Scientists have known that the world is a giant category ever since Karl Marx proved it in the 19th century. The denialism surrounding this revelation is just plain denialism. The reasons? Well that's a category unto itself.
What is a category? A category is two things. First, a category is a bunch of dots, representing objects. Second, a category is a bunch of transitive arrows between the dots. These arrows represent transformations between objects. So, two objects might be a blank manuscript, and then this very essay. This essay didn't used to be written, but now there it is. I am an arrow going between that blank manuscript and the manuscript of this write-up. Now we have an essay thanks to my miraculous arrowing of that blank scroll. I arrowed the hell out of it. I wrote the essay, son.
Marx's big idea was to apply categories to society. If an object is a people, then an arrow going from or towards that people is some oppression, that they are doing or had done to them by some other people. Class struggle is the order of the day.
Marx's big idea: Bourgeoisie ----the arrow of class oppression---->Proletariat
Marx's vision of the future: Proletariat---time and a revolution of the workers---->Bourgeoisie
Now, you may be asking..."well...didn't Marx say that without the fancy dots and arrows?" And you would be wrong. Marx had a broad theory of history, which encompassed BOTH arrows above in the same category...and not just between the two peoples above, but also the analogues, going between the simple feudal economic systems of the past at first...and then ending up between unimaginably complex and productive economic systems in the future, constantly duelling modalities for access to the fruits of the future. Right now we're between the Bourgies and the Proles...but at one time we weren't, and at one time we won't be. To add layers of complexity to the matter, if we take two objects with arrows going between them...if we squint our eyes a bit, we're dealing with just another object to oppress. This is what is called the dialectic, and the dialectic between capitalism and communism, say, can oppress the dialectic between socialism and anarcho-fascism. And this narrative can give another dialectic, which we can, again, oppress and be oppressed by, as its own object. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.
Back to Marx. Anyway, his is the dark mathematics of oppression and someday it will be our reality. Some day far hence, we will only be objects in a symmetric, monoidal 2-category. We will only be known by our membership in 16 classes of people and the complex web of oppression we engage in day by day. For real, I have seen the future and it is quantitative, granular group identification. It will be perfect. Trust me.
Now, we're ready for the balling. That's right. We're done talking about the mathematics of communism. It's time for the soul of capitalism.
I watched the first quarter and elements of the boring second quarter of the Cavs-Heat game last night. The second quarter, populated mainly by Mo Williams, personally loathsome Big Z, and other players not named Shaq, Dwayne, or LeBron, was much less interesting than the first, I have to say. Apparently the Cavs won or something, but the announcer was right: The first quarter was the bomb, one of the best NBA quarters I have ever seen. 35-33 Cavs. If they had held the Eastern Conference Finals then and now it would have been appropriate. In fact, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that that was the ECF, and the Cavs are just waiting for the Spurs to finish off the Lakers. The Cavs won on the pure emotional investment of that quarter, I think. Shaq played with more vigor than he ever has, and really seemed to enjoy the chemistry of the paint and fast, needly passes followed by hesitations. Shaq at one point nearly got an offensive foul in this quarter, and the sad young man that took the Big Man's hit was not the same for the rest of the first half, and by extrapolation will never be. Varajao was pretty good. He took the Heat in the paint. He got smashed by D-Wade like he didn't exist. But he recovered. And both of them got technicals, at some reason. And so did Mo. Mo was hitting them from outside, and there were some great passes, dunks, and alley-oops. Lebron and D-Wade duelled beautifully at the end of the first quarter, as if trying to impress Jordan and Pippen in the audience, who were inexplicably not sitting together. Jordan was sitting next to...Pat Riley...what the hell? At least if it were Sloan or Malone there would be a tangential connection, but...what? It was a very intense quarter. It felt like part of me was dying, and being oppressed at the same time, by a better part that was overtaking me, and at one point I became enlightened and connected directly with Shaq's mind and now I think the secret to life is oxygen. Unlimited oxygen.
