Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q53,19 - Revision history

Reversedragon: title / spacing

2026-05-08T12:49:11Z

title / spacing

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:49, 8 May 2026
Line 119:		Line 119:
	* A / anarchism		* A / anarchism

			== Full title for bookmarks (optional) ==
			<pre>[9k] secular animism ; ensoulment ; David Rain doorways ; hotel hallway of minds ; Deng Xiaoping Thought is a form of anarchism ; apple plus apple dualism</pre>

	[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming		[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
	redirects or titles: [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SecularAnimism]] [[EC:9k/RD/Q53,19 secular animism]]		redirects or titles: [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SecularAnimism]] [[EC:9k/RD/Q53,19 secular animism]]

	duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q618-SecularAnimism]] -->		duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q618-SecularAnimism]] -->

Reversedragon: redirects

2026-05-08T12:45:58Z

redirects

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 8 May 2026
Line 121:		Line 121:

	[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming		[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
	redirects or titles: [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SecularAnimism]]		redirects or titles: [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SecularAnimism]] [[EC:9k/RD/Q53,19 secular animism]]

	duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q618-SecularAnimism]] -->		duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q618-SecularAnimism]] -->

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SecularAnimism to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q53,19: Entity number or thesis portal structure was not final

2026-05-08T12:43:51Z

Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SecularAnimism to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q53,19: Entity number or thesis portal structure was not final

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:43, 8 May 2026
(No difference)

Reversedragon: Animism in ancient religions

2026-05-08T12:42:18Z

Animism in ancient religions

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:42, 8 May 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/A\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~\|h4= secular animism }}		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/Aqr/HAS\|Q=53,20\|Q2=5320}}animism / ({{9k\|RD/Q53,20}})

			{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=53,19\|Q2=53,19\|h4= secular animism }}

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 67:		Line 69:
	{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}Lake Erie is a living entity because it is full of living organisms [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/] -> on one hand, this is technically true. like, if it contains many individual living organisms, Lake Erie is conceptually a population, and populations are ecological entities. I can't even really say that laws protecting the lake or protecting animal populations are necessarily bad.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}Lake Erie is a living entity because it is full of living organisms [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/] -> on one hand, this is technically true. like, if it contains many individual living organisms, Lake Erie is conceptually a population, and populations are ecological entities. I can't even really say that laws protecting the lake or protecting animal populations are necessarily bad.<br/>
	on the other hand, I think the best response to this claim is to pull out scenes from old mildly-racist cartoons. notably that scene in {{film\|Kimba the White Lion}} where an African tribe in a scarcely developed area was illegally hunting animals and somebody from a city just flat out started ordering the tribal people around and telling them the city had the rights to those animals, not the tribal people, so the tribal people have to move to the city and participate in capitalism at its lowest rungs. and Kimba the white lion just stood there smiling at it the whole time. this is what happens when humans think that any group of humans can actually speak for inanimate objects or nonhuman animals as if they were people — the objects turn into allies of that specific group of people against other groups of people, which can be used to [[E:Anarchism can oppress people\|oppress other groups of people]] in a Filament effect.		on the other hand, I think the best response to this claim is to pull out scenes from old mildly-racist cartoons. notably that scene in {{film\|Kimba the White Lion}} where an African tribe in a scarcely developed area was illegally hunting animals and somebody from a city just flat out started ordering the tribal people around and telling them the city had the rights to those animals, not the tribal people, so the tribal people have to move to the city and participate in capitalism at its lowest rungs. and Kimba the white lion just stood there smiling at it the whole time. this is what happens when humans think that any group of humans can actually speak for inanimate objects or nonhuman animals as if they were people — the objects turn into allies of that specific group of people against other groups of people, which can be used to [[E:Anarchism can oppress people\|oppress other groups of people]] in a Filament effect.

