Ours separates each-fracturing each-individually-torn-away humanities: Plurality and the many levels of physically plural entities

It's funny how language has a bias toward the singular, including this very sentence. Out of all the sentences you typically construct each day, most of them likely take some simple form of a subject, a predicate, and an object. Many subjects of sentences are singular: _The coffee mug sits still_. Many objects of sentences are singular: _I refill the coffee mug_. Many predicates of sentences would outwardly appear to have a singular character as well: if you _move the coffee mug_, exactly one person moves exactly one inanimate object. Whether you _move the coffee mug_ or _refill the coffee mug_, neither of these sentences suggests by itself that your actions are being replicated across many different individuals in different places. And yet, when it comes to coffee mugs, one can think of almost nothing more pedestrian. People in offices everywhere across the United States and across the world are likely performing the exact same actions of moving and refilling coffee mugs every day. Wouldn't it make just as much sense if language somehow _could_ quantify the replication of separate but identical actions? Perhaps if we lived in a different timeline where language had turned out differently, it would instead be the case that _every morning we refill ours coffee mugs_. Some days it is only relevant that _I refill my coffee mug_ or _you refill your coffee mug_, but sometimes it is also worth pointing out when _at each of ours offices we waste paper_ or _in our haste to get to work, all of ours cars clog up the road_. Strange, isn't it, how we can really begin to see the unseen patterns in ours daily lives stack up the moment we stop seeing ours actions as neatly isolated.
There might, perhaps, be reasons we individuals have not usually talked like this. Those reasons might even seem like good reasons. Say we individual philosophers of language were to attempt to begin correcting the previous paragraph until the singular and plural expressions in language fully represented the true spectrum of how unified or separate particular things can be. "Language", the uncountable abstraction? How quaint. _All of many languages that each separately exist in the world each have biases toward the singular in several of each language's different constructions_. Perhaps this is enough to send some individuals into a rage, but at the same time it's worth remembering that only in drawing out and outlining the distinction of _we individuals_ existing separately in parallel does it become fully intuitive that some of us individuals each react badly to things while some of us individuals each react positively. Whenever we go around using ordinary fuzzy plurals in our daily lives, it's never immediately obvious who _we_ is, much less that some parts of the individuals or groups constituting _we_ could each behave in drastically different ways and perhaps become upset at drastically different things. This can make all the difference in matters as small as _I'm sure we would all be fine with anchovies_ or _here in this city we've always been Packers fans_. And yet, on most days we individuals all let that pesky unqualified _we_ slip through on matters which are vastly more important.

logic

It often happens that each of us individuals find ours first route into philosophy by way of _logic_ and _logical fallacies_. Perhaps some individual will be led down this path on the way to objective studies of ethics, and another individual will end up journeying down it on the way to science. Either way, each of us individuals likely knows many of formal logic's standard interjections by now: "cognitive biases", "logical fallacies", "un-sound propositions", "_non sequitur_", "assuming the converse", and so forth.
The most curious of this vast scattering of different fallacies, however, is "overgeneralization". Each and every individual generally hears from other individuals that overgeneralization is bad, yet few things are more baked into every linguistic utterance than overgeneralization. Worse, many statements _at their basic logical level before entering language_ contain overgeneralizations. Are either of the past two statements beginning to sound ironic to you once you've let the surrounding context sink in? If so, you understand exactly the problem with a great number of linguistic and logical statements. In a great number of cases, individuals gather information about the world through each separately interacting with their immediate surroundings through the physical processes available to each individual. Each individual then must attempt to interpret the greater world through these steeply-limited localized stacks of information.


have I successfully persuaded you that if we individuals don't have hyper-plurals in each of all the world's languages, it is dreadfully easy for every one of us individuals in parallel to separately and individually make overgeneralizations about the individual state of every one of the rest of us individuals?
at the same time
part of the reason we leave all this information out is it is impossible to actually know it with certainty - Gödel's incompleteness theorem, physical theories of relativity, as covered in "relativity" chapter
[chapter unfinished]

24-12

what does we mean? what does our mean?
when each of we individuals say we or our, do we individuals mean our as in we individuals individually and separately, or as in ours groups individually and separately, or as in all of we individuals in unison, or as in all of our groups in unison?
as much as differentiated plurals may seem confusing as first, the distinction between these four things is often vital, such that if taken as the wrong meaning by the reader, it can change the communicated message entirely.

24-12

ours populations do not choose to be separate plural humanities. it simply happens.
it happens in the non-thinking boundaries between groups where nobody can make decisions.

