User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-1 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Your choices created 28 times more empty houses

2026-06-09T15:35:42Z

Your choices created 28 times more empty houses

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 9 June 2026
Line 1,203:		Line 1,203:

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Code is culture / Code is law -> "code is law" doesn't capture the problem sufficiently. much code has to actively be interacted with and read by non-programmers, or people who become programmers. whenever anybody else has to interact with code it turns into a chain of signifiers, and turns into communication. the same is also true for user interfaces or any expectations on how a program or operating system is used. huamn beings have an [[E:Able-bodied programmers are assholes\|inherent expectation]] that all culture already exists and doesn't require labor to create. this inherent expectation is wrong, as it is very often true that people have to actively create culture with labor and yet can easily make wrong decisions on where to put their labor purely because they do not have enough information about who is going to use it. corporations inherently generate dissatisfaction by having to build things in private, although at some times <em>gigantic</em> corporations inherently generate satisfaction by already having a customer base that they can feasibly learn from; non-accessibility is the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] of people creating things while fragmented into tiny groups, which simply cannot see anything outside them as a practical matter, not a matter of deliberate prejudices. sometimes this has some very nasty consequences: if you truly wish to build something which is inclusive and equally accessible to anyone it may end up rather low-tech and behind the times for quite a long while while you troubleshoot every possible thing that could alienate an individual from participating and only very slowly update everything when it's clear that everyone can use it. some people will become lost specifically by how low-tech and manual-labor the project is. a few of those people might be disabled people who require technology to perform an assistive role, but which wasn't the assistive technology you expected. there is a tradeoff between actively [[E:Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful\|not doing anything if someone wouldn't think it wonderful]] and trying to use good judgement based on a small group's local or individual tastes hoping it will be less alienating than doing nothing because it was designed for at least one real live human, not a mindless deterministic lambda function of [[E:What if you were the variable x?\|several unknown people interacting]].		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Code is culture / Code is law -> "code is law" doesn't capture the problem sufficiently. much code has to actively be interacted with and read by non-programmers, or people who become programmers. whenever anybody else has to interact with code it turns into a chain of signifiers, and turns into communication. the same is also true for user interfaces or any expectations on how a program or operating system is used. huamn beings have an [[E:Able-bodied programmers are assholes\|inherent expectation]] that all culture already exists and doesn't require labor to create. this inherent expectation is wrong, as it is very often true that people have to actively create culture with labor and yet can easily make wrong decisions on where to put their labor purely because they do not have enough information about who is going to use it. corporations inherently generate dissatisfaction by having to build things in private, although at some times <em>gigantic</em> corporations inherently generate satisfaction by already having a customer base that they can feasibly learn from; non-accessibility is the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] of people creating things while fragmented into tiny groups, which simply cannot see anything outside them as a practical matter, not a matter of deliberate prejudices. sometimes this has some very nasty consequences: if you truly wish to build something which is inclusive and equally accessible to anyone it may end up rather low-tech and behind the times for quite a long while while you troubleshoot every possible thing that could alienate an individual from participating and only very slowly update everything when it's clear that everyone can use it. some people will become lost specifically by how low-tech and manual-labor the project is. a few of those people might be disabled people who require technology to perform an assistive role, but which wasn't the assistive technology you expected. there is a tradeoff between actively [[E:Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful\|not doing anything if someone wouldn't think it wonderful]] and trying to use good judgement based on a small group's local or individual tastes hoping it will be less alienating than doing nothing because it was designed for at least one real live human, not a mindless deterministic lambda function of [[E:What if you were the variable x?\|several unknown people interacting]].

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Your choices created 28 times more empty houses / Ours choices created 28 times more empty houses (hyper-plural phrasing) / We choose [all individuals in the United States choose in parallel] to allow people to be homeless when there are 28 times more empty houses [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOYtS53VGZI] -> no, we don't "choose" that, it just happens. 90% of the individuals in the United States could choose that homelessness is bad and [[E:I've been Frantz-Fanon'd\|they could all]] get [[E:Frantz Fanon conjecture\|Frantz-Fanon'd]] by other parts of society being more effective at out-surviving them and nonviolently crushing and oppressing them. every island of capital is like a wolf pack, with all the individuals connected to a specific capital like the wolves; the bigger the wolf pack is the more easily it overcomes an isolated caribou even if there were millions and millions of scattered caribou but only forty wolves. each mother or father wolf that "greedily" attacks a lone caribou instead of a herd has four other adults and a bunch of pups beside it, and it has them because they all benefit from standing together. you think there will be a hundred caribou and one wolf but the wolves always have cohesion. the bourgeoisie always come with built in cohesion because they need to form a ring of people that all sell products to each other. this is why as corporations keep existing products get more and more expensive — everyone in the ring just goes [[E:dragon process\|up and up]] and up at once, while letting all the corporations outside a particular successful ring die. so this is the game now. capitalism is a forever cold war and we only win it when the million caribou actually out-survive the forty wolves. in the brutal imagery of nature, you can imagine that each time a wolf tries to get a caribou it gets stomped, and maybe it dies, so they either learn by instinct to hunt something else or they simply die out physically. what does the metaphor actually mean? I'm not positive on that. I'll say this. Marxism survives when China merely keeps existing and nothing can destroy the most basic first steps of Marxism from the outside. Marxism also potentially survives when a relatively large area of industry emerges which is impossible to break apart, where the people don't forsake building any of it just because somebody gave them an offer to migrate somewhere better, and it fills up with workers. I said once in MDem drafts: once something becomes so big it's a whole population [[E:A revolution strives to become legal\|it decides what is legal]], the people surrounding it don't determine what's legal or okay. but I also think that doesn't happen unless the inside of that area is genuinely strong and hard to break up. a statement that "we choose to allow empty houses" doesn't by itself create a population that strong. (I marked this false purely for Idealism, not for not knowing my working model)