			</li></ol>

			== Animism in ancient religions ==
			<ol class="hue clean">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/Aqr/HAS\|Q=53,21\|Q2=5321}}local god as external force / god (animating power) / local god (generic) / tutelary deity (generic) / spirit (local god; generic) -> this is the concept of a local god as an external supernatural force — an animating or enchanting force beyond nature. Greek myths are frequently presented as if they work this way, although I genuinely couldn't tell you if that's an accurate portrayal of how they were interpreted historically

			{{li\|I=S2/Aqr/HAS\|Q=53,22\|Q2=5322}}local god as personification / god (personification) / local god (generic) / tutelary deity (generic) / spirit (local god; generic) -> this is the concept of a local god ([[E:spirit (local god)\|spirit]]) as the personification of what today we would think of as a material thing. this concept is blatantly present in Egyptian myth if you look into it deeply enough, as well as in modern kaiju stories.

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

Reversedragon: Personifying nature is not false consciousness

2026-05-07T03:19:43Z

Personifying nature is not false consciousness

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:19, 7 May 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:

	== Miscellaneous ==		== Miscellaneous ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}Tribal populations lived less exploitative and more sustainable lives because of animism / Animism originated in tribal populations, and tribal populations lived less exploitative and more sustainable lives, therefore they lived this way because of animism, and industrial societies stopped living this way because colonialism maliciously destroyed animism [https://www.reddit.com/r/SecularAnimism/comments/x2pih3/why_secular_animism/]		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}Tribal populations lived less exploitative and more sustainable lives because of animism / Animism originated in tribal populations, and tribal populations lived less exploitative and more sustainable lives, therefore they lived this way because of animism, and industrial societies stopped living this way because colonialism maliciously destroyed animism [https://www.reddit.com/r/SecularAnimism/comments/x2pih3/why_secular_animism/]
Line 24:		Line 24:
	think about this. Trotskyism claims to be able to unite everyone of all industrial societies around the world. but it inevitably runs into conflicts with Third World Marxisms that don't want Trotskyism essentially invading their country from the outside and conquering their population — which it inevitably does because it doesn't like the idea of non-Trotskyisms joining the Fourth International on their own terms, starting 'from within their own framework of meaning'. how do you know this problem couldn't happen with basically all philosophies ever including secular animism? I am convinced at this point that all philosophies that don't acknowledge the concept of meta-philosophy and analyzing themselves as mere objects rather than Subjects are basically garbage. people say that "scientific rationalism" centers humans. but I don't think that's the problem. I think the real problem is that it centers The Subject, and can't conceptualize a universe that is made of inanimate objects instead of Subjects. and, sure, it'd be ridiculous to create an {{em\|ethics}} centered around inanimate objects. but if you aren't thinking in terms of ethics, and are thinking in terms of descriptively modeling the universe to get the best consequences, I think a model centered on inanimate objects is the way to go. every time you center The Subject you will always give Subjects the power to conquer the rest of the universe, because that's what individual Subjects do: they eat, occupy space, fight, and reproduce. so I think you honestly get a way more {{em\|ethical}} philosophy if you practice "inanimism" rather than animism. because only a philosophy that includes the whole universe including inanimate objects truly lacks the ability to exclude any group of people.		think about this. Trotskyism claims to be able to unite everyone of all industrial societies around the world. but it inevitably runs into conflicts with Third World Marxisms that don't want Trotskyism essentially invading their country from the outside and conquering their population — which it inevitably does because it doesn't like the idea of non-Trotskyisms joining the Fourth International on their own terms, starting 'from within their own framework of meaning'. how do you know this problem couldn't happen with basically all philosophies ever including secular animism? I am convinced at this point that all philosophies that don't acknowledge the concept of meta-philosophy and analyzing themselves as mere objects rather than Subjects are basically garbage. people say that "scientific rationalism" centers humans. but I don't think that's the problem. I think the real problem is that it centers The Subject, and can't conceptualize a universe that is made of inanimate objects instead of Subjects. and, sure, it'd be ridiculous to create an {{em\|ethics}} centered around inanimate objects. but if you aren't thinking in terms of ethics, and are thinking in terms of descriptively modeling the universe to get the best consequences, I think a model centered on inanimate objects is the way to go. every time you center The Subject you will always give Subjects the power to conquer the rest of the universe, because that's what individual Subjects do: they eat, occupy space, fight, and reproduce. so I think you honestly get a way more {{em\|ethical}} philosophy if you practice "inanimism" rather than animism. because only a philosophy that includes the whole universe including inanimate objects truly lacks the ability to exclude any group of people.

