Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q50,98 - Revision history

Reversedragon: halting problem (Alan Turing)

2026-05-16T01:21:29Z

halting problem (Alan Turing)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 16 May 2026
Line 87:		Line 87:
	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Ethics is an egoistic discipline }} — although society is a social phenomenon which is almost strictly composed of many people interacting at once, ethics proposes that the future of society on each day lies in the behavior of just one person at a time isolated from everyone else, when really it is impossible to understand society tomorrow without understanding human behavior itself as happening almost strictly through multiple people colliding who do not know each other's choices in advance and cannot decide in advance what each other's choices will be -><br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Ethics is an egoistic discipline }} — although society is a social phenomenon which is almost strictly composed of many people interacting at once, ethics proposes that the future of society on each day lies in the behavior of just one person at a time isolated from everyone else, when really it is impossible to understand society tomorrow without understanding human behavior itself as happening almost strictly through multiple people colliding who do not know each other's choices in advance and cannot decide in advance what each other's choices will be -><br/>
	to be fair this is a very challenging thing to correct for, but with a very in-depth analysis of metallic rules and situations like Stalin versus Trotsky viewed as an ethical problem of political oppression through suppression of movements or imperialist oppression, I think it's not that hard to bring it to a point where a lot of people could understand it.		to be fair this is a very challenging thing to correct for, but with a very in-depth analysis of metallic rules and situations like Stalin versus Trotsky viewed as an ethical problem of political oppression through suppression of movements or imperialist oppression, I think it's not that hard to bring it to a point where a lot of people could understand it.

			{{li\|I=S1/STM\|Q=618}}halting problem (Alan Turing) / halting problem and metallic rules (sense; existential materialism) -> I just realized that the halting problem for simple computers is similar to predicting whether groups of people will or won't follow metallic rules. like, some metallic rule processes keep going indefinitely in a chain, and some of them terminate, and it's not always easy to tell which will happen

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

Reversedragon: Ethics is an egoistic discipline

2026-05-13T22:44:46Z

Ethics is an egoistic discipline

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 13 May 2026
Line 83:		Line 83:
	{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=54,49\|Q2=5449\|h4= Can Bob Stills choose who is president? }} / Can some random individual Bob Stills or Bobbie Stills freely choose as an individual what the result of an entire election will be? / You only need to affect 150 people to change a whole country (generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q54,53}}) -> "you only need to affect 150 people" is basically the same thing as the Bob Stills fallacy, only applied to the 'campaigning' period before people vote. both are wrong because they assume every single individual to be the same and no people to have varying social standing or different conditions in which they exist. if some Bob Stills gathers a whole {{em\|250}} people, but Barbara and Beth each only gather 10, it's totally possible Bob will arrive and the total number of people will be only a little over 270 when he expected there to be millions. it's quite arrogant of Bob to assume that he knows exactly what other people will do just because he knows himself.		{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=54,49\|Q2=5449\|h4= Can Bob Stills choose who is president? }} / Can some random individual Bob Stills or Bobbie Stills freely choose as an individual what the result of an entire election will be? / You only need to affect 150 people to change a whole country (generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q54,53}}) -> "you only need to affect 150 people" is basically the same thing as the Bob Stills fallacy, only applied to the 'campaigning' period before people vote. both are wrong because they assume every single individual to be the same and no people to have varying social standing or different conditions in which they exist. if some Bob Stills gathers a whole {{em\|250}} people, but Barbara and Beth each only gather 10, it's totally possible Bob will arrive and the total number of people will be only a little over 270 when he expected there to be millions. it's quite arrogant of Bob to assume that he knows exactly what other people will do just because he knows himself.

	{{li~~\|start=y~~\|I=S2/ES\|dimension=F2\|Q=54,29\|Q2=5429}}Inequalities in the number of people each person knows do not exist / ({{9k\|RD/Q54,53}}) -> this seems to be an important ingredient in the "Bob/Bobbie Stills" fallacy.		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|dimension=F2\|Q=54,29\|Q2=5429}}Inequalities in the number of people each person knows do not exist / ({{9k\|RD/Q54,53}}) -> this seems to be an important ingredient in the "Bob/Bobbie Stills" fallacy.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Ethics is an egoistic discipline }} — although society is a social phenomenon which is almost strictly composed of many people interacting at once, ethics proposes that the future of society on each day lies in the behavior of just one person at a time isolated from everyone else, when really it is impossible to understand society tomorrow without understanding human behavior itself as happening almost strictly through multiple people colliding who do not know each other's choices in advance and cannot decide in advance what each other's choices will be -><br/>
			to be fair this is a very challenging thing to correct for, but with a very in-depth analysis of metallic rules and situations like Stalin versus Trotsky viewed as an ethical problem of political oppression through suppression of movements or imperialist oppression, I think it's not that hard to bring it to a point where a lot of people could understand it.

