User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/5000: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

Revision as of 00:42, 8 September 2025

5000 [edit]

Welcome to friendship hell

(Perfectly okay works about "community", and dubious Existentialist theories that resemble them)

Item representing analogy or mathematical microcosm / Item comparing structure or process of thing A to thing B -> does not necessarily have to be a correct analogy, but this category does exist to hunt for correct analogies
comparing anything and everything to friendship / unexpectedly comparing things to friendship / comparing things of larger scales than individual relationships to individual relationships -> note that this is not a bad thing in every case; some MDem entries point out real similarities between individuals and populations which lead to real similarities between large and small relationships. that said, it can create jarring contrasts between stories and real life, or Existentialist theories and real life
comparing city-wide phenomena to individual friendships / comparing town-wide phenomena to friendship
comparing region-wide phenomena to individual friendships
comparing nationwide phenomena to individual friendships
comparing global phenomena to individual friendships
comparing whole social graphs to individual friendships / comparing whole communities to friendship / comparing fanbases to friendship / comparing platform membership to friendship
comparing galactic or cosmic phenomena to individual friendships
comparing institutions to individual friendships / comparing workplaces to friendship / comparing government ministries to friendship
comparing local community centers to individual friendships / comparing forums to friendship / comparing churches to friendship
individual described by common pronouns -> important to define basic categories, but may not be necessary to add except within works where below kinds of characters exist ↓
individual described by nonstandard pronouns / character described by pronouns not in common use outside work -> note that "they", "any pronouns", and "it" (background object) are common usages, not nonstandard language
individual described by neopronouns / individual described by "nonsense" pronouns / individual described by "nounself" pronouns
individual described exclusively by pronouns from another language -> Damara Megido. this is a true example of a character with "nonstandard pronouns"
individual described by alternating pronouns / individual described by cycling pronouns -> thanks Mangle
individual described by pronoun of surrounding physical object / ghost using possessing object's pronoun
fictional individual described with insulting pronouns / fictional individual frequently misgendered in-universe / fictional individual frequently called coarse pronouns in Japanese not necessarily related to gender
individual described by pronoun of characters from other planet / fictional human described with alien pronouns -> thanks Piccolo, thanks Crystal Gems.
??
pronoun not listed as Lexeme (type pronoun in qualifiers) / pronoun listed in external Lexeme (ex.: ey)
??
??
??
individual described by pronoun usages containing ARG clues -> ~~I have never heard of this but I bet it will happen some day~~ wait. this technically already exists. people were left using the pronoun "him" to trace tenuous connections between Gaster and Deltarune. so technically. there is already at least one example out there of pronouns being used as ARG clues, although it's simpler than the silly idea I had in my head of some cryptic letter hiding some kind of cipher key in pronouns.
??
??
??
vote -> a single show of support or non-support
denial ball / black ball / black cube -> ball used as veto in anonymous ball vote. sometimes balls are the same color and put on opposite sides of the anonymous box.
approval ball / white ball -> ball used in hopes of collecting a unanimous vote
ballot
??
Humans have free will / Humans have Free Will
Larks have free will / Larks have Free Will -> the claim that songbirds such as larks and sparrows also have the thing called Free Will that humans are said to have.
Ravens have free will / Dolphins have free will -> the claim that non-human animals that have been demonstrated to be highly intelligent possess the thing called Free Will.
The cause-breaking dome has free will / The perfectly round ball sitting on a perfectly round dome that breaks Newtonian causality has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
A twenty-sided die has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
A pseudorandom number generator has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
Twilight Sparkle has free will / Twilight Sparkle has Free Will within the defined fictional universe of My Little Pony, and this is the process by which characters enact friendship lessons -> often accepted to be true but isn't really necessary to accept.
Free will is the capacity to desire freedom / Free will is the resolve to resist un-freedom -> the only definition of Free Will that makes any sense to me as something that could be real. it's a little bit of a weasel definition to replace something that doesn't make sense with something else that does. it doesn't actually save the claim people can choose not to choose to choose something. instead it's just meant to explain why humans perceive a thing called Free Will and what we might actually be looking at when we see that.
I initially got this definition from studying the relationship between center-Liberalism and Trotskyism, which to me was one of the only places that defining freedom or Free Will would ever truly matter. you can say there are other times like periods of slavery where it would matter, but honestly? I think in that case there are ways you can get out of having to talk about free will and just turn it into a matter of preferable or ethical kinds of interactions of whole populations that have material ways of being achieved whether anyone ever experiences free will or freedom or not — constitution, government, laws, just wars, history, etc. some of those invoke morality but morality doesn't even require free will; it's just making people do things.
Populations have free will
Populations do not have free will -> I am not sure if the core Marxist theorists ever made this claim, but this claim is very helpful for arguing general-sense historical materialism. if you are able to dispel the notion that populations are totally unique individuals, you can then go on to show that populations actually consist of patterns. sidenote: it's so bizarre to me that psychoanalysts are obsessed with unique individuals when quite literally, psychoanalysis and psychohistory don't work if different individuals don't show the same patterns over and over? psychoanalysis seems like an accidental argument for general-sense historical materialism in and of itself, which simply starts the concept of "historical patterns" at really tiny scales and refuses to look at big scales.
??
??
??
??
??
??
intersubjectivity -> this should be considered a motif to scan texts for. the label can be changed to something more easily recognizable while keeping the internal definition the same thing.
When The Subject simply is, it compels people to listen
The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world / whatsisname the unlikeable guy (Excessive Subject, Žižek) will stop the problem by stoking empathy -> I only caught this one after three or more times of listening to a Deltarune analysis. on Noelle's blog there is an incident where Susie is about to bite Kris, but then she stops because Kris said something unexpected. the blog post does not even explain what Kris said, underscoring the motif that Kris is an "excessive Subject" even to The Player. outside Deltarune, this same concept is portrayed much worse in The Excessive Subject. Rothenberg and Žižek clumsily try to explain that basically if a person is just really unpredictable people would eventually be forced to have intersubjectivity and learn empathy. honestly? I really do not think so. the problem isn't that reactionaries don't understand things. the problem is that the processes of society are much more physical and "inanimate" than people want to believe, reactionaries understand those processes all too well, and they choose to perpetuate cruel patterns because it's genuinely materially easier than doing otherwise. like, to get them to change you'd have to force them to expend energy and create things when they don't want to. doing nothing is much easier than doing something. people being unpredictable doesn't make Actually Getting Off Your Butt And Doing Things become easy.
watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me") -> the motif of either of the above two propositions being enacted in fiction
Wrong ideas can be corrected if you simply cease thinking -> I've been a little wrong when I said everything in Liberalism is about turning everything into metaphysical quality sliders and claiming that artificial excesses of particular adjectives must be solved with "moderation". there's just a little bit more to it than that. some people seem to believe that when people have wrong ideas or prejudices it's possible to simply stop thinking entirely and become able to take in new information that way. I know from experience over a period of five years this is almost wholly false, and only leads to great confusion. I am being very generous by not marking this F2. but, there could be some subset propositions of it that are technically true.
??
??
??
??
??
language game / language which is not post-language (locally-used version of a language which has not been forcibly standardized and can be basically anything; meta-Marxism) / plural language (alternate version of the same language inside a national language; meta-Marxism) -> a language game is essentially a plural instance of language which is used by some particular group of people toward some particular end. two different language games used by different people do not need to overlap whatsoever even as they use the same words. I have complicated feelings about this concept. on one hand I do think that the way people construct language is relatively arbitrary. on the other hand, I find it strange that, at least the way people use these works — maybe we're getting a bit of a Gramsci situation here where everyone misuses them — people think Wittgenstein was out to eliminate language games and standardize language within the realm of philosophy. but if language games exist, which they probably do, you aren't really going to be able to achieve that. language games suggest that the most basic role of language is something other than communication. so I feel like the best you can realistically do is make sure people use ontology consistently even though the language games that point to ontology are never the same
The only way to learn language is in the doing -> this is a nasty slope. it's one of the many ways philosophers smuggle in Lived Experience and positivism. this is why I refuse to refer to all exercises in ontology as "language" just because dictionaries contain definitions. no. ontology is not a matter of Lived Experience, as humanity has unfortunately learned by building machines that do ontology. a machine that doesn't seriously experience anything can now build an ontology which can be looked at two levels removed from subjective experience.
??
Logic probes ontology / Logic probes the connected graphs of words inside words inside words that we call language -> stop, Wittgenstein. stop calling ontology language. ...you know, there's a certain irony here. he said the whole purpose of philosophy is to untangle language. but you can't even do that if you think ontology is language and you don't eventually untangle them.