	{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=618}}re-enchanting the world [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/] -> what has always confused me is, what actually is this, and why is it necessary?		{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=618\|h4 = re-enchanting the world }} [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/] -> what has always confused me is, what actually is this, and why is it necessary?

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}When Westerners appropriate animism for themselves and see it specifically through Western eyes, discussions about animism are not insulting tribal populations any more [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/] -> this feels.... ironic, like a bit of a disaster waiting to happen.		{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}When Westerners appropriate animism for themselves and see it specifically through Western eyes, discussions about animism are not insulting tribal populations any more [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/] -> this feels.... ironic, like a bit of a disaster waiting to happen.
Line 43:		Line 43:

	{{li\|I=S2/A/ML\|Q=29,70\|Q2=2970}}All semiosis is alive (Eduardo Kohn) -> this one would just be the same as Q29,70 "{{a\|E=A Subject is a living organism that eats and occupies space}}". so, it's true. all "semiosis" sure does contain [[E:The material resolves the immaterial\|material objects that resolve the immaterial]], and some of them sure are alive.		{{li\|I=S2/A/ML\|Q=29,70\|Q2=2970}}All semiosis is alive (Eduardo Kohn) -> this one would just be the same as Q29,70 "{{a\|E=A Subject is a living organism that eats and occupies space}}". so, it's true. all "semiosis" sure does contain [[E:The material resolves the immaterial\|material objects that resolve the immaterial]], and some of them sure are alive.

			{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= Animism is not false consciousness }} / Personifying nature is not false consciousness / Human beings projecting characteristics of sociality (social bonding, ethics, etc) onto forces of nature and inanimate objects is not [[E:inappropriately-applied shovel dream (meta-Marxism)\|false consciousness]], due to the fact it is the understanding of an individual human Animal and human beings will always be individual human Animals -> this is one of the only trump cards anarchists can still use to win against meta-Marxism — utter nonsense and conceptual spaghetti. they can and will use it, so it's important to be several steps ahead of them unpacking everything anarchists {{em\|possibly could}} claim to ever be able to defeat anarchism.

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

Reversedragon: Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality

2026-04-20T22:21:41Z

Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:21, 20 April 2026
Line 83:		Line 83:
	{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=618}}If two tribes break each other's rules by following their own rules, then whose rules apply to defuse the conflict? -> I don't think anarchists can answer this. they love to talk about how if you "respect people's inherent boundaries" everything will be fine, but they don't really stop and think about the fact that some inherent boundaries are hugely arbitrary and can still be inherent to a person or group of people. this is the problem. neurotypical people hate autistic people because autistic people operating normally shatter their boundaries and break their rules and "fail to respect {{em\|them}}". the same goes for almost any group of people somebody hates. somebody hates Arabs? an Arab army attacking a place once failed to respect White people's boundaries therefore Arabs are Bad Immoral People that deserve to be punished. somebody hates trans people for supposedly breaking the rules of Christianity? those were the actual rules that person had to follow to not get kicked out of town, so the person is offended that non-Christians get to break the rules and they don't. if they turned around and tried to change Christianity then Christians would be offended that they weren't being "equally respected as living beings" and allowed to have their own set of rules.<br/>		{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=618}}If two tribes break each other's rules by following their own rules, then whose rules apply to defuse the conflict? -> I don't think anarchists can answer this. they love to talk about how if you "respect people's inherent boundaries" everything will be fine, but they don't really stop and think about the fact that some inherent boundaries are hugely arbitrary and can still be inherent to a person or group of people. this is the problem. neurotypical people hate autistic people because autistic people operating normally shatter their boundaries and break their rules and "fail to respect {{em\|them}}". the same goes for almost any group of people somebody hates. somebody hates Arabs? an Arab army attacking a place once failed to respect White people's boundaries therefore Arabs are Bad Immoral People that deserve to be punished. somebody hates trans people for supposedly breaking the rules of Christianity? those were the actual rules that person had to follow to not get kicked out of town, so the person is offended that non-Christians get to break the rules and they don't. if they turned around and tried to change Christianity then Christians would be offended that they weren't being "equally respected as living beings" and allowed to have their own set of rules.<br/>
	whenever anyone hates anyone it's generally a horizontal conflict of two pre-existing sets of rules that simultaneously try to [[E:leaping State process (meta-Marxism)\|enforce themselves onto each other]]. the problem with secular animism is everyone has already been following it and simultaneously getting mad at other groups of people for not following their rules and that's {{em\|why}} there are international wars.		whenever anyone hates anyone it's generally a horizontal conflict of two pre-existing sets of rules that simultaneously try to [[E:leaping State process (meta-Marxism)\|enforce themselves onto each other]]. the problem with secular animism is everyone has already been following it and simultaneously getting mad at other groups of people for not following their rules and that's {{em\|why}} there are international wars.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em\|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em\|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done.<br/>
			(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.

