Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+3 votes
a large part of the attraction towards math and anarchy (especially of the more playful, game oriented, nihilist sort) is that they both offer atheistically beautiful and very complex systems of thought and analysis, and operate within the same conventions and spheres of existence, yet i think a lot of the logic (though obviously not all) used by each play very different roles and/or are not interchangeable within each system. for example, a vector is the equivalent of the middle ground fallacy, which in ideological arguments produces illogical things like platformists, but in geometry produces a logical framework (it also seems that existence itself is either a bizarre loophole in the middle ground fallacy; as all life and everything that springs from it (anarchy included) is the middle point between non-existence and death), or either its a weird metaphysical use of a mathematical proof). because of their differences in application, its seems that both systems integral to interpreting the world on complementary physical and abstract levels.  

so, your thoughts? add-on questions might be, how do both frames of logic influence each other, and what similar reference points/points of conflict do they provide? is anarchy something that stems from the physics of a mechanical logic, or is it the reverse, or do you think the relationship is even worth analyzing?
by (1.0k points)
edited by
it was my understanding that there would be no math...
I have to say I am loving this question. It may take forever for me to formulate an answer, but so far so good. A vector is the equivalent of the middle ground fallacy... Platformists are produced when this fallacy enters ideological debates... Existence is a loophole in this fallacy, caught between non-existence and death... I could ponder this for ages.

@ingrate: Why?

1 Answer

+1 vote
Don't try and find parallels in mathematical analysis for social systems - mathematics/geometry does not produce an unambiguous logical framework, anyway. Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorems are the nub of the matter for me -
"The more famous incompleteness theorem states that for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (for example Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms." (wikipedia.)
Recall that Euclid axiom about parallel lines? Much mathematical endeavour was devoted to trying to deduce this axiom from the others Euclid set out, but it cannot be done. The axiom that parallel lines do not meet is independent from the others. Hyperbolic geometry for example uses a different axiom to good effect. Horses for courses!
by (140 points)