It’s the entanglement that evolves irreversibly. And the characters don’t have to be “rich” in a literary sense for this. In fact that’s often a liability. Even 2d caricatures that are terrible by rules of “good” character dev can drive historic narrative if entangled right
Conversation
This stuff is very hard. That’s why only a few cases have been solved analytically. For example evil twins from evil parallel universes who differ in social identity only by a goatee (van dyke actually...) is a surprisingly sophisticated device if you dig a bit into it.
1
2
“Good” and “evil” are shorthand codes/world-hashes for 2 different narrative equilibria, with a leak in either direction capable of restarting history. Good/evil is a property of the *entanglement* between the characters and home universes.
1
4
Importantly, social identity is *only* an address. That is why a trivial marker (facial hair) works to distinguish the two universes. It happens to be gendered but that’s unimportant. It could be a nongendered trait like long hair.
1
2
Interestingly, Marxist thought gets this whole idea in a degenerate way: “none of us is free until all of us are free” or “the oppressor requires liberation as much as the oppressed.” That’s a good special case of entangled history.
1
5
Where it fails is treating aspects of the context, like class, as immutable. A workers paradise isn’t classless. It’s a degenerate one-class, end-of-history society. To transcend class-structure, you need something with equal expressive power that preserves Turing-completeness.
1
12
Replying to
History doesn’t restart. Fukuyama looks like a dumbass for claiming it’s end. If it were to restart, truly impossible, it would only open us up to the same damn stories occurring over and over with even less self awareness or hope of transcendence.
1
Replying to
only secondary sources and a couple of lectures: I understand he himself has backed off from end of history talk
2
I view this thesis as an expression of Utopianism. It is the exact peak of a zeitgeist which we are now all reacting to the deficiencies of
2
Replying to
It isn’t. It’s quite the opposite. If you think that you’ve badly misunderstood it.

