continuing conversation on what anarchists have been saying

99 posts / 0 new
Last post
emile
continuing conversation on what anarchists have been saying

i realize that there is a common 'ethic', particularly strong on anarchistnews.org forums to label people as 'unreliable' on some basis or other, perhaps a single incident in their lives, and then to dismiss anything they have to say, on that basis, as if listeners are unable to make their own assessments of what is being said.

research into 'sacred geometry' as in 'alchemy' was something that Kepler and Newton delved into, which assisted them in the discoveries they made, which they presented in 'reduced form' and which furnish the foundations of modern astronomy. Kepler's three laws of planetary motion have a lot to do with alchemy (union of opposites) and Newton pivoted from those laws in formulating his three laws [he essentially re-developed them in linear Euclidian space based terms]. If randal carson was a druid priest, this would not detract from his design of stone-henge such that it celebrated the summer solstice and put people in touch with the epigenetic field of influence that we are all included in. One does not have to become a 'disciple' of the druid priest to enjoy his solstice parties.

what carson is investigating is the same 'deeper layer' that Ward Churchill is investigating when he refers to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as 'pushback' deriving from the manner in which Euro-American colonialism is conditioning our common living space, cultivating 'have' --- 'have-not' imbalances' with associated relational tensions that inductively actualize eruptions of violence such as 9/11. Indigenous anarchists, because their experience makes them highly conscious of living in this Euro-American colonizer conditioned relational tensional field, are quick to affirm Ward Churchill's view on 9/11, but those who profit from Euro-American colonialism are just as quick to limit their interpretation of the 9/11 attacks to simply binary moral judgement of the attackers, making them out to be 'independent beings' with their own internal jumpstart powers of authorship who are fully and SOLELY responsible for their eruptions of violence, meaning that there is no deeper layer and the shallow view of man in terms of 'independently existing ego-selves' and 'what we do' is 'all she wrote'.

Should we summarily dismiss the views of indigenous aboriginal 'savages' because they believe in the natural primacy of the deeper field of influence? David Bohm acknowledged that indigenous aboriginal languages, which are 'relational' rather than 'being-based', preserve the complex understandings that arise in modern physics, where noun-and-verb [being-based] languages fail to do so, and in fact 'trivialize' the relational complexity immanent in the physical reality of our actual experience. Is such summary dismissal of people based on the 'categories' we slot them into, not the product of Western inflated ego? The same reductionist thinking that depicts man as an 'independent being' and morally judges him on this basis, is the source of Western man's notional shrivelling of his 'big sagacity natural Self' down to a 'little sagacity ego-self' [Nietzsche].

No-one has to become a 'disciple' of Randal Carson to appreciate what he is saying about the problems with measuring CO2 in ice-cores due to gas losses during decompression [while bringing cores to the surface], and alternative CO2 measurement techniques which give much higher historical levels of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Carson's view that variation in cosmic rather than terrestrial influences on climate is shared by many of those investigators that have been put into the 'denier' category so that whatever they say can be summarily dismissed. Johannes Kepler would agree that the cosmos includes earth and planets as in an inhabitant-habitat non-duality and therefore, the 'terrestrial system' cannot be a system-in-itself [the notion that imputes the actions of the earth's inhabitants to be CAUSALLY MANIPULATING physical properties of the earth-system such as its surface temperature]. In other words, the terrestrial system is included in the cosmic system and only the cosmic system is physically real [the world is only given once] while the notion of a 'terrestrial system' is based only on 'appearances' in the manner of storm-cells in the atmosphere that get boiled up by solar irradiance. Analytical inquiry will superficially impute the development and behaviour to the relational features that boil up within the transforming relational continuum [the 'relational suprasystem'] to the relational features, just as in the systems theorist Russell Ackoff's example of the university in the relational suprasystem of 'community', making it appear as if the components and processes within the local university system are the source of the development and behaviour of the university-system and obscuring the physical reality wherein the epigenetic influence of the social dynamics in the relational suprasystem of community is inductively actualizing and shaping the emergence, development and behaviour of the university-system; i.e. the fact that analytical scientific inquiry can RE-PRESENT the university and/or the terrestrial system as a 'system-in-itself' [ignoring the predominating sourcing influence of the relational suprasystem it is included in] is nothing other than an illustration of the power of the word in constructing 'semantic realities' on the basis of our limited sense observing capabilities; i.e. the relational influence inherent in 'fields' non-local,non-visible and non-tangible, yet they are the deeper 'mother' of 'material dynamics' that are local, visible and material, but nevertheless 'secondary appearances' which noun-and-verb language-and-grammar can dress up to appear to be physically-real-in-themselves'.

“Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” — David Bohm
.
"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” – Erwin Schroedinger

Our intuition supports these observations by Bohm and Schroedinger, which are also implicit in much of what Randal Carson is saying. Western science and Western thinking has meanwhile locked on to the secondary appearances and is using noun-and-verb Indo-European/SCIENTIFIC language-and-grammar, to construct 'semantic realities' that elevate 'appearances' into an unnatural primacy over physical reality (the relational influence of field-dynamics). In other words;

“It is by logic we prove, it is by intuition that we invent. … Logic, therefore, remains barren unless fertilised by intuition.”- Henri Poincaré
.
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." --Alfred Einstein

thecollective
from emile

Single issue based controversies resolved via binary 'true or false' logic splits people into majority and minority. The 'democratic' principle of 'majority rule' gives the majority the right to make decisions for all. Thus we are forced to comply with the majority determined views, which, being 'logical', are inherently subjective and incomplete, such as the proposition that Saddam is an evil man and that the world would be better off if we eliminated him.

Like all imputed binary true/false issues, the geocentric versus heliocentric controversy has diddly to do with the physical reality of our actual experience. The determination of which is true and which false is intellectual and has no physical meaning. How could binary logic have meaning in a world given only once, as a transforming relational continuum? Logical propositions are inherently subjective and incomplete. You say that we are better off without Saddam? Is that 'true'? What does 'truth' have to do with the physical reality of our actual experience of living in a transforming relational continuum? Such 'truths' as arise from logical propositions, as Wittgenstein points out, are hollow 'tautologies' that teach us nothing.

"“the motions of the Universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view” of celestial dynamics, … “both views are, indeed, equally correct.” i.e. the geocentric and the heliocentric views are merely two “interpretations” of a Universe that “is only given once.” -- Ernst Mach

Mach goes on to warn;

“we … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.”

The issue of whether the universe moves around the earth or whether the earth moves around the sun has nothing to do with the physical reality of the world of our actual experience, it is a question of which of the semantic realities we construct is most convenient to us [delivers the most 'economy of thought]';

"And just as our Copernicus said to us : It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of astronomy are expressible in a much simpler language ; this one would say: It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of dynamics are expressible in a much simpler language. This does not preclude maintaining that absolute space, that is to say the mark to which it would be necessary to refer the earth to know whether it really moves, has no objective existence. Hence, this affirmation; ‘the earth turns round’ has no meaning, since it can be verified by no experiment; since such an experiment, not only could not be either realized or dreamed by the boldest Jules Verne, but can not be conceived of without contradiction; or rather these two propositions; ‘the earth turns round,’ and, ‘it is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round’ have the same meaning; there is nothing more in the one than in the other. “ — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Ch. VII Relative Motion and Absolute

If a majority of scientists affirm that 'heliocentricity' is the 'truth' and 'geocentricity' is 'wrong' and that people who 'deny' this [like AGW or Big Bang ‘deniers’] are not to be trusted or placed in positions of authority/responsibility, is this ‘majority rule’ really a good approach for managing the dynamics of social collectives or is it a bullshit game as Giordano Bruno suggests?

The ‘majority’ gets to determine ‘the semantic truth’ that will be employed as the ‘operative truth’ that will impact, if not govern, the behaviours of all, including minorities that disagree.

