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

Reversedragon: The dawn of everything (Graeber)

2026-04-08T05:49:42Z

The dawn of everything (Graeber)

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 </li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wars are leaping States colliding / Wars are the collision of two State apparatuses unable to regulate each other  ->  this is what runs through my mind when I think about the United States Civil War. if true, it gives pause on whether any particular country can actually regulate any other external country over human rights, or whether that can only be a pretext for violence.<br />
 field: existential materialism
 </li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Academic specialization manufactures ignorance / Academic specialization, based on its own existence, manufactures external groups of "ignorant people" through people's gaps in imagining that anyone other than themselves with the experiences of training and social circles they have had could exist; this claim is applicable mostly to highly specialized frameworks like Lacanianism and poststructuralism more than knowledge regularly applied in industry like a degree about making computer chips or vaccines; due to at least limited applicability in law practice, critical race theory for example is excepted (people's prejudices; meta-Marxist shovel dream analysis, also some blue anarchism probably)  ->  one thing that gets me about all the [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|blue and strawberry anarchisms]] going around is that they show up with these highly arcane frameworks that nobody would understand at first and then they try to act like not only is it obvious for everyone to know this but it's rude and mean to not know something that literally only a few specialized people know and you have to dig through a bunch of texts and study for years to understand, that like, Crenshaw trying to draft up a school curriculum won't even fix this gap of so-called "ignorance" between regular people and all these experts. it feels like they're getting degrees and trying to justify it by bullying other people into thinking that having their degree is the default instead of an unusual specialization. you know what's a social construct believed to exist by small arbitrary groups of people? ignorance!<br />
@@ Line 124: / Line 121: @@
 </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.
 </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 />

Reversedragon: Anarchies and hierarchy are not mutually exclusive

2026-04-06T21:05:59Z

Anarchies and hierarchy are not mutually exclusive

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:05, 6 April 2026
Line 868:		Line 868:
	"southeast" is in reference to Trotsky appearing in Petrograd and having to make the "journey" to Moscow which would ultimately become the Bolshevik capital after having been the imperial capital. this is being taken as a metaphor for someone who knows little about the real answers Leninism is supposed to find and will have to go on a long "journey" before getting to where Lenin is, just like Buddhist folklore draws a certain distance between the novice and bodhisattva levels which is then compared to the biological or ecological distance between a monkey and a human being. we've got three layers to the analogy now: ecology, Buddhism, and Marxism.		"southeast" is in reference to Trotsky appearing in Petrograd and having to make the "journey" to Moscow which would ultimately become the Bolshevik capital after having been the imperial capital. this is being taken as a metaphor for someone who knows little about the real answers Leninism is supposed to find and will have to go on a long "journey" before getting to where Lenin is, just like Buddhist folklore draws a certain distance between the novice and bodhisattva levels which is then compared to the biological or ecological distance between a monkey and a human being. we've got three layers to the analogy now: ecology, Buddhism, and Marxism.

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchies and hierarchy are not mutually exclusive -> anarchists are going to hate this one but the further you look into it the more it would seem to be true. you almost can't even <em>define</em> an anarchy as requiring the absence of hierarchy because that's simply not what most anarchies are. in most cases an anarchy is purely a stationary or back-and-forth combination of heterogeneous elements. that does not preclude spatial slot hierarchies over whether people are able to make it into any of the contained elements, or the overall system.
	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchy is not an acceptable explanation for why people shouldn't hate each other or do violence to each other -> if people genuinely hate each other they'll wreck an anarchy in a second, making it a terrible explanation for how it's supposed to stop anything.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchy is not an acceptable explanation for why people shouldn't hate each other or do violence to each other -> if people genuinely hate each other they'll wreck an anarchy in a second, making it a terrible explanation for how it's supposed to stop anything.
	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchies are doomed to be incapable of preventing violence because in general they are always countable objects, but the borders between countable objects are generally the site of violence -> every time there's an anarchy somebody can be excluded from the countable anarchy, and generally is in order to keep peace inside the anarchy, but whenever somebody is excluded from an anarchy there are two anarchies which are not themselves in an anarchy and the outsiders can do horrific violence.		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchies are doomed to be incapable of preventing violence because in general they are always countable objects, but the borders between countable objects are generally the site of violence -> every time there's an anarchy somebody can be excluded from the countable anarchy, and generally is in order to keep peace inside the anarchy, but whenever somebody is excluded from an anarchy there are two anarchies which are not themselves in an anarchy and the outsiders can do horrific violence.