Language cannot be private -> the clam that language must refer to something outside each individual mind in order to be able to communicate. I think this is technically false. this assumes the goal of language is to communicate, rather than purely to describe the ontological relationships between things. I feel like if you go in assuming language is for communicating you could pick up a stack of academic papers and think they aren't really language because most people don't understand any of those words. but if you worked in that field you'd know that what the jargon terms contain is particular ontologies of things connected to each other. it only really takes one isolated mind to come up with that, not even two. the fact another human being can interpret a heap of jargon is almost incidental to its original purpose, a thing that happens in parallel rather than in a neat causal line from jargon to interpretability.
Language can be private -> I really don't think it's impossible for individuals to have a private language referring to only their own thoughts and perceptions. it's certainly inadvisable, but inadvisable things are not impossible. here's why I think this is true. a group of Egyptian priests can all agree on a language, but other people could come back to an inscription hundreds of years later and have no idea what it says. the inscription created by the priests wasn't in reference to anything that was public to the whole world of all humans. it was only public to everyone in the group of priests. which is to say, it was private to all European archaeologists, not public. the hard barrier between ancient cultures and modern-day countable cultures shows that nothing has to be truly shared between minds, all perceptions are potentially localized and individual until the moment that they are communicated in a way that another person really truly understands. this is a different statement than saying that people don't live in or perceive the same reality, which they do. the problem is that all minds are separated by the Last Unicorn effect, where everyone starts from the same world but constructs their own "fantasy" version of the world complete with both realistic models that come very close to how real objects behave and unreal mirages we can call "unicorns". everyone has the same reality, but everyone has their own unicorns. and this difference in unicorns means that some words refer to unicorns other people don't have at the moment, at least until they very closely examine what on earth another person is assuming and successfully reconstruct the missing unicorns.
Every language contains a plurality of languages / Languages are always plural, even when they're singular / language versus post-language proposition -> yeah, this is what bothered me about the overview I listened to of Wittgenstein's theory of language. the overview did not go into the concept that "the way philosophers use language" could represent multiple Englishes rather than one English, multiple versions of German, and so forth. if such a thing is the case, telling people it's important to use the same terms and concepts won't even work, because people will just rebel to defend their right to have their own local languages. when people are all converted to the same "cultural language", such as German, it doesn't mean they all actually speak the same language, because they then just speak different versions of German based on the different ideologies they believe. serious Christians in Germany might have one version of German, nonbelievers might have another. West Germans might have one version of German full of anticommunism, East Germans might have another full of definitions friendly to Bolshevism. in other words, ideologies are the new languages. ideologies are countable cultures; countable cultures have languages; countable cultures rebel when not given self-determination. even if the people in them are Evil. national independence and Freedom don't care if people are Evil, they just thrash around to realize themselves.
Dawkinsian language usage / Matt Dillahunty language usage -> the type of language usage that does not prescribe required meanings for each word but does prescribe underlying ontological distinctions which should be used in defining all words: Dawkins says Einsteinian religiousness is not religion and means precisely that whatever words people use should preserve that distinction, whether the words are "the spiritual" and "religion", "Einsteinian religion" and "religion", etc.
I would censor this to demote "Dawkins", but that doesn't actually work on normal people because they'll always say the person you claim to be better than Dawkins is just as bad and practically an Arab- and Jew-hater purely for not letting people believe religion. so I've given up on trying to make any statement about religion sound "sensitive", because why even try that if it's the abstract concept that makes people angry? I guess angry concepts just have to have angry words.
Wittgensteinian language usage -> the type of language usage that fails to separate words from ontological constructs (signifier equations) that lie inside language and that large language models trace in a superficial way. this doesn't have a precise definition yet but one thing it could mean is insisting that every term applied to things is really literal instead of a figurative way to refer to something which could practically be the same thing depending on the circumstance — that Einstein can't refer to awe as religion as a way of defanging religion and showing that it was only another name for awe.
??
Language is just a bunch of math -> sounds ridiculous at first unless you've already come to understand language is a bunch of signifier equations, and then you're like, oh, yeah, it really is just a bunch of things inside of other things that we only assign arbitrary names to, it's not too big of a leap from that to saying it's literally just math.
Language is about intensional set definitions / Language is about intensional set definitions, not intuition -> you can separately claim that intensional set definitions are based on intuition, but I think it's critical to make this separation between studying language and studying intensional non-well-formed set theory so that we show that language is more mechanical and less intrinsically poetic than people think. (replace "mechanical" with "reterministic" if that word sounds too anti-dialectics to you. I tend to use the words mechanical and mechanism very colloquially so that even dialectical things are called machines; I think everyone constantly bringing up Deleuze and Guattari is what helped corrupt me there.) if you show that much, it's easier to tear people away from the concept that everything social is about Lived Experience versus dialectical materialism and repeated historical processes.
Language is actually lambda calculus / Signifier equations can be conceptualized as lambda calculus functions, which means that the meaning of any sentence amounts to one big lambda calculus calculation -> it sounds like a joke until you really think about what it means for a language model to hypothetically truly know what an apple is and what it can do with an apple. an apple is an edible round object that can be cut with a knife. this is a signifier equation saying that three kinds of physics apply to the object arbitrarily called an apple.
Unicorns are abstract math / Unicorns are just unrealistic math / Unicorns, the mirages which appear under the Last Unicorn effect, are simply lambda calculus constructs which make hypotheses about some defined reality and then do not predict that reality; in concept they may predict some other defined reality, even if that reality is fictional
??
??
??
root-word mirage / name-element mirage / reading meaningful name elements out of the wrong names -> something of an arts trope. usually harmless. the only exception to that might be everyday instances of somebody reading a Chinese or Vietnamese name as "dung", etc. most of the time it's just funny, like Edward being a direction? gold. wondering if Oliver Wood is a beating stick? dark, but fine. turning the name Rowling into some dumb pun about rolling downhill and being unable to stop? perfect. I'd say that a name like "Darkstalker" doesn't fit into this motif because it's made of words that already have multiple meanings on their own. this motif is more like a frame shift mutation for words.
Squidward is a direction / Directional words end in -ward, therefore Squidward is a direction, and so are its original counterparts Edward, Hayward, and Siegward -> very silly, one of those things that normally you wouldn't think about for more than a minute, but does wrap around to being interesting in the context of "language games". you can't just make signifiers mean anything because to some extent there are reasons they mean the things they currently mean.
"Hogwarts" is a direction [1] -> I have no idea if this is intentional or this is the same statement as "Squidward is a direction".
arguments in favor: "hog" could be read as rightwards depending on the language. if that's true.... oh boy, it really doesn't look good for the meaning of the books does it? like, Hogwarts would be the same thing as the bad meaning of "redpilled".
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
microdistrict / walkable neighborhood / car-free neighborhood
microdistrict (Soviet Union)
mass-produced building
Trotskyists could have created microdistricts -> I have been looking for so long for one possible policy that Trotskyists would not be too stupid / too tiny of a group of somewhat smart people to figure out. I have finally found one example. in the weird in-between period between the death of Stalin and the overall erosion of the CPSU was exactly when the country created cheap mass-produced buildings. it would seem that the cause of this is more that from 1920-1960 there were constant wars and right after this things were calmer than that the anti-Stalinists truly showed up with all the only good ideas. that said, this stuff certainly happened without Stalin, and microdistricts are one of those things where as soon as someone invents them they're almost harder to screw up than to do correctly. in my mind, this means that if Trotsky had not been lying to people, he could have gotten people together to build some microdistricts in Kazakhstan before everybody migrated out of there, and it would have at least been something. if you put up a number of sensibly-structured towns you don't have to go complaining that the bureaucrats took them over and there's no way you can restore the soviets. whatever a soviet is going to look like in your mind you have a better chance if everything is well-structured rather than strung out. right? why is it that Trotsky believed he could change the whole world and yet he seemed to get hopelessly frustrated with changing a single meeting. why is it that it's easy for me to think of ways Trotskyism could have proved it wasn't one big lie but it was so hard for the actual 1930s Trotskyites that think it's their critically-important duty to keep the country going and save the country from Stalin to think of any of this
Microdistricts are a Filamentist deception / Walkable cities are practically speaking a creation by linked circles of small businesses who will continue to have all society's agency and education -> the depressing reality that set in after I saw a mini-documentary about capitalist developers "kindly" building walkable neighborhoods in Arizona. [2] they reacted with surprise that people actually wanted to lease business spaces. they had to build a parking lot at the edge of the thing to support businesses actually getting income from outside. realistically, this is going to be pitched as a real place to live but then the people who draw in commerce from other cities to the parking lots are going to be the people who control the rest of the people living in the town. because where is the income that causes your walkable neighborhood to exist? is everyone going to take a bus to a factory or what? quite honestly, this makes me nervous about the whole concept of microdistricts. do you accidentally bake in reversion to bourgeois control by building those? capitalism fundamentally comes from the chunking up of society into separate islands where particular people are responsible for holding the island together (capitalists, investors, Filaments of First-World banks, etc.). I'm now having a crisis wondering if microdistricts actually sunk the Soviet Union because they accidentally created isolated chunks of people.
