This is a very succinct critique I found in a Youtube comment section: "Universities: We encourage you to think critically. Also universities: no, not like that." Now is the age of a fall of traditional institutions that have maintained reputation for so long. Either reform or loss of credibility. This is not simple polarization, but it is recognition of what was been the case for so long but has not been addressed as issues of substantial debate. Unfortunately, if bastions of knowledge and critical inquiry lose credibility, this can involve the damage of the dissemination of education. However, this is not simply saving these bastions in terms of solution, but recognizing the ways in which knowledge is disseminated and the issues in allowing attached academic hypocrisy to perpetuate.
I believe that structural incentives and disincentives are insufficient to conclude that people will be psychologically and behaviorally inclined to act accordingly in adherence to anarchist social structure. It is impossible to secure total adherence to any structure, especially one that demands mere incentivization and disincentivization. People are not purely rational thinkers resting upon such, and even in emotional contexts, it is impossible to align through incentivization-disincentivization people's behavior. It, in a precursory proto-manner, aligns with neoliberalism in the sense that the state is less powerful, but anarchism takes that even a step further and abolishes the state, which, you can imagine, results in a society that has to rely on structural aligning, which cannot be expected to be consistent, when humans are taken into account. AI has shown that alignment is very difficult (due to interpretation), and historical orthodoxies have shown that interpretation is so freely associative and naturally given to divergence that consistency in behavior from interpretation and responses of structural incentivization and disincentivization naturally becomes contingent upon some form of regulation, even if it might have not been originally such upon its establishment in theory. Welfare can do much in preventing abuse, but even in such a described society, expecting humans to maintain consistency just by structural incentivization and disincentivization is immediately open to scrutiny from psychology and studies of human behavior within structures (with accompanying incentives and disincentives) and groups. Then in this case, anarchism can be perceived as structuralism in the sense that it focuses on structure as an organizing agent instead of regulation from a state. But even in this case, theoretically, it can resemble plausibility, but psychology is quick to note that relying upon economic theories established upon foundations of rationality and consistency of interpretation will inevitably diverge from their original establishing theories upon constitution or through a charter. For an anarchist structure to emerge, similar to how discarding gravity is initially seen as a necessity in quantum theory (although gravity has been made, in one way, married through the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and, later on, through loop quantum gravity), discarding psychological variation in the realm of interpretation as an opposing, entropy-increasing factor has been then made prerequisite in its foundation or requisite in any visible recognizable maintenance. In conclusion, although my minimally constitutive characterization of the excerpted theory-components and concepts may be soon met by opposing or more grounded counterarguments: when viewing from this lens alone, relying upon structuralism from a theoretical standpoint pre-requires an academic 'reluctance' from entropy-seeking elements or underlying factors upon which human behavior is psychogenically founded, especially in its revealing praxis within the realm of political consideration and motivation, when it is contrasted and made distinct through structural incentivization and disincentivization.
of this level of quality, imagine that this level of quality is produced everyday for Roblox studies every single second, from an increasing accumulation of viewpoints and perspectives. Imagine a think tank within Roblox itself, using forum archives, Wayback Machine snapshots of Roblox, older games, and older Youtube videos of Roblox. Not only this quality but of varied types, especially systematic reviews which go over a multiplicity of articles and essays.
"Why is jazz music considered academic?" This question has led me down to reflect upon a current interplay between virtually opposing subsets of culture. I do not seek a response to this question here, but I mention it here as an introductory phrase and as the title of this reflection piece. To begin, I find it interesting that the winner of the 1970 Pulitzer Prize in Music—Charles Wuorinen—decried the awarding of the Pulitzer Prize in Music to Kendrick Lamar's album "Damn" in 2018, saying that it was the end of societal appreciation for high culture. What is academic or high culture, and what isn't? I was born right around the digital age with my formative years in the 2010s, so I honestly do not understand this sentiment. It feels reflective of a historical time when perceptions were largely confined to historical monolithic structures. Digital technology has upturned everything we know about historically, as people are being exposed to all kinds of music through the Internet, allowing little distinction for what constitutes academic or popular music and just giving people the time and day for all kinds of music. Awards have little power now, as digital consumption has deteriorated any separation between music and the people in the consciousness of those from this digital time. Skepticism toward traditional awards is typical now in Internet culture, and what constitutes experimental music has began to fade, in its esotericism, with the growing accessibility and proliferation of music in all shapes and forms, that even critics given a high platform are often expected to be loose and highly holistic, encompassing varied kinds of tastes from a wide lot of audiences. Everyday audiences, which are made clear by those opinions circulated within the Internet, are now a distinct population with a substantial majority sway apart from the minimal cultures Ivy League universities and other institutional concentrations of traditional adherents of such music and culture have attempted to perpetuate and disseminate, but have largely failed in gathering a big audience, often confined to specific classics, but mostly uninvolved in everyday consumption and critic consultation, even in being judged from the lens of Internet-born critics whose scope of attention in the dissemination of non-immediate (pop) music encompasses a large potion of music listeners in this digital age. In sum, the power structures have shifted toward democratization and holism away from a reliance upon consultation from traditional top-down criticism.