Reversedragon: Che Guevara waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power

2026-04-05T20:10:00Z

Che Guevara waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 5 April 2026
Line 2,038:		Line 2,038:

	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power / Appealing to authority for legitimacy always reifies the legitimacy of that authority more than of the ones who appeal (anti-normative queer theory) {{YouTube\|6v54r-wB_rE}} -> no. just, no. if that were true there couldn't be any identity politics movements, because people really do wait at the door of identity politics to get the answers. identity politics says something, and sometimes people reject it for reasons that aren't easy to fathom logically, but if it does catch on, then people just swallow it without questioning it no matter how out-there a particular philosophical justification sounds. creating a particular door outside which people wait for meaning. whether that's a good or a bad thing doesn't matter, what matters is in real life things work that way. and when that's the case, believing this will create a bunch of reactionaries who are all like, I'd rather not wait for a disclosure of meaning from The Left, I'll just make my own bogus definitions of things instead. (Butler)		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power / Appealing to authority for legitimacy always reifies the legitimacy of that authority more than of the ones who appeal (anti-normative queer theory) {{YouTube\|6v54r-wB_rE}} -> no. just, no. if that were true there couldn't be any identity politics movements, because people really do wait at the door of identity politics to get the answers. identity politics says something, and sometimes people reject it for reasons that aren't easy to fathom logically, but if it does catch on, then people just swallow it without questioning it no matter how out-there a particular philosophical justification sounds. creating a particular door outside which people wait for meaning. whether that's a good or a bad thing doesn't matter, what matters is in real life things work that way. and when that's the case, believing this will create a bunch of reactionaries who are all like, I'd rather not wait for a disclosure of meaning from The Left, I'll just make my own bogus definitions of things instead. (Butler)

			</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power -> hang on. I've just found the best {{em\|good}} argument against this. this statement means that anyone can be a revolutionary Communist at any time. complete with a central party. complete with a Third International or a Fourth International. this statement means that Che Guevara is totally entitled to decide what countries should be ruled by a dictatorship of the proletariat and just go defend all the peasants and loosen the hold of the government on that country until it's a workers' state. before he teams up with a bunch of peasants he's an individual. so there is absolutely a loophole in this statement.<br/>
			Liberal-republicans and Existentialists will never actually care if what they say promotes Toryism or fascism — to them that's a fact of life. but they'll absolutely flip their lid if what they say promotes Communism. if you ever tell them this I bet they'll backpedal like hell and try to come up with reasons that Communist parties are obligated to wait for a disclosure of meaning even though nobody else is. and whatever they say at that point is going to be immensely revealing about the actual definition and principles of their particular ideology.