Note the subjectivity and incompleteness of the binary proposition; ‘The Saddam regime needs to be ‘taken out’’. This is like saying, “Hurricane Katrina needs to be ‘taken out’”. In both cases, there is no such ‘thing-in-itself’. What there is, is a complex of dynamic relations, ... a ‘relational feature’ in a transforming relational continuum, that we hang a word-name-label on and use it as a subject in the subject-verb-predicate constructs we use to fabricate ‘semantic realities’. ‘Democracy is a governance approach that employs ‘majority rule’ to ratify one ‘semantic reality’ as ‘the operative reality’, from a field of competing, proposed ‘semantic realities’. The implication is that the ‘wisdom of the largest herd’ has the best handle on ‘what is most true’, however, as Poincaré and Mach have pointed out, the selection is generally made on the basis of ‘what is most convenient’, which ends up affirming the principle of LaFontaine; ‘la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’.

There are hundreds of diseases a person may develop, and there are vaccines for a small number of these; e.g. for specific strains of influenza. The logic of science in this matter is subjective and incomplete; i.e. everyone must get vaccinated so that no-one will develop the particular disease. This is like spraying all apples with pesticide so that no-one will get a worm in their apple. But what effect does injesting this single-problem-solving ‘remedy’ do for one’s ability to deal with countless other challenges to healthy functioning? Perhaps eliminating the one will open the way for more troublesome others; i.e. there is no such thing as ‘eliminating’ a ‘thing-in-itself’ such as ‘the Saddam regime because there are no ‘things-in-themselves’, there are only ‘words’ that give such an impression. i.e. there is language-and-grammar that makes it seem as if ‘things-in-themselves’ really do ‘exist’ and thus can be ‘eliminated’.

That is a Euclidian view, and in the relational space of our actual experience wherein it is impossible to construct or destroy a house in the forest without transforming the forest, the only possible dynamic is the transforming of relations, and that is what ‘really went on’ where the subjective and incomplete logic of the ‘semantic reality’ promoted by the ‘majority’ contended that ‘the Saddam regime has been eliminated’.

Politicians need majorities to get hold of the reins of power that can make the whole herd dance the same dance, the dance of the elimination of the Saddam regime and/or the dance of economic growth, the elimination of terrorists [apart from ourselves who create the conditions fertile for the proliferation of terrorism] etc. etc.

Politicians fabricate semantic realities and seek a majority endorsement of them, but what relationship is there between these ‘semantic realities’ and the physical reality of our actual experience? The answer is ‘NONE.’ Our intuition informs us that that reason is inherently subjective and incomplete [it is pragmatic idealization that is not to be confused for the physical reality of our actual experience]. Indigenous anarchism keeps intuition in its natural precedence over reason. Western society, on the other hand, has allowed the tool of reason to run away with the workman [Emerson]. Or, as Einstein puts it;

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” – Einstein

intuition does not support the unnatural elevating of 'reason' as built into semanti realities affirmed by a majority vote process, over intuition. What intuitive does not see that Euro-American colonization has created conditions that are inductively actualizing 'pushback' that is labelled 'terrorism'? Of course it must be addressed, but it will not be eliminated by Euro-Americans because in order to eliminate it, the Euro-American colonizing powers who are the source of it must be eliminated [i.e. the Euro-American colonizing practices must be eliminated].

see Russell Means: For the World to Live, Europe Must Die

As Muhammed summed it up;

“It is only the lesser, outer jihad that is going on ‘against the demons in the world out there’, the greater, inner jihad is going on ‘against the demons in the world in here’.
.
Lesser outer jihad (al-jihad al-asghar); a military struggle, i.e. a holy war
.
Greater inner jihad (al-jihad al-akbar); the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self’s base desires"

thecollective
a comment from emile

epigenetic influence and genetic expression are a non-duality that is the source of evolving form [hierarchical structure].

why are there so many prostitutes and shoeshine boys at the bottom of a social hierarchy?

are they commanded to do these subservient to others activities, or is it 'in their genes'?

[starving woman speaking to group of males]; "I am starving and my children are starving. I am willing to do anything to earn money to feed and clothe my children. Can I cook for you, ... can I clean your house? ... can I paint your porch? ... can I dig your garden? .... what can I do?"

Within a hierarchy, epigenetic influence is the inductive actualizer of genetic expression [how things develop and what they do]. This is the Lamarckian model of evolution [how hierarchical structures evolve] and it differs from the Darwinian model in that the Darwinian modelers observe 'genetic expression' and then applies analytical/scientific reasoning that drills down and in, in search of inside-outward pushing 'causal agents' that can be held responsible for the observed 'genetic expression' [the development and behaviour of things].

The Western scientific mindset is Darwinist and it puts 'reason' into an unnatural precedence over 'intuition'.

If the world is the natural world and opens up to a person and gives them access to many different environments, immanent in these environments are 'epigenetic influences' that inductively [outside-inwardly] actualize creative potentials, shaping their development and behaviour.

social hierarchies do not really 'control' by information-based coercion; i.e. by commanding people to do what those on the top say [this picture of command and control is after-the-fact 'analytical backfill'].

social hierarchies are 'powered by inductive influence like hunger, deprivation [unemployment] which denies access to people to a full variety of action-inspiring environments on a selective basis. A group of male cronies may not want to give the desperate woman access to a cooking or cleaning environment since she will then no longer be desperate and willing to 'do anything'; i.e. they may want to close down all her portals to nurturing environments so that she will ultimately guess, as she watches them go wink-wink, nudge-nudge to one another, what it is that she can do for them that will deliver up food for her starving children.

In exploring the 'controlling factors', we may say that 'the system is coercive' and that 'it forced her, or that 'prostitution is in her genes', that women are basically sluts and that this eventually shows up.

But not everything can be attributed to 'genes', internal information directing development and behaviour that pushes itself out from the inside. E.g. how is it that cells with identical DNA (identical creative potentials) can develop differently depending on the environments they are situated in? Stem cells may develop into muscle, bone or fat depending on the environments they are situated in.

Binary logical thinking induces people to ponder over how much influence on development and behaviour ['genetic expression'] is due, respectively, to; 'nature' (genetic creative potentials) or 'nurture' (environment as the source of inductive influence).

The findings of modern physics suggest that the world is an energy-charged plenum, a transforming relational continuum and that the development and behaviour of organic forms is like the development and behaviour of storm-cells in the relational dynamics of the atmosphere-plenum; i.e. the 'genetic expression' or forming storm-cell, is secondary appearance and the physical reality from which it derives is epigenetic influence immanent in the transforming relational continuum. In other words, the sense that there is inside-outward sourcing of development and behaviour is 'illusion'. Like the storm-cell that forms in the relational dynamics of the atmospheric plenum, inhabitant and habitat are a 'non-duality'.

As we know from our experience of living in hierarchical social structures, access to the full range of dynamic environments is selectively denied or 'masked out' for the black shoe-shine boy and for the desperate, starving woman, and this selective de-accessing to the full diversity of situational involvements/engagings, serves to stunt and deform their natural development and to suffocate and 'deny them a life'. By all appearances, to the outside observer, it looks as if they are being forced or commanded to 'stay in their place' and perform subserviently for others who are 'above them' in the hierarchy. In other words, it looks as if there is a positive causal force that is 'making them behave the way they are, the other option being that their genome is deficient and they lack the 'right stuff' to develop into those types that can be seen higher up the social hierarchy.

But the primary force is a negative causal (inductive) force rather than a positive causal force; i.e. fielding is the primary actualizer and shaper of their 'hitting'. The Darwinist paradigm constrains Western 'orthodox' thinking to terms of 'information' - based development as in 'producer-product teleology'; i.e. the acorn is stashed with information and natural drive to explode outwards into an oak tree. the outside-inward influence is seen as passive as in a 'fertile environment' that the active organism can 'feed on', ... the impetus for developmental shape-forming and behaviour-shaping coming, notionally, from the interior of the organism.

Note that 'storm-cells' are inhabitant-habitat NON-dualities that don't have a discrete binary inside and outside since they are relational forms in a transforming relational plenum. The semantic reifying of relational forms, as in Western science and Western religion, forces the assumption of producer-product teleology as in acorn to oak tree, denying the inherent natural primacy of outside-inward [negative causal] epigenetic influence.

understanding the dynamics of hierarchies is impossible without acknowledging the primacy of epigenetic influence that is the primary influence ['control'] in the development of forms.