Microdistricts have terrible parking -> the more prosaic claim that microdistricts are badly designed to accommodate expansion, such that when anything else is added it results in people driving significant distances to shopping malls. this came with the implication that apartment complexes always need a churning business layer at the bottom. I have no idea if that's really true. it sounds... okay. it's not very different from deliberately placing things inside the microdistrict, and it makes them more "repeatable". the one thing I'm pretty sure of is that without a small-scale class-based model of society there's no properly understanding microdistricts and how to fix them. all of the issues connected to a microdistrict are directly connected to population growth and the active growth of cities out of nothing as well as the conflict between individuals for slots in things. you'd have to have an active model of people being added to a population one by one in various patterns and creating businesses in various patterns to get things right over time and not make mistakes. suburbs are the error of not knowing what comes after the core of a city (which the bourgeoisie always get to make the first move building), while "microdistrict parking disasters" are what you get if you start at the houses and hit a wall of not knowing the edges of the thing beginning there. there's like this fundamental error in predicting the result of the city as it realizes where you can't just bring in an expert to make a good city on day one and you genuinely have to fix the predictions of where the city is going each year to plan it correctly.
Soviet lawn nightmare -> so apparently, microdistricts led to huge areas of lawn between buildings that were annoying to keep mowed. that's kind of a funny anecdote subject. I wonder how much anarchists would hate this when they're always going on about lawns and the "colonialism" of lawns. would they think this was just as bad? I have no idea.
housing queue -> one of the consequences of microdistricts or more specifically of building housing on demand. people still have to interact with the availability of slots in a city and see if they actually get in.
??
Are you building a neighborhood for retired people? -> a question everybody trying to fix capitalism through "urban planning" needs to contemplate. for a lot of existing United States housing developments the answer is "yes". they're built for people to retire into but not for anybody to actually be able to go to work.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
adventure
kingdom (Adventure Time)
??
Adventure Time -> great series. has a bunch of themes of character growth and maturity, between coming of age stories and Simon, Jermaine, etc. makes me think about Existentialism. not really a problem with the show in any way. the show actually makes a number of jokes about how it could try to complicate things with philosophy and then is like, I don't know if this actually means much of anything to be honest, I mean maybe it could but dunno. I think that's very respectable. I wish all the Existentialist writers like Sartre and whoever had that much humility.
Candy Kingdom
Ice Kingdom
Fire Kingdom
Evergreen's wishing crown (Adventure Time) -> hypothetically, I may or may not be coding this in order to compare it to fanmade universes.
Princess Bubblegum
Ice King
Flame Princess
apocalyptic event (Adventure Time) -> there are at least two on the core timeline, not just one.
??
Fionna and Cake
Cake the cat
Fionna the human
Jake the dog
Finn the human
Shermy
Beth
GOLB
Simon Petrikov
Betty
??
??
??
??
Chronicles of Narnia
wardrobe (Chronicles of Narnia)
Narnia
Everything moral comes from God / God is the source of everything moral / The nature of God informs everything we observe which is moral, which means the nature of everything we observe which is moral is an example of the nature of God -> religious claims are boring until you start logically combining them with other things that overlap onto the same topics, and then they become way too funny. 1) God is the source of everything moral. 2) Trotskyists believe the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy was moral. 3) If you're a Trotskyist, God is the source of Trotskyism. 3b) If you're a Stalin follower God is the source of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. 3c) If you're Ronald Reagan, God is the source of the Cold War and will be the source of Donald Trump. 4) Which thing is actually God?
Aslan
International war is similar to friendships / World War I is similar to friendships -> Wings of Fire
Monotheism is similar to friendships (fiction) -> more or less seen in real-world religion, but that should be a separate item
Escaping reality is similar to friendships / Detaching from reality is similar to friendships / Fantastical adventures in another world are similar to friendships / Escapism is similar to friendships -> see also Deltarune; connects friendship to schizoanalytic Escape
Preventing global empire is similar to friendships / Preventing imperialism is similar to family relationships -> Steven Universe, Wings of Fire. for the longest time I didn't understand this one at all until I realized it was basically a depiction of intersubjectivity theories and the problem was that it was based on theories about real life which were false.
??
??
??
??
Progressives deserve the mandate of competence because they "refuse violence" / Progressives are better than reactionaries specifically because they do not practice "violence" -> thanks Giggleland. evil sorcerer who shut down our schools? while the game narrative is said to have been written by a kid in some version of "the real world"? could be a coincidence, but if it isn't, is kind of transparent.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Alchemy is a metaphor for the individuation process (Jung) -> well that's a claim. I feel like people have been saying this kind of thing about alchemy since alchemy was first invented, and they've tried to fit it to several different ideologies according to what ideology they believe. I've even had some fun with this myself. is alchemy a metaphor for Marxism? the point of alchemy is to look into the deep workings of the universe and apply them in order to create changes in it. you could say, "natural philosophers had only interpreted the world in various ways"... I think there's a much better case for comparing alchemy to Marxism than for comparing it to religion or whatever mystical system of self-discovery educated people believed back then. but by the time you get to that point it's like, are metaphors like this actually useful or are they just not adding any information in any of the cases? different thought: why do psychoanalysts believe in comparing alchemy to individuation if they adamantly don't believe in comparing chemistry and quantum mechanics to a scientific theory of society. those should be contradictory beliefs. but I think the answer always ties back to the conflict between historical materialism and historical "FreeWillIsm".
Freudian psychoanalysis (early 1900s)
Jungian psychoanalysis (mid 1900s) / analytical psychology (Jung's term) -> so apparently Jung spoke of government as "slavery" in that it was capturing individuals and forcing on them a kind of fake identity. this is the kind of guy that is trying not to be racist (?) but unlike Marx doesn't realize that uniting people into a population which is not based on religion is a critical step to not exterminating other religions. this kind of view of individuals and Freedom as being totally autonomous from a national population is why I think early-existentialism and psychoanalysis are part of the same connected thing.
Lacanian psychoanalysis / Lacanianism
Subject who is supposed to know -> broadly correct but misleading. people assume that experts and celebrities have the answers? yes. nobody is actually an expert? no. groups of people actually have to make decisions that affect the group, which means somebody will always be nominated to explain them. tasks actually require experts to draw up plans of action and mobilize people. people really do depend on other people to supply their needs, they don't just go to experts to feel better than if they were alone as this framework implies.
If it's bad to trust the "Subject who is supposed to know", then "stale rat bread" arguments are bad -> derived Lacanian proposition. Žižek acts like he's as good as Trotsky (as low of a bar as that should be) because he doesn't like capitalists making the wrong decisions. but he also says that people "falsely" trust experts and therapists to have the answers when they don't. do you see the problem with putting those together? I'd think that if you put any value on the "Subject who's supposed to know" concept you wouldn't be able to argue that capitalists can be held responsible right now and you'd have to argue that every individual has an obligation to understand exactly how society works well enough to take it away from capitalists as the only way to ensure that anyone would run corporations responsibly.
??
People are not constantly open to sex / Human beings are not constantly open to sex -> the first claim in Freudian psychoanalysis. technically true. hard to dispute this one.
People have boundaries / Human beings have boundaries around any particular thing that another person asks them to do and can always reject it -> the ultimate point of Q54,10 is precisely that it proves this.
