Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q40,59: Difference between revisions

Newer edit →

Revision as of 01:52, 1 June 2026

Main entry

Math can save Trotsky
/ Mathematics can save Leon Trotsky, because morality never will / No moral argument will ever vindicate Trotskyism, whether it is based on the character of Trotskyist parties as Leninists, based on the justifiability of the Trotskyite conspiracy, or based on the "corrupt" or "tyrannical" character of Stalin's party, because the behavior of Trotskyists is not at all comprehensible based on moral frameworks, and any moral framework Stalin-followers may attempt to come up with will invariably cast early Trotskyism as immoral; however, if Trotskyism is taken to be a strictly amoral force in the world rather than an Evil one, then the behavior of Trotskyism can become comprehensible to everyone outside Trotskyism including Stalin-followers, and there is some possibility that Trotskyism can finally be vindicated or forgiven as the bizarre inanimate force of nature it is as people realize that in the end it did not actually have intentions per se in its collision with other Marxisms much less wilful or malicious intentions to destroy them for its own gain when it could have chosen not to; sheer existential-materialist analysis of separate Marxist parties as a contradiction can solve the problem through descriptive mathematical models of behavior where neither language nor most forms of logic or argumentation could solve it ->

it's conceptually funny imagining somebody trying to argue this in court, but thankfully that's not the way that Marxism rolls and people generally know on some level that Marxism exists in something of an anhierarchic collision of nations and parties that has to work itself out other ways than an arbitrarily thrown-together special argument ground inside bourgeois class rule.

Buckyball model

Plurality cannot be closed by force
/ (Q14,84, 9k) -> ... you need a way of closing plurality that is descriptive rather than prescriptive, so that closing plurality happens but nobody made it happen or ordered it to happen. because anything else causes plurality to reopen and to get fiercer.
infinite hotel of hydrogen atoms
-> if an electron moves off hydrogen at just the right moment while it is forming hydrogen gas, hydrogen can instead form an infinite thread of hydrogen atoms which always has an open electron on the end. ... kind of like the infinite hotel math problem where you keep moving people right. we managed to find a physical situation where that really happens, because the borders of the hydrogen molecule were not actually finite, because the molecule was moving around in open space and another hydrogen was added and the space for electrons was able to get bigger. ...
Chunk competition originates from commodities
/ (9k) -> ... 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, but that new control over society through predicting what shapes it will already form gives more leeway to let people go where they want and do what they want, you can predict what options are viable and maybe see more options where otherwise you might have trouble seeing any. ...
Landlords and inequality function to delay people killing each other / (9k) -> ... anarchism is so.... corrupt at the core. it seems like almost any theory that assumes that individuals and tiny collections of people are inherently 'social' and aren't going to be horribly limited by the inherent limited amount of space in them enough to eventually become bigoted or violent inevitably ends up producing these horrifying scenarios where every individual becomes really authoritarian about what exact behaviors are required from everyone else just to get everyone to supposedly live in harmony and have "hope". 'solarpunk utopias' would turn into racist, xenophobic dystopias just because they're small, I'm calling it now.
in fact, if Stalin's government really did oppress anybody, I'd like to boldly claim that that happened because the size of society's structures were finite and had not become indefinite. (despite Stalin's claims to be trying to effect growth so that that would happen to some small extent.) when society's structures become indefinite you have infinite freedom to move to any structure, but when society's structures are as finite as possible you must stay exactly where you are and you have no freedom. by the schizoanalyst definition of freedom, 'small and local' is inherently bad because it will inherently become 'small and unfree'.
but the remaining riddle is this: how do you improve freedom of movement if you can't control other groups of people, who are the ones who control whether there will be open slots? the other people with the open slots who you are asking to accept you are the actual limiting factor on whether your own "local co-op" will become bigoted. the decision on whether to create freedom and not be bigoted isn't made by you, it's always made by someone else. say you are horribly limited and un-free in 1600s Europe and it's a dictatorship and you want to get out of there. if the people of North America don't like you, you're stuck in European dictatorship unless you go to North America and force your will on the people there. now say you are in the Soviet Union and the country is poor and it never seems like it can grow fast enough and you are horribly limited and you're tired of this and you subjectively believe Stalin is a dictator. you can go to another country, but whether you have freedom depends on whether the people there let you do what you want to do. if the people there are horrible and cruel and want to funnel all the resources of North America to billionaires then nothing gets better for you by leaving the Soviet Union, you're just stuck and you have no freedom. but the same is also true if you went the other way. if you were both in the United States and you were getting super tired of Ronald Reagan and you went to the Soviet Union, then you'd only have freedom if the Soviet Union felt like granting you the open career slots or other possibilities you wanted. I think this is what leads to First World countries wanting to pressure and destroy workers' states: people are actually really unhappy in First World countries and on some unconscious level they want to move to workers' states to solve the problem, but workers' states don't give them what they want in order to feel free, so then they want to apply force — freedom and colonialism are tightly linked, if not nearly the exact same thing. so the core problem is plurality. the fact that the world's populations cannot cleanly unify because countable cultures and individuals are always plural and they always want different things, so whenever they want freedom, they can't just hand freedom to each other, it can only be one person's will walking over the other person's will. this happens pretty much as long as people have identities and personalities and immutable characteristics. it's not as simple as just closing the borders between the populations and making them one, because plurality first exists inside each population and drives populations apart to create populations. any attempt to close plurality before people are ready is stepping over someone's will and freedom; if you so much as go to a Third World country and demand that they let in gay culture you could come across as xenophobic to all those people and they will not want to grant freedom to you because you didn't grant freedom to them to be the nationality they are instead of United-States. plurality cannot be closed by force. but any anarchist scheme to claim that identities inherently love each other because they're all identities is closing plurality by force. you need a way of closing plurality that is descriptive rather than prescriptive, so that closing plurality happens but nobody made it happen or ordered it to happen. because anything else causes plurality to reopen and to get fiercer.

