Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q14,80: Difference between revisions
m Chunk competition originates from commodities |
m Dualism means two apples exist |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | <ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=14,81|Q2=1481|h4= Class is a single substrate }} / The [[E:substance pluralism|substance dualism]] advanced by early Marxism is not fully accurate because its dual substances operate under substance monism internally -> it's easy to go around saying that Marxism talking about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is wrong, and be totally wrong about it. I am claiming something much more sophisticated here. I am claiming the proletariat and the bourgeoisie do exist but that there is a layer of structure between them that is what differentiates them into dual substances, like quantum numbers appear to be able to twist energy into matter, or a single layer of fundamental particles makes up the heterogeneous realm of atoms. I have not fully figured out how this works, though I've been ranting about scattered thoughts on it for more than a year. to keep from rambling on too long, here's the short version.<br/> | {{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=14,81|Q2=1481|h4= Class is a single substrate }} / The [[E:substance pluralism|substance dualism]] advanced by early Marxism is not fully accurate because its dual substances, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, operate under substance monism internally -> it's easy to go around saying that Marxism talking about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is wrong, and be totally wrong about it. I am claiming something much more sophisticated here. I am claiming the proletariat and the bourgeoisie do exist but that there is a layer of structure between them that is what differentiates them into dual substances, like quantum numbers appear to be able to twist energy into matter, or a single layer of fundamental particles makes up the heterogeneous realm of atoms. I have not fully figured out how this works, though I've been ranting about scattered thoughts on it for more than a year. to keep from rambling on too long, here's the short version.<br/> | ||
people who would be proletarians can 'level up' into Careerists, although they don't always do it. they do it more often in First World countries and less in Third World countries. Careerists and workers combined as a single substance compete over the totality of slots in a business territory. the smaller bourgeoisie that exist are actually Careerists that are being the bourgeoisie, and are specifically made that way in the process of being part of a structure. sometimes but not always they lose their structure and cease to be bourgeoisie; sometimes they store up wealth and become permanent capitalists, only because that wealth provides structure. the genesis of a usable business territory is what truly makes the bourgeoisie the bourgeoisie, not even the act of exploiting workers — because, and everyone already accepts this part, one territory full of one bourgeois without employees still contains the bourgeoisie.<br/> | people who would be proletarians can 'level up' into Careerists, although they don't always do it. they do it more often in First World countries and less in Third World countries. Careerists and workers combined as a single substance compete over the totality of slots in a business territory. the smaller bourgeoisie that exist are actually Careerists that are being the bourgeoisie, and are specifically made that way in the process of being part of a structure. sometimes but not always they lose their structure and cease to be bourgeoisie; sometimes they store up wealth and become permanent capitalists, only because that wealth provides structure. the genesis of a usable business territory is what truly makes the bourgeoisie the bourgeoisie, not even the act of exploiting workers — because, and everyone already accepts this part, one territory full of one bourgeois without employees still contains the bourgeoisie.<br/> | ||
in one really weird sense, all stacks of capital are already state businesses. except in the case of businesses formed out of exactly one Careerist, businesses only exist at all because they consist of multiple people. I know that sounds like a tautology or a deepity but I'm getting somewhere. every business consisting of at least two people gets bigger on the basis of capital adding more people. the owner doesn't truly do that, capital itself truly does that. capital adds people and capital creates growth by absorbing people. owners then falsely believe the purpose of capital is to make them money, and exploit workers. but that isn't true; the purpose of capital is simply to order people into groups and compete over area. capital doesn't come from nowhere either, it absorbs the underlying all-vs-all contradiction between all individuals as an alternative way of doing the same thing. people invented markets to theoretically alleviate chunk competition between individuals and because this wasn't stable it produced the terrible result of producers clumping together and chunk-competing over the market instead. anarchists falsely believe at times that either owners created the entire thing or competing chunks can sort of just decide not to chunk-compete. but this ultimately comes from raw individuals at the scale of their own bodies before they are really workers, Careerists, or owners, who experience a constant impulse to protect their bodies, which is equivalent to the impulse to seek Freedom, which is equivalent to Free Will. our false belief across the United States that Freedom is a matter of reason or "democracy" or even ethics and not just the sheer desire to survive is really sinking us, because at the end of the day, a great pile of philosophies are just competing chunks trying to justify their sheer desire to survive on their own based on their suspicion that others will block their survival or what would make them happy. chunk competition is capitalism is imperialism is anarchism is Trotskyism. chunks kill. post-structuralism kills. | in one really weird sense, all stacks of capital are already state businesses. except in the case of businesses formed out of exactly one Careerist, businesses only exist at all because they consist of multiple people. I know that sounds like a tautology or a deepity but I'm getting somewhere. every business consisting of at least two people gets bigger on the basis of capital adding more people. the owner doesn't truly do that, capital itself truly does that. capital adds people and capital creates growth