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Atomization hastens First World revolution / Atomization breaks up the tight social relationships that would actually cause the supposed "constricting grasp" of ideology within Western Marxist models, making revolution possible again (atomisation; meta-Marxism) -> this is a bold one. I have no idea if it's true. but I am very tired of every anarchist and Western-Marxist trying to claim that television or billboards or social media platforms stand between people and taking action. I know that in <em>some way</em> that claim is very misleading. I think one reasonable hypothesis is that what actually happens is people are connected to the wrong people rather than the right people. simply being connected to reactionary relatives and living in a scarcity of jobs where there are no good places to move to and no workers to meet each day has a far greater effect than "phones" could ever have. in this sense you can argue that everybody normalizing breaking social bonds to be "free" or to "find success" tosses people into a world where they interact mostly with capitalism rather than any organic social connections and if their brain is functioning at all they will grow to hate it in less than a decade. the problem is that this only really manufactures theorists, not workers, because the kinds of people who get the most atomized aren't workers to begin with — by meta-Marxist definitions they're either petty bourgeoisie tearing into a multicapitalism which could theoretically one day lead a plural Marxism, or the Refuse class.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Atomization hastens First World revolution / Atomization breaks up the tight social relationships that would actually cause the supposed "constricting grasp" of ideology within Western Marxist models, making revolution possible again (atomisation; meta-Marxism) -> this is a bold one. I have no idea if it's true. but I am very tired of every anarchist and Western-Marxist trying to claim that television or billboards or social media platforms stand between people and taking action. I know that in <em>some way</em> that claim is very misleading. I think one reasonable hypothesis is that what actually happens is people are connected to the wrong people rather than the right people. simply being connected to reactionary relatives and living in a scarcity of jobs where there are no good places to move to and no workers to meet each day has a far greater effect than "phones" could ever have. in this sense you can argue that everybody normalizing breaking social bonds to be "free" or to "find success" tosses people into a world where they interact mostly with capitalism rather than any organic social connections and if their brain is functioning at all they will grow to hate it in less than a decade. the problem is that this only really manufactures theorists, not workers, because the kinds of people who get the most atomized aren't workers to begin with — by meta-Marxist definitions they're either petty bourgeoisie tearing into a multicapitalism which could theoretically one day lead a plural Marxism, or the Refuse class.

Reversedragon: South Park is freedom of criticism

2026-06-07T09:41:01Z

South Park is freedom of criticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:41, 7 June 2026
Line 981:		Line 981:
	my thoughts on this: I think people might learn best through the visual language of fantasy books. it's a little more common than not for people to look at a fantasy book and say it's perfectly okay for a particular historical process to happen as it does even if there's collateral damage, while equivocating and complicating the need to overcome a particular conflict is stupid. at the moment people talk about "villains" they kind of almost understand history.<br />		my thoughts on this: I think people might learn best through the visual language of fantasy books. it's a little more common than not for people to look at a fantasy book and say it's perfectly okay for a particular historical process to happen as it does even if there's collateral damage, while equivocating and complicating the need to overcome a particular conflict is stupid. at the moment people talk about "villains" they kind of almost understand history.<br />
	the only real problem is when people think they understand a historical process and jump up on their high horse as if they were analyzing it through dialectical materialism when they actually aren't, and they've mentally swapped dialectical materialism and filtration. they've created filtration but they've created non-Marxist filtration that isn't amenable to Marxism, and then they take the high ground like, you gotta get on board the historical process, but they've got Lacanianism at best, they don't have Marxism.		the only real problem is when people think they understand a historical process and jump up on their high horse as if they were analyzing it through dialectical materialism when they actually aren't, and they've mentally swapped dialectical materialism and filtration. they've created filtration but they've created non-Marxist filtration that isn't amenable to Marxism, and then they take the high ground like, you gotta get on board the historical process, but they've got Lacanianism at best, they don't have Marxism.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">eastern Europeans insulting each other {{Reddit\|r=philosophy\|3z2r8u\|is=fDrJe}} -> I believe this happened. but Žižek genuinely doesn't understand that these are nationalities and nationalities are different from racial subpopulations as a matter of scale. racial subpopulations are tied to the sheer scale of survival and people's actual struggle to be effective or ineffective at surviving; it's just an artifact of how small the populations are and that they compete over tiny spatial areas that only one group of people can inhabit. that is not true of Serbia and Croatia. Serbs aren't constantly trying to be the only people who can occupy Croatia, because countries are comically big to be doing that — except when it's Palestine. Existentialists literally don't know the difference between big things and small things.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"The totalitarian formula is I know better than you what you really want" (Žižek) {{Reddit\|r=philosophy\|3z2r8u\|is=fDrJe}} -> thanks Žižek.<br />		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"The totalitarian formula is I know better than you what you really want" (Žižek) {{Reddit\|r=philosophy\|3z2r8u\|is=fDrJe}} -> thanks Žižek.<br />
Line 1,479:		Line 1,477:

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">How many prisons are needed to stop torture? / If everyone carrying out torture in a supermax prison was put into the prison and given new guards, what fraction of the population would be in prison before the tortures stopped? -> prisons aren't just delayed wars, sometimes they flat-out contain wars.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="M3">How many prisons are needed to stop torture? / If everyone carrying out torture in a supermax prison was put into the prison and given new guards, what fraction of the population would be in prison before the tortures stopped? -> prisons aren't just delayed wars, sometimes they flat-out contain wars.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2"><cite>South Park</cite> is freedom of criticism / <cite>South Park</cite> getting to make a corporate product is freedom of speech and criticism -> so many people are praising this incident of South Park challenging Donald Trump but it's like... what kind of [[E:humorous euphemism for trash\|Western-Marxism]] are you people getting at. that's a tiny chunk of the country having the ability to challenge the country's own president while most people can't do anything. a tiny chunk of the country with the ability to surround itself with an army of lawyers gets to challenge the president while regular people have to hide from their own relatives and neighbors and town business owners to avoid being involved in an imminent blood feud between the Republican-party nation and the Democratic-party nation which is not well contained by any form of Liberal-republican law and is barely being contained whatsoever by culture itself and "[[Term:culturocracy]]". why does anyone think this is a victory for anything. like, <em>anything</em>. when I see this incident I wanna go into a South Park voice and [[E:humorous euphemism for trash-tralking\|South-Park]] the South Park incident.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Racism comes from global empire / Racism comes from colonialism (postcolonial theories, anarchism, Existentialist-Structuralist tradition) / Racism is the shovel dream of global empire or imperial colonies (meta-Marxism) -> true, but an incomplete story.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Racism comes from global empire / Racism comes from colonialism (postcolonial theories, anarchism, Existentialist-Structuralist tradition) / Racism is the shovel dream of global empire or imperial colonies (meta-Marxism) -> true, but an incomplete story.