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

Reversedragon: Capitalism destroys the golden rule because metallic rules falsely assume that all individuals have an equal ability to influence others' behavior

2026-05-11T04:53:17Z

Capitalism destroys the golden rule because metallic rules falsely assume that all individuals have an equal ability to influence others' behavior

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 == Metallic rules and "Bobbie Stills" fallacies ==
 <ol class="hue clean terse">
 {{li|I=S1/ES|Q=54,53|Q2=5453|h4= Existentialist math errors }} / What is 8 billion times 8 billion? (generic) / What is one-in-eight times one-in-eight? (generic) / ({{9k|RD/Q54,53}})
@@ Line 98: / Line 106: @@
 {{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618|h4 = atomic table of behavioral rules }} (existential materialism) / existential-materialist metallic rule / periodic table of rules (sic — they're not actually quantized or periodized; "atomic" is fine though) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-PeriodicTableOfRules|9k]])
 {{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}The platinum rule alone is universal / If there's anything inherently human, it's the act of respecting countable cultures as separately-operating entities and performing to other countable cultures as different from you  ->  the thing about this is that if it's true, Deleuze's model of groups being inseparable multiplicities is not only wrong but bigoted. a model that can't respect China as China or early Trotskyism as early Trotskyism and begin with the concept that separable groups exist and have culture and standards is broken.

Reversedragon: Metallic rules and "Bobbie Stills" fallacies

2026-05-11T04:45:29Z

Metallic rules and "Bobbie Stills" fallacies

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:45, 11 May 2026
Line 68:		Line 68:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== ~~Related~~ ==		== Metallic rules and "Bobbie Stills" fallacies ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse">

			{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=54,53\|Q2=5453\|h4= Existentialist math errors }} / What is 8 billion times 8 billion? (generic) / What is one-in-eight times one-in-eight? (generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q54,53}})

			{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=54,49\|Q2=5449\|h4= Can Bob Stills choose who is president? }} / Can some random individual Bob Stills or Bobbie Stills freely choose as an individual what the result of an entire election will be? / You only need to affect 150 people to change a whole country (generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q54,53}}) -> "you only need to affect 150 people" is basically the same thing as the Bob Stills fallacy, only applied to the 'campaigning' period before people vote. both are wrong because they assume every single individual to be the same and no people to have varying social standing or different conditions in which they exist. if some Bob Stills gathers a whole {{em\|250}} people, but Barbara and Beth each only gather 10, it's totally possible Bob will arrive and the total number of people will be only a little over 270 when he expected there to be millions. it's quite arrogant of Bob to assume that he knows exactly what other people will do just because he knows himself.

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|dimension=F2\|Q=54,29\|Q2=5429}}Inequalities in the number of people each person knows do not exist / ({{9k\|RD/Q54,53}}) -> this seems to be an important ingredient in the "Bob/Bobbie Stills" fallacy.

			</li></ol>

			== Metallic rules and molecularized theories ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

Line 92:		Line 103:
	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}According to Kant we must not regard workers as a working class because using a human being for the greatest common good is a violation of equally regarding everyone as ends and not as means [https://fountainmagazine.com/all-issues/2022/issue-147-may-jun-2022/the-veil-of-ignorance-revisiting-john-rawls-theory-of-justice-half-a-century-later/] -> and there we have it. a much more honest version of why the golden rule cannot fix labor relations.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}According to Kant we must not regard workers as a working class because using a human being for the greatest common good is a violation of equally regarding everyone as ends and not as means [https://fountainmagazine.com/all-issues/2022/issue-147-may-jun-2022/the-veil-of-ignorance-revisiting-john-rawls-theory-of-justice-half-a-century-later/] -> and there we have it. a much more honest version of why the golden rule cannot fix labor relations.<br/>
	this is a terrible fallacy to the point of probably {{em\|breaking}} a moral rule if we had 'golden rules' that actually covered predicting the way real people act. we can start with the cobalt rule: whatever bad thing one person does can be done by everyone. from there, you need to cover the possibility that enabling one person who does bad things means enabling all people who can replicate the same bad thing, because cobalt rule. finally we quite ironically bring out the silver rule and point out that you shouldn't let happen to absolutely everyone what you don't want happening to yourself.<br/>		this is a terrible fallacy to the point of probably {{em\|breaking}} a moral rule if we had 'golden rules' that actually covered predicting the way real people act. we can start with the cobalt rule: whatever bad thing one person does can be done by everyone. from there, you need to cover the possibility that enabling one person who does bad things means enabling all people who can replicate the same bad thing, because cobalt rule. finally we quite ironically bring out the silver rule and point out that you shouldn't let happen to absolutely everyone what you don't want happening to yourself.<br/>
	gosh yeah the second thing can be called the nickel rule. do not do unto others what you do not want happening again and again and again.		gosh yeah the second thing can be called the [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-CobaltRule\|nickel rule]]. do not do unto others what you do not want happening again and again and again.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The platinum rule alone is universal / If there's anything inherently human, it's the act of respecting countable cultures as separately-operating entities and performing to other countable cultures as different from you -> the thing about this is that if it's true, Deleuze's model of groups being inseparable multiplicities is not only wrong but bigoted. a model that can't respect China as China or early Trotskyism as early Trotskyism and begin with the concept that separable groups exist and have culture and standards is broken.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The platinum rule alone is universal / If there's anything inherently human, it's the act of respecting countable cultures as separately-operating entities and performing to other countable cultures as different from you -> the thing about this is that if it's true, Deleuze's model of groups being inseparable multiplicities is not only wrong but bigoted. a model that can't respect China as China or early Trotskyism as early Trotskyism and begin with the concept that separable groups exist and have culture and standards is broken.

