Friday Reading group Anonymous 19-06-23 10:57:51 No. 18232
Every friday
Anonymous 19-06-23 10:59:45 No. 18233
>>18232 Thread now on /edu/ because it's the board meant for these sorts of long term conversations
And the slowness of the board will make it less likely for us to lose the thread to the inevitable forum slide to the bottom of the last page
Anonymous 23-06-23 11:41:41 No. 18360
>>18232 Alright I think we should start again from the first chapter
Last thread anfem flag poster noticed something that had never stood out to me before in the text that pottery developed from woven baskets covered with mud used for cooking
My commentary wasn't worth much, I lost count on how many times I've read this but it far exceeds 10 times and quite a number of those times were in discussion with others so I was just going through the motions
I'll give the Chapter a deep read now and hopefully give you the commentary this great book actually deserves when I'm done
Anonymous 24-06-23 02:41:33 No. 18368
>>18364 Backup checkpoint
"Social Realism
From
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QinYMHLG9Ns To
https://youtu.be/IjGhLMLVnro To
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FHbgYeEMe8 Hard to find a copy of
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich have hard copy with some annotations somewhere but where
Dialectical And Historical Materialism
Marx is the raw prototype for Social Realism with his stakhanovite labour on the subject of work, just as Engel's is, as the Orthodox
christians would say is the archetype
Relation to first paragraph of the Preface to the First Edition, 1884
And it is for this very reason that this thread should be called "Reading
Session " not "Reading Group"
"
Anonymous 25-06-23 18:04:15 No. 18380
>>18368 Backup checkpoint
"
Social Realism
From
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QinYMHLG9Ns To
https://youtu.be/IjGhLMLVnro To
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FHbgYeEMe8 Look at these beautiful and skilled women at work, it can not be denied for the westoid that they are looking down upon
(us) from such a height that if they were in the Yucatan they would be south american wakanda
>bububu-b-but stalinstache Cuba Yes Cuba is based, but it is an island and can therefore be blockaded
Hard to find a copy of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich have hard copy with some annotations somewhere but where
Dialectical And Historical Materialism
Marx is the raw prototype for Social Realism with his stakhanovite labour on the subject of work, just as Engel's is, as the Orthodox christians would say is the archetype
Relation to first paragraph of the Preface to the First Edition, 1884
And it is for this very reason that this thread should be called "Reading Session" not "Reading Group"
"
Anonymous 02-07-23 10:43:42 No. 18522
>>18501 (me)
You did do your reading didn't you?
Comments plz
Anonymous 02-07-23 10:51:33 No. 18524
>>18523 I can't complain too much about it since even I haven't done the reading since I was too busy giving the lovely wife some TLC
My first comment:
>I. Stages of Prehistoric Culture >MORGAN is the first man who, with expert knowledge, has attempted to introduce a definite order into the history of primitive man; so long as no important additional material makes
changes necessary, his classification will undoubtedly remain in force.
Refer back here to the comment (unfortunately only a sketch) I made on the first paragraph of the preface
Anonymous 02-07-23 11:29:25 No. 18525
>Of the three main epochs – savagery, barbarism, and civilization – he is concerned, of course, only with the first two and the transition to the third. He divides both savagery and barbarism into lower, middle, and upper stages according to the progress made in the production of food; for, he >>Upon their skill in this direction, the whole question of human supremacy on the earth
Anonymous 06-07-23 13:37:10 No. 18561
>>18525 >It is accordingly probable that the great epochs of human progress have been identified, more or less directly, with the enlargement of the sources of subsistence.
He is putting the cart before the horse. Enlargement of the food supply usually happened due to a technological innovation, like irrigation or the plough. This increased the yield and people farming became more productive. More people were born (and survived into adulthood). While the population increased, so did the share of people not involved in food production. This meant that more people could engage in other pursuits, and more of them.
Increased food supply is itself a cause of technological innovation/revolution. The "Agricultural revolution" is itself a technological one. Selectively breeding plants is a kind of technology. Its tools are the shovel, water, soil, wood fencing off areas, various protections against animals and insects, it has a theory, and related knowledge of how it is done.