Reversedragon: If two tribes break each other's rules by following their own rules, then whose rules apply to defuse the conflict?

2026-04-20T21:30:53Z

If two tribes break each other's rules by following their own rules, then whose rules apply to defuse the conflict?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 20 April 2026
Line 80:		Line 80:
	it's common to talk of people not knowing about particular cultures as an intentionally fabricated thing and bigotry being "socially constructed" in some deliberate way, but if you get outside the scope of racism, there are any number of ways that groups of people are separated totally unintentionally, and plural languages are one of those. if animism is true then like, why weren't all tribes of people somehow created with the same language? why is it that people have to deliberately learn languages to understand each other's communication or culture and yet everyone gets ignorance for free?<br/>		it's common to talk of people not knowing about particular cultures as an intentionally fabricated thing and bigotry being "socially constructed" in some deliberate way, but if you get outside the scope of racism, there are any number of ways that groups of people are separated totally unintentionally, and plural languages are one of those. if animism is true then like, why weren't all tribes of people somehow created with the same language? why is it that people have to deliberately learn languages to understand each other's communication or culture and yet everyone gets ignorance for free?<br/>
	now, there are a few caveats here like, "untranslatable words or phrases". I'm not sure those actually exist. I feel like if you can explain something in one language within about a page of a paperback book in another language or the amount of speaking time it takes to read one then the concept exists in both languages. so for languages to be inherently different you have to point to things like grammar, not purely the existence of different words. but either way, different groups of people separately develop different definitions of each word or concept without thinking about what that means for other groups of people who speak other languages who would want to define all those concepts another way. how does that support everyone being part of one thing instead of multiple things?		now, there are a few caveats here like, "untranslatable words or phrases". I'm not sure those actually exist. I feel like if you can explain something in one language within about a page of a paperback book in another language or the amount of speaking time it takes to read one then the concept exists in both languages. so for languages to be inherently different you have to point to things like grammar, not purely the existence of different words. but either way, different groups of people separately develop different definitions of each word or concept without thinking about what that means for other groups of people who speak other languages who would want to define all those concepts another way. how does that support everyone being part of one thing instead of multiple things?

			{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=618}}If two tribes break each other's rules by following their own rules, then whose rules apply to defuse the conflict? -> I don't think anarchists can answer this. they love to talk about how if you "respect people's inherent boundaries" everything will be fine, but they don't really stop and think about the fact that some inherent boundaries are hugely arbitrary and can still be inherent to a person or group of people. this is the problem. neurotypical people hate autistic people because autistic people operating normally shatter their boundaries and break their rules and "fail to respect {{em\|them}}". the same goes for almost any group of people somebody hates. somebody hates Arabs? an Arab army attacking a place once failed to respect White people's boundaries therefore Arabs are Bad Immoral People that deserve to be punished. somebody hates trans people for supposedly breaking the rules of Christianity? those were the actual rules that person had to follow to not get kicked out of town, so the person is offended that non-Christians get to break the rules and they don't. if they turned around and tried to change Christianity then Christians would be offended that they weren't being "equally respected as living beings" and allowed to have their own set of rules.<br/>
			whenever anyone hates anyone it's generally a horizontal conflict of two pre-existing sets of rules that simultaneously try to [[E:leaping State process (meta-Marxism)\|enforce themselves onto each other]]. the problem with secular animism is everyone has already been following it and simultaneously getting mad at other groups of people for not following their rules and that's {{em\|why}} there are international wars.