"“Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” — David Bohm

anarchyisorder (not verified)
hierarchy

Hierarchy is a deficiency disease? That would make sense.

MUAHAHAHAHAAA (not verified)
YES HIERARCHY IS ALWAYS

YES HIERARCHY IS ALWAYS THE deficient humility TRYING TO MAKE ITSELF known. I AM THE KING OF nihilists because my humungous nothingness, YEEEEEE-EEEESS, MY HUMUNGOUS HUMILITY MUST be given supreme recognition, THEREFORE KING I BE OF MY GIGANTUOUS HIERARCHICAL NOTHINGNESS, I AM A DISEASED KING MUAHAHAHAHAAA

SirEinzige
Ego vat in a jar

Are you per chance his one and the same successor?

emile
re: hierarchy is a deficiency disease

Western thinking is always in the one-sided terms of 'what things do' as if space were a vacuum [i.e. as if it were an absolute space and absolute time reference frame]. Dynamics, in Western thinking, are depicted as 'all-hitting', 'no-fielding'. We measure what the 'big hitters' do and attribute their power and trajectory/steering to them, attributing nothing to the inductive influence of the relational dynamics they are included in [the 'fielding'], since, as Galileo pointed out, it is far easier to assume that things are operating and interacting in a void.

Nevertheless, in the physical reality of our actual experience, 'fielding' or 'epigenetic influence' is always in a natural precedence over 'hitting' or 'genetic expression'. What is being discovered in modern genetics [i.e. 'epigenetics'] follows what was discovered that enabled the shift from 'vacuum tube amplifiers' to field effect transistors. We used to think of electrical flow as the flow of electrons, then, instead of trying to arrange for the electrons to move in a vacuum, we arranged for semiconductors to supply 'holes' or 'electrical deficiencies' that inductively actualize 'genetic expression'.

Everything in nature is deficiency-induced. As John Locke observed in his Two Treatises of Government, a man should have no more land that he can personally manage. The creation of deficiency of access to the essential resources of the land inductively actualizes wage-labour, and the more land a man owns, the more wage labourers he needs to exploit it, setting up a deficiency based hierarchy that rises all the way from the serf to the king.

Of course, we say that those higher up the hierarchy have more power since they have power over more people and the king has power over everyone 'in the land'. But it is all deficiency based.

Imagine that humans really were 'independent' and had nuclear power cells to power them that didn't need refuelling for a thousand years, or that they all won the lotto. Without 'deficiency', there is no power and no hierarchy. The ego of those who become powerful through cultivating deficiency in others [e.g. by monopolizing access to the resources of the land] will insist that the 'power' of the individual derives from the 'right stuff' in the interior of the powerful individual. This is bullshit. Deficiency ain't never been photographed and it is not visible on a hierarchical organization chart, but it is what gives rise to 'power'.

If everyone gets a nuclear power cell installed or wins the lottery, the power of position that announces itself from one's business card or the size of one's desk and office; i.e. that announces the chain of command that is supposedly responsible for keeping the hierarchy functioning, will go into free-fall.

so, yes, hierarchy is a deficiency disease.

thecollective
comment from indiscriminate anarchists

“How I dream sometimes of a world all in harmony: each tendency based in its own initiative, without clashing with another; without humiliating themselves, in order to be stronger tomorrow, when we should all run toward the great battle of the revolution! But all of that is only a dream.”

This ‘dream’ is one of those where; “when we dream together, it is reality”.

Language furnishes such a ‘dream-together’ medium. If we use language to categorize ourselves as members of a special group that deserves special privileges in society, when we dream this dream together, it may become reality.

Categories do not exist in relational languages. If you want to know what a thing is, you investigate its relations. One of the common properties of the sea otter is that it has the warmest fur;

“With up to a million hairs per square inch, otter fur was prized for its softness and warmth—the warmest in the animal kingdom. For comparison, we only have about 100,000 hairs on our heads”

relational inquiry into the sea otter exposes that it is a ‘keystone’ species; i.e. it plays a vital role in an interdependent relational matrix or ‘ecosystem’;

“Without sea otters to control the urchin population, the giant kelp forests would disappear and the entire ecosystem would collapse”.

Taking sea otters out of the Pacific Northwest was akin to what may associate with taking mexican illegal aliens out of the southern US or taking Saddam’s regime out of Iraq; logically , the action taken is the simple elimination of a number of members of a category of beings or things-in-themselves, the net effect of which would be to reduce the population of that category, but in the physically real RELATIONAL world, major, unanticipated relational transformation may occur as ecosystems collapse.

The problem with English is that when it tries to grapple with abstractions and categories it tends to trap the mind into believing that such categories have an equal status with tangible objects. Algonquin languages, being for the ear, deal in vibrations [waves] in which each word is related directly, not only to process of thought, but also to the animating energies of the universe.
.
[in modern physics] It is impossible to separate a phenomenon from the context in which it is observed. Categories no longer exist in the absence of contexts.
.
Within Indigenous science, context is always important. Nothing is abstract since all things happen within a landscape and by virtue of a web of interrelationships. The tendency to collect things into categories does not exist within the thought and language of, for example, Algonquin speakers.
.
This leads to a profoundly different way of approaching and thinking about the world. For, in the absence of categories, each thing is mentally experienced on its own merits, and for what it actually is. Rather than indulging in comparison or judgment, Indigenous speakers attempt to enter into relationship with them.” –Blackfoot Physics, F. David Peat

“The proletariat” and “the bourgeoisie” do not exist. Some people are proletarianizing and some people are bourgeousieing as in patterns of relational activity, but there is no such thing in one unitary package as a ‘proletarian’ or a ‘bourgeoisian’. One could not eliminate a bunch of proletarians and/or a bunch of ‘bourgeoisians’ or mobilize them in as a united ‘herd’ just as one cannot eliminate a bunch of sea otters or collect them together to go on the attack. They do not ‘exist’ as ‘things-in-themselves’. They ‘exist’ only within relational networks [ecosystems]. Or, more accurately, relations are the source of things, rather than things being the source of relations.

“[In nature]… “the individual parts reciprocally determine one another.” … “The properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,” … “Every single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.” Therefore, no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” – Ernst Mach

Indigenous anarchists do not think of themselves as ‘independent beings’, but rather as strands in the interdependent relational web-of-life. It is the habit of thinking of ourselves as ‘independent beings’ that is the source of dysfunction in Western society.

We can use the ‘being’-imputing word ‘sea otter’ in semantic constructs such as; “we plan to kill 1000 sea otters this season” and this logical proposition will be ‘proven’ true by putting on display 1000 sea otter pelts, however such a proposition is only meaningful if the qualifier ‘ceteris paribus’ (all other things remaining the same) holds true, and it does not and cannot possibly hold true).

Common property based categories that give synthetic ‘semantic being’ to relational entities manufacture a semantic pseudo-reality that is nothing like the physical reality of our actual experience.; the proles can’t overthrow the bourgies because they are not two different existences; they are two relational patterns of activity that are reciprocally complementary rather than independent.

thecollective
from emile in totw: anarchist principles

The retired US general/s on US media news programs who expound on strategies for the eliminating of terrorists by a long program of smoking them out and exterminating them, ... is not ready to face up to the 'reductionist nightmare' that HIS ACTIONS are the engendering source of terrorism. Winston Churchill and other military-minded European leaders never would admit that their racist views of Germans [as incorrigible war-makers that must be permanently knee-capped] culminating in the highly punitive 'Treaty of Versailles' (1919) that sourced the springloading of pushback known as WWII. Not only were they never able to admit it, they found heroes roles in their continuing denial of it and in their 'told you so' bragging rights.

There are some basic problems of logic going on here which can be found in the statement;

"Anarchists who don't believe in 'being' will never say "I am an anarchist" and they will never maintain that the unifying of a large number of anarchists will causally determine needed changes in the world".

The 'reductionist nightmare' is implied in this statement and also an error of logic since the grammatical role of the 'subject', 'Anarchists', already implies that 'anarchists exist' and have their own views on things such as the rejection of 'being'.

