Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q697: Difference between revisions
sublation within early MDem drafts |
German word Aufhebung |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=sublation|User=RD|E=Q697|Contents=y}} | {{NextNineThousand|PPPA=sublation|User=RD|E=Q697|Contents=y}} | ||
== Main entry == | == Main entry == | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S1/ML|Q=697|Q2=697|h4 = sublation }} / The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm] -> 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 /> | {{li|start=y|I=S1/ML|Q=697|Q2=697|h4 = sublation }} / The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm] -> 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. | 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|I=S1/HAS|Q=697|Q2=697|h4= {{TTS|lang=de|Aufhebung}} }} (noun) / {{TTS|lang=de|aufheben}} (verb, {{TTS|de|German}}; linguistics) [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aufheben#German] -> so, this verb has two meanings, and the two meanings are separate. an idea is {{i|lang=de|aufgehoben}} when it is lifted up, or retracted. a physical object is {{i|lang=de|aufgehoben}} when it is picked up to claim, hoard, or protect. in a sense, the physical object is preserved when you "pick it up" because in being concrete it inherently keeps existing. but a national law or a principle cannot actually be picked up and 'held in your inventory' in that sense, because all ideas are somewhat transient; only a physical object that keeps existing can actually hold an idea. this opens up the field for a third meaning of the word, which is to simultaneously pick up a material object and get rid of the intangible ideas associated with it, because the implication is that when you pick up a material object and appropriate it the ideas basically stay where they were and do not actually follow. this of course makes the concept of {{i|lang=de|Aufhebung}} severely interesting to a Communist revolution. because, what would happen if a collection of people had particular ideas about what businesses were but then somebody else picked them up? would the previous ideas that people claimed to be explanations of how businesses work actually still hold? the answers are.... complicated. but the question is a really good start. one of the most genius usages of a single word within a European language that I have ever seen | |||
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}Take the shovel, and its image falls out / When you pick up a [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism)|shovel]] (any concrete physical object; shovel, rock, sword, dollar coin, building), the abstract idea someone else attributes to it and assumes to inhabit it falls out and does not go along with it; the external idea is lifted out of your hand / <s>{{i|lang=de|Aufhebest die Schaufel, dem Bild aufheben}}</s> (wrong) -> I do not really speak German. I wish I did, because it would make it so much easier to label a few particular propositions. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 24: | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|tradition=MX, MX onto MX|Q=697|Q2=697|h4= post-ification }} (outdated meta-Marxist term) -> so, when Marx talks about sublation for bodies of philosophy, that's basically the same thing as the "post-" or "meta-" transformation I was clumsily trying to describe in older {{book|MDem}} drafts. the major difference was Marx laser-focused in on Hegel and I was more scattershot with what kinds of philosophies I guessed needed to be 'sublated'; I tended to pick up a lot of things that already falsely claimed to be Materialist and tear into those, rather than specifically into Idealism that clearly implied itself to be Idealism. I think this originated from capitalism itself covering the world in false Materialism, in these absolute mountains of things that are supposedly objective but aren't, and me getting terribly tired of all that. most Marxism was not really begging for "meta-Marxist critique", it was pretty good, but the false Materialism of things like Trotskyism and secular animism (anarchism) and Carl Sagan thinking that the Cold War was just one big science experiment (which was left horribly uncontrolled and plagued by muddy explanations in its initial logical arguments, if you ask me) were enough to drive me up the wall into provisionally declaring absolutely all of philosophy to be materially inaccurate. after a while I came back down from the ceiling with the decision that Marxisms in general were probably fixable despite a few deep problems but almost everything that wasn't a Marxism needed to be turned inside out as quickly as I could get through it. which birthed this ontology project. meta-Marxism is a very no-nonsense Marxism that keeps the best parts of every Marxism that have held up in explaining real historical processes but prepares to do a materialist inversion