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.
Line 91:		Line 94:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought is a form of anarchism {{em\|because}} it operates primarily on the basis of encouraging people to be part of a connected population of people aiming to get rid of division and alienation ({{a\|commons\|E=commons (secular animism)}}, Community, stationary Rhizome), and of sorting people into a (somewhat large) autonomous society barricaded away from global capitalism in order to stop external society from doing Evil things against it and leave Greed, the primary Evil that causes external society to attack Third World countries, to tire itself out and die; an Evil thing is here defined as an action taken to wilfully disrupt the baseline healthy functioning of another person or group of people instead of operating in harmony -> every time anarchists try to explain why anarchism is better than Marxism I absolutely can't tell the difference between their descriptions of anarchism and what people living in Deng Xiaoping Thought sound like. I think this is a problem with anarchist theories and how utterly imprecise they are. I do not really believe this specific claim is true, but I do believe that anarchists are lying about anarchism only being able to form without a State, and that there is such a thing as fully-statist anarchist nation-states akin to Liberal-republicanism or Bolshevism. considering no anarchism has been able to stay standing for more than 3 years it makes {{em\|way more sense}} to me that if that problem is ever to be solved there would be a form of transitional anarchist state that turns into a stateless anarchism. when Trotskyists talk about a transitional state I believe them more than if they had talked about a global anarchism. the same goes for anarchism itself.		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought is a form of anarchism {{em\|because}} it operates primarily on the basis of encouraging people to be part of a connected population of people aiming to get rid of division and alienation ({{a\|commons\|E=commons (secular animism)}}, Community, stationary Rhizome), and of sorting people into a (somewhat large) autonomous society barricaded away from global capitalism in order to stop external society from doing Evil things against it and leave Greed, the primary Evil that causes external society to attack Third World countries, to tire itself out and die; an Evil thing is here defined as an action taken to wilfully disrupt the baseline healthy functioning of another person or group of people instead of operating in harmony -> every time anarchists try to explain why anarchism is better than Marxism I absolutely can't tell the difference between their descriptions of anarchism and what people living in Deng Xiaoping Thought sound like. I think this is a problem with anarchist theories and how utterly imprecise they are. I do not really believe this specific claim is true, but I do believe that anarchists are lying about anarchism only being able to form without a State, and that there is such a thing as fully-statist anarchist nation-states akin to Liberal-republicanism or Bolshevism. considering no anarchism has been able to stay standing for more than 3 years it makes {{em\|way more sense}} to me that if that problem is ever to be solved there would be a form of transitional anarchist state that turns into a stateless anarchism. when Trotskyists talk about a transitional state I believe them more than if they had talked about a global anarchism. the same goes for anarchism itself.

			{{li\|I=S1/MX/PT\|tradition=ES, PT\|Q=33,77\|Q2=3377}}leaping State process (meta-Marxist term; meta-Marxism onto Toryism) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q33,77\|9k]])

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

Reversedragon: Deng Xiaoping Thought is a form of anarchism ...

2026-04-20T21:08:42Z

Deng Xiaoping Thought is a form of anarchism ...

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, 20 April 2026
Line 72:		Line 72:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/EC/MX\|Q=618}}inanimism -> the motif of seeing the universe as based on inanimate objects. [https://www.academia.edu/106417446/Animisms_practical_Indigenous_philosophies] this term is rare, but already occasionally in use.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/EC/MX\|Q=618}}inanimism -> the motif of seeing the universe as based on inanimate objects. [https://www.academia.edu/106417446/Animisms_practical_Indigenous_philosophies] this term is rare, but already occasionally in use.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}The creation of nation-states destroys deontological ethics