Children learn boundaries from parents / People learn the concept of boundaries from their parents / oedipus stage (Freudian, Jungian, Lacanian; psychoanalysis) / symbolic castration (connection of personal boundaries to language; psychoanalysis)
There exist Political Acts / Even though Lacanianism does not believe in the abolition of Liberal-republicanism there still exist "political acts" that can empower the individual -> this confused me to no end the first time I saw it until I started combining it with other propositions from Žižek's interviews and in anarchism and early Trotskyism, and then I finally started to get a vague idea what it really was. so in Rothenberg's book Žizek says these three things: A) Communists and fascists are paranoid dictators. B) History cannot be predicted; theories are dictatorial. C) There exist political acts. I got so confused by the contradiction between B and C given that it is a clear case of "Idealism forbids itself"; why did you write a book then? when I got into the history of poststructuralism, structuralist linguistics, phenomenology, and existentialism, I started to see how it wasn't a contradiction; yeah, there could be political theories without theory if they were solely about The Subject and the notion of Free Will somehow being more important than any theory. I had never even really heard of this before in my life or from any internet blogger or encyclopedia so I scrambled to give it a name and called the overall thing "Existentialism" with a capital E. inside Existentialism, the reasoning is this: acts of Free Will by either one person or many connected people are units of history, and they can theoretically create "democracy", defined as something like the construction of countries out of Free Will and freedom, but these acts of Free Will cannot be predicted by any group of theorists at least as long as they are not explicitly Existentialists and embedded into a particular group of Existentialists aiming for a particular act of Free Will. if Existentialists were smart but still believed in Existentialism, then they wouldn't actually say theories were impossible, they would simply say that nothing except Existentialism can predict Existentialism. they would also say if they were smart that Existentialism isn't impossible to racialize and it could totally form a race-based movement or an LGBT+black&brown movement as long as the thing contains no predictions and revolves around shouting Free Will and freedom as loudly as possible. all this is to say, almost all United States progressivism for the past 10 years or so has been Existentialism. Existentialism is on a basic level nonviolent and against anarchist violence, even when this limits its ability to actually enforce anything on anyone faced with a whole population of socially-linked people that isn't on board with Existentialism and sends in all its cops. Existentialism is like, this weird artifact of the United States tearing into two totally distinct nationality subpopulations of people joined together by but separated by politics in these almost purely culturally-defined ways where you get absolutely forced out of a political milieu as strongly as if you were a different class or a Tory stole your passport, the two populations locked in stalemate in every material way, and yet these two nations of people that utterly hate each other as much as they hate Cubans or Russians are both the bourgeoisie. so those are the basics of Existentialism. but Žižek has his own weird twist on it. he seems to have appropriated the concept in anarchism and the Trotskyite conspiracy that although a movement of Trotskyite conspirators will never be popular, once it sets its sights on an intolerable "stale rat bread" regime, culture, or general experience of living on a population, when it makes the right kind of precision cut into the heart of the problem it cannot actually be stopped. Žižek's Communism is Zinoviev's Communism. he believes that although some things can never be justified in any sense that is meaningful, they will still happen in a particular necessary way when people are pushed enough. which is.... very strange when he doesn't believe in specific-sense historical materialism. he doesn't believe in historical materialism and yet he made a deterministic statement of historical necessity. this is part of why I place Žižek within the awful run-down edges of Trotskyism. he accidentally speaks of historical necessity much like a Trotskyist organization giving a talk about dialectical materialism within early Marxism and claiming to understand it, but he's against Stalin's government and he conceives of revolution as a special activity instead of something that is connected to class analysis and greater patterns in history. a very archaic philosophy. pre-Leninist in every meaningful way and yet he's totally a "Communist".
Property is as natural as not having sex / Because boundaries are natural, the Property boundary around business territories is natural -> the secret fallacy hiding inside most attempts to use psychoanalysis to "fix democracy". they inherently start from this concept of a "golden mean" that because everyone is a human individual the definition of boundaries and Evil conspiratorial acts of malice must be obvious. but if this is true, the best bad outcome that it results in is that Dave the sovereign citizen who hates Black people and wants to chill out in his cabin not following any of the laws of the United States is totally justified. and it only gets worse from there. is building Palestine a natural crime? is separating Ukraine out of Russia a natural crime? if you begin with the concept that the world is fundamentally made of individuals and individuals' reactions to others' behavior, it's quite easy to end up there. related: every event that occurs around an individual while a particular individual is alive is called "Life".
??
??
??
??
the culture / The Culture (written reference to "the culture" of a national population such as the United States, making no attempt to analyze where it comes from and yet making the bold assumption there is only one) / Our Culture (written reference to "the culture" of "our" national population belonging to a single ostensibly undivided "we") -> the motif of the entire United States population or everyone in some specific region of the United States being an arbitrary series of cultural events in time, or supposedly being a single countable culture when in reality it might not be.
example: "the culture had changed". how do you know culture is a "The"?
When two people have information, everybody has it / When information is available to a few people, it's available to everyone / When two people know something, everybody knows it / printing press fallacy -> dreadfully common in every single discussion of "culture" and "prejudice". in fact, it's vastly more common to find people who believe this than people who don't. but, it's demonstrably untrue in the physical world. all you have to do is locate somebody who has never head a thing and you've shown that information doesn't spread instantaneously.
Knowledge cannot teleport / Knowledge cannot travel faster than a photon -> what actually appears to be true, and was depicted in XKCD 1053.
Random individual Bob Stills is critical to all movements / Random individual Roberta Hill is critically important to movements -> fallacy that occurs based on "information can move faster than light" and "I believe that everybody" statements
Ghost of Individualities Future / Ghost of Possibilities Future -> SCP-8000, It's a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol.
??
Random individual Bob Stills can puppet four million people / Random individual Roberta Hill can change the behavior of four million people
??
??
??
Can Bob Stills choose who is president? / Can some random individual Bob Stills or Roberta Hill freely choose as an individual what the result of an entire election will be? -> this question sounds laughable but it is a very real and widespread fallacy across all of center-Liberalism. it's become that the major engine of center-Liberaism is telling everyone that they can individually choose who is president if they only vote. but if you think for only a couple seconds about that it isn't logically true — you voting doesn't directly affect the way 5 other people will vote or a million other people will vote. your vote only matters to anything if the process that actually decides the outcome of the election decides that it matters. worse, most cases of you not getting the result you wanted don't come from some conspiracy to throw away votes (regardless of what Tories may think). they come from other entire subpopulations of people potentially numbering in the millions not caring about your vote all at once. that's what an election is. that's how elections work when they're even working in the first place.
??
??
??
??
Philosophers' stones empower global empire / If philosophers' stones existed in the 1500s, they would be used in service of global empire -> probably true, honestly. but you know what? anarchists have absolutely taken the wrong lessons from this concept about what the opposite of it is. what seems like half of all anarchisms boil down to the weird idea of existing and surviving being inherently greedy and specifically seeking to remove the ability to live and exist as much as possible without entirely extinguishing it. and the problem with that is it creates totally powerless civilizations that get crushed and precisely hand control of the earth to fascism and pronounce it canonically correct. after which the surviving fascisms will be as greedy and wasteful as they want to.
that was a very Deng-Xiaoping thing to say.
Societies are made of values / Societies are made of values such as hard work and perseverance, which can then be exploited by bad actors resulting in the undoing of the society [3] -> this is Idealism. I think the realisitic interpretation is that it was never guaranteed from the beginning that any of these things would lead to a "social fabric" or "social contract" in and of themselves. you never have control over what a boss does. you're closer to having control if you look at the corporation as its own runaway entity that exploits workers itself and just "happens" to be owned by the boss and try to contemplate control of that.
if you are paying very keen attention to everything I wrote on this page, you might ask, well, but aren't societies made of Social-Philosophical Systems, and don't those contain ideas? and yes, they often are. but the SPSs succeed on the basis of actually containing material models of a society, not on the basis of containing abstract concepts. even in the case of a simple Social-Graph System which is a tribal population, there is material structure to the tribe which is contained in culture that acts as the true social fabric of the tribe.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Wasp swarm -> I'm increasingly convinced this model is accurate enough to reality to code as a Z Item; through more observations of real-world history the precise, predictive definition can be refined later. (also, the need to say this word all the time without a perfectly-convenient template for TTS-friendly writing is getting annoying.) A pronounced [L] Wasp swarm 1-1-1 is when any number of capitalists — it could be just one or two — gains control over the population by rounding up a bunch of people of any class who all share a demographic identity, such as White people or White Christians. the people in question don't actually have to be White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, despite that being the etymology. the pronounced [L] Wasp swarm 1-1-1 operates on the sheer power of capitalists to control Liberal republics and the whole process of "democracy" just because they are capitalists. this is the proposed material-historical process inside "fascism". fascism is the shovel dream of one capitalist and one countable culture of Tories which is linked together and joined to the capitalist almost purely on the basis of culture. this definition does imply that some pronounced [L] Wasp swarm 1-1-1s could be broken just by disconnecting the capitalist, but I would caution against believing that when some of them are bound to be more like the Afrikaner period where all the Afrikaners linked together while all similarly having sufficient Property to have power. taking this too naïvely might be one of the fallacies inside that one Trotskyist video.
Trotskyists in Britain didn't understand anti-racism, therefore Trotskyism will never be realized -> follows from: nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful. this is an Idealist model of the variety "if everything doesn't magically conform to universal cosmic ideas immediately it actively chose to be evil". Trotskyists failing to understand a single other movement doesn't mean Trotskyism will not gather more people and continue trying to realize. Trotskyism is a material object if and when it successfully connects itself to any particular Lattice of workers, just like a particular finite anti-racist movement is a material object. to fully understand whether Trotskyism will succeed or fail you have to understand its unique internal structure and how it attempts to further realize it.
Wow, I've never heard of Schrödinger's cat! -> this became notable the moment I saw it twice. first on Big Bang Theory, then on a discussion of the TV Tropes page for Echo Chamber. I feel like in both cases it has to be the same thing. there is like, a certain section of people. the Berdlys. that become obsessed with intelligence because they don't know anything, and then they portray the "intelligent" characters they worship as knowing really average things they managed not to know.