by absorbing people. owners then falsely believe the purpose of capital is to make them money, and exploit workers. but that isn't true; the purpose of capital is simply to order people into groups and compete over area. capital doesn't come from nowhere either, it absorbs the underlying all-vs-all contradiction between all individuals as an alternative way of doing the same thing. people invented markets to theoretically alleviate chunk competition between individuals and because this wasn't stable it produced the terrible result of producers clumping together and chunk-competing over the market instead. anarchists falsely believe at times that either owners created the entire thing or competing chunks can sort of just decide not to chunk-compete. but this ultimately comes from raw individuals at the scale of their own bodies before they are really workers, Careerists, or owners, who experience a constant impulse to protect their bodies, which is equivalent to the impulse to seek Freedom, which is equivalent to Free Will. our false belief across the United States that Freedom is a matter of reason or "democracy" or even ethics and not just the sheer desire to survive is really sinking us, because at the end of the day, a great pile of philosophies are just competing chunks trying to justify their sheer desire to survive on their own based on their suspicion that others will block their survival or what would make them happy. chunk competition is capitalism is imperialism is anarchism is Trotskyism. chunks kill. post-structuralism kills. | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
== Related == | == Related == | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | <ol class="hue clean"> | ||
</li></ | |||
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">substance pluralism / substance dualism (duality; model which proposes two kinds of structural elements instead of more than two) -> the word dualism can mean many things in different contexts*. here it means the separation of the structural elements that make up things into at least two different kinds of structural elements.<br/> | |||
<nowiki>*</nowiki> this is a part of traditional philosophy that is just infuriating to me. none of the words philosophers use really mean anything, especially when they end in "-ism", and most people immediately look stupid if they try to use any of them, to where you really have to learn to actively refuse to use most words you find in Wikipedia articles if they look the least bit like spaghetti or you {{em|will}} get them wrong and in making any attempt to discuss them become incomprehensible. this is not a matter of "depth", "field", or "pay grade", as much as people love to toss out those words without thinking. you can't wait for an expert to read {{censor|fucking}} books for you. our world is on fire. we all need to be able to read arguments and actually understand the core of them as soon as we get out of high school. the fact that we can't and basically all information you read is spaghetti has made the internet and digital systems like library catalogs nearly worthless — it's easy to find information but nobody can actually understand it, making it hard to look up anything you actually need in practice because you need "the proper words" which no matter how many terms you learn are always terribly arbitrary. the truth is that all high-quality information is capital in a sense and we've entrusted possessing and using it to the people who "need it the most", or said another way are the best at being capitalists. AI has been about the only thing that's ever remotely claimed to solve that problem, by ingesting every word and telling you how to convert it into other words, and it's a solution to a problem that should never have been a problem.<br/> | |||
maybe I'm just mad after I got burned on thinking "structuralism" and "determinism" sort of meant something instead of being abstract adjectives, just because they were nouns. is it too much to ask to want a noun to actually be something in particular that can be modified? | |||
</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_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 [[E:Anything that would kill Trotsky is bad (meta-Marxism onto Liberal-republicanism)|you kill Trotsky]]. you set up Trotsky to fight against the majority without being understood and you kill him. | |||
</li></ol> | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Revision as of 08:34, 21 April 2026
Main entries
- The class structure of the United States is monistic -> see below propositions for what this means.
- Social darwinism and class society are a monistic process
Monistic chunk competition
Social darwinism and class society are a monistic process
/ Social darwinism and class society are one continuous thing without a sharp boundary for where each of them begins and ends -> this is related to but not the same as the hypothesis that once societies become capitalist all classes or class territories are all just different 'windings' of a single monistic substance. that one is the 'noun', this one is the 'verb'.chunk competition
(motif; meta-Marxism) / all-directional contradiction between individuals / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy / (9k)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. ... 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 large populations or tiny clustered subpopulations of people inside populations hasn't gone away and various populations 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". 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. ... 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. ... 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. ...
Monistic classes
Class is a single substrate
/ The substance dualism advanced by early Marxism is not fully accurate because its dual substances, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, operate under substance monism internally -> it's easy to go around saying that Marxism talking about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is wrong, and be totally wrong about it. I am claiming something much more sophisticated here. I am claiming the proletariat and the bourgeoisie do exist but that there is a layer of structure between them that is what differentiates them into dual substances, like quantum numbers appear to be able to twist energy into matter, or a single layer of fundamental particles makes up the heterogeneous realm of atoms. I have not fully figured out how this works, though I've been ranting about scattered thoughts on it for more than a year. to keep from rambling on too long, here's the short version.