	{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618}}Every known sociophilosophy (political faction or ideologically-charged theory of society) requires separation between individuals in order to create a "commons" or "community" -> I really cannot think of one that doesn't. not after that statement on a David Graeber review that said that bush people have a core concept of 'personal autonomy of the other'. well, White people have been either explaining that or twisting that to always mean a {{em\|strict}} separation between people where people are specialized and do and own specific things. unless this is just a gross appropriation of animism by Eduardo Kohn — which I'd totally entertain, because all of this has sounded pretty {{censor\|bullshit\|tts=[BS]}} to me — I genuinely don't think there is any meaningful distinction between secular animism and "Enlightenment rationalism" in that they both seem to promote this very [[E:Artisan layer (meta-Marxism)\|Artisanal]] view of the individual where freedom and respect are strictly achieved through autonomy, social standing, and property.		{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618}}Every known sociophilosophy (political faction or ideologically-charged theory of society) requires separation between individuals in order to create a "commons" or "community" -> I really cannot think of one that doesn't. not after that statement on a David Graeber review that said that bush people have a core concept of 'personal autonomy of the other'. well, White people have been either explaining that or twisting that to always mean a {{em\|strict}} separation between people where people are specialized and do and own specific things. unless this is just a gross appropriation of animism by Eduardo Kohn — which I'd totally entertain, because all of this has sounded pretty {{censor\|bullshit\|tts=[BS]}} to me — I genuinely don't think there is any meaningful distinction between secular animism and "Enlightenment rationalism" in that they both seem to promote this very [[E:Artisan layer (meta-Marxism)\|Artisanal]] view of the individual where freedom and respect are strictly achieved through autonomy, social standing, and property.
Line 88:		Line 90:
	{{li\|I=Z1/A\|Q=618}}{{book\|How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology beyond the Human}} (Kohn 2013) [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/]		{{li\|I=Z1/A\|Q=618}}{{book\|How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology beyond the Human}} (Kohn 2013) [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/]

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}~~The creation~~ of nation-states ~~destroys deontological ethics~~		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought is a form of anarchism {{em\|because}} it operates primarily on the basis of encouraging people to be part of a connected population of people aiming to get rid of division and alienation ({{a\|commons\|E=commons (secular animism)}}, Community, stationary Rhizome), and of sorting people into a (somewhat large) autonomous society barricaded away from global capitalism in order to stop external society from doing Evil things against it and leave Greed, the primary Evil that causes external society to attack Third World countries, to tire itself out and die; an Evil thing is here defined as an action taken to wilfully disrupt the baseline healthy functioning of another person or group of people instead of operating in harmony -> every time anarchists try to explain why anarchism is better than Marxism I absolutely can't tell the difference between their descriptions of anarchism and what people living in Deng Xiaoping Thought sound like. I think this is a problem with anarchist theories and how utterly imprecise they are. I do not really believe this specific claim is true, but I do believe that anarchists are lying about anarchism only being able to form without a State, and that there is such a thing as fully-statist anarchist nation-states akin to Liberal-republicanism or Bolshevism. considering no anarchism has been able to stay standing for more than 3 years it makes {{em\|way more sense}} to me that if that problem is ever to be solved there would be a form of transitional anarchist state that turns into a stateless anarchism. when Trotskyists talk about a transitional state I believe them more than if they had talked about a global anarchism. the same goes for anarchism itself.

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

Reversedragon: Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn

2026-04-19T06:24:29Z

Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:24, 19 April 2026
Line 79:		Line 79:
	now, there are a few caveats here like, "untranslatable words or phrases". I'm not sure those actually exist. I feel like if you can explain something in one language within about a page of a paperback book in another language or the amount of speaking time it takes to read one then the concept exists in both languages. so for languages to be inherently different you have to point to things like grammar, not purely the existence of different words. but either way, different groups of people separately develop different definitions of each word or concept without thinking about what that means for other groups of people who speak other languages who would want to define all those concepts another way. how does that support everyone being part of one thing instead of multiple things?		now, there are a few caveats here like, "untranslatable words or phrases". I'm not sure those actually exist. I feel like if you can explain something in one language within about a page of a paperback book in another language or the amount of speaking time it takes to read one then the concept exists in both languages. so for languages to be inherently different you have to point to things like grammar, not purely the existence of different words. but either way, different groups of people separately develop different definitions of each word or concept without thinking about what that means for other groups of people who speak other languages who would want to define all those concepts another way. how does that support everyone being part of one thing instead of multiple things?