on {{em|everything else}}. | {{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|tradition=MX, MX onto MX|Q=697|Q2=697|h4= post-ification }} (outdated meta-Marxist term) -> so, when Marx talks about sublation for bodies of philosophy, that's basically the same thing as the "post-" or "meta-" transformation I was clumsily trying to describe in older {{book|MDem}} drafts. the major difference was Marx laser-focused in on Hegel and I was more scattershot with what kinds of philosophies I guessed needed to be 'sublated'; I tended to pick up a lot of things that already falsely claimed to be Materialist and tear into those, rather than specifically into Idealism that clearly implied itself to be Idealism. I think this originated from capitalism itself covering the world in false Materialism, in these absolute mountains of things that are supposedly objective but aren't, and me getting terribly tired of all that. most Marxism was not really begging for "meta-Marxist critique", it was pretty good, but the false Materialism of things like Trotskyism and secular animism (anarchism) and Carl Sagan thinking that the Cold War was just one big science experiment (which was left horribly uncontrolled and plagued by muddy explanations in its initial logical arguments, if you ask me) were enough to drive me up the wall into provisionally declaring absolutely all of philosophy to be materially inaccurate. after a while I came back down from the ceiling with the decision that Marxisms in general were probably fixable despite a few deep problems but almost everything that wasn't a Marxism needed to be turned inside out as quickly as I could get through it. which birthed this ontology project. meta-Marxism is a very no-nonsense Marxism that keeps the best parts of every Marxism that have held up in explaining real historical processes but prepares to do a materialist inversion on {{em|everything else}}. | ||
{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=25,52|Q2=2552|h4= | {{li|I=S1/MX|Q=25,52|Q2=2552|h4= meta-Marxism's Materialist biases }} / ({{9k|RD/Q25,52}}) -> so I've apparently had a quirk of often referring to entryism as "anarchism" or "Gramscianism" (or sometimes "Existentialism") mostly because those movements have a terrible propensity to vulgarize into generic entryism. ...<br/> | ||
it's interesting to now be able to catch exactly what kinds of biases the violet-Marxist method realistically has. every form of Marxism has slight biases toward what it will try to find in everything: Trotskyism tries to find 'the Stalinist bureaucracy' ... Althusser's articles are [[E:Idealism|weirdly obsessed]] with this [[E:Fisherism (Western-Marxist motif)|purported process]] of corporations programming people not to resist that Western-Marxists call "ideology". and violet Marxism, swinging [[E:Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)|all the way]] to [[E:Materialism|the other end]], seems to be slightly biased toward thinking everything has underlying material objects or processes that may or may not be there, picking up "mirages of Gramscian movements". I honestly don't think that's a bad bias to have. I mean, sometimes you actually find underlying processes, and it is possible to take a wrong hypothesis and tear it apart to be left with only the underlying material explanations of things that actually make sense. ... | it's interesting to now be able to catch exactly what kinds of biases the violet-Marxist method realistically has. every form of Marxism has slight biases toward what it will try to find in everything: Trotskyism tries to find 'the Stalinist bureaucracy' ... Althusser's articles are [[E:Idealism|weirdly obsessed]] with this [[E:Fisherism (Western-Marxist motif)|purported process]] of corporations programming people not to resist that Western-Marxists call "ideology". and violet Marxism, swinging [[E:Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)|all the way]] to [[E:Materialism|the other end]], seems to be slightly biased toward thinking everything has underlying material objects or processes that may or may not be there, picking up "mirages of Gramscian movements". I honestly don't think that's a bad bias to have. I mean, sometimes you actually find underlying processes, and it is possible to take a wrong hypothesis and tear it apart to be left with only the underlying material explanations of things that actually make sense. ... | ||
| Line 43: | Line 47: | ||
* (none) | * (none) | ||
== Subpages == | |||
* <span lang="de">[[Special:PermanentLink/43354|Ereignisse 5-17]]</span> ('future events') - in which I attempt to learn some German but I absolutely do not get the sentences right | |||
Latest revision as of 08:42, 17 May 2026
Main entry
sublation
/ The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence (Marx) [1] -> 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.
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.