Reversedragon: What would macroscopic photons look like?

2026-05-30T10:16:07Z

What would macroscopic photons look like?

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:16, 30 May 2026
Line 663:		Line 663:

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All populations do passive filtration / passive filtration (meta-Marxism) / All populations perform passive filtration through all accepted individuals judging individuals on their ability to perform the basic thematic premises of the "community" / All human populations create spatial slot hierarchies based on the ability to best perform their thematic premises such as mastery of scientific models, mastery of contradictory anarchist rhetoric, providing the ideal example of polite and inclusive behavior as The Subject which poor people and people who don't already have stable careers and houses can never hope to live up to, or -> nothing made this as clear as Reddit and YouTube.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All populations do passive filtration / passive filtration (meta-Marxism) / All populations perform passive filtration through all accepted individuals judging individuals on their ability to perform the basic thematic premises of the "community" / All human populations create spatial slot hierarchies based on the ability to best perform their thematic premises such as mastery of scientific models, mastery of contradictory anarchist rhetoric, providing the ideal example of polite and inclusive behavior as The Subject which poor people and people who don't already have stable careers and houses can never hope to live up to, or -> nothing made this as clear as Reddit and YouTube.

	</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What would macroscopic photons look like? / What would a photon look like if it was the size of a tennis ball? -> this question haunts me sometimes. it's a silly question, but it's fun because it makes us ask what we actually know and don't know about physics. assumptions: only one photon is huge at a time. you can hurl photons at the photon. the other photons might go through it — Bose physics. it probably isn't static, you're looking at some weird phenomenon of a giant photon coming out of your flashlight and going to the wall. it has the energy of a regular photon, so it won't burn you if it didn't come out of the sun. it might be a wave; whatever it being a wave actually means you would observe. it might be a sloshy mess that isn't exactly one neat ball and more resembles two. it might be doing strange things to locality, making it terribly weird to look at. it is quantized; being huge doesn't change the nature of it being an approximately single packet with a particular energy inside. it might be some kind of weird spiral in order to carry magnetism. you're allowed to change the premise so there are exactly one of a few different fundamental particles at a time or some small number if it makes it easier to represent field coupling.
	</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What would macroscopic protons look like? / What would a proton look like if the quarks were the size of tennis balls? -> this one haunts me even more. because the funny thing is, quarks are solid. protons are solid. being fermions, they have the minimum kind of solidity to form tangible objects. so a proton might actually look like something? or you might see it as a blur of the three quarks going around much too fast. I wonder, could you burn things up by trying to poke the proton with a stick? would the acceleration be that bad? or would it just fly backward like a normal atom? we're assuming it has the mass of a proton, so when it's impossibly big it would probably be able to float in some substances, maybe even in air because that is a ridiculous density. it's also true that a proton can be a normal atom — a hydrogen ion. so you might think of it as just a huge gas molecule. could you pick it up with a magnet? I don't know.<br />
	imagine taking an oversized neutron and just, putting together atoms. the concept of an oversized chemical reaction is mildly scary, knowing some of them are dangerous. but then again you could just assemble water and that would probably be fine. what would the hydrogen bonds actually look like

	</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto ES/W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">relativistic Marxism -> the concept of a Marxism which can in theory be practiced by individuals rather than groups assuming they are all willing to learn great amounts of theory — which is probably an unrealistic assumption. this is mostly just a thought experiment. in a "relativistic Marxism" all the individuals realize that they have to move to the correct cities, go into the correct industries, and build the correct structures for any kind of intangible social progress to happen, and they all try their best to do this, constantly solving for all the uncooperative people around them (RDem). realistically these would probably emerge in [[E:separable multiplicity\|plurality]] and there would probably be two or three of these fighting over the country, leading to confused arguments about why they don't unify.<br />		</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto ES/W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">relativistic Marxism -> the concept of a Marxism which can in theory be practiced by individuals rather than groups assuming they are all willing to learn great amounts of theory — which is probably an unrealistic assumption. this is mostly just a thought experiment. in a "relativistic Marxism" all the individuals realize that they have to move to the correct cities, go into the correct industries, and build the correct structures for any kind of intangible social progress to happen, and they all try their best to do this, constantly solving for all the uncooperative people around them (RDem). realistically these would probably emerge in [[E:separable multiplicity\|plurality]] and there would probably be two or three of these fighting over the country, leading to confused arguments about why they don't unify.<br />