Reversedragon: Anarchism actually seeks molecularization

2026-04-23T08:48:10Z

Anarchism actually seeks molecularization

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 {{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618|Q2=618}}Submit all actions to God / Submit you and others' actions to God / Whatever God tells you to do you have to do instead of what anyone wants [https://www.gotquestions.org/Platinum-Rule.html] / thallium rule  ->  this is a real piece of work. I dub this the thallium rule because it's hard to notice, durable, and deadly to all organic life including rats and people. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallium] it aims to outlast everything leaving nothing but itself.
 {{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618|Q2=618}}Submit all actions to God / No, sir, I can't imagine a soft pretzel without butter; I certainly wouldn't serve you one [https://www.dashhouse.com/2002217the-platinum-rule-romans-14-html/]
 </li></ol>
@@ Line 95: / Line 108: @@
 {{li|I=S1/Zv|Q=618}}Metallic rules generate "Them" / Metallic rules generate the nebulous concept of "Them" often seen in internet news articles that does not map neatly onto a class position or real-world ethnic group but is said to have in some small way destroyed society  ->  the concept of "Them" is one reason I have trouble taking anarchists seriously. anarchists will go around telling you that exclusions and exceptions unite people, but they won't turn around and look back and realize that everyday people are constantly creating new clusters of exceptions that {{em|don't}} make sense and perhaps actually are making society worse yet are totally unidentifiable. like, Peter the anarchist thinks gay, trans, autistic, and disabled people are going to save society because they're all excluded, but Pete the trucker thinks NASA scientists, queer theorists, Jeffrey Epstein, the CDC, the Workers' Party of Korea, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, the leadership of Israel, and Joe Biden all belong to the same demographic that's worth excluding from society, so is that group of people going to save society? those are all people that might at some point get called "Them" and blamed for {{censor|en|shittify|ing}} the world. but then they'd all face prejudice, sometimes prejudice they could argue against legitimately. charcoal anarchists, blue anarchists, and orange anarchists are all anarchists in that they all formulate society based on morality and they all try to section off low ends and high ends of society that deviate from the middle, sometimes cursing the high ends, sometimes either praising or cursing the low ends. but they all end up with different "Thems", while periodically trying to act like they actually have the same "Thems" such that everyone who is an anarchist can be united against the same Bad Thems. it's all very nonsensical. none of it makes sense.<br/>
 one of the only ways to interpret all of it so that it does make sense is that anarchists are sorting out horizontally so that anarchists of a particular factional color are only allowed with a particular color and anarchists that don't fit into that countable culture will be sorted into another countable culture of another factional color where only another specific set of things is allowed. although you can see particular strata where blue or orange anarchists are kicking out the charcoal anarchists for being unlikeable low-enders and charcoal anarchists are kicking out other anarchists for being cruel high-enders, none of the islands of anarchism is based on class or recognizes class so the way they're all actually sorting is by arbitrary moral rules of what they each think is morally bad.
 </li></ol>