hmm... it is easy to cite real-life stuff like Philippines studies, but how about Roblox studies? What if I went into depth when it comes to studying Roblox history and culture through forum archives, older Roblox games, older Youtube videos of Roblox, and Roblox as it is saved on the Wayback Machine? Would that not be more difficult to substantiate and say it comes from a reliable journal? It would have to be informal and primary, and any secondary sources would likely not appear in a reputable journal, unless one researcher or scholar from a reputable journal about digital culture takes notice. It will probably be largely informal, and that's probably alright, since if there are no primary sources, then it would be futile to expect it being covered secondarily by reputable journals.
so a literature review would be gathering non-fiction books that mention people that sell taho and then referencing them in an article, citing each book for each characteristic of the taho-sellers described. then, since it is a secondary source, I can cite it on Wikipedia itself? Yeah, it needs to be a reputable journal, one probably related to Filipinology.
how to circumnavigate the original research problem? I mean in the case of Wikipedia with its policies against original research. I guess what I can do is write about it on a separate site and then wait until it gets mentioned and cited secondarily on a more official site? Is that in line with the policies? so citing in Wikipedia should cite secondary sources, ones that cite directly from my original research on my website, correct? then that means instead of placing my in-depth Roblox discoveries, research, and studies on the wiki of Roblox, I should place them on a website I made and then advertise it so that others can make secondary sources that reference my primary source. Then, I can cite those secondary sources in the wiki?
I don't know if it's possible, but I'm thinking of creating a digital think tank that serves as a base for research into particular areas of a site. It will be in the form of a group, and I will be the one dedicating most of the early efforts into establishing it and making sure that it is given a charter and all. A fuller delineation of my proposed efforts is detailed here: 'I have never really created and managed a digital community, as they are often nucleated around a singular interest. I have a Roblox group that was created around 2012, and I am now 21 years old. I wonder if such a thing can undergo reforms so as to be given a charter by myself and structurally altered in order to cater group games coded by myself to awaiting participants and newer members. I can create an HTML that delineates the purpose, intentions, and brief history of the group and its objectives for the future. This can be made clear through the introduction of games. the issue is that it is largely abstract, and if any future help and participation will be obtained, it might not occur through mere group loyalty and participation but through shared interest in one of the games, which might have become self-contained and separately intriguing apart from the group itself. I wonder if such a virtual space can resemble more stable real-life structures which are enabled through a government and even royally given duopoly status such as the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford. Developing such a community often rests upon its temporal nature and its more superficial interest in the games introduced and created, which then are contingent upon their capacity to gain players' interest. This reduces the group to a mere list of players who are interested enough to click a single button to join. I am not requesting exclusivity. I am requesting a more sophisticated, in-depth, and involved form of association, a group that recognizes its place within a larger digital sphere of games, but also provides its own unique place within the broader region of entities spread across Roblox. Removing its unseriousness and casualness will take comprehensive effort, and it will not be so easy to gain players that fit the qualifications. But even such a filter indicates that it is exclusionary in a sense, even if the intention is to secure the group's essence not as a mere list of players with shared interest but as a more in-depth virtual society or gathering aligning quasi-institutionally its members toward growth. In establishing the group, I will take inspiration from my own personal website, which comprises of my autobiography-journal, my fiction novels, my essays and articles, and other forms of non-fiction documentation.' But is it even possible? I know for sure that real-life think tanks are likely insufficient to cover digital culture in detail, so I hope to establish a digital think tank. But then, there is the issue of quality and qualification. In specificity, this will involve going into Roblox archives and older games and studying them, using older Youtube videos about these games and writing down as much as possible about them in a similar manner to a wiki, but more in-depth and involved. This will also involve using Wayback Machine as well.
I have numerous stories that I've left unfinished but are all very unique due to the fact that I was not so much exposed to or required to read popular books and only read books and written media available to me for most of my early life. But my mindset was also very unique, as it came from my very vast, involved life from 11 to 16 years old, which involved much traveling, much participation at events, and getting to know over a thousand people. I have many writings that show how I expressed myself uniquely, but I do not write that way anymore, as much of my recent writing has become modernized the more I got into the Internet and involved myself with pop culture, more specifically Internet culture. I'm a much more clear and linguistically aware writer today, as I have spent much of my recent years standardizing my language and upgrading precision with my wording. From my earlier writings, I noticed that I enjoyed experimenting with unique narrative structures, unique sentence structures, and unique vocabulary. During those earlier years, I often wrote surrealist narratives where little made sense, yet it maintained a sense of coherence through its language. Though this writing style only was the case for a time around 2019. In truth, my writing style was more amateur, normal, and straightforward in 2016 when I was 13 years old. But in light of the tumultuous changes in my life from 2017 to 2020, it makes sense that in around 2019, my language shifted much into that surrealist and linguistically experimentative style, that, even today, has invited further inspection and interest from me. It was around 2021 with the introduction of my current upgraded computer to today in 2024 that my style has shifted toward straightforward language again; however, I have maintained interest in surrealism, though in a much more straightforward level, and even incorporated themes of absurdism in my narratives. Moreover, I have began writing academically with my recent investigation into textbooks and my concentrated interest in them from a day-to-day basis. This has consolidated to form my writing style; though, there are unique mannerisms and flavors which are not so easily described.
It was on July or August 2021 that we bought my current computer. July was around the time that I had many viewers. I still remember well that I told them that I was getting a better computer and also getting a better server so it was not laggy.