Anonymous 07-07-23 11:26:31 No. 18569
>>18568 Not really no
I don't concern myself with the opinions of people who don't read books
Anonymous 07-07-23 14:39:24 No. 18571
>>18569 It's a paradox. The only reason I ever read a book is because of the threat of a beating if I left the house after 6pm. There was zero electronic distractions allowed. Why would the neighborhood children playing outdoors until 10pm, developing interpersonal skills, be interested in developing the habits necessary to "read" throughout life. The concept of reading as I think you're defining it only existed notionally, where the man of the house retired to his study after dinner to attend to his correspondence and read. Or when some people worked 9-5 and habitually went to bed at 10pm to read for an hour before sleep. I saw more people actually reading on the Lisbon metro than anywhere else, sometimes political and philosophical stuff. Honestly, I couldn't read in that environment, just too much noise and movement. Outside of distraction free live-in environments, like weekend retreats or something, I can't see people arranging their lives in the way that is necessary to read for an hour a day and retain the information
>I don't concern myself with the opinions of people who don't read books I used to agree. It's pretty isolating though
Anonymous 07-07-23 16:03:47 No. 18572
>>18569 I read books. I've read The Origin (who hasn't? it's also taught in anthropology classes). If you want people to discuss the work, you have to put some effort into it. For example,
>>18566 >>18567 That is all you have to say about that? No other opinions on the "gay uncle" theory?
>>18561 This one you didn't answer.
Comments plz Anonymous 09-07-23 02:16:49 No. 18594
>>18572 >I've taught anthropology Right so take over then
Or at least ask better questions
Anonymous 09-07-23 02:19:53 No. 18595
>>18572 >>18594 I ignored the second question because I thought it was moronic
The process is clearly mutually determined but food production beats technology in effect
A plough on the tundra is useless, a salmon run creates a stratified society with slaves
Anonymous 09-07-23 02:33:35 No. 18597
>>18571 Anyway sorry I wouldn't be so cranky if you'd engaged with the text
We're only on Chapter 2 peeps u can catch up
Then just one chapter every Friday
Maybe make a comment? :^)
Anonymous 09-07-23 07:53:27 No. 18599
>>18595 >The process is clearly mutually determined but food production beats technology in effect You cannot have increased food production without technological innovation. Yes, planting seeds into the ground/farming is a technological innovation.
>>18594 >>I've taught anthropology It's ironic you're the one telling people to read. I said the book is taught in anthropology classes, I don't know why you're acting like we must dissect every chapter of Origins to reveal its secrets.
>A plough on the tundra is useless, a salmon run creates a stratified society with slaves What? You're not making any sense. I used to think you're pretending to be old, but now I think you actually might be. Stop rambling, gramps.
Anonymous 09-07-23 09:46:52 No. 18602
>>18599 >>A plough on the tundra is useless, a salmon run creates a stratified society with slaves >What? You're not making any sense. I used to think you're pretending to be old, but now I think you actually might be. Stop rambling, gramps. Are you illiterate?
Is that why you refuse to read books?
Anonymous 09-07-23 13:00:30 No. 18606
>>18602 If someone doesn't understand what you have written, the onus is on you to explain. Responding with an insult only makes you look unsure in what you said. If one understands or knows a concept, then one is able to explain it in several ways, otherwise it just seems like the person is repeating what they read/heard without fully grokking it.
Why would someone build a plough in a tundra? Salmon don't live in all parts of the world. Your statement is simply stating the obvious. Aztecs living in swamp/marsh area never invented the wheel, because it doesn't make sense in a place without many roads.
The plough is not the only advancement I mentioned, there's also irrigation. Then there's also the simple "trick" of covering irrigation canals to reduce water evaporation in dry places.
Some argue that any large technological undertaking in ancient history (like irrigation), requires a centralised (hierarchical) State, that could manage the various experts, knowledge, technology, materials, labour force, to complete the large project. Is that what you meant with the salmon run comment?