This is not to say that there are NOT relational forms [e.g. human forms] with the power of transforming the world they are included in, only that such forms are like sailboaters rather than powerboaters [figureheads rather than fountainheads] that derive their power and steerage from the relational dynamics they are situationally included in [in other words, inhabitant/figure and habitat/ground are a non-duality]. This is the understanding incorporated in Oriental martial arts and in Taoist anarchism, wherein the relational dynamic one is included in is the source of one's power and steerage in engaging with it. Anarchists in this Oriental martial arts sense do not claim to be 'things-in-themselves' or fountainheads of their own development of power and steerage. The do not use the little sagacity ego-self words "I am" an anarchist.

There is no need to impute 'being' [things-in-themselves] as the basic authoring source for the relational social dynamic; i.e. relational tensions can 'vent' through relational forms in the manner of pressures within the atmospheric flow that vents through 'storm-cells', which, like eruptions of terrorism, we tend to semantically invest with 'subjecthood' and 'causal authorship' [fountainhead status], ... and this semantic granting of thing-in-itselfness aka 'being' to agents of transformation that are venting relational tensions [rebelling slaves, colonized indigenous peoples who are in pushback mode etc.] implies that these subjects are the source of their own development and behaviour, so that the challenge of eliminating 'terrorism' can be thus seen as equal to the challenge of eliminating 'terrorists'.

The 'reductionist' nightmare is where we discover that these 'things-in-themselves' which we depict as the causal agents responsible for the way things are 'do not really exist' so that the harder and deeper we dig down to root out the causal authorship of effects we don't want, ... we can never get to the bottom and finish the job of rooting these purported deeply rooted causal fountainheads out, ... because the sourcing is, in physical actuality, not to be found 'down and in' but is instead outside-inwardly inductively actualized. It is inductively actualized by the 'rooting out' actions of the Generals. Thus the quest of the Generals is Sisyphian and futile.

Nietzsche's prediction of the collapse of Western society's unnatural elevating of reason over intuition can also be stated in terms of 'awaking' to the reality of the reductionist nightmare.

Racism and identity politics are also troublesome phenomena tied up with the faulty logic of creating notional local 'beings' or 'things-in-themselves' by measuring their common properties so as to avoid having to understand them by the web of relations they are situationally included in [as is the approach to understanding human and other forms by people with relational languages and worldviews].

'categories' are an 'abuse' of logic which induced Poincaré to remark; "'Cantorism' (the mathematics of sets/categories) is a disease that mathematics will have to recover from".

The problem is that categories have to presuppose the existence of themselves. Categories are defined by the common properties that allow the identification of a member in the category. The problem is, in order to measure 'common properties', one has to examine a multiplicity of members so as to measure their 'common properties'.

Wait a minute, ... how do we select members to get their common properties that will allow us to determine what a member is, before we have a definition in hand to inform us who is, and who is not, a member? If the slave-masters are constantly hounding slaves in their efforts to 'root out' the rebels among them, if some of the harassed slaves hit their tolerance threshold and violently vent (pushback against the harassers), the supply of rebels might be bottomless.

This is akin to trying to root out the ultimate meaning of a word by doing dictionary look-ups which refer to other words which require more dictionary lookups which network into more words to look up to the point that the root source of meaning never bottoms out [is 'indefinitely deferred', as in Derrida]. This is the 'reductionist nightmare come true', and the general social awakening to this is ongoing as we speak.

Just as we like to suppose that bad deeds bottom out in the doer holding the smoking gun, capitalism supposes that good deeds (production of goods) bottoms out in the producer holding the smoking gun, whereas in both cases, good deeds and bad deeds, if we look into it, there is no bottoming-out at all, and the alleged 'fountainheads' of 'good deeds' and 'bad deeds' are shown to be only 'figureheads' like those words we tend to think of being 'fountainheads' of meaning when they are only figureheads within an unending relational matrix of supportive referrals.

Anarchism is 'never having to say I AM an anarchist'. The Taoist-anarchist employing oriental martial arts is never claiming that he is the fountainhead author of change, but instead, an agent of transformation that derives his power and steerage from the relational dynamics he is situationally included in.

thecollective
from emile in totw: anarchist principles

do you not think it's funny (funny-curious) that so many Western educated people ignore folks like Bohm and R.A.Wilson and others, ... in discussions such as this where it is common to assume a binary break between 'people' and 'machines', ... Bohm et al pointing out that such over-simplification comes from the semantic imputing of 'being' to relational forms in the transforming relational plenum?

If you see an automated factory and a human standing beside it, do you believe that that these are two separate things? I know our language depicts them as 'separately existing things-in-themselves' or 'separate beings' just like it depicts 'The United States' and 'Mexico' as separate things-in-themselves.

As Nietzsche and McLuhan pointed out, they may be 'logically' separate, but nothing is separate in a relational world. There is no such entity in the physical reality of our actual experience as a 'thing-in-itself'. How could there be 'separate things' in a transforming relational continuum, an energy-charged relational spatial plenum in which Mach's principle prevails: i.e. wherein "the dynamics of the relational forms (inhabitants) are conditioning the dynamics of the relational space (habitat) at the same time as the dynamics of the relational space are conditioning the dynamics of the relational forms" -- Mach's principle

In other words, does your experience-based intuition not tell you that the factory dynamic is conditioning the common living space dynamic and the human dynamic is conditioning the common living space dynamic at the same time as the common living space dynamic is conditioning the factory dynamic and the human dynamic?

Do you not therefore understand that the words 'factory' and 'human' are bookmarks for entities that [along with all entities] are developing under one another's simultaneous mutual influence, mediated by the relational dynamics that both [and ultimately all] are included in?

And do you not therefore understand that the words 'United States' and 'Mexico' [like all state word-labels] are bookmarks for entities developing under one another's simultaneous mutual influence? [i.e. as in an ecosystem wherein relations are the basis of things, rather than things being the basis of relations].

Or, do you prefer to accept the being-based depictions of semantic reality 'as real', understanding each named entity as a 'separate thing' and constructing a 'semantic reality' constituted by notional 'separate things' and 'their actions' that reside, operate and interact in a notional theatre of operations [habitat] that is independent of the independent-inhabitants' that reside, operate and interact within it?

How hard did Einstein (and Mach and Bohm and Schroedinger and Nietzsche) try to break people out of confusing semantic reality for physical reality? e.g. Wasn't Einstein banging his shoe on the table to get our attention in saying;

"Space is not Euclidian’ … “Space is a participant in physical phenomena” … “Space not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.”, … “the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g(μ,ν), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.”…”Relativity forces us to analyze the role played by geometry in the description of the physical world.” . . . “A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone” —Albert Einstein."

perhaps people think he was joking?

Or is it a joke, instead, for people to believe that the factory and the human are two separate things so that we can understand them separately; i.e. an engineer can explain to us what a factory is and a biologist can explain to us what a human is, so that it appears possible to understand the physical world in terms of the diverse forms or 'material entities' within it and what these material entities do, as if they are things-in-themselves, as in the semantic realities we construct by imputing 'being' to each of them, thanks to seeing them as inhabitants of a 'space' that is 'independent' of the things that reside within it.

i agree, there is something laughable in all of this, but where exactly?

thecollective
from emile in totw: anarchist principles

if we see a man and a machine standing side-by-side, we may ask 'did machines come into existence before or after man?'

punchline: - plurality of being is implied by the words 'side-by-side' which establishes a basic reference point by assuming 'two things' while 'before and after' imply 'the passage of time' aka 'progress'. these two expressions ['side-by-side' and 'before-and-after'] define the notional existence of absolute space and absolute time as a container for 'independently existing things'. While 'relations' are directly experienced, neither space nor time can be experimentally (experientially) shown to exist.

