Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q26,66: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
17,015 edits
copy markup from Q90
 
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
17,015 edits
"Existentialists" = political agorists
 
Line 3: Line 3:
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ES}} -->
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ES}} -->


{{li|start=y|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=26,66|Q2=2666|h4= Why isn't your theory forbidden? }} / If your theory of anarchism, etc., can overturn all hierarchies, why hasn't it been forbidden as a threat to the existing order?  ->  a question Existentialists never seem to seriously ask themselves. really felt this trying to read Foucault. there are a few anarchists that pass this bar only technically and dubiously by being willing to Zinovievize society for nothing in return. not the way I would prefer that a theory fix itself, but, back to Existentialism. why does it act like it's the most radical thing ever when it never stops to ask what it is or isn't disrupting
{{li|start=y|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=26,66|Q2=2666|h4= Why isn't your theory forbidden? }} / If your theory of anarchism, etc., can overturn all hierarchies, why hasn't it been forbidden as a threat to the existing order?  ->  a question [[EC:9k/RD/Q73|political-agorists]] never seem to seriously ask themselves. really felt this trying to read Foucault. there are a few anarchists that pass this bar only technically and dubiously by being willing to [[E:Zinovievizing (meta-Marxism)|Zinovievize]] society for nothing in return, thus becoming "forbidden". not the way I would prefer that a theory fix itself, but it passes through this contradiction at the very least. back to [[EC:9k/RD/Q73|agorist political philosophy]]. why does it act like it's the most radical thing ever when it never stops to ask what it is or isn't disrupting


</li></ol>
</li></ol>
Line 20: Line 20:
<ol class="hue clean terse  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
<ol class="hue clean terse  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
{{li|start=y
{{li|start=y
     |I=S1/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|MX|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism
     |I=S1/MX|Q=92|Q2=92}}{{TTS|MX|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism
{{li|I=S1/MN|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|MN|M.N.}} / Leninism
{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=73|Q2=73}}{{TTS|ES|E-S}} / [[EC:9k/RD/Q73|political agorism]]
</li></ol>
</li></ol>


Latest revision as of 23:02, 18 August 2026

Main entry

  1. Why isn't your theory forbidden?

    / If your theory of anarchism, etc., can overturn all hierarchies, why hasn't it been forbidden as a threat to the existing order? -> a question political-agorists never seem to seriously ask themselves. really felt this trying to read Foucault. there are a few anarchists that pass this bar only technically and dubiously by being willing to Zinovievize society for nothing in return, thus becoming "forbidden". not the way I would prefer that a theory fix itself, but it passes through this contradiction at the very least. back to agorist political philosophy. why does it act like it's the most radical thing ever when it never stops to ask what it is or isn't disrupting

Related

Ideologies or fields

  1. pronounced M.X. / meta-Marxism
  2. pronounced E-S / political agorism
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q26,66&oldid=45216"