Do you wish to explain what you meant? What is obvious to you, may not be obvious to others, as we don't live inside your brain.
Anonymous 09-07-23 13:11:59 No. 18607
>>18602 >Is that why you refuse to read books? Also, why do you keep saying that like you're the only person on the planet who reads books? Btw, your choice of The Origins as a book to be discussed shows you either don't actually read or read basic, Marxist 101 texts from some "essential communist works" from some chan list. A person who actually reads would have chosen a contemporary work that could be discussed through a Marxist lens. Off the top of my head Graeber's book would have been a better choice, you even mention it here:
>>18596 . But another, shorter work may have been even better, such as
Nozick's
Anarchy, State and Utopia or like I mentioned Radkau,
Nature and Power . Or if you wanted some "communist" text, maybe a discussion of Tronti's
Workers and Capital .
Maybe one could draw parallels between what happened in 1968 and what is happening today.
But nah, for that you have to be interesting, think creatively and not be boring. Your schtick of calling everyone "son" and pretending like you're the only one on the planet who knows about books or reading got very old very fast. All you seem to know how to do is copy-paste chapter headings and insult people for their
perceived lack of reading.
Maybe nobody wants to read your boring-ass 19th century books Did you consider that possibility Mr. Book-Reader?
Anonymous 10-07-23 06:49:11 No. 18613
>>18607 >y keep saying that? To provoke you to keep you engaged
I'll read the rest later but here have another provocation; The lion share of funding for anthropological research in the West has come from DARPA and other Military Industrial Congressional Complex sources.
This has a major influence on what is taught and the focus of research.
More importantly though, here's a question why does the bloodthirsty washington burgroid do all this funding?
Anonymous 10-07-23 13:28:32 No. 18614
>>18613 >The lion share of funding for anthropological research in the West has come from DARPA and other Military Industrial Congressional Complex sources. Unironically, big if true. Of course, there could be nefarious reasons for that. The other reason is that US govt. funds a bunch of shit, so there's bound to be research done for research sake and not towards an imperialist US goal. Besides, it's not like anthropology requires a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator, it doesn't costs that much to pay a couple 70-80k salaries a year and keep a few university departments open.
I'd also like to see a breakdown of this funding. Are anthro. departments and research funded directly through grants or indirectly through university funding?
Anonymous 11-07-23 01:36:14 No. 18655
>>18635 Look son you've already played your hand and it's a shit one
I hope you're not the anon earlier who claimed to have taught anthropology given this was a big controversy in the field.
I mean that would just be embarrassing if it were having to look up Wikipedia about it and all.
As for the evidence, I present to you that It's even mentioned at all in wikipedia as evidence that it is indeed real.
Next you'll be telling me nonsense about how the American biological weapons deployment on civilian populations in the Korean war is a nothing burger allegation, yes?
Anonymous 11-07-23 02:08:16 No. 18851
>>18655 >It's even mentioned at all in wikipedia as evidence that it is indeed real. >>18621 >>Wikipedia >Everybody point at this man and laugh This you?
Nobody is disputing whether it exists or not. You said DARPA directly funds anthropological research, while Wikipedia says the Anthropological Association was against the program, meaning DARPA did not seriously fund any anthropological research, just some interdisciplinary think tank that also included some anthropological stuff in it.
You don't seem to know what you believe or what you're trying to say, you only know that you are right and smarter than everyone else.
Feel free to post any kind of source any time to support your claims.
Anonymous 11-07-23 02:35:06 No. 19003
>>18852 No you see, it is far more insidious than that, I'm just going to keep replying with jerky comments that don't involve anything more than skimming what you wrote until you make one comment that is on topic for this thread
Since you aren't that smart I'll explain; That means reading to chapter 2
or beyond and making one comment relevant to the text.
Then I'll go back and engage properly with your writing.