So, the joke is on us, thanks to the manner in which language constructs semantic pseudo-realities.

relational languages [eg. the languages of indigenous aboriginals] have no concept of 'being' (things-in-themselves) and they are 'timeless'; i.e. there is only 'earlier' and 'later' in the dynamic one-ness of a transforming-in-the-now relational continuum.

as for 'machines', they are concepts we impose since purely mechanical actions are impossible. they are like the limit in an attempt to turn a sailboat into a powerboat so as to eliminate the dependency of the sailboat for its power and steering on the relational dynamics it is situationally included in. installing a nuclear power source would seem to take it towards that limit where we can 'Declare' it to be 'Independent' and thus the full and sole source of its own actions. However, so long as the machines are features in a fluid medium, they are conditioning the behaviour of the medium at the same time as the behaviour of the medium is conditioning their behaviours, ... so that they fall short of attaining 'Independence' in which they are fully and solely responsible for their own behaviours.

Inhabitant-habitat interdependence [non-duality] greatly complexifies discourse [semantic reality constructing]. It is far simpler [far more thought-economical] to address the world dynamic [it is far simpler to construct semantic realities] imposing the idealization of 'independent being' to 'dualistically' liberate the inhabitants from the habitat. This 'pragmatic idealization' that delivers a major 'economy of thought' has become a default Western culture 'convention'.

The semantic RE-rendering of a relational complex in which there is inhabitant-habitat interdependence [non-duality] in the abstract idealized 'dualist' terms of a fixed space and time operating theatre inhabited by 'independent material entities', reduces the relational world dynamic, notionally [by way of constructed semantic realities] to a purely mechanical [Newtonian] dynamic. science, scientists and logicians have been particularly partial to perpetuating/promoting this 'joke' since it allows jokesters to manufacture 'semantic realities' based on 'what thing things do' as if things are the fountainhead determinants of 'what will be' (future being). Semantic realities can be constructed in the form of 'what-the actions of-independent-things causally determine' predictions that appear 'certain'; e.g. 'this drone will eliminate that person', ignoring the 'externalities' engendered in the real physical-relational world that go unaddressed in the scientific formulating of "twenty pound theories from ten pound assumptions" [the 'independence of relational forms that populate a notional absolute space and absolute time 'operating theatre' is a 'ten pound assumption'].

as the NRA says, it is a joke to say that 'guns' (machines) kill people. the NRA says that 'people kill people'.

On the global front, some say that selling weapons into regions where there are relational tensions kills people. in fact, the world overall is relationally tensioned by imbalances between those who are colonizing and those who are being colonized. given that there is one global population [in an unbounded spherical space] at odds with itself, we could say that 'people (terrestrials) are killing themselves', or else, since the killing appears to persist generation after generation, ... that 'the venting of relational tensions' is killing people.

so, the joke would appear to be 'on us' in that, in looking for the authorship of conflict, we are confusing 'things' for 'relations', 'things' being only 'vents' for release of relational tensions [Emerson]; i.e. we are confusing figureheads for fountainheads. the 'fountainhead' view of self is the 'machine' view of self.

As Nietzsche has pointed out,while our big sagacity natural Self would have us understand our 'self' in non-dualist sailboater [figurehead/venter] terms, our little sagacity ego-self has us understanding our 'self' in dualist powerboater [fountainhead/machine] terms.

the powerboat/machine view of self and relational forms in general is the limit of the physical sailboater as the notional viscosity of the fluid medium goes to zero and Mach's principle [relational, non-duality] effects notionally 'go to zero'.

thecollective
from emile in totw: anarchist principles

reading different philosophers can equip you in the manner of a chess player; i.e. to defend argument (a) with the defense worked out by philosopher (a) and to defend argument (b) with the defense worked out by philosopher (b)

on the other hand, reading different philosophers can inspire focus and tease forth resolution in one's own unique way of thinking. in which case, limiting the field makes no sense since the object is to end up with one's own philosophy and never be dependent on one's sources. citing philosophers, in emile's case, is not to convince others of the truth of what the cited philosophers are saying, but to inductively actualize the reader's creative potentials that he may arrive in the same place 'on his own steam';

Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, 1533-1592 Of the Education of Children (1580)

"Let him make him examine and thoroughly sift everything he reads, and lodge nothing in his fancy upon simple authority and upon trust. Aristotle’s principles will then be no more principles to him, than those of Epicurus and the Stoics: let this. diversity of opinions be propounded to, and laid before him; he will himself choose, if he be able; if not, he will remain in doubt.
.
“Che, non men che saper, dubbiar m’ aggrata,” ["doubting pleases me not less than knowing"]
.
for, if he embrace the opinions of Xenophon and Plato, by his own reason, they will no more be theirs, but become his own. Who follows another, follows nothing, finds nothing, nay, is inquisitive after nothing. “Non sumus sub rege; sibi quisque se vindicet.” ["We submit to no king, let each look to himself"] Let him at least, know that he knows. It will be necessary that he imbibe their knowledge, not that he be corrupted with their precepts; and no matter if he forgot where he had his learning, provided he know how to apply it to his own use. Truth and reason are common to every one, and are no more his who spake them first, than his who speaks them after: ’tis no more according to Plato, than according to me, since both he and I equally see and understand them. Bees cull their several sweets from this flower and that blossom, here and there where they find them, but themselves afterward make the honey, which is all and purely their own, and no more thyme and marjoram: so the several fragments he borrows from others, he will transform and shuffle together to compile a work that shall be absolutely his own; that is to say, his judgment: his instruction, labor and study, tend to nothing else but to form that. He is not obliged to discover whence he got the materials that have assisted him, but only to produce what he has himself done with them."

if you are saying what Montaigne is saying [i.e. 'no Gods, no masters, no fountainheads'], agreed, ... but the following spook-filled melange looks less like the honey-bee synthesis and more like franken-philosophy.

"Science and technology are actually greater co-factor determinants of power then capital/capitalism is because it metamorphosizes out of church and state and evolves concurrently with capital."

SirEinzige
'Spook-filled'?

I don't see how explaining co-factors of power and which bases which is 'spook-filled'.

emile
social/relational forms are not fountainheads of power

you have earlier spoken about 'creative voids' being primary and the problem that language creates spooks based on 'appearances', but i don't see any of that in your comment that i cited, where you seem to credit words such as 'science' and 'technology' (not to mention 'capital', 'church' and 'state') with being 'fountainheads of power'; i.e. using these nouns that refer to 'social relations' to stand for 'things-in-themselves' and as power-sourcing fountainheads is to give them spook status.

the hurricane does not 'as the notional thing-in-itself' that noun-and-verb language imputes to it, have the power to ravage New Orleans. in the physical reality of our actual experience, epigenetic influence inductively actualizes the genetic expression we attach the name 'storm-cell' to; i.e. the genetic expression is just the local, visible, material 'appearances' aka 'schaumkommen' that is merely the MANIFEST (locally visible, touchable) aspect of inherently non-local, non-visible, non-material [purely relational] epigenetic influencing phenomena.

similarly, the epigenetic influence of a subsiding valley floor inductively actualizes, orchestrates and shapes rainfall and runoff; the genetic expression of epigenetic influence we refer to as a 'river'.] It is an 'error of grammar' [Nietzsche] to impute power sourcing fountainhead [local jumpstart drive/direction authoring] status to 'storm-cell' and 'river'. It is convenient and it delivers economy of thought [Mach] to say; "Katrina is a powerful storm that is ravaging New Orleans" and "The Colorado river is carving out the Grand Canyon" and "human society has been doing great injury to the environment", ... but these are DUALIST, BEING-BASED semantic realities we construct which split apart subject and object, inhabitant and habitat, and which obscure the inherent non-duality of subject and object, inhabitant and habitat, in the physical reality of our actual experience.

to claim or make believe that 'the storm-cell' and 'the river' have their own jumpstart powers of causal agency is to make 'spooks' out of what are nothing other than relational features in the transforming relational continuum. The logic-based 'semantic realities' we construct using these 'spooks' as logical elements are inherently subjective and incomplete.

this common error that pervades Western discourse [and the construction of semantic operative realities] is a source of 'incoherence' in Western society [i.e. in the Western social-relational dynamic] and i was simply 'calling you out' for, as it appears, either falling into this trap or deliberately promoting belief in spooks in the case of "science", "technology", "capital", "church" and "state", none of which merit being described as you have described them as 'determinants of power'. As Nietzsche would say; they are not 'doers of deeds', but 'social relations'.