What is a category? A category is two things. First, a category is a bunch of dots, representing objects. Second, a category is a bunch of transitive arrows between the dots. These arrows represent transformations between objects. So, two objects might be a blank manuscript, and then this very essay. This essay didn't used to be written, but now there it is. I am an arrow going between that blank manuscript and the manuscript of this write-up. Now we have an essay thanks to my miraculous arrowing of that blank scroll. I arrowed the hell out of it. I wrote the essay, son.
Marx's big idea was to apply categories to society. If an object is a people, then an arrow going from or towards that people is some oppression, that they are doing or had done to them by some other people. Class struggle is the order of the day.
Marx's big idea: Bourgeoisie ----the arrow of class oppression---->Proletariat
Marx's vision of the future: Proletariat---time and a revolution of the workers---->Bourgeoisie
Now, you may be asking..."well...didn't Marx say that without the fancy dots and arrows?" And you would be wrong. Marx had a broad theory of history, which encompassed BOTH arrows above in the same category...and not just between the two peoples above, but also the analogues, going between the simple feudal economic systems of the past at first...and then ending up between unimaginably complex and productive economic systems in the future, constantly duelling modalities for access to the fruits of the future. Right now we're between the Bourgies and the Proles...but at one time we weren't, and at one time we won't be. To add layers of complexity to the matter, if we take two objects with arrows going between them...if we squint our eyes a bit, we're dealing with just another object to oppress. This is what is called the dialectic, and the dialectic between capitalism and communism, say, can oppress the dialectic between socialism and anarcho-fascism. And this narrative can give another dialectic, which we can, again, oppress and be oppressed by, as its own object. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.
Back to Marx. Anyway, his is the dark mathematics of oppression and someday it will be our reality. Some day far hence, we will only be objects in a symmetric, monoidal 2-category. We will only be known by our membership in 16 classes of people and the complex web of oppression we engage in day by day. For real, I have seen the future and it is quantitative, granular group identification. It will be perfect. Trust me.
Now, we're ready for the balling. That's right. We're done talking about the mathematics of communism. It's time for the soul of capitalism.
I watched the first quarter and elements of the boring second quarter of the Cavs-Heat game last night. The second quarter, populated mainly by Mo Williams, personally loathsome Big Z, and other players not named Shaq, Dwayne, or LeBron, was much less interesting than the first, I have to say. Apparently the Cavs won or something, but the announcer was right: The first quarter was the bomb, one of the best NBA quarters I have ever seen. 35-33 Cavs. If they had held the Eastern Conference Finals then and now it would have been appropriate. In fact, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that that was the ECF, and the Cavs are just waiting for the Spurs to finish off the Lakers. The Cavs won on the pure emotional investment of that quarter, I think. Shaq played with more vigor than he ever has, and really seemed to enjoy the chemistry of the paint and fast, needly passes followed by hesitations. Shaq at one point nearly got an offensive foul in this quarter, and the sad young man that took the Big Man's hit was not the same for the rest of the first half, and by extrapolation will never be. Varajao was pretty good. He took the Heat in the paint. He got smashed by D-Wade like he didn't exist. But he recovered. And both of them got technicals, at some reason. And so did Mo. Mo was hitting them from outside, and there were some great passes, dunks, and alley-oops. Lebron and D-Wade duelled beautifully at the end of the first quarter, as if trying to impress Jordan and Pippen in the audience, who were inexplicably not sitting together. Jordan was sitting next to...Pat Riley...what the hell? At least if it were Sloan or Malone there would be a tangential connection, but...what? It was a very intense quarter. It felt like part of me was dying, and being oppressed at the same time, by a better part that was overtaking me, and at one point I became enlightened and connected directly with Shaq's mind and now I think the secret to life is oxygen. Unlimited oxygen.
"Categorical Marxism" is a concept I created for the sake of ranting about math and politics incoherently. The less said, the better.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, this game and the night before were apparently (according to half-credible Adrian Wojnarowski) a crucial moment in the recruitment of LeBron by the Heat, which is why Jordan and Riley were sitting together. So this post is kind of an interesting primary source into the inexplicable and the brilliant that combined to bring LeBron to the Heat.