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature]		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.

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

RedditPosters: Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn

2026-04-19T06:23:31Z

Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:23, 19 April 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4=}}~~secular animism~~		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= secular animism }}

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 79:		Line 79:
	now, there are a few caveats here like, "untranslatable words or phrases". I'm not sure those actually exist. I feel like if you can explain something in one language within about a page of a paperback book in another language or the amount of speaking time it takes to read one then the concept exists in both languages. so for languages to be inherently different you have to point to things like grammar, not purely the existence of different words. but either way, different groups of people separately develop different definitions of each word or concept without thinking about what that means for other groups of people who speak other languages who would want to define all those concepts another way. how does that support everyone being part of one thing instead of multiple things?		now, there are a few caveats here like, "untranslatable words or phrases". I'm not sure those actually exist. I feel like if you can explain something in one language within about a page of a paperback book in another language or the amount of speaking time it takes to read one then the concept exists in both languages. so for languages to be inherently different you have to point to things like grammar, not purely the existence of different words. but either way, different groups of people separately develop different definitions of each word or concept without thinking about what that means for other groups of people who speak other languages who would want to define all those concepts another way. how does that support everyone being part of one thing instead of multiple things?

			{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature]

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:21, 20 April 2026
Line 83:		Line 83:
	{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=618}}If two tribes break each other's rules by following their own rules, then whose rules apply to defuse the conflict? -> I don't think anarchists can answer this. they love to talk about how if you "respect people's inherent boundaries" everything will be fine, but they don't really stop and think about the fact that some inherent boundaries are hugely arbitrary and can still be inherent to a person or group of people. this is the problem. neurotypical people hate autistic people because autistic people operating normally shatter their boundaries and break their rules and "fail to respect {{em\|them}}". the same goes for almost any group of people somebody hates. somebody hates Arabs? an Arab army attacking a place once failed to respect White people's boundaries therefore Arabs are Bad Immoral People that deserve to be punished. somebody hates trans people for supposedly breaking the rules of Christianity? those were the actual rules that person had to follow to not get kicked out of town, so the person is offended that non-Christians get to break the rules and they don't. if they turned around and tried to change Christianity then Christians would be offended that they weren't being "equally respected as living beings" and allowed to have their own set of rules.<br/>		{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=618}}If two tribes break each other's rules by following their own rules, then whose rules apply to defuse the conflict? -> I don't think anarchists can answer this. they love to talk about how if you "respect people's inherent boundaries" everything will be fine, but they don't really stop and think about the fact that some inherent boundaries are hugely arbitrary and can still be inherent to a person or group of people. this is the problem. neurotypical people hate autistic people because autistic people operating normally shatter their boundaries and break their rules and "fail to respect {{em\|them}}". the same goes for almost any group of people somebody hates. somebody hates Arabs? an Arab army attacking a place once failed to respect White people's boundaries therefore Arabs are Bad Immoral People that deserve to be punished. somebody hates trans people for supposedly breaking the rules of Christianity? those were the actual rules that person had to follow to not get kicked out of town, so the person is offended that non-Christians get to break the rules and they don't. if they turned around and tried to change Christianity then Christians would be offended that they weren't being "equally respected as living beings" and allowed to have their own set of rules.<br/>
	whenever anyone hates anyone it's generally a horizontal conflict of two pre-existing sets of rules that simultaneously try to [[E:leaping State process (meta-Marxism)\|enforce themselves onto each other]]. the problem with secular animism is everyone has already been following it and simultaneously getting mad at other groups of people for not following their rules and that's {{em\|why}} there are international wars.		whenever anyone hates anyone it's generally a horizontal conflict of two pre-existing sets of rules that simultaneously try to [[E:leaping State process (meta-Marxism)\|enforce themselves onto each other]]. the problem with secular animism is everyone has already been following it and simultaneously getting mad at other groups of people for not following their rules and that's {{em\|why}} there are international wars.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em\|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em\|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done.<br/>
			(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Rights are inappropriate for a river because they're too easy to overturn [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/trees-have-rights-too-robert-macfarlane-on-the-new-laws-of-nature] -> oof. it's a little darkly funny when not even Liberal-republicans believe in human rights.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, 20 April 2026
Line 72:		Line 72:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/EC/MX\|Q=618}}inanimism -> the motif of seeing the universe as based on inanimate objects. [https://www.academia.edu/106417446/Animisms_practical_Indigenous_philosophies] this term is rare, but already occasionally in use.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/EC/MX\|Q=618}}inanimism -> the motif of seeing the universe as based on inanimate objects. [https://www.academia.edu/106417446/Animisms_practical_Indigenous_philosophies] this term is rare, but already occasionally in use.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}The creation of nation-states destroys deontological ethics