Wow, I've never heard of France before! / I've never heard of France (motif) -> a really dumb pattern you see in basically every Pokémon facts video. there is a certain genre of "Pokémon fact" which consists of acting astounded that a Pokémon actually references the history of a real-world country, and going into detail about that history or country-based folklore. this would not even be much of a problem by itself except that the more of these videos stack up the more you start to see the hidden pattern that all of them are subtly implying that it's normal not to know anything whatsoever about other countries. Pokémon is the highest-grossing media franchise! okay, cool, so that means the great majority of all people who live in industrial countries have watched it or played it. did you know Emboar is a reference to Romance of the Three Kingdoms? did you know Serperior is a reference to the manga Rose of Versailles? hmm, so a great number of kids and probably also adults haven't heard of historical fiction from other countries. did you know AZ is a reference to Louis XIV? hmm... that honestly seems like something people should already know about if they speak English or French. ~~(I half thought I remembered him as being in a Shakespeare play but I guess I was thinking of Henry V. funny enough he does appear in As you like it?)~~ did you know about Yggdrasil, the mythical tree that since 1995 every thirteen-year-old with access to Wikipedia knows about? did you know about carnival? did you know about kapu and tapu? did you know that Jynx had to be changed because of accidental similarities to blackface? the more these "fun facts" stack up the more you start to ask questions about which things people actually do and don't know and what this says about us. you start to ask if the purpose of Pokémon games is for game developers to go visit other places and learn about the history or traditions of other "cultures" on expensive tours while the rest of us get to stay uniquely isolated and for the propagation of Pokémon games to actually normalize not knowing about the rest of the world until a capitalist does the whole task inside a self-contained corporation and sells it to you as opposed to knowing things. this may sound crazy at first, but I certainly know that when I was a kid I was baffled to hear the fact Jynx had to be censored because not a single person around me knew anything about racism or the lives of people who make any kind of noise about the existence of racism and it took until after I was 25 for huge protests to break out and it to actually become remotely normal for hearing about racism to actually cause anyone to want to learn anything about what causes racism or how to prevent it. Existentialists really want to believe that just seeing diversity and seeing "other cultures" on-screen causes people to have any kind of empathy for other populations or countries, but it really doesn't. it feels more like what's true is that Media Representation works a bit like carbon credits and people buy Media Representation so they can give other demographics a bit of money and then go back to work and go back to their ignorant families and keep being racist. every product is something that you delegate, and you are not doing. if products can sell people "other cultures".... I think you can see where this is going. products easily become a way to self-contain national culture (or self-contain it within a second country well-off enough for tourism) and push it away from home.
Wow, it's so cool Pokémon includes imperial colonies! -> one of the most egregious subsets of "I've never heard of France". I am very much not making this up: I saw a video where somebody remarked on "how cool it was" that a past region was included in a newer one (I think it was Galar in Paldea) because that area had been a territory of another global empire. they said this with a totally straight face like learning that somewhere had been a British territory was truly interesting, and it was wonderful to have British Empire representation in Pokémon games. to the credit of Pokémon company itself, the actual games were careful about the concept of the Spanish empire and tried to avoid the concept of multi-continent empires and instead place down the notion of explorers inside the regional history of Spain. I... would hate to see how fans think an African region should be constructed. are you going to put Galar all over Africa too? even if Pokémon has a rather metaphysical approach to avoiding world wars, and there's a lot to say about that, it's more remarkable fans don't even go that far.
To be good is to live in harmony with metaphysics -> explanation of Arceus and the creator Pokémon pantheon and how they function as moral devices for arbitrating karma in Pokémon narratives. [4]
People attack metaphysics because they don't see each other as equals / The opposite of controlling metaphysics is being equals -> this bothers the hell out of me because it's outright used to argue against Communism in naïve terms of "utopia" and "forcing equality", yet in explaining why Existentialism will create a moral world people will say the word "equal" about ten times. the hell is up with that equivocation of the word equal?? it's like there is a secret definition of how being equals actually means existing in total mutual exclusion but doing it really really nicely and politely. it's like the definition of being equal was made up by Artisan types and Careerists who believe the way not to be dominated is to break everything apart to exist in individualized mutual exclusion. [5]
To seek greater life is to take life -> I've seen variations of this statement like four different places and hated it each time. Journey to the West / Dragon Ball, FNaF, Fullmetal Alchemist, Pokémon. I found it the least objectionable in an analysis of the metaphysical logic of Pokémon, where because it begins from such a mundane setting and can claim to be about chunk competition it at least felt logical [6]
The Divine Truth: Arceus and Our Sins Against It [7] -> first of all, this is a wonderful video. it's here to showcase that it had real effort and thought put into it. there's nothing I would change about the video. that said? wow. it shows everything "wrong" with Pokémon, or more specifically wrong with the world where people would make it. it is such a good piece of research into things I didn't know needed researching but after seeing it certainly knew then.
Alchemy failed because it is an offense to metaphysics / Alchemy failed to become a science because it is an offense to the metaphysical order -> an unexpected but sadly logical interpretation of Fullmetal Alchemist, if you've already heard of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition [8]
Science without metaphysics is a tool of domination / Scientifically analyzing The Subject is an offense to metaphysics / Studying identity is an offense to metaphysics / Scientifically studying culture is an offense to metaphysics / Too much science is an offense to metaphysics -> the sci-fi corollary that seems to apply itself to gender, historical materialism, and misplaced research & development efforts such as "AI". in simple forms, it is asserted that science "without a reason" is morally wrong as the natural order can trivially be expressed in terms of "exceed" and "too much". in more elaborate forms, it is implied that trying to understand how identity, individuals, or culture function and develop must be forbidden. to try to understand the development of countries is to crush the living, breathing nationality and squash or gut under the scary boot of Bolshevism some of the living processes that constitute individuals interacting to produce what is truly Russian or truly Chinese, or truly German. to try to understand the sources of gender and what develops to produce gender is to crush the inherent ability of the transgender individual or "the transgender community" to thrash about, to out-produce, to weave itself into the Filamentocracy, and compel respect. this is why I don't like this axiom. a loud shouting of movements without a science of movements is basically reducing people down to literally out-living others and whoever is powerful enough to stay alive in a cruel world getting to stay around to supposedly tell everyone else how to be nice and good when none of that actually determined who lived and died.
Discoveries come from violating metaphysics -> the 'pataphysics axiom that I like so much better than the way Pokémon appears to see things
Media Representations are the new carbon credits -> this is a bold one but I think it can be argued at least in some cases. the claim that while many people believe Representation in Media is making people less prejudiced, in reality it's unintentionally leading to a kind of segregation as one of two things happens: A) all the people who don't already know the lessons that are supposed to be learned continue to constantly bury themselves in bad media and avoid Media Representation B) people actually buy Media Representation but check out of making anything better in their own lives because minority demographics have already represented themselves and they have nothing to add to that but a shred of money.
Arceism (motif) -> the motif — or definition of a hypothetical anarchism — where anarchism is portrayed as any arbitrary assortment of individuals in the world spontaneously coming together into "a community" strictly independent of the existence of all governments and nation-states and the simple act of making everyone part of the same countable culture shortly solving everyone's problems potentially including xenophobia, racism, and poverty.
Community is a historical process / Community is a material-historical process in which individuals form into society but society is totally uncountable and national borders have nothing to do with society / the community delusion (proposition, fallacy, or model; meta-Marxist framing) -> I think this is one of the big propositions that's lurking inside Existentialism. and I think it's totally wrong.
Di-community is a historical process -> the minimum correction that is required to make anarchism and Existentialism make any sense. individuals form into "community" but for every individual that forms into Community one way some other individual simultaneously forms into a separate plural Community somewhere else, which may in fact be a toxic group of people rather than a good one, and which the "good" instances of Community have no control over. or more likely, neither instance of Community is inherently toxic but they can end up meshing so badly and being so incompatible with each other they absolutely hate each other and find each other terrifying and basically Evil based on outward behavior. the very worst instances of abuse come precisely from the fact that individuals have no control over another individual or a relationship.
??
Di-avarice is a historical process / Avarice as a historical process works as follows: if the people of earth are all being nice and non-greedily forming a peaceful community, Freeza or Vegeta IV will still spontaneously appear from space to wipe them all out and take their planet unless they can fight back -> minimum correction. if you stop avarice in North America, it's gonna come hit you from England or Spain because if you're standing in North America you don't control England and Spain. just like if you stop empire per se in China it's gonna come hit you from the United States because no matter how nice people are in China you don't control the United States.
Avarice is a historical process / Greed is a historical process -> sort of true in that dragon processes are real, but not true in that avarice "processes" are associated with population growth and after the time feudalism goes away basically come from it. if you become committed to this proposition you'll very easily accidentally end up at the proposition that Black people having too many babies is inherently greedy and the way to reduce racism is to have less sex, fewer dates, fewer babies, fewer random instances of theft and crime, and more Lacanian discipline telling everybody how to behave good and study and study and train and train and make money because that will surely result in fewer attacks between populations. that is a known Tory proposition that constantly appears on Fox News, so it's worth thinking about exactly how you ended up spewing real actual right-wing talking points. there's almost a direct line to Fox News from the simple statement that greed is a historical process.
