Why don’t you just Gunkel the answer

Thanks for the plug!

Any effort is better than no effort at all! It’s is a powerful approach that is very deep and I will be writing about it more over the coming weeks. We have a few structured generators that are live… the site just launched in the last few weeks.

ggrp.org/labs.html

@words.bsky.social

Is this live? Would love to try it.

@norvid-studies.bsky.social @gracekind.net

Also known as “the cat bike guy” in my hometown of Falmouth MA

We don’t know each other, but believe me, I am working very hard on this.

That being said, since you are one of the only people in history who has ever written about and used ideonomy, some kind of contextualization/disclaimer seems like it would help, if only because it would ultimately point back to Gunkel’s original work and encourage further interest and discussion!

For Gunkel, what was most important was a community of scholars who could come together and make ideonomy real. For various fairly obvious reasons he could never pull this off, however. So he would have supported different views/approaches to the 236 divisions within that scholarly context.

Respectfully, this is not correct. For Gunkel negation meant canceling an idea and “seeing beyond” what seems to be a fixed concept. See the yellow glossary. Gunkel rated NEGATIONS as a very esoteric division meaning it’s more complicated than a simple opposite. Please write to me, Grace.