meanwhile, i share some of your earlier expressed views where you speak of the language-sourced 'spook' problem, such as your following comment where you critique another person for his imputing power-fountainhead status to 'society'; i.e. you say;

"What you are doing is overrating societies ordering power. Society is not a notional power point on to itself but a development of language(and when I say language I mean it in the way someone like Lovelock defines it). Language as it filters through humans is nothing more then small mouth noises as Terrence Mckenna points out. It is built around an assumption of the self-same form that is actually inherently heterogeneous. It is based on a fiction that is actually formed from an over all creative void. In that regard Stirner’s concept of the creative nothing is very much on point. The fact that the universe may have been born of void further gives strength to his point."

your critique of making 'societies' into spooks [power-sourcing fountainheads] appears very much 'on target' to me. it points to what Mach, Nietzsche and Schroedinger have pointed to, that 'genetic expression' is 'schaumkommen', 'appearances', "a fiction that is actually formed from an overall creative void", ... the secondary aspect of the physical reality of our actual experience. i.e. Epigenetic influence is the inductive actualizer of genetic expression and epigenetic influence and genetic expression are a non-duality in the same sense as the storm-cell and the transforming relational atmosphere-plenum are a non-duality. As with 'fields of influence' generally [including gravity and electromagnetism], they are "everywhere at the same time" and their influence is 'non-local', 'non-visible' and 'non-material' as befits "a creative void".

'society' is just a word [not a thing-in-itself] that points to a relational social dynamic, and 'science' and 'technology' pertain to activities within that relational social dynamic. Of course, we could speak of 'societies' as things-in-themselves [members of the category of a thing known as 'a society'] and rank them from 'most powerful' to 'least powerful', and the same for storm-cells and hurricanes and rivers, but that would not change the fact that they derive their power from the epigenetic influence they are situationally included in; i.e. they are NOT fountainheads-of-power, so to portray them as such is to 'make spooks' out of them.

Western society [the relational social dynamic that is now globally dominant] imputes 'fountainhead' status to nouns not only because it is convenient and delivers 'economy of thought' in discourse, but because we see ourselves, our own human forms, as fountainheads of power in both Western religions and Western science; i.e. we see ourselves as 'independently-existing material entities with internal process driven and directed behaviours who reside, operate and interact in an operating theatre [habitat] that is independent of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it.

The worldview that we generate on that basis is anthropomorphic. as Nietzsche points out, language plays a key role here;

“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

so, it seems as if, rather than acknowledging the following dynamics as 'social relations', you are imputing 'being' and 'power-generating' faculty to them;

"science", "technology", "capital", "church" and "state"

i.e. you said;

"Science and technology are actually greater co-factor determinants of power then capital/capitalism is because it metamorphosizes out of church and state ..."

this may seem as much ado about nothing since the popular viewpoint is to make spooks out of relational features, but my impression has been that you were also (as well as Nietzsche, Stirner, myself etc.) eluding that 'error of grammar' trap.

SirEinzige
That's not quite what I'm doing though emile

I am not suggesting that these things have physical existences in themselves. You can conceive of power determinants as coming from a belief source and still point out which are more significant via belief enforcement. Put another way, I think the behavior and belief in and around church and state is a bigger issue then the belief and behavior around capital. One is a bigger impediment to an anarchic existence then the other.

You should know that I've pissed a few off here by making these belief/behavior centered points. Thus why I shit on the christmas of struggle among other shit disturbing things.

thecollective
from emile the distinct radicalism

e.g. the taoist-anarchist frames his view in curved relational space where there is no subject-object split.

therefore, the taoist anarchist can see beyond a simple polar 'us' and 'them' view of conflict. if terrorists are attacking, he can see that it may be pushback from abuse coming from the overall community, not direct abuse, but conditioning of the habitat dynamics which are at the same time conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants. e.g. if bullies take over the common living space and shut out others from being able to 'have a life', then the bullied others may pushback against bullying others who see themselves as innocents rather than bullies because their bullying is not direct but through the mediating medium of relational space.

the bullies may be egotists that seem themselves as superior performers and explain their privileged status to themselves in that manner. since they do not directly bully others, the pushback against them seems to them to be unjustified and plain mean-minded or evil. the bullies will thus reinforce their secure position in the community by moving towards zero tolerance for those 'pushing back' [who are seen as unprovocated (jealous) attackers of the superior performer class [actually, the bully class].

the taoist anarchist, since he does not make the subject-object split, can intuit that the pushback from the bullied is coming from genuine oppression sourced by the notional superior performer class in a relational manner through the mediating medium of relational space.

the taoist anarchist, being among the bullied, understands that the elitist superior performer class [which is really composed of bullies who falsely believe that they are superior performers because they are sitting above the others] fail to acknowledge that they are a bully class and fail to see that their egotist notion that they are a superior performer class is self-delusion.

because of this, the taoist-anarchist realizes that the challenge is NOT revolution and simply physically overthrowing the bully class, the challenge is instead, contriving for the bully class members who believe they are superior performer class members, to see through this delusion and acknowledge they are a bully class and that they have been oppressing those who are now pushing back, not oppressing them directly but indirectly, by conditioning the relations in the common relational living space so as to intentionally or unintentionally suffocate those in the inferior performer class [who are not really inferior performers but those who are being suffocated and shut out of having a life by the bully class members who believe they are superior performers].

in this scenario, there are four flavours of players;

1. bullies who believe they are superior performers and thus believe that the 'inferior class' is filled with 'inferior performers' and that those 'pushing back' are entirely unjustified in their violent/rebellious/terrorist actions.

2. those being bullied who know that they are not 'inferior performers' but that they are being stifled and disopportunized by the manner in which the bullies are conditioning the relational space they all share inclusion in.

3. taoist-anarchists who are being bullied and who know they are not 'inferior performers' but who understand that those who are bullying them believe themselves to be superior performers, which they are not [their bullying is opening up disproportionate opportunity for them which is 'making them look good']. that is, the taoist-anarchists can see how the bullies are deluding themselves in which case they are not simply 'evil people' but 'delusional people'.

4. taoist-anarchists who are living in the 'superior performer class' but who do not see themselves as superior performers and who are not bullies, but are also cognizant of the incomplete views or delusions of the 1. and 2. categories.

the key point is that the class separations can arise from bullying that transpires indirectly through the conditioning of the common relational living space rather than from direct interactions, setting up a class of people who are bullies but see themselves as superior performers who are then shocked by push-back from those they are bullying. As Einstein says, 'space is a participant in physical phenomena'.

taoist anarchists will see the challenge to be overcome here as a psychological one rather than one of pure physical opposition [oppressors and oppressed] that calls for revolution.

thecollective
from emile the distinct radicalism

'what people do' is just the 'visible appearances' aspect; i.e. an incomplete view of dynamics which are inherently relationally complex [relational influences are non-local, non-visible and non-material as with gravity and electromagnetic field influences which are, meanwhile, 'everywhere at the same time'].

how unfolding relational situations inductively actualize 'genetic expression' [what appears to be people doing their own thing] is the more complete physical actuality; i.e. the 'what things do' [purely mechanical] view is a 'reduced to Euclidian space' view which eliminates [from consideration] the 'participation of space'; i.e. the action-actualizing-and-shaping inductive influence of the unfolding relational situation is part and parcel of the dynamics of our actual experience.

social justice as discussed in the article reduces dynamics to what things do [as if purely by intention] and ignores situational inductive influence [the fencing in and depriving people/things of a natural life inductively actualizes violent pushback]. the primary animating influence is outside-inward and it is only language oriented to visual appearance' or 'genetic expression' that reduces it to a DEPICTION [semantic construction] that portrays it as exclusively inside-outward animated.