Anonymous 11-07-23 10:27:59 No. 19008
>>19003 >Since you aren't that smart I'll explain; That means reading to chapter 2 or beyond I find it funny that you think The Origins is some difficult text, inaccessible to the dumb masses. The Origins is a high school-level work, it took me a day to read it lol. There isn't anything in it to crack one's head over. In fact, it's dry, and a poor choice for a reading group.
There also isn't much to say. I'm not an anthropologist, I don't have any original studies or primary research that I can bring out to corroborate or dispute The Origins. "Yup, sounds about right, moving on," is the thought most people have while reading Origins.
I bet the next book will be Capital or State and Revolution. You have no imagination, you're a boring person. No amount of insults or pretending to be smart will change that. "Being smart" is not a personality, wannabe nerd.
Anonymous 11-07-23 10:33:39 No. 19009
>>19006 Interesting site. Although nothing to corroborate your claim:
>>18613 >The lion share of funding for anthropological research in the West has come from DARPA and other Military Industrial Congressional Complex sources. >This has a major influence on what is taught and the focus of research. Do you want to point me to the relevant article? Of course not, Mr. Reader. You read the headlines of articles and make your own conclusions. You read so fast that you
don't even read.
>>18674 I still haven't read
>>18524 >I haven't done the reading y i k e s
Anonymous 12-07-23 07:41:18 No. 19018
>>19016 Well done, you read a footnote on page 98
The following footnote of course is
>NOTE in Fourth edition: A French friend of mine who is an admirer of Wagner is not in agreement with this note. He observes that already in the Elder Edda, on which Wagner based his story, in the OEgisdrekka, Loki makes the reproach to Freya: “In the sight of the gods thou didst embrace thine own brother.” Marriage between brother and sister, he argues, was therefore forbidden already at that time. The OEgisdrekka is the expression of a time when belief in the old myths had completely broken down; it is purely a satire on the gods, in the style of Lucian. If Loki as Mephisto makes such a reproach to Freya, it tells rather against Wagner. Loki also says some lines later to Niordhr: “With thy sister didst thou breed son.” (vidh systur thinni gaztu slikan mog) Niordhr is not, indeed, an Asa, but a Vana, and says in the Ynglinga saga that marriages between brothers and sisters are usual in Vanaland, which was not the case among the Asas. This would seem to show that the Vanas were more ancient gods the Asas. At any rate, Niordhr lives among the OEgisdrekka is rather a proof that at the time when the Norse sagas of the gods arose, marriages between brothers and sisters, at any rate among the gods, did not yet excite any horror. If one wants to find excuses for Wagner, it would perhaps be better to cite Goethe instead of the Edda, for in his ballad of the God and the Bayadere Goethe commits a similar mistake in regard to the religious surrender of women, which he makes far too similar to modern prostitution.
One could also point out the customs of the Egyptian royals here.
The footnote following this reads
>There can no longer be any doubt that the traces which Bachofen thought he had found of unrestricted sexual intercourse, or what he calls “spontaneous generation in the slime,” go back to group marriage. “If Bachofen considers these punaluan marriages ‘lawless,’ a man of that period would consider most of the present-day marriages between near and remote cousins on the father’s or mother's side to be incestuous, as being marriages between blood brothers and sisters.” (Marx.) Fascinating, it seems Marx's views on this developed over time, but going back to the first footnote we could and see whether it is in Volume 46 of Marx's collected works.
If these things are too salacious, I can start a reading session on say Vitruvious just for you ok?
Anyway a promise is a promise, I'm going to read the earlier off topic writings in the thread and engage them thoughtfully, I'm not promising research most responses will be off the cuff.
>>18566 >What do you think of the "gay uncle" theory? Already said it was possible, and I have some further speculations, but this is beyond the scope of this thread, if you desperately want to have a some wild speculations about the evolutionary development of homosexual behavior, you can start your own thread.
>>18561 Already addressed this here
>>18595 but I'll expand a bit you argue that an increase in food supply is due to technology let's expand the definition of technology a bit so that finding new sources of food counts so your argument is entirely correct.
