better to keep things "simple" and approximate than to bring in too much realistic complexity.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: proofread prompt

2026-11-11T06:30:07Z

proofread prompt

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:30, 11 November 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	{{HueCSS}}<blockquote class="verbose">		{{HueCSS}}<blockquote class="verbose">
	{{testimony\|Why does it seem like contradictions inside a group of people are usually imposed from the outside by imperialism?}}<br/>		{{testimony\|Why does it seem like contradictions inside a group of people are usually imposed from the outside by imperialism?}}<br/>
	{{~~testimony~~\|(What I have attached is a transcript from a notes page on a philosophy wiki where I collect various observations/themes/motifs, propositions, and questions as individual entry pages and make notes about each of the entries and how the entries relate to each other inside particular philosophies or within the real world. Proposition entries are basically statements made about motif/observation entries which are being evaluated for whether they are true or false within some specific historical context of what true and false would mean; question entries exist to be answered with one or more proposition entries, or real-world observations that give insight into them. ~~Each~~ theme or proposition is given a unique number and sorted into a discipline or political faction basically in order to later uncover what class position it might have come from. So, this transcript is like a stream of consciousness from one idea to another, but highly structured. ~~Also, some comments are written with the start of sentences in lowercase; don't pay attention to the capitalization~~.)}}<br/>		{{small\|(What I have attached is [[Special:PermanentLink/47256\|a transcript]] [...] each theme or proposition is given a unique number and sorted into a discipline or political faction basically in order to later uncover what class position it might have come from. So, this transcript is like a stream of consciousness from one idea to another, but highly structured. [[Special:PermanentLink/47258\|[...]]])}}<br/>
	{{testimony\|With the attached file mostly here as context ~~for how I thought of this question~~, my actual question is this. I keep trying to think of examples where a civilization or group of people changed due to internal antagonisms but it wasn't imposed from the outside by another empire bringing down some kind of threat-backed moral commandment on it that caused the internal contradictions and the change, and then I keep thinking of examples where that technically did happen. In the United States Civil War, the North claimed moral high ground against slavery and imposed Reconstruction based on the authority for the North as a whole self-contained population to rule the South as a whole self-contained population just to prevent it from having slavery — ultimately based on concepts in the Constitution that the United States is made of "ideas" but once something has ever been part of the United States the rest of the United States is allowed to ruthlessly enforce those abstractions whenever it tries to depart from them. In the Cold War, the United States put out an accusation about Third World countries "supporting Stalin" or "ignoring the violent defeat of the peasants" and being Evil people, and then all the people in the Soviet Union and East Germany steadily turned against their own countries in various ways and broke them open. It wasn't just the bureaucrats; after they lost confidence in their government everyday people also kept leaving or just refusing to work. In China, the start of Maoism looked like a Communist revolution at first, but as the central party turned against workers it was revealed very quickly that the strongest dynamic going on across the region was that China was forming a republic in order to have wealth to defend itself against outside empires (historically against Japan) and to stand strong against accusations from the United States and Europe that Third World countries were "poor" due to "Third World ideals" making them that way and making them more worth invading and crushing than defending so everyone can have wealth and "freedom". (So, the process of creating a Deng Xiaoping state approximates a bourgeois revolution, but without any of the mystification in the U.S. Constitution about "required ideas".) If the United States hypothetically attempted to stop doing imperialism it would mostly happen due to a moral accusation coming down as if from the outside that the United States and Israel "have no right" to crush Palestine. Back at the time of the Vietnam War, there were protests, but they were largely about the moral imperative to not do violent things the United States was already doing to Vietnam.}}<br/>		{{testimony\|With the attached file mostly here as context, my actual question is this. I keep trying to think of examples where a civilization or group of people changed due to internal antagonisms but it {{em\|wasn't}} imposed from the outside by another empire bringing down some kind of threat-backed moral commandment on it that caused the internal contradictions and the change, and then I keep thinking of examples where that technically did happen. In the United States Civil War, the North claimed moral high ground against slavery and imposed Reconstruction based on the authority for the North as a whole self-contained population to rule the South as a whole self-contained population just to prevent it from having slavery — ultimately based on concepts in the Constitution that the United States is made of "ideas" but once something has ever been part of the United States the rest of the United States is allowed to ruthlessly enforce those abstractions whenever it tries to depart from them. In the Cold War, the United States put out an accusation about Third World countries "supporting Stalin" or "ignoring the violent defeat of the peasants" and being Evil people, and then all the people in the Soviet Union and East Germany steadily turned against their own countries in various ways and broke them open. It wasn't just the bureaucrats; after they lost confidence in their government everyday people also kept leaving or just refusing to work. In China, the start of Maoism looked like a Communist revolution at first, but as the central party turned against workers it was revealed very quickly that the strongest dynamic going on across the region was that China was forming a republic in order to have wealth to defend itself against outside empires (historically against Japan) and to stand strong against accusations from the United States and Europe that Third World countries were "poor" due to "Third World ideals" making them that way and making them more worth invading and crushing than defending so everyone can have wealth and "freedom".}}<br/>
	{{testimony\|I know this is not the only process by which populations can change. I know about historical materialism and the general method of reducing whole populations into class territories, or at least alienated pieces growing against each other, that are all still in interaction with each other. But I am confused where these "required ideas" that come out of more powerful populations are really coming from. It isn't always class forces that create these. It seems like this process can happen just because two separate populations exist and one person in population B attacks population A and population A is fumbling to try to come to consciousness of what happened. For example in 1936 Stalin's government discovered attempts by Trotskyists and their allies to attack the overall order of the Soviet Union (I do know the Left Opposition never got very far into attacking the government) and the popular narrative in Stalinist parties since then has been that Trotskyism is a product of the bourgeoisie infiltrating Marxist parties. But the ICFI has all sorts of evidence that that particular class process is not where Trotskyism came from. Stalinists, either today or back then, are attributing the attack on Stalinism to class processes in an incorrect way because they feel an urgent need to defend what they have as a group of Stalinist-theorists-and-workers-and-allies and explain the attack. So, "required ideas" or "required moral imperatives" do not exist because Ideas actually and physically shape conflicts between civilizations, but if it is not always appropriate to categorize them as class processes, then what are they?}}<!--		<!-- -->{{correction\|(So, the process of creating a Deng Xiaoping state approximates a bourgeois revolution, but without any of the mystification in the U.S. Constitution about "required ideas".)}}<br/>
			{{testimony\|If the United States hypothetically attempted to stop doing imperialism it would mostly happen due to a moral accusation coming down as if from the outside that the United States and Israel "have no right" to crush Palestine. Back at the time of the Vietnam War, there were protests, but they were largely about the moral imperative to not do violent things the United States was already doing to Vietnam.}}<br/>
			{{testimony\|I know this is not the only process by which populations can change. I know about historical materialism and the general method of reducing whole populations into class territories, or at least alienated pieces growing against each other, that are all still in interaction with each other. But I am confused where these "required ideas" that come out of more powerful populations are really coming from.}}<br/>
			{{testimony\|It isn't always class forces that create these.}}<br/>
			<!-- -->{{correction\|[It really took issue with that part. Probably fairly; none of my examples failed to contain at least one class subpopulation, and all of them contained "Social-Philosophical Systems" that can be conceptualized independently of national borders.]}}<br/>
			{{testimony\|It seems like this process can happen just because two separate populations exist and one person in population B attacks population A and population A is fumbling to try to come to consciousness of what happened. For example in 1936 Stalin's government discovered attempts by Trotskyists and their allies to attack the overall order of the Soviet Union (I do know the Left Opposition never got very far into attacking the government) and the popular narrative in Stalinist parties since then has been that Trotskyism is a product of the bourgeoisie infiltrating Marxist parties. But the ICFI has all sorts of evidence that that particular class process is not where Trotskyism came from. Stalinists, either today or back then, are attributing the attack on Stalinism to class processes in an incorrect way because they feel an urgent need to defend what they have as a group of Stalinist-theorists-and-workers-and-allies and explain the attack.}}<br/>
			{{testimony\|So, "required ideas" or "required moral imperatives" do not exist because Ideas actually and physically shape conflicts between civilizations, but if it is not always appropriate to categorize them as class processes, then what are they?}}<br/>
			<!-- -->{{correction\|[Note: it {{em\|is}} nearly always appropriate to categorize them as class processes. I didn't demonstrate a time it isn't.]}}<!--
	{{correction\|[placeholder]}} -->		{{correction\|[placeholder]}} -->
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	== Motifs or claims in prompt (no AI) ==		== Motifs or claims in prompt (no AI) ==
			=== "Transcript" ===
	<ol class="hue clean reset {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">		<ol class="hue clean reset {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">

