Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q86: Difference between revisions
m class is a single substrate |
existential materialism |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=86|Q2=86|h4 = existential materialism }} / exmat | {{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=86|Q2=86|h4 = existential materialism }} / exmat -> one of the core methods of meta-Marxism.<br/> | ||
the first and simplest summary I would give of exmat is "creating a Materialism which strictly begins at small scales rather than large scales, especially and particularly when talking about societies". another way to say that would be "model society through [[E:upreductionism|upreductionism]]".<br/> | |||
that by itself doesn't guarantee a dialectical materialism, and suggests you may end up with something that represents slices of a larger process that apply during specific stretches of time. in my opinion that is still valid, for the same reasons that Newtonian physics can approximate the large-scale results of quantum physics. to have a complete model of physics you'd have to include how processes in reality at least as small as quarks interact with or produce time itself in order to stack up to larger-scale physics. but people often get by with models of physics that effectively tell you what happens {{em|the moment after}} quantum interactions happen and produce such things as atoms. so, I think there is a place for using seemingly 'static' models of social processes to teach what they each are before fully introducing antagonisms.<br/> | |||
a second summary I might give is "creating a Materialism which respects the fact that individual objects or people can interact together to produce history without being directly connected to each other or directly influencing each other until they suddenly collide". this is the same as saying "apply [[E:relativistic determinism (meta-Marxism)|relativistic determinism]] to all objects". concepts like the golden rule are erroneous in that they attribute more horizontal causality to interactions between objects than there really is, but in another sense, the basic concept of metallic rules is fine if you allow for the behaviors of individuals to be truly independent events most of the time and only influence each other sometimes.<br/> | |||
existential materialism is a study of people that treats people somewhat like quarks or electrons, and states that individual people form material objects or processes as they interact socially, consisting of {{em|people arranged into}} larger objects or processes, and not consisting of "ideas" or "culture" or "narratives" — these are not material objects. said another way it is the study of sociophilosophies, or [[EC:9k/RD/Q21,04|the "socio-politico-economy" process]]. so exmat is one of the most central frameworks of violet Marxism, which basically starts out by focusing much harder on small-scale human interactions than on a broader timeline of historical periods, but still ends up with a conception of what a historical period is anyway because they're always made out of people arranged into specific kinds of repeatable patterns.<br/> | |||
you could presumably twist this framework toward bourgeois ends, but the staunch commitment to {{em|Materialism}} within existential materialism and judging the nature of everything by the actual consequences of people's actions rather than by their intentions makes that somewhat hard. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
Revision as of 02:10, 25 May 2026
Main entry
existential materialism
/ exmat -> one of the core methods of meta-Marxism.
the first and simplest summary I would give of exmat is "creating a Materialism which strictly begins at small scales rather than large scales, especially and particularly when talking about societies". another way to say that would be "model society through upreductionism".
that by itself doesn't guarantee a dialectical materialism, and suggests you may end up with something that represents slices of a larger process that apply during specific stretches of time. in my opinion that is still valid, for the same reasons that Newtonian physics can approximate the large-scale results of quantum physics. to have a complete model of physics you'd have to include how processes in reality at least as small as quarks interact with or produce time itself in order to stack up to larger-scale physics. but people often get by with models of physics that effectively tell you what happens the moment after quantum interactions happen and produce such things as atoms. so, I think there is a place for using seemingly 'static' models of social processes to teach what they each are before fully introducing antagonisms.
a second summary I might give is "creating a Materialism which respects the fact that individual objects or people can interact together to produce history without being directly connected to each other or directly influencing each other until they suddenly collide". this is the same as saying "apply relativistic determinism to all objects". concepts like the golden rule are erroneous in that they attribute more horizontal causality to interactions between objects than there really is, but in another sense, the basic concept of metallic rules is fine if you allow for the behaviors of individuals to be truly independent events most of the time and only influence each other sometimes.
existential materialism is a study of people that treats people somewhat like quarks or electrons, and states that individual people form material objects or processes as they interact socially, consisting of people arranged into larger objects or processes, and not consisting of "ideas" or "culture" or "narratives" — these are not material objects. said another way it is the study of sociophilosophies, or the "socio-politico-economy" process. so exmat is one of the most central frameworks of violet Marxism, which basically starts out by focusing much harder on small-scale human interactions than on a broader timeline of historical periods, but still ends up with a conception of what a historical period is anyway because they're always made out of people arranged into specific kinds of repeatable patterns.
you could presumably twist this framework toward bourgeois ends, but the staunch commitment to Materialism within existential materialism and judging the nature of everything by the actual consequences of people's actions rather than by their intentions makes that somewhat hard.
Class monism
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 / Social darwinism and class society are a monistic process / (9k)- Liberal-republicanism starts as a non-hierarchical one-class society and separates over time / Existentialism begins as a non-hierarchical society with one class and separates into two classes over time -> I am so close to logically proving that, on account of stationary combinations of heterogeneous elements and molecularization, capitalism is anarchic regardless of how anarchists want to define "anarchy", and there is no meaningful distinction that makes anhierarchy part of a strictly different category of things than anarchy
Related
dialectical materialism
/ diamathistorical materialism
(specific-sense) / histmatargument for general-sense historical materialism
/ (9k)
Ideologies or fields
- (none)