Reversedragon: colonial trolley problem

2026-05-13T21:36:41Z

colonial trolley problem

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 13 May 2026
Line 214:		Line 214:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The presence of a pre-existing set of rules or constraints that people will be evaluated by is characteristic of proletarian culture -> this is one of the major connecting threads between writing fan fiction and writing for official corporate products.<br />		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The presence of a pre-existing set of rules or constraints that people will be evaluated by is characteristic of proletarian culture -> this is one of the major connecting threads between writing fan fiction and writing for official corporate products.<br />
	this + ?? = Fan fiction is proletarian culture.		this + ?? = Fan fiction is proletarian culture.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">colonial trolley problem (United States) -> the concept of taking "systems" that anarchists and postcolonial theorists are convinced were only due to a few people making evil decisions and will surely be stopped through Popular Mentality and Education, and reduce those situations down to a scenario of a few people in daily life where the anarchist has a horrifying decision to make.
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Should Elijah kill to save the Indians? / There is a camp of American Indians. Elijah is a member of a frontier town. His neighbors are about to go to war with the indigenous people to claim a coal mine. If Elijah kills his neighbors, he can prevent colonialism. (here referring to the personal prejudice that causes individuals to actively subjugate other ethnic groups.) The neighbors are not interested in becoming less racist. Is he ever justified to kill them? [https://www.galbithink.org/names/us200.htm] -><br />
	to be clear: I think this is a good example of why trolley problems are stupid. I think this is a nice way to challenge the entire concept of trolley problems. trolley problems (and traditional ethics) assume that moral conundrums can actually be solved by single individuals making rational or emotional decisions, when often moral problems arise from complex interactions of two or more things behaving at the same time.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">people being too disabled to be workers and becoming the petty bourgeoisie -> capitalism seems to have this weird newfound obsession with taking workplaces away and making us covet them. certainly the concept of surplus workers has existed for a while, but it seems like it's evolved to this point businesses really want you to believe they don't actually need you because you could always be somewhere else and ever getting hired at any particular place is genuinely a privilege where you had better not have made a single mistake in your life.<br />		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">people being too disabled to be workers and becoming the petty bourgeoisie -> capitalism seems to have this weird newfound obsession with taking workplaces away and making us covet them. certainly the concept of surplus workers has existed for a while, but it seems like it's evolved to this point businesses really want you to believe they don't actually need you because you could always be somewhere else and ever getting hired at any particular place is genuinely a privilege where you had better not have made a single mistake in your life.<br />

Reversedragon: duplexing (meta-Marxism)

2026-05-11T09:48:36Z

duplexing (meta-Marxism)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:48, 11 May 2026
Line 1,089:		Line 1,089:
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gender concepts don't have to refer to anything physical as much as to themselves (Baudrillard, Stryker) {{YouTube\|KGzSGkmV5e8}} -> this is one of the connecting threads between existentialism and structuralist linguistics, thus leading into the later periods of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition.<br />		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gender concepts don't have to refer to anything physical as much as to themselves (Baudrillard, Stryker) {{YouTube\|KGzSGkmV5e8}} -> this is one of the connecting threads between existentialism and structuralist linguistics, thus leading into the later periods of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition.<br />
	note: I think this one is neat. it's one of those things that's broadly right even if it's right for slightly incorrect reasons. the action of populations against each other sorts individuals into genders, racial groupings, and so forth; under the model of structuralist linguistics you see the words man and woman or masculine and feminine shift in relation to each other as the populations shift. so... I give this one a pass. it isn't wrong. it at least isn't wrong.		note: I think this one is neat. it's one of those things that's broadly right even if it's right for slightly incorrect reasons. the action of populations against each other sorts individuals into genders, racial groupings, and so forth; under the model of structuralist linguistics you see the words man and woman or masculine and feminine shift in relation to each other as the populations shift. so... I give this one a pass. it isn't wrong. it at least isn't wrong.

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S0">duplexing (meta-Marxism) -> duplexing is the operation of taking one particular model of something and copying it so that two separate, different instances of the same thing are operating in parallel and interacting with each other. say we have psychoanalysis as the model of a mind. when we duplex psychoanalysis, there are two minds operating independently, each of them [[E:Lacanian discipline\|receiving models of society]] from their father and their sister and their teacher. if each individual has a drastically different father and teacher, not to mention a different personality, when the two people meet each other they're each inevitably going to tell each other their model of the world is the only right one, and get into a fight. Lacanian discipline doesn't sound so good now, does it? now let's say we take Stalin's Marxism and duplex it. two different countries unite the proletariat and form Marxist parties and become workers' states. however, if the two countries have totally different ideas of what is in favor of the proletariat in any particular country, each country's party will become incapable of contributing to freeing the world proletariat.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">fake-out token protagonist / disposable Black protagonist (character from a minority demographic relative to the country of the author who wrote the work, that becomes a character used in marketing but if advertised as the protagonist never becomes the protagonist) -> the motif of shows, movies, and so forth baiting the audience with a Media Representation character who will seemingly become a central character or protagonist but then doesn't.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">fake-out token protagonist / disposable Black protagonist (character from a minority demographic relative to the country of the author who wrote the work, that becomes a character used in marketing but if advertised as the protagonist never becomes the protagonist) -> the motif of shows, movies, and so forth baiting the audience with a Media Representation character who will seemingly become a central character or protagonist but then doesn't.

Reversedragon: Hierarchy contains government

2026-05-05T12:40:45Z

Hierarchy contains government

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 5 May 2026
Line 916:		Line 916:
	</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Functions are just infinite sums -> field: infinitesimal calculus, umbral calculus.		</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Functions are just infinite sums -> field: infinitesimal calculus, umbral calculus.
	</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Functions are just sum of sines / Fourier series proposition		</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Functions are just sum of sines / Fourier series proposition

	</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Hierarchy contains government / Every spatial hierarchy contains an anomalous form of government -> a basic assumption of anarchism which most likely isn't true. government provides structure. hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean structure in every case. a spatial slot hierarchy can occur without properly being either structure or government. spatial slot hierarchies can stack up into feudal orders with crude forms of government, but that doesn't mean that every spatial slot hierarchy will do that.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">New series equals originality / Isolated movies are inherently more original than movies in long-running metaseries or franchises -> this is one of the most {{censor\|fucking}} petty bourgeois things I have ever heard anybody say. counterpoint: there is an actual art to doing huge long-running metaseries well and if you can't point to a good example, you simply don't understand that art form. it's kind of like the day it finally stopped being cool to hate animated movies, now the new popular thing to hate is continuity. let me tell you, the less of a continuity people get the more they will just continue to not shut up about the exact same show or movie for a very long time and the weirder the analyses are going to get		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">New series equals originality / Isolated movies are inherently more original than movies in long-running metaseries or franchises -> this is one of the most {{censor\|fucking}} petty bourgeois things I have ever heard anybody say. counterpoint: there is an actual art to doing huge long-running metaseries well and if you can't point to a good example, you simply don't understand that art form. it's kind of like the day it finally stopped being cool to hate animated movies, now the new popular thing to hate is continuity. let me tell you, the less of a continuity people get the more they will just continue to not shut up about the exact same show or movie for a very long time and the weirder the analyses are going to get