Reversedragon: Revolution blasts apart society

2026-04-22T04:58:11Z

Revolution blasts apart society

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 22 April 2026
Line 95:		Line 95:
	{{li\|I=S1/Zv\|Q=618}}Metallic rules generate "Them" / Metallic rules generate the nebulous concept of "Them" often seen in internet news articles that does not map neatly onto a class position or real-world ethnic group but is said to have in some small way destroyed society -> the concept of "Them" is one reason I have trouble taking anarchists seriously. anarchists will go around telling you that exclusions and exceptions unite people, but they won't turn around and look back and realize that everyday people are constantly creating new clusters of exceptions that {{em\|don't}} make sense and perhaps actually are making society worse yet are totally unidentifiable. like, Peter the anarchist thinks gay, trans, autistic, and disabled people are going to save society because they're all excluded, but Pete the trucker thinks NASA scientists, queer theorists, Jeffrey Epstein, the CDC, the Workers' Party of Korea, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, the leadership of Israel, and Joe Biden all belong to the same demographic that's worth excluding from society, so is that group of people going to save society? those are all people that might at some point get called "Them" and blamed for {{censor\|en\|shittify\|ing}} the world. but then they'd all face prejudice, sometimes prejudice they could argue against legitimately. charcoal anarchists, blue anarchists, and orange anarchists are all anarchists in that they all formulate society based on morality and they all try to section off low ends and high ends of society that deviate from the middle, sometimes cursing the high ends, sometimes either praising or cursing the low ends. but they all end up with different "Thems", while periodically trying to act like they actually have the same "Thems" such that everyone who is an anarchist can be united against the same Bad Thems. it's all very nonsensical. none of it makes sense.<br/>		{{li\|I=S1/Zv\|Q=618}}Metallic rules generate "Them" / Metallic rules generate the nebulous concept of "Them" often seen in internet news articles that does not map neatly onto a class position or real-world ethnic group but is said to have in some small way destroyed society -> the concept of "Them" is one reason I have trouble taking anarchists seriously. anarchists will go around telling you that exclusions and exceptions unite people, but they won't turn around and look back and realize that everyday people are constantly creating new clusters of exceptions that {{em\|don't}} make sense and perhaps actually are making society worse yet are totally unidentifiable. like, Peter the anarchist thinks gay, trans, autistic, and disabled people are going to save society because they're all excluded, but Pete the trucker thinks NASA scientists, queer theorists, Jeffrey Epstein, the CDC, the Workers' Party of Korea, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, the leadership of Israel, and Joe Biden all belong to the same demographic that's worth excluding from society, so is that group of people going to save society? those are all people that might at some point get called "Them" and blamed for {{censor\|en\|shittify\|ing}} the world. but then they'd all face prejudice, sometimes prejudice they could argue against legitimately. charcoal anarchists, blue anarchists, and orange anarchists are all anarchists in that they all formulate society based on morality and they all try to section off low ends and high ends of society that deviate from the middle, sometimes cursing the high ends, sometimes either praising or cursing the low ends. but they all end up with different "Thems", while periodically trying to act like they actually have the same "Thems" such that everyone who is an anarchist can be united against the same Bad Thems. it's all very nonsensical. none of it makes sense.<br/>
	one of the only ways to interpret all of it so that it does make sense is that anarchists are sorting out horizontally so that anarchists of a particular factional color are only allowed with a particular color and anarchists that don't fit into that countable culture will be sorted into another countable culture of another factional color where only another specific set of things is allowed. although you can see particular strata where blue or orange anarchists are kicking out the charcoal anarchists for being unlikeable low-enders and charcoal anarchists are kicking out other anarchists for being cruel high-enders, none of the islands of anarchism is based on class or recognizes class so the way they're all actually sorting is by arbitrary moral rules of what they each think is morally bad.		one of the only ways to interpret all of it so that it does make sense is that anarchists are sorting out horizontally so that anarchists of a particular factional color are only allowed with a particular color and anarchists that don't fit into that countable culture will be sorted into another countable culture of another factional color where only another specific set of things is allowed. although you can see particular strata where blue or orange anarchists are kicking out the charcoal anarchists for being unlikeable low-enders and charcoal anarchists are kicking out other anarchists for being cruel high-enders, none of the islands of anarchism is based on class or recognizes class so the way they're all actually sorting is by arbitrary moral rules of what they each think is morally bad.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Revolution blasts apart society / A revolution is actually a population shattering apart entirely into individuals and building back up from scratch -> I think this is why it's so hard to pull the United States apart into two class populations or even a strawberry population that could build a Gramscianism/Dengism versus a brown population. everyone believes that it's genuinely put together at the molecular scale of individual to individual, not individual to class territory to national population. the scary thing is they might be correct about it.<br/>
			this came to me after a day of thinking about the golden rule and all the other possible versions of it. the golden rule and the categorical imperative are an attempt to molecularize ethics; the problem with them is that neither of them are a very good attempt. there's also the "[[E:xenon rule\|xenon rule]]" that blue or charcoal anarchists use where nobody is allowed to do anything most of the time. also very bad, because none of these three approaches are predictive. at the same time.... is it possible to conceptualize all republics through small-scale [[E:exmat\|exmat]], so that a republic comes out of the thing that every single individual is to do? I think it actually is. I mean, Liberal-republicanism comes out of everyone attempting to run a business, and Bolshevism comes out of everybody trying to be a worker. so in a sense, metallic rules aren't actually that far off from things that would actually work for predicting the behavior of a republic.<br/>
			is the best way to conceptualize a new republic by characterizing it like a metallic rule performed by one individual that gives the whole republic its swatch color?<br/>
			this claim would be somewhat contradictory with the claim that the United States is 'revolution against two countries at once' — if the United States truly shatters into a bunch of little sand grains during revolution, then it couldn't be precisely two entities on the week of revolution; the one or two entities would be shattering into millions rather than the same things transforming into one or two new entities.<br/>
			it would also be contradictory with the claim that republics are characterized more by structures (class territories, government institutions, etc) than by individuals belonging to 'classes' as shared characteristics-of-individuals that approach abstract Ideals. I have always disliked this 'metallic' side of thinking while preferring that [[E:anarchology (meta-Marxism)\|anarchological]] 'structures' side because again, it too much resembles Idealism, while the anarchology/"ektirionism" route definitely looks a lot like existing conventional forms of Materialism such as quantum physics and chemistry.