24-11

it is ubiquitous and widespread these days for individuals and groups all over the United States to speak of "our democracy"
but what exactly are we individuals and ours groups all going on about when they each individually refer to "our"?
which of all plural groups does "our" consist of? are all the potential definitions of _our_ even the same definition, or do all of them fundamentally issue from each of we individuals and ours groups separately relative to each individual and group attempting to label what specifically according to ours groups is _ours_?
what is Democracy? what is the "-ocracy" actually governing? does it always mean precisely one thing for the Demos to receive "-ocracy"? does Demos always mean one thing, or could it mean multiple things?
what if Our Democracy is an entirely wrong category that we have slapped onto the underlying motions of something more transient or complex, which was always destined to slip away from us if we did not understand and take action according to its true composition and character?
... the great problem with "democracy": precisely what kind of "-ocracy" are the Demotes making, and what are they supposed to be making?
"Our" so-called "Democracy" is made up of multiple Demotes each separately constructing "democracy" inside themselves before facing each other down in raw, undemocratic Democompetition.
purporting to be a functioning Demofederation of multiple Demotes actively linked together, it regularly fails to get all the Demotes to properly coordinate on the daily process of Demoadministration. no particular Demorevision to Demoinstitutions can occur without an active Demosuccession of one population all the way over the other happening first; the Demofederation chooses whole populations before either of them can choose policies.

25-02

parable of Trotskyists trying to build Trotskyism
Stalin's government hashes out a plan by which the country can build its civilization and defend its people. this is what _we_ need, says Stalin. this is the best plan for _our republic_, to protect _us_ from control by foreign capitalists.
then Trotsky appears, and he decides to claim that Stalin does not understand what is best for _our republic_ because he does not understand what groups "we" really consist of and has made a false characterization of _ours groups_. if _we_ referred to a single population of people it might not be a big deal to subject them all to the same plan, but as Trotsky would have it the population consists of multiple groups which each must fundamentally begin all definitions of a larger group named _we_ at a smaller _we_ and _ours_ centered around themselves.
should Communists attempt to have a Third International, that is not one big group of we individuals forming into one _we_, that is multiple small groups of we individuals forming into _ours groups_ in which one of _ours groups_ can easily end up overridden and silenced.
Trotsky and the various left and right resistances to the CPSU broke off and attempted to start Trotskyist movements in various places across the world in the same sense as the original Bolshevik movement. several of them simply fizzled out. but that was not what mattered. Stalin could no longer control the global phenomenon of Bolshevism as a single _our group_, because he could never control each of the separate individual actions of _ours groups_, even if they were somehow to all miraculously turn around and reunify into a single world Trotskyism. which, unfortunately, they never did.
for various differing reasons, many Trotskyist groups over the years found themselves either splitting in two or generally failing to unify with each other. nevertheless, every so often a Trotskyist group would speak of trying to broadly reunify "Leninism", precisely in the sense of a synchronized _our Leninism_ of the sea of _ours individual groups in unison_. but in some ways it was too late to go back, at least in any trivial sense of an easy path back. Trotskyism was fundamentally not a single _our Leninism_, and perhaps never had been — it was not _our Leninism_ but _ours Leninisms_.

24-12

"human progress" - more like humans progresses.
"our democracy" - more like ours democracies.
population are not singular
this is the crux of bad cold war era jokes making fun of bolshevism and collectivization plans
people mock Communism by improperly using the word our. "it is safe to shut down  our computer" bug
but what they don't realize is the opposite of _our tractor station_ is not _my tractor station_, it is the hyper-plural _ours tractor stations_.
ours tractor stations implies mutually exclusive existence where the plural tractor stations can never coexist. thou shalt kill thy neighbor, or failing that, thou shalt force thy neighbor to leave the land. because ours tractor stations don't have room for either my tractor station or my tractor station.
liberalism adds on duct tape to fix this
claiming antitrust is necessary and businesses must be plural
the liberal notion of competitive plurality is a social construct built out of ideology.
it does not inherently exist in nature.
that is not necessarily a bad thing
but whenever you try to control nature, nature pushes back, and it's easy for any effort to tame nature to lose.
this is what nearly nobody understands about the claim bolshevism doesn't work
bolshevism is a social construct so you can't compare it to the natural order of things without the creation of bolshevism. which is what every single anticommunist does
by treating Liberalism as the default, anticommunists mistakenly position Liberal social constructs as nature, when they are not
imagine Trotsky tries to say the default state of all countries is Trotskyism in one country, and Liberal and Stalinist tyrants are merely preventing it. this is clearly wrong because no country has ever even become Trotskyist in any way, let alone become Trotskyist according to the laws of nature.
but people cannot realize the same is true of all Social-Philosophical-Material Systems. all Social-Philosophical-Material Systems including Liberalism and Anarchism are social constructs.
the only Social-Philosophical-Material System that might not be a social construct is strictly-descriptive forms of Existentialism.
but simply being objectively true of nature doesn't make strict Existentialism objectively the best system.
if society being based on relationships is an inescapable axiom, then there is no way to truly ban child abuse as much as hope all children get good parents. there is no way to say child abuse is inherently wrong throughout the universe because each bad parent will toss up a Vegeta effect and refuse to listen and accept morality.

:: cr.: 2025-02-21T05:53:21Z
:: t.: ours-groups
:: t.: v5-1_1019_ours-democracies
;: v5.2 chapters/ Ours separates each-torn-away humanities