	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anyone can destroy a sign / Destroying signs is no triumph because anyone can do it / Destroying signs means nothing because anyone can do it / There is no real triumph in deconstructing signs because anyone can do it -> literally every reactionary claims that progressive ontologies are becoming the new entrenched signs that have to be destroyed or picked apart. that's like, one of the basic axioms for how reactionaries exist. you have to settle onto some things being true, or else reactionaries will try to claim power and replace other ontologies with their ontologies whenever it's possible for them to do that. the only real way to get out of all this is to go one step higher than poststructuralism and do meta-ontology, presuming that all arrangements of signs "exist" and can be compared to find the points at which they overlap and creating "sign power" isn't necessary. I don't fully know yet how that fixes racism, but I've got a fairly good idea how that unites Stalin and Trotsky, or Existentialism and Marxism. there's no huge distinction between sociophilosophy and culture that makes one not the other, so there probably is a way.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anyone can destroy a sign / Destroying signs is no triumph because anyone can do it / Destroying signs means nothing because anyone can do it / There is no real triumph in deconstructing signs because anyone can do it -> literally every reactionary claims that progressive ontologies are becoming the new entrenched signs that have to be destroyed or picked apart. that's like, one of the basic axioms for how reactionaries exist. you have to settle onto some things being true, or else reactionaries will try to claim power and replace other ontologies with their ontologies whenever it's possible for them to do that. the only real way to get out of all this is to go one step higher than poststructuralism and do meta-ontology, presuming that all arrangements of signs "exist" and can be compared to find the points at which they overlap and creating "sign power" isn't necessary. I don't fully know yet how that fixes racism, but I've got a fairly good idea how that unites Stalin and Trotsky, or Existentialism and Marxism. there's no huge distinction between sociophilosophy and culture that makes one not the other, so there probably is a way.

Reversedragon: Waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power

2026-04-05T10:35:20Z

Waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:35, 5 April 2026
Line 2,036:		Line 2,036:
	</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">City center equals city -> interesting claim made in urban planning discussions by people from Europe. I don't have anything against this idea nor am I making fun of it. at the same time, I have no real idea if it's true or not. each time you show people one of these claims that suburbs are a disaster you get a variety of responses that amounts to people having gone to exactly where they wanted to be individually unless they were physically or financially incapable — you know, primitive Existentialism.		</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">City center equals city -> interesting claim made in urban planning discussions by people from Europe. I don't have anything against this idea nor am I making fun of it. at the same time, I have no real idea if it's true or not. each time you show people one of these claims that suburbs are a disaster you get a variety of responses that amounts to people having gone to exactly where they wanted to be individually unless they were physically or financially incapable — you know, primitive Existentialism.
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Animal testing can end if the right humans buy the labs -> I watched this supposedly inspiring video about rescuing lab cats. {{YouTube\|8HqFeFa0KiE}} the beginning of the narrative was that lab cats are being tortured — they are raised to trust humans, then they are put in their cages with insufficient food and no enrichment, and you can say that because their life is engineered for suffering they learn to comply. sounds uncomfortably familiar; I swear the whole concept of Lacanian discipline and great portions of Existentialism is just this. but at the end of the narrative, the only way to save those cats was for people to pool together some money and buy the building. the cats never cease to be treated as objects, the objects just change hands. and I think that reveals a lot about modern industrial societies. "Filament of people conquer space and control it" is one of the only things that's worth anything. it solves great abuses, after also having created them. how different are collections of workers serving built-up Audiences from collections of lab cats? how do we know when a protest is meaningful versus when people are just chunk-competing over an area meaninglessly and different people controlling it won't actually make anything change?		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Animal testing can end if the right humans buy the labs -> I watched this supposedly inspiring video about rescuing lab cats. {{YouTube\|8HqFeFa0KiE}} the beginning of the narrative was that lab cats are being tortured — they are raised to trust humans, then they are put in their cages with insufficient food and no enrichment, and you can say that because their life is engineered for suffering they learn to comply. sounds uncomfortably familiar; I swear the whole concept of Lacanian discipline and great portions of Existentialism is just this. but at the end of the narrative, the only way to save those cats was for people to pool together some money and buy the building. the cats never cease to be treated as objects, the objects just change hands. and I think that reveals a lot about modern industrial societies. "Filament of people conquer space and control it" is one of the only things that's worth anything. it solves great abuses, after also having created them. how different are collections of workers serving built-up Audiences from collections of lab cats? how do we know when a protest is meaningful versus when people are just chunk-competing over an area meaninglessly and different people controlling it won't actually make anything change?
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power -> no. just, no. if that were true there couldn't be any identity politics movements, because people really do wait at the door of identity politics to get the answers. identity politics says something, and sometimes people reject it for reasons that aren't easy to fathom logically, but if it does catch on, then people just swallow it without questioning it no matter how out-there a particular philosophical justification sounds. creating a particular door outside which people wait for meaning. whether that's a good or a bad thing doesn't matter, what matters is in real life things work that way. and when that's the case, believing this will create a bunch of reactionaries who are all like, I'd rather not wait for a disclosure of meaning from The Left, I'll just make my own bogus definitions of things instead. (Butler)
			</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power / Appealing to authority for legitimacy always reifies the legitimacy of that authority more than of the ones who appeal (anti-normative queer theory) {{YouTube\|6v54r-wB_rE}} -> no. just, no. if that were true there couldn't be any identity politics movements, because people really do wait at the door of identity politics to get the answers. identity politics says something, and sometimes people reject it for reasons that aren't easy to fathom logically, but if it does catch on, then people just swallow it without questioning it no matter how out-there a particular philosophical justification sounds. creating a particular door outside which people wait for meaning. whether that's a good or a bad thing doesn't matter, what matters is in real life things work that way. and when that's the case, believing this will create a bunch of reactionaries who are all like, I'd rather not wait for a disclosure of meaning from The Left, I'll just make my own bogus definitions of things instead. (Butler)