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

Reversedragon: freedom

2026-04-21T11:12:42Z

freedom

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:12, 21 April 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:

	{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The categorical imperative prevents people from maximizing outcomes for themselves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative] -> I am not sure that is true. I will have to look at it again but I am pretty sure there are ways for people to twist it.		{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The categorical imperative prevents people from maximizing outcomes for themselves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative] -> I am not sure that is true. I will have to look at it again but I am pretty sure there are ways for people to twist it.

			{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}If we are to make maxims that 1) are universal and 2) do not make human beings means to an end, then this must clearly be described by the concept of freedom, and we must make universal maxims that simultaneously do not infringe on the freedom of ourselves or others -> you lost me. you lost me at "freedom".<br/>
			riddle me this: if the ICFI says that everyone in the world should will that every country becomes orange as a universal law, but the Pabloites say that everyone in the world should will that every country is allowed to become red before becoming orange as a universal law, and they get into an argument at their conference precisely over who is forcing what universal law on who, then what is freedom and who is free? Kantian ethics is nonsense.

			{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Tent of freedom poles is achieved if every Subject agrees to it -> that point feels awfully counterfactual. like, I wonder if this accurately applies to {{em\|any society whatsoever}} without being broken up by subpopulational contradictions. a bit ironic when Kant was trying to get away from "hypothetical imperatives".

	{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Suicide could not be a universal law of nature / A man claiming that suicide is an act of mercy is in logical contradiction with a code that usually acts to stimulate the furtherance of life, so this could not be a universal law of nature -> I do not see how that follows. first, I don't even see why a logical contradiction or division into two interacting things means something can't be natural. second, I don't see how Kant knows that the laws of the universe are in favor of the furtherance of human life and that isn't just something he made up. I'm sure there's more context but out of context so much of this just feels like one big chain of non sequiturs.		{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Suicide could not be a universal law of nature / A man claiming that suicide is an act of mercy is in logical contradiction with a code that usually acts to stimulate the furtherance of life, so this could not be a universal law of nature -> I do not see how that follows. first, I don't even see why a logical contradiction or division into two interacting things means something can't be natural. second, I don't see how Kant knows that the laws of the universe are in favor of the furtherance of human life and that isn't just something he made up. I'm sure there's more context but out of context so much of this just feels like one big chain of non sequiturs.

Reversedragon: encyclical

2026-04-21T10:59:23Z

encyclical

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:59, 21 April 2026
Line 20:		Line 20:

	{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Suicide could not be a universal law of nature / A man claiming that suicide is an act of mercy is in logical contradiction with a code that usually acts to stimulate the furtherance of life, so this could not be a universal law of nature -> I do not see how that follows. first, I don't even see why a logical contradiction or division into two interacting things means something can't be natural. second, I don't see how Kant knows that the laws of the universe are in favor of the furtherance of human life and that isn't just something he made up. I'm sure there's more context but out of context so much of this just feels like one big chain of non sequiturs.		{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Suicide could not be a universal law of nature / A man claiming that suicide is an act of mercy is in logical contradiction with a code that usually acts to stimulate the furtherance of life, so this could not be a universal law of nature -> I do not see how that follows. first, I don't even see why a logical contradiction or division into two interacting things means something can't be natural. second, I don't see how Kant knows that the laws of the universe are in favor of the furtherance of human life and that isn't just something he made up. I'm sure there's more context but out of context so much of this just feels like one big chain of non sequiturs.