Line 27:		Line 35:
	{{li\|I=S2/MX/PT\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|rem-fields= sociological hypotheses, "meta-Marxism"/"existential materialism" }}Imperialism is partly defined as one group of people attempting to conquer and rule another group of people through putting out moral accusations to shape the group's behavior or the internal antagonisms that actually shape the group's behavior		{{li\|I=S2/MX/PT\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|rem-fields= sociological hypotheses, "meta-Marxism"/"existential materialism" }}Imperialism is partly defined as one group of people attempting to conquer and rule another group of people through putting out moral accusations to shape the group's behavior or the internal antagonisms that actually shape the group's behavior

	{{li\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|rem-fields= "meta-Marxism"/"existential materialism" }}Why does it seem like contradictions inside a group of people are usually imposed from the outside by imperialism? -> I kind of want to put this into the bot but I don't entirely know how to phrase it. I'll try something. I'll try just copypasting [[Special:PermanentLink/47255\|this page]] and [[Special:PermanentLink/47256\|formatting it so it's 'readable']].		{{li\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|rem-fields= "meta-Marxism"/"existential materialism" }}Why does it seem like contradictions inside a group of people are usually imposed from the outside by imperialism? -> I kind of want to put this question into the bot but I don't entirely know how to phrase it. I'll try something. I'll try just copypasting [[Special:PermanentLink/47255\|this page]] [the list of propositions you see right here] and [[Special:PermanentLink/47256\|formatting it so it's 'readable']].