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anyone can destroy a sign / Destroying signs is no triumph because anyone can do it / Destroying signs means nothing because anyone can do it / There is no real triumph in deconstructing signs because anyone can do it -> literally every reactionary claims that progressive ontologies are becoming the new entrenched signs that have to be destroyed or picked apart. that's like, one of the basic axioms for how reactionaries exist. you have to settle onto some things being true, or else reactionaries will try to claim power and replace other ontologies with their ontologies whenever it's possible for them to do that. the only real way to get out of all this is to go one step higher than poststructuralism and do meta-ontology, presuming that all arrangements of signs "exist" and can be compared to find the points at which they overlap and creating "sign power" isn't necessary. I don't fully know yet how that fixes racism, but I've got a fairly good idea how that unites Stalin and Trotsky, or Existentialism and Marxism. there's no huge distinction between sociophilosophy and culture that makes one not the other, so there probably is a way.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anyone can destroy a sign / Destroying signs is no triumph because anyone can do it / Destroying signs means nothing because anyone can do it / There is no real triumph in deconstructing signs because anyone can do it -> literally every reactionary claims that progressive ontologies are becoming the new entrenched signs that have to be destroyed or picked apart. that's like, one of the basic axioms for how reactionaries exist. you have to settle onto some things being true, or else reactionaries will try to claim power and replace other ontologies with their ontologies whenever it's possible for them to do that. the only real way to get out of all this is to go one step higher than poststructuralism and do meta-ontology, presuming that all arrangements of signs "exist" and can be compared to find the points at which they overlap and creating "sign power" isn't necessary. I don't fully know yet how that fixes racism, but I've got a fairly good idea how that unites Stalin and Trotsky, or Existentialism and Marxism. there's no huge distinction between sociophilosophy and culture that makes one not the other, so there probably is a way.
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S0">constantly-changing empty vessel -> one of the first totally abstract concepts I'm willing to make an Item without a real or fictional referent. this pattern is solid enough it's worth noting. it can be used to define class territories. it can be used to define The Subject. it can be used to define entrenched signs, apparently. but there are two major feelings about it: A) plurality of these things is frustrating and inherently causes problems as they collide, leading to some change good or bad whether we like it or not B) plurality of these things is easy to control with enough "ought" statements.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S0">constantly-changing empty vessel -> one of the first totally abstract concepts I'm willing to make an Item without a real or fictional referent. this pattern is solid enough it's worth noting. it can be used to define class territories. it can be used to define The Subject. it can be used to define entrenched signs, apparently. but there are two major feelings about it: A) plurality of these things is frustrating and inherently causes problems as they collide, leading to some change good or bad whether we like it or not B) plurality of these things is easy to control with enough "ought" statements.