			{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The wildly unequal distribution of resources between First World and Third World or between margins and highest classes is really just a failure to behave in a way that can be universalized to every individual [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Application_of_the_universalizability_principle_to_the_ethics_of_consumption] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudato_si%27] -> well isn't this anarchemistry at its finest. I will never intuitively understand why it is that people believe societies should inherently contain equal amounts of consumption. we live in a world where all forms of organizing society and growing population are turned into forms of consumption. how can you not see that? this encourages a bunch of other wasteful forms of consumption, because everything is consumption. and we actually kind of have the categorical imperative to blame for it, because people can't see the difference between it and [[E:existential materialism\|a universalized form of predicting how behaviors scale up]]. the notion of universally legislating implies that if one person does something and another person does it and it's not harmful yet then it therefore must be okay. then millions and millions of people do it, and suddenly it starts actually having an impact because little did anyone know, it wasn't really a good thing the first time someone did it. metallic rules should actually be able to cover this. but everyone is also obsessed with this really stupid concept that moderation is possible and isn't just often an accident of something uncontrollable failing to get out of control. this leads us up to anarchemistry: one person taking an action to promote the flourishing of rational beings is something that should be repeated over and over and over as long as each time it's beneficial to someone else, but if it turns out the supposedly rational process of many instances of the same decision colliding is not actually rational whatsoever, then everyone needs to panic, insist that all the people independently doing a particular repeated thing {{em\|are}} repeating it rationally, and crudely and abruptly attack the people who happened to do the most of the offending thing to cement that belief.

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

Reversedragon: copper rule

2026-04-21T10:38:19Z

copper rule

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:38, 21 April 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:
	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Treat yourself as you would treat others / Do unto you as you do unto others / bronze rule (golden converse) [https://theemotionsdoctor.com/the-golden-platinum-and-bronze-rules-working-with-others-and-dealing-with-yourself/] / converse golden rule		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Treat yourself as you would treat others / Do unto you as you do unto others / bronze rule (golden converse) [https://theemotionsdoctor.com/the-golden-platinum-and-bronze-rules-working-with-others-and-dealing-with-yourself/] / converse golden rule

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Treat others how they would like to be treated [https://issuu.com/professionalskatersassociation/docs/mayjune21/s/12234833] / platinum rule<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Treat others how they would like to be treated [https://issuu.com/professionalskatersassociation/docs/mayjune21/s/12234833] / platinum rule / copper rule (generic) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4487968]<br/>
	cultural relativism proposition + ?? = platinum rule. platinum rule + ?? = cultural relativism proposition.		cultural relativism proposition + ?? = platinum rule. platinum rule + ?? = cultural relativism proposition.
	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}platinum rule / Accept Christians who are weak in faith [...]. The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not ... for God has accepted him (Romans 14:1-4) / Therefore let us stop judging one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. (Romans 14-13) [https://www.dashhouse.com/2002217the-platinum-rule-romans-14-html/]		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}platinum rule / Accept Christians who are weak in faith [...]. The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not ... for God has accepted him (Romans 14:1-4) / Therefore let us stop judging one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. (Romans 14-13) [https://www.dashhouse.com/2002217the-platinum-rule-romans-14-html/]
Line 47:		Line 47:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Do unto others {{em\|as}} they do unto you [https://2transform.us/2005/12/14/the-metallic-rules-gold-silver-platinum/] / Do unto others as they would do unto you / Do unto others as they would like to do unto you / Do unto others as they have done to others [https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Testing_Your_Moral_Metal] / Do unto others as others have done unto you [https://2transform.us/2005/12/14/the-metallic-rules-gold-silver-platinum/] / lead rule [https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Testing_Your_Moral_Metal] / iron rule (generic) / brass rule (generic) [https://2transform.us/2005/12/14/the-metallic-rules-gold-silver-platinum/]		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Do unto others {{em\|as}} they do unto you [https://2transform.us/2005/12/14/the-metallic-rules-gold-silver-platinum/] / Do unto others as they would do unto you / Do unto others as they would like to do unto you / Do unto others as they have done to others [https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Testing_Your_Moral_Metal] / Do unto others as others have done unto you [https://2transform.us/2005/12/14/the-metallic-rules-gold-silver-platinum/] / lead rule [https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Testing_Your_Moral_Metal] / iron rule (generic) / brass rule (generic) [https://2transform.us/2005/12/14/the-metallic-rules-gold-silver-platinum/] / copper rule (generic) [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2qd7f2/is_the_distinction_between_the_golden_rule_and/]

