Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q14,84

Main entries

1484. 1484

      chunk competition

      (motif; meta-Marxism) / all-directional contradiction between individuals (MDem v3) / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy (MDem drafts) / CCASH
2194. 2194

      Chunk competition originates from commodities

      / (9k) -> ... "chunk competition" is a weird concept because I always know when it's happening but I have trouble describing what it is and I have probably given slightly different descriptions of what it is at different times; it's good to be able to sort all of those out on the Ontology page. today what I think I'm referring to is the way that population growth is shaped by relativity, how everything in the universe has its own little timeline of what it's doing and then they collide, and this happens with population growth, such that when two populations grow into and over each other it leads to a spatial slot hierarchy — a situation of populational slots where people are forced to compete over particular unique slots in space or in structures to exist. when I've said "chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy" it means that the original collision of separate populations or tiny clustered subpopulations of people inside those populations hasn't gone away and various populations of wildly varying sizes still smash into each other daily regenerating the spatial slot hierarchy. the spatial slot hierarchy is mistaken by Liberal-republicans to be a necessary reality that they just call "economics", or "the distribution of finite resources". to Marxists, the spatial slot hierarchy is undesirable and they want to relax the competition for houses and jobs so that if subpopulations clash over the right to live in a city it at least will be for some cultural reason and won't have come from the spatial slot hierarchy; if Marxists succeed people gain the ability to plan out the broad shapes civilization will form into in advance and allow individuals to choose where they want to live and where they want to contribute for money within certain limits of what society needs and what makes sense, or otherwise build things for no money in their spare time if society is well developed and the work day is shrinking. Marxists work with the reality that populations have no space to expand into and try to basically expand the surface area of society by using its space more efficiently, like the shape of a brain or a walnut, but that new control over society through predicting what shapes it will already form gives more leeway to let people go where they want and do what they want, you can predict what options are viable and maybe see more options where otherwise you might have trouble seeing any. chunk competition isn't a trivial thing to solve but the more you can stop individuals from running into each other through knowing what shapes are available to prevent that the closer you get to making it totally irrelevant and going back to the tiny amount of populational conflict seen in tribal societies.
      

      so chunk competition is like a different lens for conceptualizing "primitive communism" and its relationship to global empire and neocolonialism, the outer shape of the populations instead of strictly looking at the inner class arrangements. talking about classes is fine especially when separating crimson and blue/strawberry Social-Philosophical Systems. it's just hard to work with at really huge scales and really small scales, where physical boundaries between demographics are a bigger deal than they are at medium scales and chunk competition is easier to identify than class divisions.

Bad ways to stop chunk competition

618. anarchemistry

     / anarchunking / (9k) -> the motif of anarchists or anyone else realizing on some not-entirely-lucid level that populations multiplying over each other too fast or wildly growing over each other is bad, but then crudely attempting to use morality and Idealism to solve the problem. an "anarchemist" looks at a historical account of several frontier towns wildly expanding into an Indian tribe and interprets the situation as a failure of individual rationality to logically reason everyone into better behaviors or of the hypothetical ability of individuals to control and mold national culture to change all future behavior; to the "anarchemist", what is possible in material reality and what constraints material reality puts on the behavior of physical objects is not a concern, because practicing anarchism implies that a body of people can choose to create a different future, and were that different future to be successfully created the current conditions and current set of rules of material reality would change in the process of material reality interacting with itself and iterating to new states, therefore an anarchist can simply point at anything, hypothesize that there is a way it could change in some future event, and insist that everyone get busy carrying out that event immediately toward success or failure instead of arguing about the best strategy to successfully do it. an anarchist and especially an "anarchemist" does not hold to specific-sense historical materialism in that they will not conceptualize populational behaviors as mere physical processes and would rather believe that although reality can change and develop the interaction of individuals is "too complicated" to be predicted or that trying to solve the interactions of any two particular samples of people through a predictive model like a math problem is somehow antithetical to creating a world filled with freedom. thus, driven by a logically contradictory ideology that both says individuals must be maximally Free from everything including mathematics and that individuals' Freedom must not be destroyed by other Free individuals that anarchists have thus made it impossible to actually control, "anarchemists" go into damage control mode and try to assert that various collections of Free individuals they have no control over are obligated to do the moral thing just because they "Should" spontaneously decide to turn around, go home, miraculously know how to put it into perspective how every population of people on earth uses resources and use earth's resources wisely, stay on the land that is inherently and metaphysically suited for the United States colonies better than the frontier, and not go massacre a bunch of Indians. taking the concept at face value, it would be wonderful if the early United States colonists had actually done that. the problem here is not what set of material results anarchists think would have been a better outcome. the problem is that anarchists demand for history to go a different way just because it "Should" have gone that way without explaining how it is that they expect to control material reality to behave the way they want it to instead of behaving the way it actually did.
     

     anarchemistry is, in short, the concept that populations reproducing or iterating on themselves or producing historical events at a particular variable rate that has trended too high is an oppressive Dominating Form of Society and anarchism should be applied to this form of Domination to forcefully throw it off the populations it oppresses. so, it can be an idea, as within this Item it's implied to be, or it could describe a more practical pattern of a material group of anarchists deciding they've had enough. in the latter context, it might become more respectable because when anarchists attempt to build a praxis they'll inevitably at least do something to try to solve exactly how a group of anarchists could possibly stop relativity itself and powerful immense processes and people-objects they definitely can't properly control from the outside; should they solve how to keep themselves defended against the wider world and build a Second World in charcoal, then I couldn't complain any more. sometimes I can't stand the theoretical reasoning people use, but it's always harder to hate physical movements. they're concrete data to analyze, and how can I dislike that?

5501. 5501

      Arceism

      (motif) / (9k) -> a slightly complex cluster of anarchist themes that occasionally seep into fantasy media but could also conceivably come up in real life in a different form.
      

      1) "garden of Eden" pattern: if you connect everything into Community, there will instantly be no violence because every form of life on earth just inherently wants to go together and get along from various animal species to the totality of all human beings
      1A) the assertion that things in nature are somehow aware of whole ecosystems and "decide" on some non-conscious level to practice anarchemistry and fall back to a "moderate" level of existing and not destroy other parts of the ecosystem - seems doubtful the moment you see an invasive species that simply proliferates everywhere and eats up everything 1B) usually not intended literally, the fictional motif of non-human animals realizing that predation is Evil and becoming vegetarians or insect-eaters; usually used to present abstract lessons about humans 2) unregulated system regulates itself by mutually-assured destruction / resets: in Pokémon, you see this with Kyogre and Groudon trying to rule the earth. if either of them wins, in concept you'd expect that they also take themselves out somehow, and Rayquaza showing up to stop them just shortcuts what is overall the same process. in Liberal-republicanism, you see this general idea about three or four different places.

Ideologies or fields

1. Z–92 (pronounced 92. (Z))[MX] [Z] (pronounced (meta-) (Z):) MX (pronounced meta-) / meta-Marxism1:-1:-1
2. Z–86 (pronounced 86. (Z))[Z] (pronounced (Z):)  / existential materialism (meta-Marxist method)1:-1:-1