Reversedragon: Philosophy can only take place inside the Amazing Digital Circus

2026-05-05T03:29:24Z

Philosophy can only take place inside the Amazing Digital Circus

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:29, 5 May 2026
Line 119:		Line 119:
	</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM, STM onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">thousand brains theory / cortical columns "voting" -> nice model. it matches well with intuitive hypotheses you'd have after knowing about split brains giving two different answers, and the realizations smart people should be having about the contradiction between "free will" and "absolute determinism" actually being a deepity and not making any sense either way.<br />		</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM, STM onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">thousand brains theory / cortical columns "voting" -> nice model. it matches well with intuitive hypotheses you'd have after knowing about split brains giving two different answers, and the realizations smart people should be having about the contradiction between "free will" and "absolute determinism" actually being a deepity and not making any sense either way.<br />
	reterminism + individual will = thousand brains theory.		reterminism + individual will = thousand brains theory.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Philosophy can only take place in a vat / Philosophy can only take place inside the Amazing Digital Circus -> I saw somebody actually try to argue like this today. I'm tired.<br />
	~~Caine, this is an equation of a cone. this means determinism is real, even if there's no material world and you can change everything. shut up.~~

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There is no difference between "ideology", systems modeling themselves, and "social consciousness" / Because all Social-Philosophical-Material Systems exist in plurality, no distinction can be made between bodies of philosophical description such as "the collected works of Lenin" and the concept of "ideology", although that is not to say that all ideologies are equally valid or equally good / Stalin's Marxism, Trotskyism and anarchism exist as separate bodies of people with separate behavior because there is no actual difference between "ideologies" and "consciousness" -> Western-Marxists have this really terrible habit of talking about "ideology" like it exists separately from some other better thing like "science" or "dialectical-materialist methods" or whatever it is they're thinking of. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/how-are-ideologies-false-a-reconstruction-of-the-marxian-concept/7AC936E5DE9CCFF357D2F255CC879378] Marx did this too, in my opinion improperly. there are very very few places where I'd ever say "Marx can't say that!" or even "Engels can't say that!". almost all the time I feel like what they say is at worst technically true. but that's one of them. I think Marx made a very big mistake in not realizing that anarchist movements and Trotskyist movements would be their own material objects separate from a mainstream Marxist-Leninist material object. if he'd had any idea that would happen then just by fixing that he probably would have been able to fix a bunch of other things I wouldn't even think of. including the supposed opposition between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and "decolonial"; those can just be additional named Marxisms if they can't fit themselves together with the main ones.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There is no difference between "ideology", systems modeling themselves, and "social consciousness" / Because all Social-Philosophical-Material Systems exist in plurality, no distinction can be made between bodies of philosophical description such as "the collected works of Lenin" and the concept of "ideology", although that is not to say that all ideologies are equally valid or equally good / Stalin's Marxism, Trotskyism and anarchism exist as separate bodies of people with separate behavior because there is no actual difference between "ideologies" and "consciousness" -> Western-Marxists have this really terrible habit of talking about "ideology" like it exists separately from some other better thing like "science" or "dialectical-materialist methods" or whatever it is they're thinking of. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/how-are-ideologies-false-a-reconstruction-of-the-marxian-concept/7AC936E5DE9CCFF357D2F255CC879378] Marx did this too, in my opinion improperly. there are very very few places where I'd ever say "Marx can't say that!" or even "Engels can't say that!". almost all the time I feel like what they say is at worst technically true. but that's one of them. I think Marx made a very big mistake in not realizing that anarchist movements and Trotskyist movements would be their own material objects separate from a mainstream Marxist-Leninist material object. if he'd had any idea that would happen then just by fixing that he probably would have been able to fix a bunch of other things I wouldn't even think of. including the supposed opposition between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and "decolonial"; those can just be additional named Marxisms if they can't fit themselves together with the main ones.

Reversedragon: unown's existential crisis

2026-04-27T07:20:31Z

unown's existential crisis

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:20, 27 April 2026
Line 1,170:		Line 1,170:

	</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">God speaks to everyone / Every single interaction "with God" is an interaction with the same god -> this is certainly a more logically coherent way to interpret religion than to call trans people Satan. but to me it still comes across as intellectually dishonest. how do you have any idea this is true?		</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">God speaks to everyone / Every single interaction "with God" is an interaction with the same god -> this is certainly a more logically coherent way to interpret religion than to call trans people Satan. but to me it still comes across as intellectually dishonest. how do you have any idea this is true?

	</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">unown's existential crisis - unown thought to be particles of the universe or cells of arceus, but can't comprehend what they're good for as individuals. one of the most accidentally insightful things Pokémon ever said

