[SC] Where is the fine line between Simulationism and Realism?

The Honourable Sôgmô C. Soergel P. and Comrade Party Secretary Adam Camillus von Friedeck, in his own right king of Überstadt, frequently discuss matters of national, cultural, philosophical, and ideological concern. Today they discussed the fine line between simulationism and realism in terms of micropatriology, but the dialogue has been rephrased below as a series of propositions to protect the interests of the state.

Sandus is like Rome, or, is Sandus simulationist?

Proposition #1: With regard to our Sancta philosophy and culture, (1) Sandus is like Rome (2a) if only the Romans demanded constitutional monarchy ((2b) that is, what Polybius called a mixed constitution, or a republic) (3a) instead of the abolition of the monarchy ((3b) which is what happened). There are many sub-propositions here, but the primary one is that this is analogous to historical simulationism since it relies on one or more historical counterfactuals.

Question #1: But Sandus is not simulationist, it is a realist micronation. In what way is Sandus not a simulationist micronation, but a realist one whose most influential cultural view in effect results in a historical counterfactual?

Proposition #3: Some things that distinguish simulationism and realism, but also make them similar, are (1) logic, (2) discourse analysis, and (3) social psychology.

  • Sub-proposition a: Simulationism and realism are alike because they both have in this relative case as their inherent logical propositions an analogical historical counterfactual (Proposition #1), but:
  • Sub-proposition b: They are different in terms of their discourses, and discourse analysis helps to show further points of difference. They differ in their intentionality (simulationism) and non-intentionality (realism) and in their direction of fit. Simulation wishes to create a world based on a counterfactual (world-to-mind), while realism sees the world as it is (mind-to-world). But at the same time other elements of Sandum philosophy, like Sancta, encourage cultural independence, which can also imply an intentional statement: Sandus is not culturally independent, but it should be.
  • Sub-proposition c: Because these different micropatriological ideologies and philosophical propositions relate to different intentional states, they reveal, in some sense, something about the social psychology of micronationalists.

Question #2: How does that compare to Sandum realism’s own materialism?

Proposition #4: Sancta provides its own answer, despite being like simulationism since both rely on historical counterfactuals (Propositions #1 & #3.b). From a Sancta perspective, the intentional statement “Sandus is not culturally independent, but it should be” is an intentional statement, and the statement in Proposition #1 is a historical counterfactual, which is also a statement in Sancta philosophy.

Sub-proposition a: In a sense, Sancta and realism resolve one another here because Sancta and realism are both similar in that they are materialist. Realism is non-intentional but instead describes the world, while Sancta philosophy is intentional (Propositions #1 & #3.b) But see, we also have an answer. This is part of our mind-made cultural independence.

Sub-proposition b: Stated differently, one can also say that our culture arises dependently, a different school of thought. (That is, Buddhism, another part of our national philosophy.)