Reversedragon: Curvature makes integers into infinities

2026-04-05T05:29:01Z

Curvature makes integers into infinities

Show changes

Reversedragon: opportunist error

2026-04-03T09:08:06Z

opportunist error

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 3 April 2026
Line 540:		Line 540:
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S0">ultraleft error (Marxism) / left error (Marxism) / "left in form, right in essence" [https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-8/left-right.pdf]		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="618" data-dimension="S0">ultraleft error (Marxism) / left error (Marxism) / "left in form, right in essence" [https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-8/left-right.pdf]
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S0">right error (Marxism) / Rightist error (Marxism)		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="S0">right error (Marxism) / Rightist error (Marxism)
	~~</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="ML onto W/ES, etc" value="618" data-dimension="S0">opportunist error~~
	</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="S0">adventurist error -> I guess this one can be strawberry because conceptually, you wonder if the CPC being highly developed and letting the country itself lag behind is some kind of "ahead" error. it would be a different kind of "ahead" error than this but you do have to ask why the central party is so far ahead of what's actually happening and yet somehow managed to succeed.		</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="618" data-dimension="S0">adventurist error -> I guess this one can be strawberry because conceptually, you wonder if the CPC being highly developed and letting the country itself lag behind is some kind of "ahead" error. it would be a different kind of "ahead" error than this but you do have to ask why the central party is so far ahead of what's actually happening and yet somehow managed to succeed.
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="ML onto ML, ML onto IV, etc" value="618" data-dimension="S0">dogmatist error		</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="ML onto ML, ML onto IV, etc" value="618" data-dimension="S0">dogmatist error
Line 546:		Line 546:
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ML onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S0">revisionist error -> according to "[https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-8/left-right.pdf left-right]", revisionism is to go against the overall methods of Marxism especially by failing to identify the bourgeoisie, meaning that most revisionist errors sound a whole lot like Existentialist errors. so this one can be blue.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ML onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S0">revisionist error -> according to "[https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-8/left-right.pdf left-right]", revisionism is to go against the overall methods of Marxism especially by failing to identify the bourgeoisie, meaning that most revisionist errors sound a whole lot like Existentialist errors. so this one can be blue.
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ML onto ES/W" value="618" data-dimension="S0">reformist error -> it's going to be fun to take proposition entries and just, "case of - revisionist error" "case of - adventurist error". that's what's truly great about this ontology medium. or use these error categories as non-binary truth values, one or the other. god there are some moments when just, I feel smart. having this kind of ontology system for tagging errors is awesome. then there are the days where I am trying to make sense of news events all solely characterized by spontaneity and I feel infinitely stupid.		</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ML onto ES/W" value="618" data-dimension="S0">reformist error -> it's going to be fun to take proposition entries and just, "case of - revisionist error" "case of - adventurist error". that's what's truly great about this ontology medium. or use these error categories as non-binary truth values, one or the other. god there are some moments when just, I feel smart. having this kind of ontology system for tagging errors is awesome. then there are the days where I am trying to make sense of news events all solely characterized by spontaneity and I feel infinitely stupid.
	</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="ML onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S0">tailism -> a strangely anarchist-sounding error category. of course Trotskyists in Luxemburg's era and other movements can do it too.
	</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">electoral road to power -> I'm surprised to see the Black Panther Party did this. I was always told they were scary Bolsheviks who had to be contained to stop their violence. evidently not true.		</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">electoral road to power -> I'm surprised to see the Black Panther Party did this. I was always told they were scary Bolsheviks who had to be contained to stop their violence. evidently not true.
	</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MZ" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Progress is what is materially accurate / The left position is the position that is materially accurate at a given point in time (Maoism) / Marxism is concrete analysis of concrete conditions (Lenin) -> yeah. only reasonable way to define it. a little vague compared with the meta-Marxist notion of actually detailing Social-Philosphical-Material Systems and material transitions from one set of structures to another, first in the abstract from historical data and then to be applied to real conditions, but definitely not wrong.<br />		</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MZ" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Progress is what is materially accurate / The left position is the position that is materially accurate at a given point in time (Maoism) / Marxism is concrete analysis of concrete conditions (Lenin) -> yeah. only reasonable way to define it. a little vague compared with the meta-Marxist notion of actually detailing Social-Philosphical-Material Systems and material transitions from one set of structures to another, first in the abstract from historical data and then to be applied to real conditions, but definitely not wrong.<br />