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every nation is an ethnic group / An ethnic group is an arrangement of one or more countable groups of people each graphed together around shared social relationships and culture, and every consistent group of people which stays together for a long time will become some kind of ethnic group -> this is one of my single biggest problems with anarchism. anarchism finds the concept of ethnic groups yucky, and in order to try to get rid of racism keeps trying to act like it's totally artificial. but most anarchist theory which isn't totally unconvincing is based on tribal societies. and what are tribal societies if not ethnic groups? Black versus White might not be a necessary ethnic grouping, but when you form people into a tribe of anarchists or the Democrat nation that is going to become an ethnic group. Marxists are not afraid of the fact that a revolution or re-forming of a society creates an ethnic group. they just say, here is the Ukrainian SSR and here is the Lithuanian SSR and they are not enemies, and call it a day. anarchists seem to find this almost some kind of inconceivable injustice. it's like they think that all individuals on earth naturally want to form together into bigger populations but they don't want to acknowledge that there is anything that binds particular people together against outside threat or against having to be in a group they don't want to be in, when there totally is. everybody could just not be racist and people would still want to form into specific groups for particular reasons, not to just form together with any group of people at random. this is the basic origin of ethnic groups. that people are fundamentally plural based on having stronger links to some people than other people that divide them into separate graphs. this plurality doesn't prevent forming ethnic groups into larger ethnic groups or forming very large ethnic groups like a huge area of Russians, but you have to acknowledge that it's there. every successful group of people that becomes a country for any significant period of time is basically an ethnic group going by the simplest and most inclusive, non-judgemental definition of what an ethnic group is. for any group of people to have freedom or independence there has to be an ethnic group, and it's the graph connections inside the ethnic group that create a country, not the definition of an area of land or some long line called the national border.<br />		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every nation is an ethnic group / An ethnic group is an arrangement of one or more countable groups of people each graphed together around shared social relationships and culture, and every consistent group of people which stays together for a long time will become some kind of ethnic group -> this is one of my single biggest problems with anarchism. anarchism finds the concept of ethnic groups yucky, and in order to try to get rid of racism keeps trying to act like it's totally artificial. but most anarchist theory which isn't totally unconvincing is based on tribal societies. and what are tribal societies if not ethnic groups? Black versus White might not be a necessary ethnic grouping, but when you form people into a tribe of anarchists or the Democrat nation that is going to become an ethnic group. Marxists are not afraid of the fact that a revolution or re-forming of a society creates an ethnic group. they just say, here is the Ukrainian SSR and here is the Lithuanian SSR and they are not enemies, and call it a day. anarchists seem to find this almost some kind of inconceivable injustice. it's like they think that all individuals on earth naturally want to form together into bigger populations but they don't want to acknowledge that there is anything that binds particular people together against outside threat or against having to be in a group they don't want to be in, when there totally is. everybody could just not be racist and people would still want to form into specific groups for particular reasons, not to just form together with any group of people at random. this is the basic origin of ethnic groups. that people are fundamentally plural based on having stronger links to some people than other people that divide them into separate graphs. this plurality doesn't prevent forming ethnic groups into larger ethnic groups or forming very large ethnic groups like a huge area of Russians, but you have to acknowledge that it's there. every successful group of people that becomes a country for any significant period of time is basically an ethnic group going by the simplest and most inclusive, non-judgemental definition of what an ethnic group is. for any group of people to have freedom or independence there has to be an ethnic group, and it's the graph connections inside the ethnic group that create a country, not the definition of an area of land or some long line called the national border.<br />

Reversedragon: Seek truth from facts

2026-04-26T08:25:16Z

Seek truth from facts

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:25, 26 April 2026
Line 1,327:		Line 1,327:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">gender-neutral patriarchy -> the motif of a society liberating women from misogyny but then reverting to powerful individuals who control households regardless of whether they are women. really, really prevalent in the United States. where I've lived, and possibly also in Great Britain where J.K. Rowling lives, it's like feminism got totally replaced by this. nobody believes in feminism any more because they've all become powerful enough to be the oppressors.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">gender-neutral patriarchy -> the motif of a society liberating women from misogyny but then reverting to powerful individuals who control households regardless of whether they are women. really, really prevalent in the United States. where I've lived, and possibly also in Great Britain where J.K. Rowling lives, it's like feminism got totally replaced by this. nobody believes in feminism any more because they've all become powerful enough to be the oppressors.
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH31FHOu_zw] -> the motif of conceptualizing feminism as a matter of individual morality: if feminism causes individual women to become immoral and create [[E:gender-neutral patriarchy\|gender-neutral patriarchy]] it has failed, while the implied point of feminism is to make individual people who all exist separately in parallel Freely Decide to treat other men and women better. really quite a strange way to conceptualize what feminism is when you think about it. you can't really explain how a movement happens that way. but it's very very common for people to think this way when discussing the relationship between fiction and real life, or when discussing news events. to think of individuals and individual experiences as a direct model for other separate individuals, but not to think about what happens when it's not materially easy for one individual to spontaneously replicate everything another individual does. I feel like people's underlying biases when they talk about women's rights are directly creating things like having universities only consisting of non-political experts and getting science defunded, or statements that everyone should join up with center-Liberals that don't exist to create social-democratic programs when in reality that just creates a lot of dropouts from the Democrat "movement" and every existing program going away.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S">gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH31FHOu_zw] -> the motif of conceptualizing feminism as a matter of individual morality: if feminism causes individual women to become immoral and create [[E:gender-neutral patriarchy\|gender-neutral patriarchy]] it has failed, while the implied point of feminism is to make individual people who all exist separately in parallel Freely Decide to treat other men and women better. really quite a strange way to conceptualize what feminism is when you think about it. you can't really explain how a movement happens that way. but it's very very common for people to think this way when discussing the relationship between fiction and real life, or when discussing news events. to think of individuals and individual experiences as a direct model for other separate individuals, but not to think about what happens when it's not materially easy for one individual to spontaneously replicate everything another individual does. I feel like people's underlying biases when they talk about women's rights are directly creating things like having universities only consisting of non-political experts and getting science defunded, or statements that everyone should join up with center-Liberals that don't exist to create social-democratic programs when in reality that just creates a lot of dropouts from the Democrat "movement" and every existing program going away.