Ideology codes

(none)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 {{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/MD|Q=40,59|Q2=4059|h4= Math can save Trotsky }} / Mathematics can save Leon Trotsky, because morality never will / No moral argument will ever vindicate Trotskyism, whether it is based on the character of Trotskyist parties as Leninists, based on the justifiability of the Trotskyite conspiracy, or based on the "corrupt" or "tyrannical" character of Stalin's party, because the behavior of Trotskyists is not at all comprehensible based on moral frameworks, and any moral framework Stalin-followers may attempt to come up with will invariably cast early Trotskyism as immoral; however, if Trotskyism is taken to be a strictly amoral force in the world rather than an Evil one, then the behavior of Trotskyism can become comprehensible to everyone outside Trotskyism including Stalin-followers, and there is some possibility that Trotskyism can finally be vindicated or forgiven as the bizarre inanimate force of nature it is as people realize that in the end it did not actually have intentions {{i|per se}} in its collision with other Marxisms much less wilful or malicious intentions to destroy them for its own gain when it could have chosen not to; sheer [[EC:9k/RD/Q86|existential-materialist]] analysis of separate Marxist parties {{em|as a contradiction}} can solve the problem through descriptive mathematical models of behavior where neither language nor most forms of logic or argumentation could solve it  -><br/>
-it's conceptually funny imagining somebody trying to argue this in court, but thankfully that's not the way that Marxism rolls and people generally know on some level that Marxism exists in something of an anhierarchic collision of nations and parties that has to work itself out other ways than an arbitrarily thrown-together special argument ground inside [[E:initial bourgeois class rule|bourgeois class rule]].
+it's conceptually funny imagining somebody trying to argue this [[E:Moscow Trials|in court]], but thankfully that's not the way that Marxism rolls and people generally know on some level that Marxism exists in something of an anhierarchic collision of nations and parties that has to work itself out other ways than an arbitrarily thrown-together special argument ground inside [[E:initial bourgeois class rule|bourgeois class rule]].
 </li></ol>
-== Related ==
+== Buckyball model ==
 <ol class="hue clean  field_ML">
 {{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Plurality cannot be closed by force }} / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q14,84|Q14,84]], {{9k|RD/Q618-ApplesMadeOfGivanium}})  ->  ... you need a way of closing plurality that is descriptive rather than prescriptive, so that closing plurality happens but nobody made it happen or ordered it to happen. because {{em|anything else}} causes plurality to reopen and to get fiercer.
+{{li|start=y|I=S1/STM|Q=618|h4= infinite hotel of hydrogen atoms }}  ->  if an electron moves off hydrogen at just the right moment while it is forming hydrogen gas, hydrogen can instead form an infinite thread of hydrogen atoms which always has an open electron on the end. ... kind of like the infinite hotel math problem where you keep moving people right. we managed to find a physical situation where that really happens, because the borders of the hydrogen molecule were not actually finite, because the molecule was moving around in open space and another hydrogen was added and the space for electrons was able to get bigger. ...
+{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=21,94|Q2=2194|h4 = Chunk competition originates from commodities }} / ({{9k|RD/Q14,84}})  ->  ... 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, but that new control over society through predicting what shapes it will already form gives more leeway to let people go where they want and do what they want, you can predict what options are viable and maybe see more options where otherwise you might have trouble seeing any. ...
+{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Landlords and inequality function to delay people killing each other / ({{9k|RD/Q14,84}})  ->  ... anarchism is so.... corrupt at the core. it seems like almost any theory that assumes that individuals and tiny collections of people are inherently 'social' and aren't going to be horribly limited by the inherent limited amount of space in them enough to eventually become bigoted or violent inevitably ends up producing these horrifying scenarios where every individual becomes really authoritarian about what exact behaviors are required from everyone else just to get everyone to supposedly live in harmony and have "hope". 'solarpunk utopias' would turn into racist, xenophobic dystopias just because they're small, I'm calling it now.<br/>