Avarice is a historical process + All set arrangements of people are called hierarchies = the Peter principle.
anarchist historical materialism (motif) / historical materialism is when nobility and capitalists Freely Choose to manufacture a bunch of poverty and hire soldiers and construct culture to tell everybody it's natural rather than, perhaps, that they can all spontaneously grow a Free Will and socially construct something different -> it took me like a day for this to hit me after seeing it in a video before I woke up the next day and said.... this is anarchism. practically speaking this is anarchism. I have a very specific reason for concluding this: the anarchist proposition that anarchy comes from individuals or small groups of people all choosing to come together into a supportive Community. this motif sounds like the opposite of that definition. I don't think this is a rock-solid argument but it will do for simply giving the Item a name.
I think I need a special name for this definition of anarchism just so it doesn't get confused with anything else more specific like Bookchinism, Bakuninism, etc. we'll go with.... I'm tempted to pick a name from Pokémon, the anarchist bible. Arceusism? I guess in Latin that declines to "Arceism". I don't know if it's funny or dumb to imagine actually calling people out as Arceists — I'm leaning toward "dumb". well, I've got a name for the Item at least, we'll see if it gets a better name later.
Freud is one of the people who "only interpreted the world in various ways" -> every time I think about Freud, Jung, or Lacan this is exactly how psychoanalysis feels to me. what set me off remembering this is a search result that claimed that "despite attempted refutations of Freud's work its spell remained powerful". [9] if the theory is based on observations instead of detached logic of course it will come across as real. what trips people up is that they don't realize this doesn't guarantee it's useful or possible to apply to further real situations.
the difference between Freud and Lenin is the difference between a large language model and a physics equation. anticommunism is, more or less, what resulted in the world slowly being taken over by language models
post-psychoanalytic Existentialism -> a philosophy which is aligned with the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition (ideally one which is part of it, but there's always a chance for Items to be misapplied) but has rejected many of the concepts core to psychoanalysis. versus all the fake divisions I've come up with to try to classify and describe Existentialisms, I think this one might actually be real. right now you might genuinely be able to support this one with a bunch of citations, assuming you can first come up with some working definition of Existentialisms that manages to skirt by under people's current understandings and definitions of things.
general-sense psychoanalyst / stable property-having equates to moral decisions and "good character" (being a capitalist, being a White homeowner; meta-Marxism) -> the motif of someone who happens to have the same model of society as psychoanalysts without thinking about it or possibly even knowing at all what psychoanalysis is. a general-sense psychoanalyst believes that crimes are something that exists ontologically and almost cosmically outside of all societies even as they are inevitably invented as categories by particular societies. and also that bad behaviors due to trauma (or botched acculturation into the obvious universal intuitive mandatory culture everybody is supposed to have) are similar; bad behaviors just ontologically exist in the sky rather than being defined by the actual negative reception of behaviors by real people. this is marginally different from natural law in that we are not describing any pattern that is ecological or biological or that could possibly have existed without being logically made up by self-aware entities — although to be fair, if you were to make up a second kind of natural law that says there is a sort of perfectly ur- government which is the most ecologically natural to all human individuals regardless of separate populations and drastically different cultural environments, then it would be the same thing.
Freudian discipline can be maladaptive / Lacanian discipline can be maladaptive -> every abusive parent performs discipline and teaches lessons. every father and every father figure is capable of raising children so badly-adapted they avoid all authority figures and steal things and get into fights, and this is inseparable from the process of discipline itself, not simply "an absence" of it. it's possible to get out of this and tentatively save Lacanianism by claiming that "discipline" can come in the form of love and acceptance rather than the prohibition or cutting-off of incorrect behaviors until potentially people become afraid to do behaviors that would be correct.
Freudian discipline is plural -> the claim that whenever you observe a Lacanian discipline process in the real world it is inseparable from culture which then means that plural cultures carry out plural Lacanian discipline processes, disciplining their children to function within their own countable culture but to be non-functional in other countable cultures. Lacanians typically assume that Lacanian discipline could not be maladaptive because there couldn't be multiple countable cultures. invisible-committee anarchists make this error too. but in the real world it's quite easy to have one population of people disciplining people one way and one population of people disciplining people another way and the big problems with "culture" to come from people disciplined into one culture being released into the other and promptly getting disciplined again for wrong behavior and whenever they interact with either culture and accidentally fail to totally switch over and pretend to be part of it they just get battered and battered and battered endlessly like nothing is correct and nothing is okay.
let me tell you, if you grew up in the United States, the Trotskyite conspiracy period where you could just not believe in the Trotskyite conspiracy or be their friends and simply side with Stalin sounds like a dream. the world has fallen so far from that. Liberal-republicanism has become such a farce where it's literally like nobody is allowed to have beliefs. nobody can have principles, nobody can have identity, nobody can have culture, if you're Black you have to pretend to be White, if you're White you have to pretend to be Lacanian or anarchist when you meet progressives and pretend to be a Protestant racist transphobe when you meet Tories. you have to pretend to understand Native American culture even if you'd never meet any and they wouldn't really want you talking about it but you can't go talking about an overseas country like Japan or India unless you meet a Tory when now you can talk about Japan and medieval empires but not about the existence of minorities or sometimes women. I couldn't juggle all that. I had to just give up one day and say, I'm going to take everything everyone has "taught" me and reassemble it to where it's actually logical and sound, and then I'm going to believe that. and thus I ended up at meta-Marxism: medieval empires and warring states periods and imperial colonies at the beginning, religious confusion and the Enlightenment in the middle, minorities at the present, Communism and anarchism and pluralities and superpositions in the future. religion in the past, science in the future, and countable cultures and historical processes in the present.
??
The Trotskyite conspiracy was a case of maladaptive discipline -> I think the notion of maladaptive discipline is a blue proposition, but the difference is that psychoanalysis doesn't necessarily acknowledge it, depending, and schizoanalysis always does. this is the claim, based in a corrected version of Lacanian psychoanalysis, that the Trotskyite conspiracy is loosely comparable to a highly abusive parent instilling an all-around set of wrong behaviors instead of compliance with the abuse, through creating fear of authority and society. this isn't my favorite way to analyze societal structures but I do think it can be argued. if you have "the good version of Lacanianism", what you argue is that Marxism is just fine and the good outcome is that Trotsky stays in the Soviet Union or maybe Europe and builds a form of Leninism which does not run against mainstream Marxism-Leninism, and this good outcome is more likely to be achieved if mainstream Marxism-Leninism clearly communicates how to get Trotskyites integrated into the structures of mainstream Marxism-Leninism rather than only constantly accusing them of malice and saying bad things about them whenever they make a mistake. this harsh treatment should have been replaced with not exactly excusing bad approaches and understandings but simply with a more neutral treatment where is recognized that science corrects itself, Marxism is hard, and anyone can make mistakes, although you will probably be demoted in the overall structure if there is someone who makes far fewer mistakes; as bad as the demotion outcome sounds, Bolshevism can make it less painful than it is under capitalism where it also happens all the time. I feel like if you do this you would have eliminated the emergence of Marcuseanism. Marcuseanism really seems like a way to launder resistance to Stalin into something that seems like it would have obviously happened with or without Stalin existing. it's like, if you were only less mean to Trotskyites such that instead of being crushed under the weight of two countries they had a significant support in the Soviet Union as well as their natural inclination to form everywhere else, people would just be one big population of Trotskyists. they wouldn't need to invent a second or third new Marxism, aside from their own internal fractures at least. Trotskyism is plagued by this cognitive dissonance between thinking everyone in the world who isn't a capitalist ally should immediately be unified and the material reality that Trotskyists have a hard time unifying with anything and Stalin is quick to kick their entire Marxism out. this makes me think there would be a lot fewer variants of Marxism if only people had noticed that pattern faster. of course, maybe I'm now just making excuses for people having non-Materialist understandings of the world and all internally believing in general-sense psychoanalysis uniting all human individuals when they shouldn't. I don't know. I did start this proposition by saying I was arguing Lacanianism. I feel like "Trotskyists secretly believe in general-sense psychoanalysis" is a weird place for that to end up but I couldn't give an immediate reason off the top of my head that's not true.
??
??
??
Differences between species are not culture -> the book I was reading kept referring to biological differences between human beings and chimpanzees as animal "culture". I don't think I like that usage because... it sounds a bit racist. a couple centuries ago, there were a lot of people who wanted to draw biological distinctions between North Americans and Africans which accounted for differences in culture; these days every single racist remark hides behind "culture" when it's unclear if in actuality people are still thinking of South Africans in the same phrenology-styled physiological terms. so, I don't think I like that link being drawn again even if the direction is reversed, because it's inadvertently training Tories to think that the concept of countable cultures could be connected to "primitive minds" or "primitive physiology" rather than existing solely on its own layer. monkeys having different behaviors from White people is not culture. that said, I think it's a more up-in-the-air question whether differences between neurotypical people and autistic people can be categorized as culture or not. it's very common for people to go labeling every single difference between populations as culture, and to just say that there exists autistic culture and disabled culture. I feel like, on the surface, this is not harmful in the particular sense that referring to animal ecology as culture is. sometimes this usage is meant to refer to methods of inclusion and retaining people as these subpopulations form communities. I don't think I have any strong thoughts on that right now.