Reversedragon: It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises

2026-04-03T05:53:26Z

It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 3 April 2026
Line 147:		Line 147:

	</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.

	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="ML, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />
	yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.

	</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">On the question of dialectics (Lenin 1915) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/misc/x02.htm] -> outline created by Lenin on concepts relating to dialectics		</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">On the question of dialectics (Lenin 1915) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/misc/x02.htm] -> outline created by Lenin on concepts relating to dialectics

Reversedragon: If predicting society was impossible, credit scores wouldn't exist

2026-03-27T07:07:17Z

If predicting society was impossible, credit scores wouldn't exist

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:07, 27 March 2026
Line 2,113:		Line 2,113:

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If predicting society was impossible, corporations wouldn't exist / If historical materialism was impossible, corporations wouldn't exist		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If predicting society was impossible, corporations wouldn't exist / If historical materialism was impossible, corporations wouldn't exist

			</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If predicting society was impossible, credit scores wouldn't exist / If the actions of unique human individuals on any particular day were truly unique and predicting the unfiltered stream of history was impossible, how would you ever know if somebody was becoming more likely or less likely to pay their bill?? -> this is one of the greatest absurdities. that I live in a country where I can file my tax return and it asks me if I want a free credit report, but it's a relatively mainstream philosophical position to say that society is essentially random and all events are unique and unrepeatable, but if that was really true there would be no such thing as a credit score because you'd have no idea if me paying my bill last month raised or lowered the expected probability of me paying it this month. the whole concept that there can be a credit score that goes up or down means by itself that capitalists think history is predictable, and don't actually believe that the unfiltered stream of history is truly post-structuralist.<br/>
			god do traditional-style philosophers ever read what they wrote and compare it to their actual experiences over the past week?? has Rothenberg ever thought about the fact that people have credit scores. has she thought about the fact that people have to make use of facts and patterns and find correct answers to correctly "bet" on the stock market. has she realized that if it were impossible to predict the next 4 years of historical events and make correct predictions then voting wouldn't make any sense? now that one is forgivable because a post-structuralist philosopher can try to come up with some scheme for how it's supposedly possible to defect from a candidate and pick another one even after you already voted. but I don't see how you can get out of anything else. you have to predict thousands of people to get videos seen in the YouTube algorithm. you have to predict tens to thousands of people to even be able to write an article in a human language because otherwise you'll say the wrong words that people will find confusing or offensive. (usually just confusing.)

	</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">my flower left me -> AZ. I don't know what this trope means in terms of any other series but I know it already has a great name		</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">my flower left me -> AZ. I don't know what this trope means in terms of any other series but I know it already has a great name

Reversedragon: Super Smash Bros.