			</li></ol>
			=== Other ===
			<ol class="hue clean reset {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/HAS\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}poisoned cookie effect / "community senators" (generic) / effect where one socially-linked group of people attempts to take action against another entire socially-linked group of people because it appears uncontrollable and dangerous {{9k\|RD\|Q34,67}} -> prototype page where this question came up; general version of this concept that had this more specific case inside it.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 55:		Line 69:

	== Subjective themes (no AI) ==		== Subjective themes (no AI) ==
	~~<!--~~
	<ol class="hue clean reset {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">		<ol class="hue clean reset {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/IV\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX\|dimension=S0\|Q=10,2,90\|Q2=10290}}{{int:sitename}} influence <!-- LithoGraphica influence --> {{9k\|RD\|Q10,2,90}} -> I moved the general explanation of what Items and propositions are here so it would be easier to find.

	</li></ol~~> --~~>		</li></ol>

	== Usage notes ==		== Usage notes ==

Reversedragon: prompt page formatting

2026-11-11T04:34:30Z

prompt page formatting

Show changes

Reversedragon: experimental - plain-text representation of motifs recorded on Q34,67 prototype page

2026-11-11T02:13:06Z

experimental - plain-text representation of motifs recorded on Q34,67 prototype page

New page

[motif 1] [field: fiction] Aslan (fictional Christ figure in Chronicles of Narnia series, a series of fantasy books loosely based on the events of, but closely depicting the moral statements of, the Christian bible)

[motif 2] [field: fiction, fictional stories that could hypothetically exist] Aslan meeting fantasy representation of Islam

[proposition 3] [field: Liberal-republicanism] Anti-essentialism is a path to truth<br/>
[RD's comments on proposition 3] this is false on its face the more you think about it. simply assuming that a category does not contain the things said to define that category is not guaranteed to be true and materially accurate. like, you don't go to a bakery and expect to find the one of them that stocks frozen turkeys, you don't go to Trotskyists and expect to find the one of them that gets along with Stalinists, and you don't go to Christians and expect to find the one of them that doesn't believe in a god or anything supernatural. at a certain point that turns into "repeating the same hope over and over is insanity". but when you are trying to determine whether a statement about religion is "inherently" offensive there are few other things that even come up aside from this old, false rule. if I write a fic about Aslan clashing with fantasy Islam based on things that have historically happened, with actual research, how do I know whether ordinary people would read it as unfair to "the real" Christianity or Islam to the point the statements it was making came across as false and just label it "ignorant" or "anthropological misinformation"? "read the room" is not an answer. you cannot read the room if you have no room at all and correctly guessing in advance what will be in the room is the only way to have a room. in a way, even when there is a room the room only comes to exist after a period of everyone making correct guesses in the dark of what will unify them into a room instead of scatter them. because people are always expected to know what etiquette is before they even walk into a situation where they can learn what it is, you really cannot understand etiquette from just watching people unless you reconstruct it from absolutely nothing.

[proposition 4] [fields: sociological hypotheses, "meta-Marxism"/"existential materialism"] Challenging religion is equivalent to a blood feud; Challenging religion is equivalent to imperialism at the tribal scale<br/>
[RD's comments on proposition 4] religion has gathered up many completely unwritten customs over the centuries and it's been so long that everyone has forgotten why those rules are even there and seems to only recite them. I'm going to propose a hypothesis on one of them: if someone makes a statement about a group of people, it potentially has the function of a declaration of war in which one people is about to try to conquer and rule the other through the justification that that group would otherwise be unaccountable and dangerous. the accusation may or may not be accurate to some degree in context. but if some 90% of people do not fit the accusation, the accusation divides the vulnerable group into an antagonism with itself. this division is an important moment in history that can amount to a revolution or a counterrevolution. if the accusation is "supporting Stalin" the result can be 90% of people leaving the body of people of the Soviet Union and effectively joining (though not literally joining) the body of people of the United States to smash the Soviet Union, or each of the local-states of Germany leaving East Germany and joining the United States to smash East Germany. if the accusation is "the United States owns slaves" the result can be the United States fighting the Civil War and ending slavery. if the accusation is "the United States is sending Israel to crush Palestine", that could hypothetically lead to a division of the United States in which most of the people of the United States take over the United States and end some part of the current regime in order to stop Israel from crushing Palestine.<br/>
what have I discovered here? have I discovered that every United States concept of stopping imperialism is actually formulated through the lens of imperialism? probably something like that.

[proposition 5] [fields: sociological hypotheses, "meta-Marxism"/"existential materialism"] Imperialism is partly defined as one group of people attempting to conquer and rule another group of people through putting out moral accusations to shape the group's behavior or the internal antagonisms that actually shape the group's behavior

[question 6] [field: "meta-Marxism"/"existential materialism"] Why does it seem like contradictions inside a group of people are usually imposed from the outside by imperialism?