"Indeed the biggest advantage and disadvantage of social justice is that it seeks to be as motivation-independent as it can be. .... “Who cares what people actually believe, let’s find ways of browbeating them into at least acting decently.”

it's not just 'what people believe' that motivates them, its the unfolding relational situations that they find themselves included in. if one group of people fences others in to facilitate exploiting them, their violent or terrorist pushback [non-decent actions] is not 'genetic expression' coming from 'beliefs' but from real, physical relational dynamics wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing their violent pushback actions or 'genetic expression' [the dynamics of animals and relational forms in general (e.g. storm-cells) are not simply inside-outward asserting actions deriving from internal influences such as 'beliefs'. in law-based social justice systems, as we know, it is illegal for colonized slaves to author 'indecent actions' such as terrorist pushback against being confined and deprived of 'having a life of their own'.

law-based social justice derives from the Western religious and Western scientific modeling of humans as 'independently-existing things-in-themselves with internal process driven and directed behaviours [intelligent processing and purposeful drive] such that each individual is seen as being fully and solely responsible for its own behaviour [as if the animating influence is entirely-intention-driven with zero situationally induced actualizing influence]. this models men as machines [100 percent internal process driven] that reside, operate and interact within an operating theatre/habitat that is independent of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it [absolute Euclidian space and absolute time].

on this basis, which examines only the 'what things do' side of dynamics and ignores the relational situations and their inductive actualizing influence, the rebelling slave is 'not acting decently', and he will be brow-beaten by the legal system to 'behave decently'.

as we know from the physical reality of our actual experience, situational inductive influence is in a natural primacy over intention-driven actions. It is noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar that puts 'things-in-themselves and what things do as if driven and directed from their own interior' into an unnatural primacy over the inductive influence of the unfolding-in-the-now relational situation.

"Indeed the biggest advantage and disadvantage of social justice is that it seeks to be as motivation-independent as it can be"

moral judgement distinguishes between 'decent' and 'indecent' behaviours and a social justice that aims to be 'motivation-independent' will interpret the terrorist pushback actions of confined slaves as 'indecent', regardless of motivation.

this makes no natural sense, but what also makes no sense is the Western religious and scientific model of man as an 'independent being' whose actions derive fully and solely from his internal processes [100% intention-driven, 0% relational-situation induced].

the Western model of man is a 'little sagacity ego-self' model wherein the only behaviour-animating influences seen to be possible are inside-outward asserting influences, the outside-inward inductive animating influence of the physical reality of our actual experience, having been removed by the psychological-semantic imposing of a notional absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame that serves as the operating theatre for the notional independent material entities that purportedly reside, operate and interact within it.

thecollective
from emile the distinct radicalism

i suppose this comment will be taken 'offline' from this thread, but i will try to keep it as short as i can.

1. there is confusion here between the role of context and content. marxists are materialists whose operative reality orients to 'content' and the pragmatic management of it. anarchists (indigenous, taoists) understand that 'context is everything' and 'content' is illusion.

2. because there is no such thing as 'content', actions cannot be 'animated by content', there are only relational-situational dynamics; e.g. storm-cell in flow.

3. if one tries to push cats into a cage, their natural instinct is to push-back and bite and scratch. that is, the relational situation inductively animates [actualizes, orchestrates and shapes] the genetic expression. as emerson says, the instinct (immanent intuition) or 'genius in nature' that inductively actualizes living a life of unconstrained relational-situational context not only inhabits the organism, it creates it.

4. the social justice of marxists or others that is purely pragmatic is motivation-independent [just get the job done], implying that actions arise from content rather than context; i.e. that content-driven actions create context.

5. as nietzsche points out, noun-based language reduces relational-situational context to 'content-driven actions' as in his 'lightning flashes' example. The Western worldview is a semantic reality constructed by reducing relational-situational context to 'content', using subject-verb structures to notionally infuse the powers of local authorship of action to the new semantically created items of content. e.g. 'storming' is action that is pure relational situational context but noun-and-verb language-and-grammar reduces this to materialist 'content'; i.e. 'the storm', which is then imputed to be the authoring source of the 'storming' action.

6. relational forms such as humans and cats are relational context [relational forms within the transforming relational continuum] rather than 'material content' that authors its own actions, purportedly from its internal intelligent processing faculty and its purposive drive [Darwinist survival or some other bullshit analytical backfill needed to keep the content-based illusion 'hanging together'].

Bottom Line:

Anarchists [taoist anarchists, indigenous anarchists] understand themselves to be pure relational situational context undergoing 'cosmic fetalization' (strands in the timelessly transforming web-of-life) and NOT 'items of material content' 'blessed' with internal powers of local jumpstart authorship of their own actions [developmental and behavioural actions]. The lives we are reaching out to grasp are the 'we' who are reaching out to grasp them. There is no 'content' with spook powers at the bottom of who we are.

Social justice that is animation-independent presumes that actions jumpstart from material content. If a group of people try to put you in a cat-cage and/or keep you there, your scratching and biting does not simply 'come from the interior of yourself' but from the relational context you find yourself situationally included in. Your behaviour does not arise from you, your behaviour 'is you', just as in the case of Katrina, the storm-cell.

materialists cannot see this because for them [so long as they hold on to their materialist worldview], all action, including relational-situational dynamics, derives from content concretized by semantic constructions. given this view, 'social justice' orients to 'content-authored actions', ... assuming not only that such actions exist as 'actions-in-themselves', but that they are inside-outwardly asserted as a kind of one-sided genetic expression. this 'genetic expression' is seen as (to keep the whole content-based semantic reality construction 'hanging togerther') coming from 'stored instructions' (knowledge) that contains information on some overall project goals' [the acorn's knowledge and purpose equips it, supposedly, for developing itself into an oak tree, although others may say that an acorn is a relational feature within a transforming relational continuum, in the manner of the storm-cell in the flow of the atmosphere, and constructing a semantic reality wherein we substitute an action-authoring empowered item of content for situational-relational context is delusion of the same sort at 'lightning flashes' and 'the storm storms'.

social justice that is 'motivation-independent' is already orienting to content-driven action, as if content-driven action is all she wrote. we can see the violent action of cats [and humans] as they try to break out of the cages they are being kept in. their actions are indecent and must be punished (motivation for indecent action is not relevant in motivation-independent social justice).

of course to speak of 'their actions' is to already buy in to the semantic reduction of dynamics arising as relational situational context, ... to content-driven actions; i.e. to reduce relational context (storming) to content (storms) which are now held responsible for authoring the transforming relational situational context.

the dynamic wherein a group that is trying to cage cats and/or humans is experiencing 'violent pushback' is a dynamic wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression; i.e. to isolate the 'violent pushback' and treat it as content driven and directed actions, as in a motivation-independent, moral judgement based social justice system, so that it is condemned as indecent behaviour that must be stopped, ... is to deny the natural primacy of relational context over material content.

what's left out of this article are the differing assumptions on the relationship between context and content; i.e. are things the source of actions and relations or are relational actions the source of things? marxists are on the content-in-primacy side of this split and anarchists [taoist and indigenous anarchists at least] are on the relations-in-primacy side.

thecollective
from emile totw millenarians

The users of noun-and-verb Indo-European language and grammar construct semantic realities based in linear time that runs from 'past' to 'future'. Western thinking is that the future is causally determined by what has gone on in the past; i.e. there is no understanding that the world is a transforming relational continuum as with indigenous anarchists whose languages are 'timeless'.

The Western reasoning mind has the habit of making linear-in-time projections based on a few variables [without having a clue as to the full relational complexity of nature's dynamic] and finding 'limits', which then reach back from the [perceived] future to actualize behaviours in the present. In this way, Western acculturated people have a hell of a time experiencing 'in-the-now' since their visions of the future hijack the present; e.g. if we don't invade Vietnam, the commies will take over the world.

Malthus' notion that the earth had a 'carrying capacity' that would be exhausted over time inspired Darwin to think of the world in terms of limits rather than in terms of relational transformation. if food resources were exhausted, only those organisms most capable of appropriating food would survive [be 'selected' for survival by nature], so that the shape and variety of forms on the earth, as they now 'exist', derive from this ongoing process where all but the most proficient in 'competing' for 'limited resources' are starved out of existence. There is no sense of a Lamarckian relational evolution wherein the relational dynamics [epigenetic influence] inductively actualizes, orchestrates and shapes 'genetic expression' (relational forms that are continually gathering and being regathered).

Global warming, Y2K, peak oil, are all cases where the future state of affairs is computed by way of a linear projection governed by a very few dependent variables. This is Western culture thing that draws from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar with its inbuilt concept of the world as a material mechanical dynamic progressing along the linear axis of time from past to future.