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Do unto others before they do unto you / Do unto others to prevent them from doing harm unto you [https://allen-faulton.medium.com/the-great-rules-of-conduct-14ea2257d06a] / iron rule [https://2transform.us/2005/12/14/the-metallic-rules-gold-silver-platinum/] / iron rule of sales / plutonium rule (statement that salespeople should make the first move to have control over the situation) [https://joeellersonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ThePlutoniumRule.pdf]		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Do unto others before they do unto you / Do unto others to prevent them from doing harm unto you [https://allen-faulton.medium.com/the-great-rules-of-conduct-14ea2257d06a] / iron rule [https://2transform.us/2005/12/14/the-metallic-rules-gold-silver-platinum/] / iron rule of sales / plutonium rule (statement that salespeople should make the first move to have control over the situation) [https://joeellersonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ThePlutoniumRule.pdf]

Reversedragon: Individualism is logically impossible

2026-04-21T08:33:54Z

Individualism is logically impossible

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:33, 21 April 2026
Line 83:		Line 83:
	{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}If you forget to give the stranger your coat he was Jesus (Matthew 25:42-46) [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A42-46&version=NLT] -> I find very little of the bible actually useful but for some reason this is one of the things in it that has just {{em\|stuck in my mind}} over the years. the weird concept that you must give God your coat and he is everybody. it's one of the weirdest ways to phrase the veil of ignorance and yet somehow it came first.		{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}If you forget to give the stranger your coat he was Jesus (Matthew 25:42-46) [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A42-46&version=NLT] -> I find very little of the bible actually useful but for some reason this is one of the things in it that has just {{em\|stuck in my mind}} over the years. the weird concept that you must give God your coat and he is everybody. it's one of the weirdest ways to phrase the veil of ignorance and yet somehow it came first.

	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_mdem" data-tradition="~~MX~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">~~Individualism is logically impossible -> the claim that it is impossible to actually construct an individualism which both makes any coherent sense in reality and does not in practice turn into a collectivism.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Individualism is logically impossible -> the claim that it is impossible to actually construct an individualism which both makes any coherent sense in reality and does not in practice turn into a collectivism.<br/>
			this.... becomes way more likely in light of the categorical imperative. Kant had to add on this weird "kingdom of ends" thing asserting a society is okay and "universally legislating" is guaranteed to lock everyone into a shared society just to make it all work. in the end if it is to function there's nothing individual about it at all.