Aufhebung
(noun) / aufheben (verb, ; linguistics) [2] -> so, this verb has two meanings, and the two meanings are separate. an idea is aufgehoben when it is lifted up, or retracted. a physical object is aufgehoben when it is picked up to claim, hoard, or protect. in a sense, the physical object is preserved when you "pick it up" because in being concrete it inherently keeps existing. but a national law or a principle cannot actually be picked up and 'held in your inventory' in that sense, because all ideas are somewhat transient; only a physical object that keeps existing can actually hold an idea. this opens up the field for a third meaning of the word, which is to simultaneously pick up a material object and get rid of the intangible ideas associated with it, because the implication is that when you pick up a material object and appropriate it the ideas basically stay where they were and do not actually follow. this of course makes the concept of Aufhebung severely interesting to a Communist revolution. because, what would happen if a collection of people had particular ideas about what businesses were but then somebody else picked them up? would the previous ideas that people claimed to be explanations of how businesses work actually still hold? the answers are.... complicated. but the question is a really good start. one of the most genius usages of a single word within a European language that I have ever seen- Take the shovel, and its image falls out / When you pick up a shovel (any concrete physical object; shovel, rock, sword, dollar coin, building), the abstract idea someone else attributes to it and assumes to inhabit it falls out and does not go along with it; the external idea is lifted out of your hand /
Aufhebest die Schaufel, dem Bild aufheben(wrong) -> I do not really speak German. I wish I did, because it would make it so much easier to label a few particular propositions.
In biology
- sublation in context of biological evolution [3] -> this is part of why Archaeopteryx is the mascot of the wiki
Sublation on bodies of philosophy
post-ification
(outdated meta-Marxist term) -> so, when Marx talks about sublation for bodies of philosophy, that's basically the same thing as the "post-" or "meta-" transformation I was clumsily trying to describe in older MDem drafts. the major difference was Marx laser-focused in on Hegel and I was more scattershot with what kinds of philosophies I guessed needed to be 'sublated'; I tended to pick up a lot of things that already falsely claimed to be Materialist and tear into those, rather than specifically into Idealism that clearly implied itself to be Idealism. I think this originated from capitalism itself covering the world in false Materialism, in these absolute mountains of things that are supposedly objective but aren't, and me getting terribly tired of all that. most Marxism was not really begging for "meta-Marxist critique", it was pretty good, but the false Materialism of things like Trotskyism and secular animism (anarchism) and Carl Sagan thinking that the Cold War was just one big science experiment (which was left horribly uncontrolled and plagued by muddy explanations in its initial logical arguments, if you ask me) were enough to drive me up the wall into provisionally declaring absolutely all of philosophy to be materially inaccurate. after a while I came back down from the ceiling with the decision that Marxisms in general were probably fixable despite a few deep problems but almost everything that wasn't a Marxism needed to be turned inside out as quickly as I could get through it. which birthed this ontology project. meta-Marxism is a very no-nonsense Marxism that keeps the best parts of every Marxism that have held up in explaining real historical processes but prepares to do a materialist inversion on everything else.meta-Marxism's Materialist biases
/ (9k) -> so I've apparently had a quirk of often referring to entryism as "anarchism" or "Gramscianism" (or sometimes "Existentialism") mostly because those movements have a terrible propensity to vulgarize into generic entryism. ...
it's interesting to now be able to catch exactly what kinds of biases the violet-Marxist method realistically has. every form of Marxism has slight biases toward what it will try to find in everything: Trotskyism tries to find 'the Stalinist bureaucracy' ... Althusser's articles are weirdly obsessed with this purported process of corporations programming people not to resist that Western-Marxists call "ideology". and violet Marxism, swinging all the way to the other end, seems to be slightly biased toward thinking everything has underlying material objects or processes that may or may not be there, picking up "mirages of Gramscian movements". I honestly don't think that's a bad bias to have. I mean, sometimes you actually find underlying processes, and it is possible to take a wrong hypothesis and tear it apart to be left with only the underlying material explanations of things that actually make sense. ...
Fearmongering
- sublation fearmongering -> I swear this is an entire genre of fiction.
- The act of requiring everyone in a given population to tolerate a particular demographic identity forever is Totalitarian / (9k) -> people fear Marxism because when the population begins sublation and takes on new policies that the bourgeoisie will be phased out through steps like the NEP or simply not allowed any more, these transformations will be "extreme" and they will lead to Totalitarian control of people who for whatever reason are having problems with the transformations. ... in the same way, any transformation that is one-way and 'permanent' can bring on a similar panic.
Related
Ideology codes
- (none)
Subpages
- Ereignisse 5-17 ('future events') - in which I attempt to learn some German but I absolutely do not get the sentences right