Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q34,67/aslan: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 06:31, 11 November 2026

Prompt

Why does it seem like contradictions inside a group of people are usually imposed from the outside by imperialism?
(What I have attached is a transcript [...] each theme or proposition is given a unique number and sorted into a discipline or political faction basically in order to later uncover what class position it might have come from. So, this transcript is like a stream of consciousness from one idea to another, but highly structured. [...])
With the attached file mostly here as context, my actual question is this. I keep trying to think of examples where a civilization or group of people changed due to internal antagonisms but it wasn't imposed from the outside by another empire bringing down some kind of threat-backed moral commandment on it that caused the internal contradictions and the change, and then I keep thinking of examples where that technically did happen. In the United States Civil War, the North claimed moral high ground against slavery and imposed Reconstruction based on the authority for the North as a whole self-contained population to rule the South as a whole self-contained population just to prevent it from having slavery — ultimately based on concepts in the Constitution that the United States is made of "ideas" but once something has ever been part of the United States the rest of the United States is allowed to ruthlessly enforce those abstractions whenever it tries to depart from them. In the Cold War, the United States put out an accusation about Third World countries "supporting Stalin" or "ignoring the violent defeat of the peasants" and being Evil people, and then all the people in the Soviet Union and East Germany steadily turned against their own countries in various ways and broke them open. It wasn't just the bureaucrats; after they lost confidence in their government everyday people also kept leaving or just refusing to work. In China, the start of Maoism looked like a Communist revolution at first, but as the central party turned against workers it was revealed very quickly that the strongest dynamic going on across the region was that China was forming a republic in order to have wealth to defend itself against outside empires (historically against Japan) and to stand strong against accusations from the United States and Europe that Third World countries were "poor" due to "Third World ideals" making them that way and making them more worth invading and crushing than defending so everyone can have wealth and "freedom".
(So, the process of creating a Deng Xiaoping state approximates a bourgeois revolution, but without any of the mystification in the U.S. Constitution about "required ideas".)
If the United States hypothetically attempted to stop doing imperialism it would mostly happen due to a moral accusation coming down as if from the outside that the United States and Israel "have no right" to crush Palestine. Back at the time of the Vietnam War, there were protests, but they were largely about the moral imperative to not do violent things the United States was already doing to Vietnam.
I know this is not the only process by which populations can change. I know about historical materialism and the general method of reducing whole populations into class territories, or at least alienated pieces growing against each other, that are all still in interaction with each other. But I am confused where these "required ideas" that come out of more powerful populations are really coming from.
It isn't always class forces that create these.
[It really took issue with that part. Probably fairly; none of my examples failed to contain at least one class subpopulation, and all of them contained "Social-Philosophical Systems" that can be conceptualized independently of national borders.]
It seems like this process can happen just because two separate populations exist and one person in population B attacks population A and population A is fumbling to try to come to consciousness of what happened. For example in 1936 Stalin's government discovered attempts by Trotskyists and their allies to attack the overall order of the Soviet Union (I do know the Left Opposition never got very far into attacking the government) and the popular narrative in Stalinist parties since then has been that Trotskyism is a product of the bourgeoisie infiltrating Marxist parties. But the ICFI has all sorts of evidence that that particular class process is not where Trotskyism came from. Stalinists, either today or back then, are attributing the attack on Stalinism to class processes in an incorrect way because they feel an urgent need to defend what they have as a group of Stalinist-theorists-and-workers-and-allies and explain the attack.
So, "required ideas" or "required moral imperatives" do not exist because Ideas actually and physically shape conflicts between civilizations, but if it is not always appropriate to categorize them as class processes, then what are they?
[Note: it is nearly always appropriate to categorize them as class processes. I didn't demonstrate a time it isn't.]

Motifs or claims in prompt (no AI)

"Transcript"

Aslan (fictional Christ figure in Chronicles of Narnia series, a series of fantasy books loosely based on the events of, but closely depicting the moral statements of, the Christian bible)
Aslan meeting fantasy representation of Islam
Anti-essentialism is a path to truth
Challenging religion is equivalent to a blood feud; Challenging religion is equivalent to imperialism at the tribal scale
Imperialism is partly defined as one group of people attempting to conquer and rule another group of people through putting out moral accusations to shape the group's behavior or the internal antagonisms that actually shape the group's behavior
Why does it seem like contradictions inside a group of people are usually imposed from the outside by imperialism? -> I kind of want to put this question into the bot but I don't entirely know how to phrase it. I'll try something. I'll try just copypasting this page [the list of propositions you see right here] and formatting it so it's 'readable'.