Nevertheless even giving this the development of new technology is neccesary but
not sufficient for "great epochs of human progress" rather it is the increase in food supply itself; Therefore Engels' point stands.
Basically you went off on an irrelevant tangent with faulty reasoning. If you can find another source of livelihood for the sake of the children, please don't teach. Thank you.
That's enough for now, I'll continue at my leisure.
Anonymous 12-07-23 10:06:18 No. 19019
>>18524 Referring back to
>I. Stages of Prehistoric Culture MORGAN is the first man who, with expert knowledge, has attempted to introduce a definite order into the history of primitive man; so long as no important additional material makes changes necessary, his classification will undoubtedly remain in force.
>>19010 So we've had our suggestive, confirmation of Morgan.
Key point to note on the matter:
* For several million years of evolution humans, chimps and bonobos were effectively an interbreeding population similar to the populations of African baboons, (a similar situation occured during the evolution of Homo sapiens).
Here we have a confirmation of the hypothesis.
Now
From page 19
>That vertebrates mate together for a considerable period is sufficiently explained by physiological causes – in the case of birds, for example, by the female’s need of help during the brooding period; examples of faithful monogamy among birds prove nothing about man, for the simple reason that men are not descended from birds. There is additional material here to address, Engels' notes in the text that the pairing habits of the other apes are unknown.
We now know that gibbons are monogamous
interestingly enough probably because they fill a similar ecological niche to songbirds Anonymous 22-07-23 13:36:09 No. 19903
Final point on page 44 before moving on to Chapter 3>Let us, however, return to Morgan, from whom we have moved a considerable distance. The historical investigation of the social institutions developed during the period of civilization goes beyond the limits of his book. How monogamy fares during this epoch, therefore, only occupies him very briefly. He, too, sees in the further development of the monogamous family a step forward, an approach to complete equality of the sexes, though he does not regard this goal as attained. But, he says: >>When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly since the
Anonymous 14-08-23 10:15:07 No. 20168
Well that was a nice holiday, now back to work.
Should have done this at the beginning my apologies.
From the Preface to the fourth edition, page 10
>[…] >Here Morgan takes the field with his main work, Ancient Society (1877), the work that underlies the present study. […] >[…] Bolding mine.
The book in question.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45950 Also attatched as an .epub
Anonymous 25-08-23 11:56:42 No. 20235
>All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they were bound to defend each other's freedom; they were equal in privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by the ties of kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity, though never formulated, were cardinal principles of the gens. These
Anonymous 10-09-23 10:06:23 No. 20483
>[…] Although there were many more matters to be settled in common than today - the household is maintained by a number of families in common, and is communistic, the land belongs to the tribe, only the small gardens are allotted provisionally to the households - yet there is no need for even a trace of our complicated administrative apparatus with all its ramifications. The decisions are taken by those concerned, and in most cases everything has been already settled by the custom of centuries. There cannot be any poor or needy - the communal household and the gens know their responsibilities towards the old, the sick, and those disabled in war. All are equal and free - the women included. There is no place yet for slaves, nor, as a rule, for the subjugation of other tribes. When, about the year 1651, the Iroquois had conquered the Eries and the “Neutral Nation,” they offered to accept them into the confederacy on equal terms; it was only after the defeated tribes had refused that they were driven from their territory. And what men and women such a society breeds is proved by the admiration inspired in all white people who have come into contact with unspoiled Indians, by the personal dignity, uprightness, strength of character, and courage of these barbarians.
