Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q34,99: Difference between revisions
You are the main character of reality |
m All ontologies are merely narratives |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | <ol class="hue clean"> | ||
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Aa | </li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The collective unconscious in fiction is an illusion created by the fact that all the characters actually emerge from a single real mind (meta-Marxism onto Jungianism) -> I definitely would not have figured this out as easily without Deltarune. I guess any story that frames itself as a dream would have gotten me here eventually but Deltarune actually makes you ask where the Dark Worlds and all the Light World characters [[E:demiurge (fantasy narratives)|equally come from]], so it practically screams this proposition | ||
</li></ol> | |||
== Narrative therapy == | |||
<ol class="hue clean"> | |||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618}}All ontologies are merely narratives (are just narratives; are simply narratives; narrative therapy) / When people form mental models of what "a friend" is or what "normal" is they are essentially writing fictional stories which are either hypothetical or counterfactual [https://psyche.co/ideas/your-life-is-not-a-story-why-narrative-thinking-holds-you-back] -> Existentialism, stop it.<br/> | |||
when you unpack this into what it practically means, it's easy enough to see why somebody invented it. in one sense, all mental models {{em|are}} hypothetical. but that doesn't mean they're wrong! like, Trotsky isn't wrong {{em|because}} he has a hypothetical picture of what will happen. he's wrong because the [[E:relativistic determinism (meta-Marxism)|reterministic operation]] of real elements of material reality against each other is [[E:Physics resembles a computation (existential materialism)|the real calculation]] of what happens, and the calculation he's doing of how history is formed doesn't line up with the real calculation. but there are correct calculations for all physical objects whose definition has been given as entirely material and not immaterial. the immaterial is arbitrary and finds all its resolutions in the material. like, every time, this is why Protestants and Catholics had to fight wars before coming to an agreement, and why Liberal-republicanism is more of a war than a proper process of reasoning and it keeps progressively breaking down because it doesn't even work. the transition from Liberalism to Bolshevism on the other hand is very sensible. the biggest change that occurs politically is that progress is something everyone constantly participates in through regular activities, where it's possible to create progress by physically aligning more and more people together; instead of voting at elections, people vote just by going to work in a particular way. the whole "Kim Il-Sung put out a ballot with just a 'no' on it!!" accusation is actually a good thing, in concept. because if you do it right the notion of resisting progress becomes more pedestrian and less violent. you no longer have reactionaries trying to kill people for 'taking over The Real America' just because they are trying to bring different Ideals to the nation's biannual Idea Fight, instead the whole process becomes about the central government picking what it believes to be correct answers and actually collecting the reasons that people don't want to accept them to start negotiating about them in a material way and hopefully pulling some people back in.<br/> | |||
god you know what gets me about this "non-narrative thinking" bullshit. {{i|"viewing our lives in such a narrow way ..."}} - here the psychologist is trying to get rid of the concept that "you're the main character of a story" but completely undoes that entire exercise in a second by saying "our lives", which gives the implicit assumption that everything that happens while you exist happens inside your head and has anything to do with your individual choices. if you truly believe people aren't main characters then stop saying "Life" and "Our Lives". you have many other options such as "the world", "material reality", and "history". so why do they always fall back to "Our Lives"?? | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
Revision as of 07:33, 19 May 2026
Main entry
Life revolves around you
/ All events revolve around you / All events that occur while a particular person exists occur within that person / All events that occur while a particular person exists are part of "life" / in life (motif) / in our lives (motif) -> a very subtle fallacy that most people alive today miss. if an event occurs "in your life" which is "out of your control", is it even meaningfully part of "life"? does this category of "life" actually even help in making sense of daily events?- Life revolves around you / You are the main character of reality -> I find it incredibly strange that psychologists can both try to tell you your life "isn't a story" and then speak of "our lives" like your existence is uniquely yours and you are in fact the main character of reality just by existing and being able to perceive it.
Early Enlightenment / Kantianism
All of reality actually lives in any particular individual's unconscious mind
[1] -> sub-case of: Q34,99 All events revolve around you.
so this is where "The Real" comes from, probably. the weird conflation of unconscious thoughts inside one person with other outside objects that are inanimate and not conscious.
also the concept of the Collective Unconscious. like, making Deltarune and the apparent plot point of the Dark Worlds versus the "Titan fountain" becomes intuitive if you believe this- All of reality actually lives in any particular individual's unconscious mind -> oh. oh no. they ended their timeline of Cartesian reality with Henri
Bergson. the dude that hadn't made it to general relativity from special Henry-seconds and Felix-seconds that Felix and Henry respectively can never know
Psychoanalysis
- The collective unconscious in fiction is an illusion created by the fact that all the characters actually emerge from a single real mind (meta-Marxism onto Jungianism) -> I definitely would not have figured this out as easily without Deltarune. I guess any story that frames itself as a dream would have gotten me here eventually but Deltarune actually makes you ask where the Dark Worlds and all the Light World characters equally come from, so it practically screams this proposition
Narrative therapy
- All ontologies are merely narratives (are just narratives; are simply narratives; narrative therapy) / When people form mental models of what "a friend" is or what "normal" is they are essentially writing fictional stories which are either hypothetical or counterfactual [2] -> Existentialism, stop it.
when you unpack this into what it practically means, it's easy enough to see why somebody invented it. in one sense, all mental models are hypothetical. but that doesn't mean they're wrong! like, Trotsky isn't wrong because he has a hypothetical picture of what will happen. he's wrong because the reterministic operation of real elements of material reality against each other is the real calculation of what happens, and the calculation he's doing of how history is formed doesn't line up with the real calculation. but there are correct calculations for all physical objects whose definition has been given as entirely material and not immaterial. the immaterial is arbitrary and finds all its resolutions in the material. like, every time, this is why Protestants and Catholics had to fight wars before coming to an agreement, and why Liberal-republicanism is more of a war than a proper process of reasoning and it keeps progressively breaking down because it doesn't even work. the transition from Liberalism to Bolshevism on the other hand is very sensible. the biggest change that occurs politically is that progress is something everyone constantly participates in through regular activities, where it's possible to create progress by physically aligning more and more people together; instead of voting at elections, people vote just by going to work in a particular way. the whole "Kim Il-Sung put out a ballot with just a 'no' on it!!" accusation is actually a good thing, in concept. because if you do it right the notion of resisting progress becomes more pedestrian and less violent. you no longer have reactionaries trying to kill people for 'taking over The Real America' just because they are trying to bring different Ideals to the nation's biannual Idea Fight, instead the whole process becomes about the central government picking what it believes to be correct answers and actually collecting the reasons that people don't want to accept them to start negotiating about them in a material way and hopefully pulling some people back in.
god you know what gets me about this "non-narrative thinking" bullshit. "viewing our lives in such a narrow way ..." - here the psychologist is trying to get rid of the concept that "you're the main character of a story" but completely undoes that entire exercise in a second by saying "our lives", which gives the implicit assumption that everything that happens while you exist happens inside your head and has anything to do with your individual choices. if you truly believe people aren't main characters then stop saying "Life" and "Our Lives". you have many other options such as "the world", "material reality", and "history". so why do they always fall back to "Our Lives"??
Ideology codes
- (none)