Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q5151: Difference between revisions
worldmaking |
meta-ontology |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{book|Worldmaking}} [https://worldmakingproject.substack.com/p/worldmaking] -> forgive me for adding this as an Item in an act of pettiness, when I gave the guideline that living people and their video channels shouldn't be coded unless they're prominent figures, but the claims of this blog are gigantic. you make a 'magazine' like this one, and it's actually begging for scrutiny. | {{li|start=y|I=Z1/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{book|Worldmaking}} [https://worldmakingproject.substack.com/p/worldmaking] -> forgive me for adding this as an Item in an act of pettiness, when I gave the guideline that living people and their video channels shouldn't be coded unless they're prominent figures, but the claims of this blog are gigantic. you make a 'magazine' like this one, and it's actually begging for scrutiny. | ||
{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Worlds organize behavior before people make conscious choices (Damjan Jovanovic) / We live inside worlds we did not choose (generic) -> so, the problem with any idea like this is, how will you ever get anyone to understand worldmaking beyond about 5 people if worlds are always modifying their choices before they can choose to adopt worldmaker theory? how did {{em|you}} ever discover worldmaker theory if you too were born absorbed into a particular world? | {{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Worlds organize behavior before people make conscious choices, creating values (required beliefs) through structure rather than proclamation (Damjan Jovanovic) / We live inside worlds we did not choose (generic) -> so, the problem with any idea like this is, how will you ever get anyone to understand worldmaking beyond about 5 people if worlds are always modifying their choices before they can choose to adopt worldmaker theory? how did {{em|you}} ever discover worldmaker theory if you too were born absorbed into a particular world? | ||
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Worlds organize behavior ... through structure -> define "structure". I know this is something people have gotten upset with me about too at times, but at least I can give a lengthy list of everything I can possibly think of that counts as a social structure and exactly what kind of structure it is with what kind of role or effect making it either significant or insignificant; when I do it, it's to get people to understand the absolute most fundamental concepts of what a society is outside the boxes of Communist theory and Liberal-republican theory before they make bigger statements. | |||
{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618|Q2=618}}Each World contains distinctions of what is Good or Bad (an ethics; a morality; what is rewarded or not rewarded or punished; a set of ground rules), which are crafted through the structure of the World rather than through intentional design; this is to imply that some forms of structure create extractive relationships with nature correlating with the value that nature is a resource; this is to imply that some forms of structure create domination correlating with the value of centers of control; this is to imply that some forms of structure obscure themselves correlating with disorientation; this is to imply that understanding the genesis of Worlds allows creating new worlds and new futures (Damjan Jovanovic) -><br/> | |||
so, like, is this thing properly meta- or is it not? I genuinely cannot tell. I know how to word it to make it {{em|sound}} smart, but I have no idea if the people who made it understand it that way.<br/> | |||
it sounds like anarchism. these examples are all recycled anarchist talking points. | |||
{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Cities, nations (populations? states?), and technological infrastructures (?) are worlds (Damjan Jovanovic) | {{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Cities, nations (populations? states?), and technological infrastructures (?) are worlds (Damjan Jovanovic) | ||
| Line 38: | Line 44: | ||
--> | --> | ||
== Ideologies or fields == | == Ideologies or fields == | ||
<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | |||
{{li|start=y | {{li|start=y | ||
|I=S1/ | |I=S1/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|MX|meta-Marxism}} / meta-ontology | ||
</li></ol | </li></ol> | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
== Wavebuilder combinations == | == Wavebuilder combinations == | ||
Revision as of 07:38, 2 September 2026
Main entry
worldmaking
-> what the hell is this. I've seen it like five times looking up weird political-agorist garbage. I'm not giving it its own Item number until I know what it is.
world: ????
make: ????- worldmaking / concepts related to worldmaking (sense) [1] / studying race (generic) / psychoanalysis and racial identity (Kondo 2018; generic) / theater and media representation (generic) / race and economic forces (generic) / race and institutional hiring practices (generic) / ideologies of artistic transcendence (generic) / race and aesthetic form (generic)
Worldmaking (blog)
- Worldmaking [2] -> forgive me for adding this as an Item in an act of pettiness, when I gave the guideline that living people and their video channels shouldn't be coded unless they're prominent figures, but the claims of this blog are gigantic. you make a 'magazine' like this one, and it's actually begging for scrutiny.
- Worlds organize behavior before people make conscious choices, creating values (required beliefs) through structure rather than proclamation (Damjan Jovanovic) / We live inside worlds we did not choose (generic) -> so, the problem with any idea like this is, how will you ever get anyone to understand worldmaking beyond about 5 people if worlds are always modifying their choices before they can choose to adopt worldmaker theory? how did you ever discover worldmaker theory if you too were born absorbed into a particular world?
- Worlds organize behavior ... through structure -> define "structure". I know this is something people have gotten upset with me about too at times, but at least I can give a lengthy list of everything I can possibly think of that counts as a social structure and exactly what kind of structure it is with what kind of role or effect making it either significant or insignificant; when I do it, it's to get people to understand the absolute most fundamental concepts of what a society is outside the boxes of Communist theory and Liberal-republican theory before they make bigger statements.
- Each World contains distinctions of what is Good or Bad (an ethics; a morality; what is rewarded or not rewarded or punished; a set of ground rules), which are crafted through the structure of the World rather than through intentional design; this is to imply that some forms of structure create extractive relationships with nature correlating with the value that nature is a resource; this is to imply that some forms of structure create domination correlating with the value of centers of control; this is to imply that some forms of structure obscure themselves correlating with disorientation; this is to imply that understanding the genesis of Worlds allows creating new worlds and new futures (Damjan Jovanovic) ->
so, like, is this thing properly meta- or is it not? I genuinely cannot tell. I know how to word it to make it sound smart, but I have no idea if the people who made it understand it that way.
it sounds like anarchism. these examples are all recycled anarchist talking points. - Cities, nations (populations? states?), and technological infrastructures (?) are worlds (Damjan Jovanovic)
- For much of human history worlds were inherited but now they are designed (Damjan Jovanovic) -> that seems doubtful. I think if there's such a thing they're still inherited a whole lot of the time.
- planetary imaginaries -> they defined a word I didn't understand with another new word.
- alternative worlds / alternative worlds, historical and emerging / failures of existing worlds (generic) -> so, like, is the Soviet Union considered an alternative world? or do these people just arbitrarily draw the line of what's an alternate world and what's a mainstream world wherever they feel like it?
- myth and narrative as technologies / games and simulations as worldmaking systems (generic) / artificial intelligence as a perceptual and cosmological apparatus (generic) / utopias as working hypotheses (generic) -> this is one of the most coherent things I have heard these people say. yes, narratives and representational art in general are technologies that fulfill a purpose.
- Worlds are narratives / Worlds in "worldmaker theory" and narratives in postmodernism are the same thing
Related
Ideologies or fields
- / meta-ontology