	</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Seek truth from facts [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Term:實事求是] / Practice is the only criterion for testing the truth / Theory cannot decide what is accurate to reality (what is true; objectively true) / The truth is what the facts are (Aron Ra) ? -> I feel like this proposition is already recorded either in the numbering or <cite>MDem</cite> drafts. I don't think it's a unique proposition.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The United States abolished kings / United States people chose to abolish kings because having a king was a bad idea (mentioned in Dinesh D'Souza's book) -> "as you know, the United States doesn't have a king. it's worse than that. we reverted to a warring states period where different populations fight over the country and try to kill each other. but at least we created a republic."<br />		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The United States abolished kings / United States people chose to abolish kings because having a king was a bad idea (mentioned in Dinesh D'Souza's book) -> "as you know, the United States doesn't have a king. it's worse than that. we reverted to a warring states period where different populations fight over the country and try to kill each other. but at least we created a republic."<br />

Reversedragon: Dualism means two apples exist

2026-04-21T08:39:49Z

Dualism means two apples exist

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:39, 21 April 2026
Line 116:		Line 116:
	</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Proudhonism is the mother of order / Anarchism is the mother of order (may imply particular anarchisms, and not all anarchisms) / "Liberty is the mother of order" (Proudhon) / Charcoal-tinted anarchic social formations corresponding specifically to anarchism but never to Communism exist before States exist, and are the natural healthy order of things which is violated by the creation of States -> Proudhon's statement is so difficult to unpack because the more I think about it it's seemingly talking about five to ten different things at once, and the statement has totally different truth values depending on what things it's actually referring to. I think this iteration of the statement is false because it's backwards. I think that anarchism specifically emerges from conditions of people being herded into nation-states where they have little participation in politics and then forgetting that states exist, and outright believing that states interacting with people regularly and directly ("totalitarianism") is a thing that must immediately be dissolved and removed, while in actuality that can only be done through the colonial extension of particular nation-states across the world which retain state power over all the places whose governments they remove.		</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Proudhonism is the mother of order / Anarchism is the mother of order (may imply particular anarchisms, and not all anarchisms) / "Liberty is the mother of order" (Proudhon) / Charcoal-tinted anarchic social formations corresponding specifically to anarchism but never to Communism exist before States exist, and are the natural healthy order of things which is violated by the creation of States -> Proudhon's statement is so difficult to unpack because the more I think about it it's seemingly talking about five to ten different things at once, and the statement has totally different truth values depending on what things it's actually referring to. I think this iteration of the statement is false because it's backwards. I think that anarchism specifically emerges from conditions of people being herded into nation-states where they have little participation in politics and then forgetting that states exist, and outright believing that states interacting with people regularly and directly ("totalitarianism") is a thing that must immediately be dissolved and removed, while in actuality that can only be done through the colonial extension of particular nation-states across the world which retain state power over all the places whose governments they remove.
	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Order is the mother of anarchism / Charcoal-tinted anarchic social formations corresponding to anarchism and not Communism may be caused by the conditions of Liberal-republicanism, and in any case, the conditions of Liberal-republicanism falsely program all its inhabitants to forget Liberal-republicanism exists or creates their conditions and think that anarchism is a logical next step from these conditions when actually to attempt to create anarchism may abolish all conditions that make anarchism seem possible -> what I think is true for many but not all anarchisms. there are going to be a few anarchisms that resemble Molecular Marxisms where this manages not to be true. but each of those would have to have a very good existential materialism inside it descriptively modeling how human beings generally behave regardless of anyone's ideals or hopes. an anarchism that succeeds at being more than what is conditioned into people by living in Liberal-republicanism below the scales of politics — quite literally [[E:the colonizer attitude\|the colonizer attitude]] — can be termed a "molecular meta-anarchism", and the people who analyze it can be termed "meta-anarchists" if they are truly doing what is basically meta-Marxism but with solidly anarchist frameworks as their prototypical civilization to be improved and, very importantly, they allow workers' states to exist and only strive to construct anarchisms that will become their allies.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Order is the mother of anarchism / Charcoal-tinted anarchic social formations corresponding to anarchism and not Communism may be caused by the conditions of Liberal-republicanism, and in any case, the conditions of Liberal-republicanism falsely program all its inhabitants to forget Liberal-republicanism exists or creates their conditions and think that anarchism is a logical next step from these conditions when actually to attempt to create anarchism may abolish all conditions that make anarchism seem possible -> what I think is true for many but not all anarchisms. there are going to be a few anarchisms that resemble Molecular Marxisms where this manages not to be true. but each of those would have to have a very good existential materialism inside it descriptively modeling how human beings generally behave regardless of anyone's ideals or hopes. an anarchism that succeeds at being more than what is conditioned into people by living in Liberal-republicanism below the scales of politics — quite literally [[E:the colonizer attitude\|the colonizer attitude]] — can be termed a "molecular meta-anarchism", and the people who analyze it can be termed "meta-anarchists" if they are truly doing what is basically meta-Marxism but with solidly anarchist frameworks as their prototypical civilization to be improved and, very importantly, they allow workers' states to exist and only strive to construct anarchisms that will become their allies.

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dualism means two apples exist / Dualism is caused by the presence of more than one object in the universe -> this sounds like some kind of gross oversimplification or deliberately-crafted reductio argument, but I'm actually serious. there is only one kind of dualism that truly makes sense: the dualism between noumenon and phenomenon. and this dualism exists for a particular reason: the universe contains relativity, and relativity makes it impossible for any particular object to know everything about any other particular object at any given moment. as individuals or societies learn more about generalizations of every possible common or uncommon object, the gap of things we don't know grows smaller and smaller, making this "dualist" gap less and less real and more and more irrelevant. at the same time, it does still exist. every time something new is created from existing elements out of someone else's sight, and an exception is formed, there come to be "unpredictable" phenomena in nature, including new human identities or experiences. there is absolutely nothing special or transcendent or sacred about this. every "new, unpredictable" phenomenon came from things that ultimately become predictable in their generalization. every time you try to assert exceptions are the future you kill Trotsky. you set up Trotsky to fight against the majority without being understood and you kill him.