Anonymous 08-08-25 01:47:03 No. 24765
Marxism proven, both mathematical and an isometric geometric proof
https://youtu.be/rAO4WKpjoKE # 评《吾》论美国文明衰落：传统中国哲学与现代科学数学概念的交融视角
> - 作者通过数学和科学隐喻，将抽象的哲学命题转化为可量化的系统分析，展现了独特的学术风格与跨学科思维。 > - 文本语言典雅，兼用简繁体，既保持传统文化韵味，又能清晰表达复杂科学概念。 > - 论证逻辑严密，通过现代科学理论与传统哲学的对照，揭示文明衰落的深层机制，具有一定的说服力。 > - 文本的结论指向美国文明新生的可能路径，强调内部改革与外部合作的必要性，但具体建议较为抽象，需进一步展开。 —
## 摘要
本文对一篇匿名作者“吾”所撰关于美国文明衰落的评论进行了深入的学术性分析。该文本以传统中国哲学的“天道”为核心框架，融合了深度学习、信息论、微分几何、博弈论等现代科学和数学概念，提出了美国文明衰落的五大系统性失衡：信息熵污染、系统内卷、虚妄度规、自指困境、道器分离。文本通过精妙的数学和科学隐喻，将抽象的哲学命题转化为可量化的系统分析，展现了独特的学术风格与跨学科思维。文本语言典雅，兼用简繁体，既保持传统文化韵味，又能清晰表达复杂科学概念。论证逻辑严密，通过现代科学理论与传统哲学的对照，揭示文明衰落的深层机制，具有一定的说服力。文本的结论指向美国文明新生的可能路径，强调内部改革与外部合作的必要性，但具体建议较为抽象，需进一步展开。
—
## 正文
### 一、文本核心论点与结构
文本的核心论点是：美国文明的衰落源于其基本存在论（本体论）偏离了传统中国哲学所强调的“天道”。作者通过五个系统性失衡现象，揭示这一偏离如何导致文明的衰落。文本结构清晰，分为引论、本论和结论三部分。引论部分提出问题，本论部分详细展开五大失衡，结论部分总结分析并提出新生路径的建议。
本论部分的五大失衡分别是：信息熵污染、系统内卷、虚妄度规、自指困境、道器分离。这五个概念既是传统中国哲学的延伸，也是现代科学概念的映射，形成了文本的理论框架。
### 二、关键概念分析
文本的关键概念融合了传统中国哲学与现代科学术语：
1.
信息熵污染 ：借用信息论中的熵概念，比喻社会信息系统的混乱与失序。熵在热力学中表示系统的无序程度，在信息论中则表示信息的随机性和无序性。文本中，信息熵污染指的是社会信息环境的混乱，导致认知和判断的失准。
2.
系统内卷 ：源于微分几何中的“内卷”概念，指系统内部的过度复杂化和自我消耗。在社会系统中，表现为制度和文化的过度内耗，导致效率下降和资源浪费。
3.
虚妄度规 ：度规是微分几何中衡量空间距离的工具，文本中用来比喻社会评价体系的虚假和失真。当度规失去真实性，社会的价值判断就会失去准确性。
4.
自指困境 ：引用哥德尔不完备性定理和自指逻辑，揭示社会系统在自我观察和自我调整时陷入的逻辑矛盾。这种困境导致系统无法正确认识自身，进而失去修正错误的能力。
5.
道器分离 ：道器之分是传统中国哲学的基本范畴，道指天道或自然法则，器指具体事物。文本中指的是社会系统的抽象规则（道）与具体实践（器）的脱节，导致系统失去内在和谐。
### 三、数学与科学隐喻的运用及其效果
文本的独特之处在于将现代数学和科学概念作为隐喻，用以解释社会和文明的现象：
-
深度学习 ：用于比喻社会系统的学习和适应机制。深度神经网络通过多层处理信息，类似于社会系统的多层次结构。文本中提到的“过拟合”问题，即模型过度复杂导致泛化能力下降，类比于社会系统过度内卷导致效率降低。
-
信息论 ：熵的概念被用来描述信息系统的混乱程度，直观展示了社会信息环境的失序状态。这种隐喻使抽象的社会现象获得了量化分析的可能。
-
微分几何 ：内卷和度规的概念帮助描述社会系统的内部结构和评价体系的失真。这些几何概念使社会现象的分析更具精确性和形象性。
-
博弈论 ：纳什均衡用于描述社会系统中各行为主体的策略平衡，揭示系统内部的竞争与合作机制。这种隐喻有助于理解社会系统的动态演化。
-
哥德尔不完备性定理 ：用于解释社会系统在自我观察时的逻辑困境，揭示系统内在的局限性。
这些隐喻的运用，使得文本的论证既有哲学的深度，又有科学的严谨，增强了论证的说服力和可信度。