Chimps do not have discipline / Chimpanzees do not perform individualized discipline in the Freudian sense of isolated aristocratic or Artisanal households teaching children mandatory behaviors to also carry to the rest of a population -> every time they tried to discourage a behavior the chimp took it as a fight and sometimes bit people. it's crazy how much confidence they had in their own way.
Poor people are created to make you work [10] -> this is.... kind of correct but a little misleading. you can see the contradiction inside the lecture itself. nobility used money in order to arrange people into a kingdom. into an armored, armed "crab". it's easy to think the key word is "used" and that they're exploiting people and burning everything valuable for their own gain, but the key word is "arrange". in that example money is empowering people to form into societies. in Europe we can bring up how churches weren't entirely malevolent and sometimes they'd take their money and land and do administrative functions; today they run kindergartens. money enables merchants to test out the tiniest experiment in global capitalism before settling back into local small-capitalism because going around the world is hard. but what money is doing there is proving that people can connect one city to another city. the merchants actually succeed on the basis of creating connections. then when they create banks, again the bank is creating the connections between the nobility and the armies or the royal ministries later. with the development of capitalism-proper the local states lose control and the chunks become the businesses, which have to expand to accommodate population growth, but they succeed or fail based on how effectively they link to various other businesses in the world. particular rings of success take slots in society away from people who don't become inherently compatible with strengthening either individual business territories or the arrangement of connections. those are the poor people. so, the reason it's hard to end poverty is all the other individuals are actively working against all the individuals below them. they wouldn't have to be if they could just see the business lattice and realize that everybody has to be fit into it, and if everyone would just get a little smarter about arranging people nobody would have to waste work or arbitrarily take someone else's slot in the structure only to make the world a little worse. at this point they can kick out the capitalists. the issue is, capitalism keeps totally falling apart and leaving people unable to build up the business lattice fast enough to be able to remain united instead of necessarily having to fight each other and the outside "poor people" or Refuse layer.
Wars prolong artificial scarcity / Wars aim to destroy wealth [11] -> true and also not true? it's undialectical but if you duplexed it it would then be true.
??
??
??
wolf slaying lamb as Original Sin / lion slaying lamb as Original Sin / eating animals as forbidden fruit -> alternate version of book of Genesis that crops up frequently in fiction, sometimes quite literally as in Pitch haven mythos, sometimes much more figuratively in things like Zootopia or Kimba. runs narratively parallel to: Buddhist imagery of the existence of individuals being harmful
Zootopia [12] / Zootropolis (UK / AU) -> animated movie about the concept of intelligent animals getting along or not. clearly wasn't originally designed to be a metaphor for humans, but somewhere in the middle of writing got "corrected" to be a bad metaphor for anti-Black racism. I prefer to ignore that when analyzing the work and pretend it's only about the concept of animals trying to live in society. I do this so it becomes easier to compare this movie to things like Kimba the White Lion or Warriors, which clearly were designed on that more literal level, and Beastars, which kind of falls in the middle between the two categories.
heaven is a place on earth -> the motif of a story presenting a superstructural heaven, god-world, or supernatural world that existed at some primordial time, but treating it as if it still very much exists.
Heaven Is a Place on Earth (Belinda Carlisle, 1987) [13]
The garden of Eden is basically a Narnia book / The garden of Eden is a superstructural fantasy world -> the claim that the purpose of the garden of Eden myth is to show the difference between the Social-Philosophical Systems of culture people process the world while embedded in (sociophilosophy, socio-culture), versus the problem of being a material object living in material reality. in one sense all human culture is a fairy tale, whether secular or religious. we always tell ourselves assumptions about reality in order to make living in reality less scary. but those assumptions, such as "in the reality that was supposed to exist, all the animals lived in harmony without any growth or change", can amount to a made-up fantasy book that doesn't do anything to affect or change reality itself. technically, Marx briefly touched on this idea in The German Ideology. in that first part that may have been scrapped (?).
this turns contentious if you get too far into it because people start asking things like whether Confederate slavery is the reality of what people are doing or whether it's culture. it should be a quick thing to dispel most of those questions: it's culture. it's part of the inner ontology of the Social-Philosophical System of The South, which is made up to reassure people they don't have to fight with The North as long as they mind their own business and buy enough people. it's the notion that whatever set of connected concepts people have come up with, just setting them down and letting them do them will always be fine, that leads to slavery. unfortunately this creates a huge paradox for progressive anthropology because the foundation of the modern study of countable Cultures is that you have to first accept whatever are people's cultural constructs before you do absolutely anything else. but this is not realistically possible because all forms of bigotry are culture in a way that is indistinguishable from "benign" forms of culture. after 200 years Liberal-republicanism grinds to a halt because within its Existentialist origins it is fundamentally about creating Freedom by obligating all countable Cultures to tolerate other countable Cultures, but if you obligate a whole Culture of people to do anything before it internally determines itself, some bigoted Cultures will inevitably feel discriminated against in a very real way and like their freedom has been taken away in a very real way to the point they will become utterly intolerant of democracy and label it tyranny. all republics have a "Trotsky point" where under certain conditions a Culture will try to tear out of them and you'll never be able to get through it intact if you don't truly understand the micro-level structure of society and how Cultures are generated.
God can make animals be anything / If God created the world, He could make animals be anything -> in creationism there's no particular logic for what animals can and can't exist. dragons could exist if only God had made different choices. I'm surprised creationists haven't tried to rationalize fossils as early ideas that never made it out of the garden of Eden instead of trying to act like they just don't exist, or were buried by The Flood. the smartest creationist tries to tell you that ecology and maybe evolution were invented by The Fall, before which they didn't exist. but that doesn't rule out nearly anything you can imagine being possible before The Fall. which means The Fall only actually takes things down a peg.
isn't there a talking donkey at one point in the bible. yeah, like, there's at least a bit of textual evidence for this, that when God interferes anything is possible and when God fades away things become more realistic
The Fall brings semi-realism / The Fall only forces realism / The Fall only takes things down a peg / The Fall only forces things into science fiction style realism and not strictly into the single possible way that nonbelieving scientists observe things to be -> maybe this is just a derived theological proposition I made up. but it makes everything make vastly more internal sense. it's much better fictional-story lore for the bible to have.
God could make storks bring babies / If God created the world, He could make storks bring babies -> every so often I think about how if you take Genesis literally then everything about biology and ecology would be half arbitrary. Adam has to pick a helper, so logically speaking, if he picked a different one then we would be living in an entirely different world where all family units consist of one man and one horse, or one man and one rhino, or one man and one flamingo, and somehow that would make perfect logical sense, that wouldn't hurt anybody and wouldn't be an abomination because God would have the power to make it make perfect sense. God would have created all the animals so he could just have created animal bodies that did make sense for this different scenario, or more likely, ways of creating more human individuals which don't bring up disturbing questions. here's the thing about Christian lore. nothing starts actually having to make sense until The Fall. so if you set everything up perfectly in place before The Fall, you logically get to keep at least some of it before the "reality" of it sets in, and you'd get the "realistic" version of whatever God declared was true, not the single way things are today. Pitch Haven was really wired because quite honestly, I'm pretty sure that the bible is set up almost exactly such that if God created a world of intelligent vertebrates who are accidentally able to do flesh magic, that is exactly what you'd get and where The Fall would proceed from. of course, none of this applies if you don't take Genesis literally. but where's the fun in that?
this is also my general theory on how Pokémon works. it's a very sophisticated form of creationism where all the gaps have to be filled in. Pokémon species are created by Arceus and individuals are magically created by their parents, not physically born.
??
??
??
??
??
??
"dumbacabra" (Aster/Aubepine)
Preventing revolution is similar to friendships / Stopping Maoism is similar to friendships
??
??
The Owl House -> a lot of people liked this show and I'm just like... hmm no. it looks like it's a good show? but. gosh, why does it prompt so many video essays about Existentialism that even reference early-existentialism by name. I don't think this show was aimed at me.
??
??
??
??
??
The King -> the motif of a great worldwide emperor in religion or fiction. equally applies to Aslan or an actual scriptural god
??
The Opposers, plural -> the motif of an Opposer which simply consists of a group of opposing individuals without any particular god-level leader. the Dark Forest in Warriors is an example
The Opposer / The Satan (archetype or motif) -> the motif of a great worldwide enemy in religion or fiction. "satan" originally simply meant "the opposer". Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity all have some counterpart to this. The Opposer + ??? = Mx. Satan.