	{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618}}Every known sociophilosophy (political faction or ideologically-charged theory of society) requires separation between individuals in order to create a "commons" or "community" -> I really cannot think of one that doesn't. not after that statement on a David Graeber review that said that bush people have a core concept of 'personal autonomy of the other'. well, White people have been either explaining that or twisting that to always mean a {{em\|strict}} separation between people where people are specialized and do and own specific things. unless this is just a gross appropriation of animism by Eduardo Kohn — which I'd totally entertain, because all of this has sounded pretty {{censor\|bullshit\|tts=[BS]}} to me — I genuinely don't think there is any meaningful distinction between secular animism and "Enlightenment rationalism" in that they both seem to promote this very [[E:Artisan layer (meta-Marxism)\|Artisanal]] view of the individual where freedom and respect are strictly achieved through autonomy, social standing, and property.		{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618}}Every known sociophilosophy (political faction or ideologically-charged theory of society) requires separation between individuals in order to create a "commons" or "community" -> I really cannot think of one that doesn't. not after that statement on a David Graeber review that said that bush people have a core concept of 'personal autonomy of the other'. well, White people have been either explaining that or twisting that to always mean a {{em\|strict}} separation between people where people are specialized and do and own specific things. unless this is just a gross appropriation of animism by Eduardo Kohn — which I'd totally entertain, because all of this has sounded pretty {{censor\|bullshit\|tts=[BS]}} to me — I genuinely don't think there is any meaningful distinction between secular animism and "Enlightenment rationalism" in that they both seem to promote this very [[E:Artisan layer (meta-Marxism)\|Artisanal]] view of the individual where freedom and respect are strictly achieved through autonomy, social standing, and property.
Line 88:		Line 90:
	{{li\|I=Z1/A\|Q=618}}{{book\|How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology beyond the Human}} (Kohn 2013) [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/]		{{li\|I=Z1/A\|Q=618}}{{book\|How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology beyond the Human}} (Kohn 2013) [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-29/the-new-animism-and-commoning/]

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}~~The creation~~ of nation-states ~~destroys deontological ethics~~		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought is a form of anarchism {{em\|because}} it operates primarily on the basis of encouraging people to be part of a connected population of people aiming to get rid of division and alienation ({{a\|commons\|E=commons (secular animism)}}, Community, stationary Rhizome), and of sorting people into a (somewhat large) autonomous society barricaded away from global capitalism in order to stop external society from doing Evil things against it and leave Greed, the primary Evil that causes external society to attack Third World countries, to tire itself out and die; an Evil thing is here defined as an action taken to wilfully disrupt the baseline healthy functioning of another person or group of people instead of operating in harmony -> every time anarchists try to explain why anarchism is better than Marxism I absolutely can't tell the difference between their descriptions of anarchism and what people living in Deng Xiaoping Thought sound like. I think this is a problem with anarchist theories and how utterly imprecise they are. I do not really believe this specific claim is true, but I do believe that anarchists are lying about anarchism only being able to form without a State, and that there is such a thing as fully-statist anarchist nation-states akin to Liberal-republicanism or Bolshevism. considering no anarchism has been able to stay standing for more than 3 years it makes {{em\|way more sense}} to me that if that problem is ever to be solved there would be a form of transitional anarchist state that turns into a stateless anarchism. when Trotskyists talk about a transitional state I believe them more than if they had talked about a global anarchism. the same goes for anarchism itself.

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