	</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM, STM onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">thousand brains theory / cortical columns "voting" -> nice model. it matches well with intuitive hypotheses you'd have after knowing about split brains giving two different answers, and the realizations smart people should be having about the contradiction between "free will" and "absolute determinism" actually being a deepity and not making any sense either way.<br />		</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM, STM onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">thousand brains theory / cortical columns "voting" -> nice model. it matches well with intuitive hypotheses you'd have after knowing about split brains giving two different answers, and the realizations smart people should be having about the contradiction between "free will" and "absolute determinism" actually being a deepity and not making any sense either way.<br />
Line 523:		Line 521:

	</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS\|tts=General relativity\|GR}} & quantum mechanics are both broken / General relativity is broken, not just quantum mechanics -> many people talk about physics like it's primarily quantum mechanics that's broken, and we're trying to fix quantum mechanics to match general relativity. what's often missed is that quantum mechanics and special relativity are fine together. quantum field theory won, and managed the crazy breakthrough of almost sort of unifying the two but not quite. and now neither general relativity nor quantum mechanics can accurately describe gravity or the connection between the quantum scale and the smallest scales of spacetime. neither theory is terrible <i>per se</i>; both begin from places of more or less describing reality at large scales. it's only the task of understanding the very smallest scale that both of them fail at.		</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS\|tts=General relativity\|GR}} & quantum mechanics are both broken / General relativity is broken, not just quantum mechanics -> many people talk about physics like it's primarily quantum mechanics that's broken, and we're trying to fix quantum mechanics to match general relativity. what's often missed is that quantum mechanics and special relativity are fine together. quantum field theory won, and managed the crazy breakthrough of almost sort of unifying the two but not quite. and now neither general relativity nor quantum mechanics can accurately describe gravity or the connection between the quantum scale and the smallest scales of spacetime. neither theory is terrible <i>per se</i>; both begin from places of more or less describing reality at large scales. it's only the task of understanding the very smallest scale that both of them fail at.

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dualism is separating noumenon and phenomenon / The separation between noumenon and phenomenon is a kind of dualism -> this was said by a Christian bible college trying to basically show that the "simulation hypothesis" is not as true as God. but taken out of that context, it's surprisingly okay. the presenter mostly only presented it from the point of view of secular philosophy, only 'suggesting' that physical and mental is a dichotomy 'some people' use. (which 'some people' would then use to argue that souls and God are more real than math just because they [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology\|can't be descriptively predicted]].) more than that, you can flip things around so that the physical is the noumenon and the mental is the phenomenon. math is in the mind along with souls and God and Narnia books and anarchism trying to predict the real world, but doesn't always have the correct prediction; the physical world itself behaves separately on its own regardless of what we want. seen that way, the Christian philosophers kind of have a point. "physicalism" can be seen as a mistake exactly when it mistakes math for real physical processes and assumes that physics is complete. in all other cases, it's not actually a problem.<br />
	the Materialist analysis of society is another matter, where things get complicated. but if you're simply talking about physics? nah, Materialism covers all that just fine. the only real confusion occurs around relativity and how to apply relativity to everything including time and causality. the quest for the "true" general relativity gets confusing because events have to happen from the collision of two processes at some point, they can't be infinitely relative and never converge, and we know they converge, physicists are just very confused how; if they knew, they'd have unified quantum mechanics and smallest-scale relativity and gravity.

	</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">fractal universe / Horton hears a hole (with regard to black holes; generic) -> the motif of a universe with a tiny portal in it and another universe contained inside the space of the tiny portal.		</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">fractal universe / Horton hears a hole (with regard to black holes; generic) -> the motif of a universe with a tiny portal in it and another universe contained inside the space of the tiny portal.
Line 776:		Line 771:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There are no individualisms / There is no such thing as individualism -> the claim that all philosophies claiming to be individualisms actually commit the fallacy of modeling individuals as tiny amorphous chunks of uncountable society and never truly model them as separate material objects which are capable of breaking and fragmenting into separate "puddles of water" as opposed to being a single uncountable "ocean". there is Existentialism (blue anarchology), which obsesses about individuals, but even it frequently makes mistakes like claiming that repression and Lacanian discipline aren't the same thing because surely human DNA and shared stages of development connect people into a hive mind where everyone wants the same things and bad behaviors are an error from what the hive mind truly desires.<br />		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There are no individualisms / There is no such thing as individualism -> the claim that all philosophies claiming to be individualisms actually commit the fallacy of modeling individuals as tiny amorphous chunks of uncountable society and never truly model them as separate material objects which are capable of breaking and fragmenting into separate "puddles of water" as opposed to being a single uncountable "ocean". there is Existentialism (blue anarchology), which obsesses about individuals, but even it frequently makes mistakes like claiming that repression and Lacanian discipline aren't the same thing because surely human DNA and shared stages of development connect people into a hive mind where everyone wants the same things and bad behaviors are an error from what the hive mind truly desires.<br />
	to not fall into this trap and genuinely create an individualism, you'd have to explain how individuals can guarantee their own survival in a world where all individuals are physically in competition to exist and at any moment 1,000 individuals can simply come together and expel any particular individual into having utterly nothing for the most arbitrary of reasons, constantly snapping at the individual that every inch of the world and every object is claimed and owned and how dare you tread on it if they try to run away and go anywhere else. I doubt that that can even be done. all industrial societies are ranked competitions to Belong and Society the best and not Individual or Human the worst, where the individuals that are ranked the highest at creating peace and superficial equality have the greatest chance to reproduce and sort everyone else into exactly the location, job, culture, and identity they are allowed.		to not fall into this trap and genuinely create an individualism, you'd have to explain how individuals can guarantee their own survival in a world where all individuals are physically in competition to exist and at any moment 1,000 individuals can simply come together and expel any particular individual into having utterly nothing for the most arbitrary of reasons, constantly snapping at the individual that every inch of the world and every object is claimed and owned and how dare you tread on it if they try to run away and go anywhere else. I doubt that that can even be done. all industrial societies are ranked competitions to Belong and Society the best and not Individual or Human the worst, where the individuals that are ranked the highest at creating peace and superficial equality have the greatest chance to reproduce and sort everyone else into exactly the location, job, culture, and identity they are allowed.

	</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><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Stability is a polytope {{YouTube\|1b_uKRM8eMg}} -> this is like Lacanianism reaching its final form. it hatched and it became this.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Stability is a polytope {{YouTube\|1b_uKRM8eMg}} -> this is like Lacanianism reaching its final form. it hatched and it became this.