Starlight Glimmer
City governments are similar to friendships / Village governments resemble friendships
Freedom to be yourself is similar to friendships / Authenticity is similar to friendships -> Authenticity (Existentialism)
??
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic episode 1
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic episode 221
"Tempest Shadow"
??
??
??
Pi can't beat a Pokémon game
??
??
??
My Little Pony: Make Your Mark
My Little Pony: Make Your Mark episode 1
My Little Pony: Make Your Mark episode 27
My Little Pony: Tell Your Tale
??
The Tea Dragon Society (all media)
The Tea Dragon Society
The Tea Dragon Festival
The Tea Dragon Tapestry
The Tea Dragon Society Card Game
Autumn Harvest: A Tea Dragon Society Card Game
Town market (The Tea Dragon Society) / town bazaar
Comic quick-start / Mentor rules sheet
Tea Dragon Society Card Game Rulebook / Glossary rules sheet -> are these different for the two games? if so, consider them editions of the same work
True dragon (The Tea Dragon Society)
Tea Dragon (The Tea Dragon Society)
Jasmine tea dragon
Rooibos tea dragon
Chamomile tea dragon
Ginseng tea dragon
Earl Grey tea dragon
Hibiscus tea dragon
Ginger tea dragon
Peppermint tea dragon
Tea Dragon society (group)
Mentors token
Growth token
Victory point token
Tea Dragon card
??
Entertaining (9 in box) - st / 🌼 / use 1 / cost 0
Feeding (9 in box)
Grooming (9 in box)
Twilight Snow - ❄️ / 🍂 0 / ☕ 9 / 🫖 3+?
Sleeping (9 in box)
Tea Dragon deck / character draw-deck area
Nice walnuts not getting imminently broken is paradise / Countries are like walnuts: they only taste good when you crack them open -> came up in multiple MDem scraps. the concept is that within Existentialism, national autonomy is never truly taken seriously for any country [...] the sheer population of living people constituting the country is not respected until it's cracked open by force ~~[... full rant left on entry]~~
Even if Liberalism is perfect taxes buy war / Even if Liberalism worked perfectly taxes would only buy war / If Liberal-republicanism worked perfectly it would still result in millions of tax dollars going to the military and very little going to social programs / Arceus really did a number on Ultra Space, huh? (in reference to Liberal-republican processses coming from one big country of the petty bourgeoisie that is obligated to crush other countries to "free" the rest of the world's petty bourgeoisie) -> imagine, for a moment, that we live in a perfect world — a world, or at the very least a United States and cluster of First World countries, which is perfect for Liberal democracy. everyone understands voting. everyone votes for progressives. the US Republican Party ceases to exist. there are two new center-Liberal parties which are not a proto-fascist hellscape, and they only keep getting better, even if they only keep getting better very, very slowly; they keep getting better but they don't keep getting worse. the next thing that happens is all the biggest capitalists drain out of the United States and go live in Third World countries so they can experience as few regulations as possible. if anyone calls foul they'll say "well if I don't like the United States isn't it my freedom to move somewhere else? what is this, North Korea?". at a certain point, absolutely nothing will be able to keep billionaires from enslaving all the people of Nigeria, and the only thing that will be possible for stopping them is to occupy the Third World countries with soldiers and basically kill the capitalists if they don't stop. at that point you're just doing Existentialist class war, and the only difference is that the class operating it is Artisan and Careerist types against "the big guy", not the proletariat. this is the problem. Liberal "democracy" almost obligates countries to invade other countries and overthrow their governments. and the reason it does that is people are committed to Existentialist class war of the bourgeois Filaments in their country against class enemies of Existentialism, including feudal orders, alternate historical periods, and in general any material object which doesn't obey them, up to and including other countable cultures themselves. the real problem is that workers are in class war only sometimes but Existentialists are in class war always, for decades and decades. Existentialists are in infinite revolution or forever cold war against the whole world, and they always have been. the only bright side here is this pattern rather hilariously explains Trotskyism. if you're a part of the big worldwide machine of Existentialist class war, of course you'll let the United States and every area of Existentialism crush workers' states. I'd only just barely stop short of calling Trotskyism an Existentialism. I think there's a decent case to be made that Zinovievism is an Existentialism though.
A workers' state will surely fail if it doesn't buy specific inventions from other countries / Avoid the forbidden fruit and you will surely die -> found this one implied in a history of late Soviet corn production. literally untrue, because China got around this one through bootlegs and its own eventual inventions. but this statement is truly interesting because of the dumb assumptions buried deep inside it. this actually goes deeply against Deleuze and Guattari's Existentialist model of freedom. it says there are some people you have no choice but to form relationships with no matter how evil they are, because the individuals or groups of people who are most effective at materially generating civilizations have the right to be your friend. you have to love racists, you have to love transphobes, you have to put up with everybody's ~~bullshit~~ as individuals if they sell a lot of things. business territories aren't valuable because they're pieces of society that exist and have value regardless of who founded them, there are just mandatory individuals. this is one of the most toxic forms of Existentialism because it posits chunk competition as building societies rather than even Filamentism. that's medieval. that's manor lord thinking. that's literally, the duke is more important than the rest of the population if each member of the nobility does their best to exist without caring about anyone else.
Walnut core inside shell against other shell equals shell plundering shell / Walnut core inside walnut shell against walnut shell equals whole walnut smashing whole walnut / Anti-marginalization efforts from the United States' margins to "help" minorities in China turn into US majority and US minority against absolutely everybody in China / Trotsky and Trotskyites without their own workers' state fight for either the Soviet Union's government or the United States and Mexican governments -> this one takes so many words to say. it's not a difficult concept but it is really difficult for anyone to actually see when they'll call you out on the question-begging test for not describing the whole world in terms of races and Cultures. I find that framing disgusting when it's a fact human individuals and populations compete for mere existence, and I'd rather not discuss social-democratic reforms in terms of slowly allowing some 20% of people not surviving who probably happen to belong to particular races to survive better but not the rest of them just yet. so, you get walnuts. you get really stupid walnut metaphors where the goal is not to let the walnut shells arbitrarily go around cracking all the other walnuts except them. I swear people are not smart enough to grasp the concepts of either "the proletariat" or "plural proletariats in one country". so we tell them about walnuts.
??
??
??
walnut shell (analogy) -> approximately represents a national border, populational border, or party-nation
walnut core (analogy) -> approximately represents a large subpopulation, either the proletariat or The Multitude, but is intended to exclude capitalists

@@ Line 251: / Line 251: @@
 </li><li class="number_empty" value="5460" data-dimension="S">??
 </li><li class="number_empty" value="5470" data-dimension="S">??
+</li><li class="number_empty" value="5475" data-dimension="S">??
+</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="5479" data-dimension="S2">Philosophers' stones empower global empire / If philosophers' stones existed in the 1500s, they would be used in service of global empire  ->  probably true, honestly. but you know what? anarchists have absolutely taken the wrong lessons from this concept about what the opposite of it is. what seems like half of all anarchisms boil down to the weird idea of existing and surviving being inherently greedy and specifically seeking to remove the ability <em>to live and exist</em> as much as possible without entirely extinguishing it. and the problem with that is it creates totally powerless civilizations that get crushed and precisely hand control of the earth to fascism and pronounce it canonically correct. after which the surviving fascisms will be as greedy and wasteful as they want to.<br />
+that was a very Deng-Xiaoping thing to say.
-</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5480" data-dimension="S2">Societies are made of values / Societies are made of values such as hard work and perseverance, which can then be exploited by bad actors resulting in the undoing of the society [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWuuZZdDrvQ]  ->  this is Idealism. I think the realisitic interpretation is that it was never guaranteed from the beginning that any of these things would lead to a "social fabric" or "social contract" in and of themselves. you never have control over what a boss does. you're closer to having control if you look at the corporation as its own runaway entity that exploits workers itself and just "happens" to be owned by the boss and try to contemplate control of that.<br />
+</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="5480" data-dimension="S2">Societies are made of values / Societies are made of values such as hard work and perseverance, which can then be exploited by bad actors resulting in the undoing of the society {{YouTube|eWuuZZdDrvQ}}  ->  this is Idealism. I think the realisitic interpretation is that it was never guaranteed from the beginning that any of these things would lead to a "social fabric" or "social contract" in and of themselves. you never have control over what a boss does. you're closer to having control if you look at the corporation as its own runaway entity that exploits workers itself and just "happens" to be owned by the boss and try to contemplate control of that.<br />
 if you are paying very keen attention to everything I wrote on this page, you might ask, well, but aren't societies made of Social-Philosophical Systems, and don't those contain ideas? and yes, they often are. but the SPSs succeed on the basis of actually containing material models of a society, not on the basis of containing abstract concepts. even in the case of a simple Social-Graph System which is a tribal population, there is material structure to the tribe which is contained in culture that acts as the true social fabric of the tribe.