	{{li\|I=S1/Zv\|Q=618}}Metallic rules generate "Them" / Metallic rules generate the nebulous concept of "Them" often seen in internet news articles that does not map neatly onto a class position or real-world ethnic group but is said to have in some small way destroyed society -> the concept of "Them" is one reason I have trouble taking anarchists seriously. anarchists will go around telling you that exclusions and exceptions unite people, but they won't turn around and look back and realize that everyday people are constantly creating new clusters of exceptions that {{em\|don't}} make sense and perhaps actually are making society worse yet are totally unidentifiable. like, Peter the anarchist thinks gay, trans, autistic, and disabled people are going to save society because they're all excluded, but Pete the trucker thinks NASA scientists, queer theorists, Jeffrey Epstein, the CDC, the Workers' Party of Korea, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, the leadership of Israel, and Joe Biden all belong to the same demographic that's worth excluding from society, so is that group of people going to save society? those are all people that might at some point get called "Them" and blamed for ~~enshittifying~~ the world. but then they'd all face prejudice, sometimes prejudice they could argue against legitimately. charcoal anarchists, blue anarchists, and orange anarchists are all anarchists in that they all formulate society based on morality and they all try to section off low ends and high ends of society that deviate from the middle, sometimes cursing the high ends, sometimes either praising or cursing the low ends. but they all end up with different "Thems", while periodically trying to act like they actually have the same "Thems" such that everyone who is an anarchist can be united against the same Bad Thems. it's all very nonsensical. none of it makes sense.<br/>		{{li\|I=S1/Zv\|Q=618}}Metallic rules generate "Them" / Metallic rules generate the nebulous concept of "Them" often seen in internet news articles that does not map neatly onto a class position or real-world ethnic group but is said to have in some small way destroyed society -> the concept of "Them" is one reason I have trouble taking anarchists seriously. anarchists will go around telling you that exclusions and exceptions unite people, but they won't turn around and look back and realize that everyday people are constantly creating new clusters of exceptions that {{em\|don't}} make sense and perhaps actually are making society worse yet are totally unidentifiable. like, Peter the anarchist thinks gay, trans, autistic, and disabled people are going to save society because they're all excluded, but Pete the trucker thinks NASA scientists, queer theorists, Jeffrey Epstein, the CDC, the Workers' Party of Korea, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, the leadership of Israel, and Joe Biden all belong to the same demographic that's worth excluding from society, so is that group of people going to save society? those are all people that might at some point get called "Them" and blamed for {{censor\|en\|shittify\|ing}} the world. but then they'd all face prejudice, sometimes prejudice they could argue against legitimately. charcoal anarchists, blue anarchists, and orange anarchists are all anarchists in that they all formulate society based on morality and they all try to section off low ends and high ends of society that deviate from the middle, sometimes cursing the high ends, sometimes either praising or cursing the low ends. but they all end up with different "Thems", while periodically trying to act like they actually have the same "Thems" such that everyone who is an anarchist can be united against the same Bad Thems. it's all very nonsensical. none of it makes sense.<br/>
	one of the only ways to interpret all of it so that it does make sense is that anarchists are sorting out horizontally so that anarchists of a particular factional color are only allowed with a particular color and anarchists that don't fit into that countable culture will be sorted into another countable culture of another factional color where only another specific set of things is allowed. although you can see particular strata where blue or orange anarchists are kicking out the charcoal anarchists for being unlikeable low-enders and charcoal anarchists are kicking out other anarchists for being cruel high-enders, none of the islands of anarchism is based on class or recognizes class so the way they're all actually sorting is by arbitrary moral rules of what they each think is morally bad.		one of the only ways to interpret all of it so that it does make sense is that anarchists are sorting out horizontally so that anarchists of a particular factional color are only allowed with a particular color and anarchists that don't fit into that countable culture will be sorted into another countable culture of another factional color where only another specific set of things is allowed. although you can see particular strata where blue or orange anarchists are kicking out the charcoal anarchists for being unlikeable low-enders and charcoal anarchists are kicking out other anarchists for being cruel high-enders, none of the islands of anarchism is based on class or recognizes class so the way they're all actually sorting is by arbitrary moral rules of what they each think is morally bad.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:12, 21 April 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:

	{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The categorical imperative prevents people from maximizing outcomes for themselves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative] -> I am not sure that is true. I will have to look at it again but I am pretty sure there are ways for people to twist it.		{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The categorical imperative prevents people from maximizing outcomes for themselves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative] -> I am not sure that is true. I will have to look at it again but I am pretty sure there are ways for people to twist it.

			{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}If we are to make maxims that 1) are universal and 2) do not make human beings means to an end, then this must clearly be described by the concept of freedom, and we must make universal maxims that simultaneously do not infringe on the freedom of ourselves or others -> you lost me. you lost me at "freedom".<br/>
			riddle me this: if the ICFI says that everyone in the world should will that every country becomes orange as a universal law, but the Pabloites say that everyone in the world should will that every country is allowed to become red before becoming orange as a universal law, and they get into an argument at their conference precisely over who is forcing what universal law on who, then what is freedom and who is free? Kantian ethics is nonsense.

			{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Tent of freedom poles is achieved if every Subject agrees to it -> that point feels awfully counterfactual. like, I wonder if this accurately applies to {{em\|any society whatsoever}} without being broken up by subpopulational contradictions. a bit ironic when Kant was trying to get away from "hypothetical imperatives".

	{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Suicide could not be a universal law of nature / A man claiming that suicide is an act of mercy is in logical contradiction with a code that usually acts to stimulate the furtherance of life, so this could not be a universal law of nature -> I do not see how that follows. first, I don't even see why a logical contradiction or division into two interacting things means something can't be natural. second, I don't see how Kant knows that the laws of the universe are in favor of the furtherance of human life and that isn't just something he made up. I'm sure there's more context but out of context so much of this just feels like one big chain of non sequiturs.		{{li\|I=S2/IK\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Suicide could not be a universal law of nature / A man claiming that suicide is an act of mercy is in logical contradiction with a code that usually acts to stimulate the furtherance of life, so this could not be a universal law of nature -> I do not see how that follows. first, I don't even see why a logical contradiction or division into two interacting things means something can't be natural. second, I don't see how Kant knows that the laws of the universe are in favor of the furtherance of human life and that isn't just something he made up. I'm sure there's more context but out of context so much of this just feels like one big chain of non sequiturs.