### 四、历史与社会背景
文本的论证建立在特定的历史和社会背景之上：
-
冷战胜利 ：美国在冷战结束后成为唯一超级大国，这一地位带来的全球影响力和国内政策变化，是文本分析的时代背景。
-
消费主义 ：作为资本主义的重要特征，消费主义导致过度消费、资源浪费和社会价值观的扭曲，是文本中社会失衡的重要原因。
-
资本自由 ：新自由主义经济政策下的资本自由流动，导致市场逻辑渗透到社会各个层面，引发社会关系的商品化和公民社会的消逝。
这些背景因素为文本的论证提供了现实基础，使分析更具针对性和深刻性。
### 五、结论与建议
文本的结论部分总结了前文的分析，指出美国文明的衰落是一个系统性的过程，需要通过内部改革和外部合作来实现新生。具体建议包括：
-
内部改革 ：调整社会系统的结构和功能，减少内卷和信息熵污染，恢复真实的度规和价值判断。
-
外部合作 ：在全球范围内寻求文明的共同倡议，通过国际合作解决共同问题。
虽然建议较为抽象，但指明了方向，强调了系统性和全球性的解决思路。
### 六、语言与文风评价
文本的语言风格典雅，兼用简体和繁体字，既保持了传统中国哲学的文化韵味，又能清晰表达现代科学的复杂概念。这种语言运用使文本既有学术的严谨性，又有文化的传承性，增强了文本的可读性和美感。
文本的结构清晰，论证逻辑严密，通过现代科学概念与传统哲学的对照，揭示文明衰落的深层机制，具有一定的说服力。文本的结论和建议部分虽然较为抽象，但指明了方向，强调了系统性和全球性的解决思路。
—
## 表格：文本核心概念与现代科学隐喻对照
| 文本核心概念 | 现代科学隐喻 | 解释说明 |
|——————–|———————–|———————————————————————————————|
| 信息熵污染 | 信息论中的熵 | 社会信息系统的混乱和失序，导致认知和判断的失准 |
| 系统内卷 | 微分几何中的内卷 | 社会系统内部的过度复杂化和自我消耗，导致效率下降和资源浪费 |
| 虚妄度规 | 微分几何中的度规 | 社会评价体系的虚假和失真，导致价值判断失去准确性 |
| 自指困境 | 哥德尔不完备性定理 | 社会系统在自我观察和自我调整时陷入的逻辑矛盾，失去修正错误的能力 |
| 道器分离 | 传统中国哲学的道器之分 | 社会系统的抽象规则（道）与具体实践（器）的脱节，导致系统失去内在和谐 |
—
## 总结
本文对《吾》论美国文明衰落的文本进行了全面深入的分析。文本以传统中国哲学的“天道”为核心，结合现代科学和数学概念，提出了五大系统性失衡，揭示了美国文明衰落的深层机制。文本的独特之处在于其跨学科的思维方式和精妙的数学隐喻，使抽象的哲学命题获得了量化和系统化的分析。文本的语言典雅，结构清晰，论证严密，具有一定的学术价值和说服力。文本的结论和建议虽然较为抽象，但指明了内部改革和外部合作的必要性，为思考美国文明的新生提供了方向。
Anonymous 08-08-25 06:38:09 No. 24767
So anyway, today is chapter 6;
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch06.htm I will be back later after reading chapter 5; then 4 as we will be reviewing the chapters backwards for a change
Anonymous 08-08-25 07:14:09 No. 24769
>>24765 =>
鼎 <=> vessel / tool / form [to be filled] etc etc
Add dialectical and historical materialism and a decent knowledge of linguistics and boom a geometric proof of diamat <=
https://youtu.be/rAO4WKpjoKE Nota bene: Engel's reference to the artificial in relation to the origin of the gens Unique IPs: 38