2026-03-17T23:27:02Z

Super Smash Bros.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 17 March 2026
Line 769:		Line 769:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto JC, MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's easier to imagine Ragnarok than North Korea / It's easier to imagine cataclysm than North Korea / It's easier to imagine the end of society than life in North Korea / It's easier to imagine the end of the United States than daily life in North Korea / It's easier to imagine the end of the world than daily life in North Korea -> this seems like a huge gap in most understandings of "revolution", "socialist transition", "reconstruction", "decolonization" (<em>endo</em>decolonization), "sustainability", "degrowth", etc. the fundamental fact that human beings are material and have to get up every morning always escapes our conceptions of politics, even though it should be one of the most important things to remember. nobody will keep voting or even blockading a place if what there is to defend isn't worth it; if a socially-linked group of people is worth defending revolution will almost create itself. how do you reconceptualize all your notions of "rebuilding from collapse" just once (thanks Posadas) into actually maintaining a society for years and years as the whole rest of the world is trying to crumble it and starve your population of resources, having to get up and go to work every day? living itself is like rebuilding from nothing a million times. and I think this is part of what the disaster movies don't show. the disaster is continuous, while the movie trivializes it into only lasting a short time. even Japanese kaiju movies don't quite get that right. imagine one where it's like the kaiju is always there and you can't get rid of it and you just have to live through it because otherwise it wins.<br />		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto JC, MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's easier to imagine Ragnarok than North Korea / It's easier to imagine cataclysm than North Korea / It's easier to imagine the end of society than life in North Korea / It's easier to imagine the end of the United States than daily life in North Korea / It's easier to imagine the end of the world than daily life in North Korea -> this seems like a huge gap in most understandings of "revolution", "socialist transition", "reconstruction", "decolonization" (<em>endo</em>decolonization), "sustainability", "degrowth", etc. the fundamental fact that human beings are material and have to get up every morning always escapes our conceptions of politics, even though it should be one of the most important things to remember. nobody will keep voting or even blockading a place if what there is to defend isn't worth it; if a socially-linked group of people is worth defending revolution will almost create itself. how do you reconceptualize all your notions of "rebuilding from collapse" just once (thanks Posadas) into actually maintaining a society for years and years as the whole rest of the world is trying to crumble it and starve your population of resources, having to get up and go to work every day? living itself is like rebuilding from nothing a million times. and I think this is part of what the disaster movies don't show. the disaster is continuous, while the movie trivializes it into only lasting a short time. even Japanese kaiju movies don't quite get that right. imagine one where it's like the kaiju is always there and you can't get rid of it and you just have to live through it because otherwise it wins.<br />
	{{censor\|god}} that would be a great Ultraman show, just, the super-kaiju that's half the area of the planet or at least actually as big as a city is always there in the background of every episode and part of the ongoing story arc, kind of like the moon in {{game\|Majora's Mask}} but worse. it's draining their life energy to stop the people from turning into Ultras. it was small at one time, then it grew bigger and bigger as history went on. people hoped it would become friendly one day. but it just started burning things down for the {{censor\|hell}} of it, tormenting the people and trying to break their spirits. one day it was so big there was no real option but to drain the monster itself for energy to rebuild civilization. the monster didn't even seem to mind. with everyone tapping into it, it knew exactly where the points of civilization were, and exactly when somebody was defying it and when to punish them with a disaster. some people were worn down, they wanted to leave. some started ignoring it. there could be a storyline where the monster "saves everyone" from an alien invasion but actually it only uses that victory to greater justify its control and its abuses. finally people came to the decision they had to outlast and out-live this thing to be able to fight it. they had to disconnect from the monster's power and they had to simply exist the best they could without being detected at critical moments, without being divided, without being petty any more. in the final moments where you'd expect to get insight into the villain it is still saying incredibly toxic things telling them they are bad friends and they don't know how to coexist with people, they're greedy, they're controlling, they don't know what's good and what's evil and they will fall apart when evil comes to this planet. they get ready to stab the {{censor\|fucker}} in the heart and it's like "I'll destroy all life on this planet, I'll blow it up, I'm warning you". it's a very messy type of story where few things are happy. it's more of an actual horror story than most kaiju stories. because, you know, the real story is a horror story too. it's the friendship kaiju. that's actually what it's called. it starts as this nice little guy of friendship and rainbows and it turns into one of the most horrifying things.		{{censor\|god}} that would be a great Ultraman show, just, the super-kaiju that's half the area of the planet or at least actually as big as a city is always there in the background of every episode and part of the ongoing story arc, kind of like the moon in {{game\|Majora's Mask}} but worse. it's draining their life energy to stop the people from turning into Ultras. it was small at one time, then it grew bigger and bigger as history went on. people hoped it would become friendly one day. but it just started burning things down for the {{censor\|hell}} of it, tormenting the people and trying to break their spirits. one day it was so big there was no real option but to drain the monster itself for energy to rebuild civilization. the monster didn't even seem to mind. with everyone tapping into it, it knew exactly where the points of civilization were, and exactly when somebody was defying it and when to punish them with a disaster. some people were worn down, they wanted to leave. some started ignoring it. there could be a storyline where the monster "saves everyone" from an alien invasion but actually it only uses that victory to greater justify its control and its abuses. finally people came to the decision they had to outlast and out-live this thing to be able to fight it. they had to disconnect from the monster's power and they had to simply exist the best they could without being detected at critical moments, without being divided, without being petty any more. in the final moments where you'd expect to get insight into the villain it is still saying incredibly toxic things telling them they are bad friends and they don't know how to coexist with people, they're greedy, they're controlling, they don't know what's good and what's evil and they will fall apart when evil comes to this planet. they get ready to stab the {{censor\|fucker}} in the heart and it's like "I'll destroy all life on this planet, I'll blow it up, I'm warning you". it's a very messy type of story where few things are happy. it's more of an actual horror story than most kaiju stories. because, you know, the real story is a horror story too. it's the friendship kaiju. that's actually what it's called. it starts as this nice little guy of friendship and rainbows and it turns into one of the most horrifying things.