people who would be proletarians can 'level up' into Careerists, although they don't always do it. they do it more often in First World countries and less in Third World countries. Careerists and workers combined as a single substance compete over the totality of slots in a business territory. the smaller bourgeoisie that exist are actually Careerists that are being the bourgeoisie, and are specifically made that way in the process of being part of a structure. sometimes but not always they lose their structure and cease to be bourgeoisie; sometimes they store up wealth and become permanent capitalists, only because that wealth provides structure. the genesis of a usable business territory is what truly makes the bourgeoisie the bourgeoisie, not even the act of exploiting workers — because, and everyone already accepts this part, one territory full of one bourgeois without employees still contains the bourgeoisie.
in one really weird sense, all stacks of capital are already state businesses. except in the case of businesses formed out of exactly one Careerist, businesses only exist at all because they consist of multiple people. I know that sounds like a tautology or a deepity but I'm getting somewhere. every business consisting of at least two people gets bigger on the basis of capital adding more people. the owner doesn't truly do that, capital itself truly does that. capital adds people and capital creates growth by absorbing people. owners then falsely believe the purpose of capital is to make them money, and exploit workers. but that isn't true; the purpose of capital is simply to order people into groups and compete over area. capital doesn't come from nowhere either, it absorbs the underlying all-vs-all contradiction between all individuals as an alternative way of doing the same thing. people invented markets to theoretically alleviate chunk competition between individuals and because this wasn't stable it produced the terrible result of producers clumping together and chunk-competing over the market instead. anarchists falsely believe at times that either owners created the entire thing or competing chunks can sort of just decide not to chunk-compete. but this ultimately comes from raw individuals at the scale of their own bodies before they are really workers, Careerists, or owners, who experience a constant impulse to protect their bodies, which is equivalent to the impulse to seek Freedom, which is equivalent to Free Will. our false belief across the United States that Freedom is a matter of reason or "democracy" or even ethics and not just the sheer desire to survive is really sinking us, because at the end of the day, a great pile of philosophies are just competing chunks trying to justify their sheer desire to survive on their own based on their suspicion that others will block their survival or what would make them happy. chunk competition is capitalism is imperialism is anarchism is Trotskyism. chunks kill. post-structuralism kills.
Monism and calculations
- All life is semiotic and all semiosis is alive (Eduardo Kohn) / (9k) -> ... I think the first part is wrong and the second part is right.
- All life is semiotic (Eduardo Kohn) / (9k) -> ... this is so frustrating, because it's like the relationship between Marx and Hegel. ... they are convinced that the universe and nature evolve through language and arbitrary linguistic assignments of things to other things. when that just isn't how it works, things have physical structure that is contained in them as unique separable identifiable countable objects or repetitions of the same identifiable countable object, and the contents of that repeated pattern evolve through the interaction of two or more repeated patterns to produce one or two further repeated patterns. naïve dialectical materialism; one-step dialectical materialism; wave-machine logic.
... the position of each die and the side it's currently on changes in response to the current position, velocity, and rotation of the other die about to hit it. for any given state vector of each die "x" and "y",f(x,y) = z. that's it. two objects, the dice or state vectors, are separate, and then you put them together, and you calculate what happens. ... it's all about countably separate objects being able to interact because they are separate. you don't even really have to make reference to the content of the objects. it's there, it interacts by default, but sometimes it doesn't produce anything interesting. ...
the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition. where causation is described by structuralist linguistics, a.k.a. the existence of two opposed words that "mean" different evolving things, and causality inside causation is described by existentialism.
Related
- substance pluralism / substance dualism (duality; model which proposes two kinds of structural elements instead of more than two) -> the word dualism can mean many things in different contexts*. here it means the separation of the structural elements that make up things into at least two different kinds of structural elements.
* this is a part of traditional philosophy that is just infuriating to me. none of the words philosophers use really mean anything, especially when they end in "-ism", and most people immediately look stupid if they try to use any of them, to where you really have to learn to actively refuse to use most words you find in Wikipedia articles if they look the least bit like spaghetti or you will get them wrong and in making any attempt to discuss them become incomprehensible. this is not a matter of "depth", "field", or "pay grade", as much as people love to toss out those words without thinking. you can't wait for an expert to readbooks for you. our world is on fire. we all need to be able to read arguments and actually understand the core of them as soon as we get out of high school. the fact that we can't and basically all information you read is spaghetti has made the internet and digital systems like library catalogs nearly worthless — it's easy to find information but nobody can actually understand it, making it hard to look up anything you actually need in practice because you need "the proper words" which no matter how many terms you learn are always terribly arbitrary. the truth is that all high-quality information is capital in a sense and we've entrusted possessing and using it to the people who "need it the most", or said another way are the best at being capitalists. AI has been about the only thing that's ever remotely claimed to solve that problem, by ingesting every word and telling you how to convert it into other words, and it's a solution to a problem that should never have been a problem.
maybe I'm just mad after I got burned on thinking "structuralism" and "determinism" sort of meant something instead of being abstract adjectives, just because they were nouns. is it too much to ask to want a noun to actually be something in particular that can be modified? - 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 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.
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. - 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.
Ideologies or fields
- (none)