+in fact, if Stalin's government really did oppress anybody, I'd like to boldly claim that that happened because the size of society's structures were finite and had not become indefinite. (despite Stalin's claims to be trying to effect growth so that that {{em|would}} happen to some small extent.) when society's structures become indefinite you have infinite freedom to move to any structure, but when society's structures are as finite as possible you must stay exactly where you are and {{em|you have no freedom}}. by the schizoanalyst definition of freedom, 'small and local' is inherently bad because it will inherently become 'small and unfree'.<br/>
+but the remaining riddle is this: how do you improve freedom of movement if you can't control other groups of people, who are the ones who control whether there will be open slots? the other people with the open slots who you are asking to accept you are the actual limiting factor on whether your own "local co-op" will become bigoted. the decision on whether to create freedom and not be bigoted {{em|isn't made by you, it's always made by someone else}}. say you are horribly limited and un-free in 1600s Europe and it's a dictatorship and you want to get out of there. if the people of North America don't like you, you're stuck in European dictatorship unless you go to North America and force your will on the people there. now say you are in the Soviet Union and the country is poor and it never seems like it can grow fast enough and you are horribly limited and you're tired of this and you subjectively believe Stalin is a dictator. you can go to another country, but whether you have freedom depends on whether the people there let you do what you want to do. if the people there are horrible and cruel and want to funnel all the resources of North America to billionaires then nothing gets better for you by leaving the Soviet Union, you're just stuck and you have no freedom. but the same is also true if you went the other way. if you were both in the United States and you were getting super tired of Ronald Reagan and you went to the Soviet Union, then you'd only have freedom if the Soviet Union felt like granting you the open career slots or other possibilities you wanted. I think this is what leads to First World countries wanting to pressure and destroy workers' states: people are actually really unhappy in First World countries and on some unconscious level they want to move to workers' states to solve the problem, but workers' states don't give them what they want in order to feel free, so then they want to apply force — freedom and colonialism are tightly linked, if not nearly the exact same thing. so the core problem is [[E:separable multiplicity|plurality]]. the fact that the world's populations cannot cleanly unify because countable cultures and individuals are always plural and they always want different things, so whenever they want freedom, they can't just hand freedom to each other, it can only be one person's will walking over the other person's will. this happens pretty much as long as people have identities and personalities and immutable characteristics. it's not as simple as just closing the borders between the populations and making them one, because plurality first exists inside each population and drives populations apart to create populations. any attempt to close plurality before people are ready is stepping over someone's will and freedom; if you so much as go to a Third World country and demand that they let in gay culture you could come across as xenophobic to all those people and they will not want to grant freedom to you because you didn't grant freedom to them to be the nationality they are instead of United-States. plurality cannot be closed by force. but any anarchist scheme to claim that identities inherently love each other because they're all identities is closing plurality by force. you need a way of closing plurality that is descriptive rather than prescriptive, so that closing plurality happens but nobody made it happen or ordered it to happen. because {{em|anything else}} causes plurality to reopen and to get fiercer.
 </li></ol>