|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Style
| | change in thought |
| |bannercolor = #008080
| |
| |headercolor = #014f4f
| |
| |textcolor =#d3d3d3
| |
| |buttoncolor =#d3d3d3
| |
| |buttontextcolor =#036a66
| |
| |linkcolor =#ffffff
| |
| |background =#181818
| |
| |hovercolor =
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| {{Ideology
| |
| |border = 7px
| |
| |borderradius = 5px
| |
| |bordercolor = #000000
| |
| |themecolor = #181818
| |
| |textcolor = #d3d3d3
| |
| |infoboxbackground = #2d2e2d
| |
| | title = [[File:Ultra-Ultroneism.png]] Ultra-Ultroneism
| |
| | image =
| |
| | caption =
| |
| |aliases= '''ADD ALIASES PLS!'''
| |
| |influences=
| |
| *[[File:Hegel.png]] George Hegel
| |
| *[[File:Zizekism.png]] Slavoj Žižek
| |
| *[[File:Stirner.png]] Max Stirner
| |
| *[[File:NickLand.png]] Nick Land
| |
| *[[File:Baudrillard.png]] Jean Baudrillard
| |
| *[[File:Nietzsche.png]] Friedrich Nietzsche
| |
| *[[File:Darwin.png]] Charles Darwin
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| The best way to summarize my political and philosophical ideology is to think of it as ''what if'' Žižek was not a communist, Stirner was anti-egoist, Land didn't believe in technocapital but technocommunism and didn't advocate for statism but for anarchism, some Baudrillard's theory of simulacra in perspective of AI creation of cyberspace and the subsequent hyperwar between humans evacuated on Mars and an alliance of AI and genetically engineered apes on Earth that will lead - i.e. accelerate total communist revolution on Earth, and Nietzschean idea of Ubermensch analyzed through Darwinian lense, everything in a purely satirical manner and worked through post-logical framework I called postlogical dialecticism. It is also heavily influenced by Netflix film theory.
| |
| | |
| = Opinions =
| |
| Initially it rambled about how reality is false and rather everyone sees reality different due to philosophical darwinism, language is false, existing is an illusion and a hoax promulgated by society and about the failures of continental philosophy and the goal of creating a universal axiomatycal system that will be universal language (not in usual sense as a language, but rather a mathematical symbolization) through post-post analytic philosophy. Then it also developed its 'least-energy use principle' as one of the main key philosophical points. It mostly argues for the mathematization of metaphysics and philosophy as a discipline. Besides that it's heavily into mbti and psychology to the point it's considered annoying and kakistocratic, and also likes subtly using 'your mama jokes' and bullying lads that think politics is superior to philosophy. It debates everyone and anyone and heavily changes its opinions from time to time. It has distaste for anyone it thinks of too static or rigidly fixed.
| |
| | |
| It is characterized by an extensive use of chaotic nature of postlogical dialectics, satire and heavy analogies from popular culture, mostly film theory. It sometimes resorts to ridiculing modern continental philosophy for its obscurity.
| |
| == Liberatory Science ==
| |
| A simple criterion for science to qualify as postmodern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth. However, these criteria, admirable as they are, are insufficient for a liberatory postmodern science: they liberate human beings from the tyranny of absolute truth and objective reality, but not necessarily from the tyranny of other human beings. Thus based on Sokal's analysis I propose creating emancipatory mathematics free of hegemonic Zermelo-Fraenkel framework and redefining set theory to break the division between formal logic and non-formal logic. All forms of logic are correct in the sense that none are correct. All axiomatic systems are human inventions, so it's not fair to adhere to humanism in science, since it should be as objective as possible.