	~~</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Super Smash Bros.<br />~~
	~~Super Smash Bros. + Marxism / mainstream Marxism-Leninism / Trotskyism / Juche-socialism = meta-Marxism~~

	</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="Gramscianism, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Cultural hegemonies are toxic Communities / Hegemony politics or the "musical chairs attack" succeeds through actual material networks of people forming over or through other networks of people and breaking them apart; it does not operate through "ideas" or "attitudes" or "traditions"		</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="Gramscianism, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Cultural hegemonies are toxic Communities / Hegemony politics or the "musical chairs attack" succeeds through actual material networks of people forming over or through other networks of people and breaking them apart; it does not operate through "ideas" or "attitudes" or "traditions"

Reversedragon: sublation

2026-03-14T21:28:38Z

sublation

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 14 March 2026
Line 150:		Line 150:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="ML, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="ML, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />
	yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.		yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.

	</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">sublation / "The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence" (Marx) -> takes a bit to properly explain, but very important. I've even been using it in a whole lot of propositions here without thinking about the exact word. sublation is something like a description of how material objects are transformed into new material objects. kingdoms are transformed into republics, and the kingdom or empire shape is partially preserved because the republic had to be made from something, it doesn't sprout from nowhere, but removing the feudal order allows the kingdom shape to be preserved in a new very different form as the republic for better or for worse.<br />
	from time to time, I keep trying to explain sublation in terms of superhero shows. like Agumon turns into MetalGreymon and it's still Agumon but it's better even though it had to leave behind the characteristics of Agumon. Ultraman, which is a blatant failed Communism metaphor anyway, has all the people turning into big aliens with powers to represent that the society has been transformed, and with their new form they have become something greater by leaving behind what they were previously but they also can't totally get rid of it. you can also connect sublation to real-world evolution, and how it often takes a while for any particular ancestral characteristic to be lost and you always have some of them. but I like to point to superhero shows because they portray things happening without having to wait for them, this idea that something part of a bigger thing can simply change itself when change is needed.

	</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">On the question of dialectics (Lenin 1915) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/misc/x02.htm] -> outline created by Lenin on concepts relating to dialectics		</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">On the question of dialectics (Lenin 1915) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/misc/x02.htm] -> outline created by Lenin on concepts relating to dialectics