I'll be attending to how I read a post, any post, how my Divergent self works as a reading brain (as opposed to the Diachronic/Episodic selves on offer below in Bry Willis' post). It is an extended comment, but in from is just a series of episodic notes that follow the sections from:-

Willis, Bry. “The Administrative Soul.” Substack newsletter. Bry Willis. Web. 15 July 2026.

So read that first. It is really written for the writer Bry Willis. (look Bry! No AI!)

So thanks for th ekick up the bum this morning!

Good start with the copula, greasy pole that it is. We have some shared history there.

Not even read Galen Strawson so the Diachronic/Episodic phenomenology of self was interesting to read, especially with friends coming out with/as Severely Deficient Autobiographical Memory (SDAM).

My time at school as a student among many was dominated by ADHD episodic extenuations, my being suited to the ‘administration’s programme did not help. I tried explaining that to another friend diagnosed in the recent ADHD wave and they just stared at me. Apparently everyone is alone at school.

Also I’m likely to continuo-spectrumize the experience/s described as Diachronic/Episodic below though, if only because my divergence lumps them together.

Also also, restricting Diachronic to Diachronic=Power, i.e. truth=power, gives more power to Diachronic experience than it really has, or than it claims, even in exercising power. The institutions are not the experience. I guess that’s the power of stories, not analysis. See recent comment at "Truth and Social Reality: A Metaphysical Inquiry" - Aaron M. Griffith.

(that was a example of my divergent connective thinking style = inner self)(I know because when I make them --aloud in conversation, even between disjoint parts of their lives, they just stared at me)

In addition to the also also, My recent post moral development links back again to the fable, and modern literature’s fetish with character development in a narrative arc. We need more stories or value more types of story, and not just better versions of Pilgrim’s Progress. And I refuse to call it colonisation despite post-WW2 CIA backing for it. Reducing/restricting power=truth also removes agency from all animals, animality is what creates social institutions in the first place. Restricting worlding to administration may well be an imperial trajectory but we should reject its claims… —and criticism of it accepting that that is all ll there is in this world. Worlding is more than these various outcomes, vacuous, diagnostic or constructive, whatever their imperial narcissistic claim to be the be all and end all.

Now, where was I up to.

Identity as protocol.

I think ontologies are always empty, this makes them useful I guess.

This is my "animal grammar" versus your "ontological grammar" thing, again. I avoid the word ontology, and the word object. I prefer things.

The protocols things is interesting because it currently links in with reading of Ben Loomis at Gate of all mysteries on using ‘titles’ as one translation option for the name that cannot be named/titled, and Daoism quietist rejection of high offices in administrations.

Basic arguments

Many cultures punish not the soul to correct but for the world to re-balance. See pay-back in Australian Aboriginal systems. (Morality is another outcome of worlding, as such 'morality' varies and generally provides weak arguments which can give us analytically locked-in syndrome.)

Structured inheritance: the thinnest relation

Multiple inheritance in (c.f. programming) ontologies are still weakly constructive and not just diagnostic I’m afraid (it tells a story, and is not just a fable). It is interesting to note that it was first applied in what is known as Australian Series System in archival control metadata systems, a generation before programmers converged on similar ideas, with their 'ontologies', like in JAVA. Should do a google ngram on that word or two.

The genealogical thing generally… I more honestly promote instead a taphonomy of worlding. Taphonomy is the study of how things fossilise, in decay, in substitution, in use and in abandonment. It provides many more pathways of activity and (in)action, than the restrictive just-so stories narrated by empire nor episoded by the market. The world is a fossil of itself, and selfing along in it is how it arises and maintains that prosociality beyond the genealogical bottleneck of sex and the copula of identity.

My discovery or use of taphonomy begins at Divining the… —gap.

Genealogy is just another story, a way to world the self and self the world among others doing the same, multiplying the inheritance may just multiple the error, and not bootstrap the world at all.

See also Reading Joseph Henrich TWO : Social institution of the individual.

Now to the in-bold glossary-like paragraphs. So, yes, the empire loves restricting truth=power in its favour. That’s narcissism.

Necessity is not entitlement

Ah, Bergson!

Genealogy is not the record.

“ The genealogy answers a different question: why does an empty ontology remain compulsory? And the answer is that it is not sustained by argument at all. It is sustained by rhetoric where belief can be cultivated, and by coercion where it cannot.”

Hm, no, no, no, no this is the worlding urge that is, dare I say, colonised by empire, and in moulding the urge into morality, law, market, art, then replicates it self as an institution. It does not create the urge to world, just as a restaurant does not create the urge to eat.

It is not compulsory, it is available. What we must ask is in what conditions (taphonomy) is it likely to survive or maintain itself (niche construction in a fitness landscape --- the world is an extended phentotype afterall).

This is why taphonomy is a better diagnostic process and a better constructic (my bad new word for potential constructive effort, i.e. to world the self among others doing the same) effort generally. Diagnosis is always making up shit, another outcome of the worlding urge.

“Nor does power operate instead of morality, exactly; it conscripts the moral vocabulary as its rhetorical genre.”

Yeah, but no. It generates a moral vocabulary (social ontology) that masks it rhetorical claims. You can call both an ontology if you like but, it is really just dresses what we do anyway, only with blinkers and maybe a corset for the hunger pangs.

Ontology recapitulates ontogeny:- animal grammars, especially in prosocial species. if you favourite tool is a snare, everything looks like a rabbit.

Power arises as a derivative of prosocial processes, episodically (every dog has his day in the sun) and self-host parasitically, yes, but not apart from those processes, thus they can appear as a progentior of the process (and will claim they are born of the sun) but only in hindsight for a process that does not begin anywhere genealogically speaking fir it still has a taphonomic record (an least in the etymology of those social ontologies – like morality or religion or social institutions like churches/governments/empires which inscribe in the socially instituted individual their diachronic needs, but these are all, however comples, other (competing) derivative outcomes of the worlding urge). Geneaological processes are bad at mapping the prosocial processes of the species (we not only lack an organ for truth, we lack an organ for rhetoric).

“we need diachronic persons, therefore we are justified in maintaining them”

I guess we are betrayed by the history of surnames here.

Finally, I think all your 5 breaks can be covered by an investigation into taphonomy as a methodological improvement, rather than genealogical metaphors, even with multiple inheritance. I see them as an artifact of genealogy.

This will be classed in the Foucauldian-ish and analytical-ish lists here under this. (Bry, they could be fed into your AI efforts to generate my response in detail to your five Breaks.)

Crossposted at substack.com