Philosophical Research:Schizophrenic point of view

For the purposes of analyzing philosophies, signifiers may take the form of jargon terms, ordinary words employed in recognizable but highly-specific usages, repeated quotes from older texts, repeated in-text citations or prior work titles, or images with controversial meanings across different philosophies. For instance, "Stalin's government" could be considered a signifier because within the broad field of Marxist discourse Trotskyists and Stalin followers interpret the significance of the image differently and attach different underlying models of real-world function to it. If it happens that these models are so drastically different they hardly even resemble each other, the Signifier-item is best divided into two separate Signifiers, such as "Stalin's government (Trotskyism)" and "Stalin's government (Stalin Thought)". Using this method of combining relatively-ordinary or widespread usages and disambiguating tags, controversies can be exposed which are normally invisible within the bounds of particular philosophies. It can be argued that projects such as Wikipedia suffer from the inability to package themselves in localized, biased language familiar to real-world readers, who may look at the neutral framings of Wikipedia, regard them as foreign to their particular philosophy and experience, and reject the whole project as "biased" or "improperly infiltrated by mainstream thought". However, if a project instead decides to forego pretending that neutrality through a single point of view is possible and simply express itself in several different biased framings at once, it becomes easier to illuminate the differences between various different biased ideologies and the relationship of each ideology to material reality and what is most likely to be true.

---

This should, and, will be a new page shortly...

• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

---

(draft)

Perhaps you have heard of particular projects having "Neutral point of view"

there is just one problem: most people have an internal monologue and internal series of associations particular to them, and don't carry multiple plural voices inside their heads

Conservapedia

It is easy to argue that in a world made of plural populations all practicing different internal philosophies neutrality is a material impossibility

How can the world prevent Conservapedias? Why, by following Schizophrenic point of view!

can Communism and nationalism live in harmony? well, they can on an encyclopedia page, if not necessarily anywhere else. so too is the case with mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism, Marxism and the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition of analytic philosophy, and so on.

is this a postmodern nightmare? well, maybe, but the world did it first, and an encyclopedia must document the world.

This article may sound funny but it's genuinely not meant as satire

Lexemes

The ideal Lexeme item is created specifically because a term has at least two different opposing definitions. For example: language. In everyday usage, language can be defined as a prescriptive system belonging to a particular group of people, or a descriptive system belonging to multiple groups of people, leading to contradictory assertions that terms like ain't or facticity are "not words" within the English language and "not part of language" versus other assertions that because someone uses them they are "inherently part of language". To begin resolving this contradiction, we create a Lexeme item containing both of these definitions and tagging them with their appropriate ideology or philosophy. This helps resolve conflicts that may occur when editing ontologies: "I mean language as in prescriptivism! I am creating a separate ontology of how linguistic prescriptivism works."

S2 Signifier Items

S2 Signifier Items should be considered to frequently represent statements of opinion specific to a particular group of people; in one sense, their purpose is orthogonal to the concept of neutrality.

it is okay to name S2 Signifiers in a slanted way appropriate to the ontological perspective of the group of people who would state it as long as the bias is not a rhetorical statement prohibiting the existence of other S2 Signifiers on the same topic. if a particular S2 Signifier legitimately has two possible meanings to different ideologies or theoretical models in the manner of a Lexeme, then its current name should be demoted to an alias and it should be renamed to something more dry and objective.