Other

poisoned cookie effect / "community senators" (generic) / effect where one socially-linked group of people attempts to take action against another entire socially-linked group of people because it appears uncontrollable and dangerous / (9k) -> prototype page where this question came up; general version of this concept that had this more specific case inside it.

Motifs or claims from response

Historical materialism was already "molecularized" to start with / All populations as physical, semi-countable historical periods are a moment within a single world system ->
Trotskyist sources kept implying this and at first I didn't know how to properly read it or what to do with it but after looking through more of Trotskyism and also just looking at the concept of molecularization (or what was left of that concept) on a global scale I started to see that yeah, inasmuch as there could ever be a 'molecular Marxism' I was looking for something that already existed. which was much more of a relief to me than something that upset me, because it bothered me that Stalinist theory wasn't "molecularized" and hadn't been after decades and decades of having more historical events to learn from, and that was one of the main purposes for trying to define "molecularization". I guess in a weird way I was pointed in the right direction, I just didn't understand what it was I'd found for a long while.
There is no such thing as a self-contained population -> well that's bold as hell. over about 100 years though, yeah, I'm not sure it's wrong.
There is no such thing as "inside a group"
Accusations are class ideology, but being ideology does not detach them from being part of class processes
Stalinist accusations against Trotskyism are class ideology, or at least the ideology of the Stalinist apparatus, but being ideology does not detach them from being part of class processes (sense)
"Required ideas" are how material struggles appear to conscious entities -> yes. appearance-forms are one of the most misunderstood parts of Marxism but possibly one of the most important at least while so many people misunderstand them in that way.
Taking ideological manifestations (justifications; appearance-forms) as things themselves creates Idealism ->
this + ?? = superstructural fantasy world.
The Soviet Union did not dissolve because of abstract Ideals / The Soviet Union did not dissolve because of Ideas -> yes! I have trouble explaining that one to people because they always pull out 'Ukraine' and things turning 1930s Ukraine into an idea. but I have always liked Materialist explanations of this better. that's why I bothered analyzing what Hayashi or Cliff were saying for a bit; it at least wasn't based on "ideas".

Subjective themes (no AI)

LithoGraphica influence / (9k) -> I moved the general explanation of what Items and propositions are here so it would be easier to find.
meta-Marxism? that's just Stalinism / (9k)
meta-Marxism? that's just postmodernism -> this one is very situational. what it applies to is usually cases of insisting that two separate populations are fully countable objects with fully separate behavior, resulting in tentatively treating them as separate worlds, although not treating them that way eternally. I thought I was being really smart with this one because it seemed like it was a decent foundation for non-binary logic even though it later turned out it wasn't a fully accurate way to study populations. but, by now, it is clear at least that that method of modeling logic can't justify itself based on how populations function, and all you can really argue is that the limitations of the math objects themselves justify it because it's better to keep things "simple" and approximate than to bring in too much realistic complexity.

Usage notes

You are allowed to post LLM prompts as prototype pages (the part you wrote manually), as long as they stay in one of the ... talk: (pronounced Talk) namespaces and there are no direct quotes from generated text. Concisely describing abstract propositions that turn up several times inside response text — or quoting source texts written by humans — is fine.
It's recommended you include all of the AI's "references", such that each prompt becomes a sort of 'combination nickel' that becomes a convenient place for collecting twenty or so links that answer the question. If any of the pages referenced are already nickel pages, you should link the nickel page.
None of the commentary on these pages after the motif names / arrows is AI.

Ideologies, fields, topics, or search engines

pronounced Trotskyism / Socialism AI

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 {{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|dimension=S0|Q=10,2,90|Q2=10290}}{{int:sitename}} influence <!-- LithoGraphica influence --> {{9k|RD|Q10,2,90}}  ->  I moved the general explanation of what Items and propositions are here so it would be easier to find.
+{{li|I=S1/MX/ML|Q=70,44|Q2=7044}}meta-Marxism? that's just Stalinism {{9k|RD|Q7044}}
+{{li|I=S1/MX/ES|Q=70,47|Q2=7047}}meta-Marxism? that's just postmodernism  ->  this one is very situational. what it applies to is usually cases of insisting that two separate populations are fully countable objects with fully separate behavior, resulting in tentatively treating them as separate worlds, although not treating them that way eternally. I thought I was being really smart with this one because it seemed like it was a decent foundation for non-binary logic even though it later turned out it wasn't a fully accurate way to study populations. but, by now, it is clear at least that that method of modeling logic can't justify itself based on how populations function, and all you can really argue is that the limitations of the math objects themselves justify it because it's better to keep things "simple" and approximate than to bring in too much realistic complexity.
 </li></ol>