| |
| == Postlogical Dialectics ==
| |
| Aka known by lesser intellectual beings as ''I made an oopsie and upset someone - i will alter my thought to be their's''. In reality it's not that far from the truth. I am opposed to any logical systems in the fact that I am an absolute nihilist. All systems revolve around axioms and there are no fundamental ones, thus every axiomatic system is in fact correct. That's why I promote mathematizing the philosophy as a subject and extensive use of mathematical categorifiers, since math encompasses all sets of axioms - math is the prime universe of the axiomatic systems, and this follows since I claim that axioms are the ''arche'' - thus math is the ultimate being, aka God in a nontheist sense, of course. This, couple with my argument against ardently adhering to some ideology (ideological system is a more evolved version of axiomatic system), whether political or philosophical and being not overly flexible with your views, explains the postlogical part. The dialectics part is kinda tricky, since it's not proper dialectics but rather a fancy name (or maybe it showcases my unoriginality as an amateur philosopher). Basically, even though none axiomatic system is correct, you still need some sort of order to make use of anything, so you either choose between order or chaos and then proceed and not-proceed respectfully with the definitions. As I'm myself pro-chaos and pro-definitions, I am caught in a conflicting ideological zone, thus my so called way of analysis (what I called dialectics) is rather unusual to most.
| |
| ===Post-Logic===
| |
| Generally, post-logic is something that transcends common logic or rather formal logic. We've been told many things that are fundamentally dichtotomy based - true or false: you can't make square circle, etc. But you can't claim it's true/false just because you (aka human) can't imagine them. What if there exists other beings, conscious or unconscious that have the means to interpret dichtotomies in different dimensions than us. What if it's not dichtotomy after all? That means I am subscribing to a school of thought called ontological pluralism and such categorifiers as double true (true true) or false false or true^false(n) are equally valid.
| |
| ==Anti-dimensionality Paradigm==
| |
| There's no way to be sure of anything, even when it comes to such "subjectively-objective" absolutes as time and space you find yourself in. Objectivity is just a fancy word for arrogancy and control. We live in our own realities, everyone experiences and interacts with the world differently, so all convictions are validly true in their own logical systems. Just because there's an accepted way of perceiving reality, like sky is blue, or tommorow is not the same as today, it doesn't hold any ontological value. It might be "true", but it can also be false, and that's the beauty of it. I claim we can't achieve absolute knowledge, as knowledge is fundamentally unattainable due to basic biology of our brains - since they are composed of matter only (keep in mind that I am not arguing materialism vs anti-materialism here, I am just stating the fact that materialism is overly dogmatic that only matter exists, and statistically it is more practical to consider the universe as pluralistic rather than monistic - if the majority hold one belief and minority another, I would always trust the majority in principle, just because of the statistical advantage it gives me. But you might think that contradicts my rambling that every logical system is correct. It is, I am not asserting the hegemony of statistical-probability theory over other fields of inquiry. I have used an example of a majority-accepted system, and you should always try to using already accepted systems when trying to back up your argument, instead of wasting your time to create ones - and that's where we move to other subsection.)
| |
| ==Least Energy Use Principle==
| |
| We don't need to waste our time. Sure, life is meaningless and universe is void without identity, but that doesn't mean we should "do things we enjoy/don't enjoy" or "create some things to make me feel better". Even when I am writing this self-insert, which I almost guarantee won't be read by anyone, my existential dread doesn't diminish a bit. To say it in brief, change is nice but I like it when it just happens, so I don't use energy - but I dont want to use energy to revert it. Why don't we just leave things at all since to remove them we have to spend our energy and every living organism tries to use as less energy as possible because of Darwinism, aka nature. To go against against nature sounds nonsensical to me even if we can. Why would someone try to something that only gets exponentially increasing resistance? Everyone psychologically is ingrained to go for instant gratification and easy paths due to natural hormones.
| |
| ==Nature and Posthumanism?==
| |
| By nature I am only referring to systems that are natural, aka not human. Don't confuse me with those theists that are arguing for their deity approved order of the universe. Trees, universe are natural, AI, math is not. In this sence I am neither a humanist, transhumanist or antihumanist posthumanist. I am not a humanist because I do not believe humans are center of the universe, neither do I believe we should improve them, nor I am arguing for leaving our humanity to become something else because I find it a waste of time and stemming from cringy body dismorphic issues.
| |
| ===Post-Anti-Post-Essentialism (PAPE)===
| |
| ==Anti-Theory Praxis==
| |
| == Netflix and Revolution ==
| |
| == Intellectual Low-Culture ==
| |