As Poincare pointed out, Western practice is to 'fit curves' to generalize empirical data and then impute greater reality to future values predicted by the curves than to the empirical data from continuing observations. Eg. current satellite temperature data is given less credence than the future predictions captured in the IPCC curves formulated forty years ago.

Western people put more credence in limit-based abstractions than in experiences in the continuing now. The inputs and outputs of the storm-cell IS the storm-cell, however, noun-and-verb language captures the limit wherein the dependency on inputs and outputs goes to zero, leaving only an 'independent thing-in-itself' in its place. Using the thing-in-itself [the abstracted limit] as the basic reality and correcting this as needed delivers economies of thought. Western society seems to prefer mental models that are easier to think about and more facilitative of future predicting than the relational complexity of our actual experience.

The class war projection suffers from the same fault as in Malthus logic. It is a problem in logic itself, thoroughly documented by Poincare. As the number of disgruntled lower class people grow, they will reach a limit, over time, that will enable them to do serious battle with the master class that controls the whole show, and possibly take over or mutually annihilate each other.

The problem of impredicative logic is that each time one adds a new member to the set of the disgruntled, one must redo all of the definitions. if one starts with a global population of undisgruntled, we can't really talk about 'the growth' of the 'disgruntled' population, since every additional disgruntled is reciprocally complemented by one less undisgruntled, there is no 'growth' of the 'disgruntled class' going on here, only transformation of the overall populace, which is all that is possible in a relational space such as we actually experience.

in Heraclitus' terms; one can't step into the same river twice.

one can't add disgruntleds to the set of disgruntleds because the definitions are changed by each addition; i.e. linear projection doesn't work in the relational space of our actual experience because binary is an abstract limit that is not found in the real world of our actual experience.

our experience-based intuition affirms that linear projections are abstractions but we live in a [Western] culture that is putting 'reason' into an unnatural precedence over 'intuition' [Nietzsche] and we are in a era in which this unnatural flip in precedence is collapsing.

as politicians like trump are reminding us, as we leave our traditional 'grounding' in 'reason', there are two places we can go to 're-ground' and trump is playing to one of them; i.e. we can re-ground our belief in 'what we'd like to believe is true' or 'what we fear is true' [comes from our ego], or we can re-ground in our actual personal subjective experience [listening to one another share their experience].

the authoritarian structures we have put in place to 'diaper us up' and take care of us, according to the concensus reality that politicians manage to rally popular support for, means that we have little chance to reground in our actual experience.

trump will quite rightly cast aside the climate apocalypse and the peak oil apocalypse [ridiculous linear projection based 'reasoning'] but the re-grounding will be in what the populace 'would like to believe' and/or 'fears is true', rather than re-grounding in our actual experience, which can't be done through hierarchical structures in any case.

p.s. as the stakes of reasoned argument decline, the politician that simply wants to acquire power is going to rally the people around whatever they would like to believe is true, or whatever they fear is true. the genuine non-authoritarian leader will encourage everyone to re-ground in their own actual experience, which means listening to others as they share their experiences.

thecollective
from emile rethinking anti militarism

do you believe that trouble in syria does not derive from moscow and washington and global relational tensions?

do you believe in local cause, the mainstay of scientific thinking?

maybe, just maybe, ... the eruptions of violence in Cairo or Aleppo or Tripoli are 'ventings' from the global relational-social dynamic and its continually gathering and regathering tensions.

maybe there is no such thing as 'local causal agency'. maybe the child soldier is venting he knows not what.

as Emerson says in 'The Method of Nature', man is a vent that transmits influences from the vast and universal to the point on which his genius can act. he is like a hurricane, inductively actualized by the field of relational dynamics in which he is uniquely situationally included.

insurgency may 'vent' in the city, but like the hurricane, it is transmitting influence from the non-local to the local.

have the colonizing states not raised relational tensions in the colonies that are the source of venting violence within the colony? should we psycho-analyze the child soldier in the colony to find out why HE is 'so angry' when the global flows and processes that situate him between a rock and a hard place are the real [non-local] source of his violent venting?

Should the government of the state identify the local insurgents as the 'cause' of the violent insurgency? should a puppet leader in a colonized state whose police and military are holding down the people while they get raped by global interests point to the local people as the source of the insurgency?

Noun-and-verb language-and-grammar allows us to 'name' and 'define' a local insurgency in the manner in which we 'name' and 'define' a hurricane that is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence immanent in the global relational dynamic. once we have captured it within a constructed semantic reality, we can say 'the hurricane is growing larger and stronger' [the insurgency is growing larger and stronger], 'the hurricane is ravaging the city' [the insurgency is ravaging the city]. moscow and washington are calm and seemingly far removed from the conflict in aleppo while everyone tries to sort out the who's who of local 'causal agents' responsible for the local violence.

this is a joke. there are no 'local causal agents'. like emerson says, the only thing that is local is the venting of nonlocal influence. the local violent insurgent is a vent who transmits influences from the nonlocal to the local point on which his agency can act. If you take away the global flow with its tensioned relational dynamics, you take away the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing insurgencies as genetic expressions.

the 'genetic expressions' such as 'insurgencies' are, as Schroedinger says, 'schaumkommen' ('appearances') and the only physical reality is the tensioned relational flow-dynamic whose immanent epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing and shaping storm-cells/insurgencies within it.

How convenient that the local state government, after selling their people into prostitution and enslavement by global commercial interests, now points the finger to 'local insurgents' as the cause of notionally 'locally incipient' eruptions of violence/insurgency and sics the police and military on them.

there is no need for new strategies for insurgency and counter-insurgency, there is a need to acknowledge the non-local source of local ventings of violence. kettling an angry, venting hurricane with the aim of neutralizing it, is not going to work. there is no thing-in-itself content there, there is only locally manifesting 'ventings' induced by global relational context.

how long do we have to succumb to this brain draw of Western science, logic, reason which reduces authorship of dynamic phenomena to notional local causal agencies? Our natural-experience-sourced intuition cuts through this reduction-to-local-causal agency deception like a hot knife cuts through butter. It is the fucking artefact of noun-and-verb language and the synthetic semantic realities we construct with it; 'Katrina is ravaging the city', ... 'The insurgency [purported local fountainhead of violent action] is ravaging the city'. such contrived semantic reality constructions which blind us to the physical reality of our actual experience of a world that is all context no [local thing-in-itself] content ... are a fucking joke.

thecollective
from emile totw millenarians

individual and collective behaviour is conditioned by semantic discourse.

the internet is a kind of semantic-repository 'cloud' that is being conditioned by social media at the same time as the it is conditioning social behaviour. this is Mach's principle of non-duality as it impacts us through language-based media. the continuing development of this 'cloud' was predicted by pierre teilhard de chardin (nooisphere) and written about re the developing electronic 'global village' by mcluhan.

the problem here lies in the 'limitations of language' [visual space understanding versus acoustic space understanding]. you speak about 'understanding' but what kind of 'understanding' comes from Facebook and tweets from Trump et al?

without the huge growth of language-based communications, the evolution of the social dynamic is otherwise inductively orchestrated and shaped more by EXPERIENCE.

the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat/milieu at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat/milieu are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants. [Mach's principle]. in other words, 'felt experience' formerly had a proportionately greater influence in shaping the social dynamic than did 'intellectual discourse' and still does for nature in general apart from us animals who have given over the shaping of our individual and collective actions to language-based intellection aka 'reason'.

this is nietzsche's point. 'reason' never deserved to be put into an unnatural precedence over experience based intuition. this was a problem even before the internet, but with the internet, everyone's crap reasoning is conditioning the 'nooisphere' or 'electronic brain of the global village' at the same time as it is conditioning the actions of the global villagers. imagine the 'old-timers' in the outback who have never 'plugged in' to the internet coming out of the woods and mixing with millenarians. in so far as they are able to communicate with one another, how likely are they to arrive at a common sense of community and love and intimacy?

thanks to the electronic media, 'reason' has been disproportionately amplified as the evolutionary influence of the social dynamic, relative to actual experience. because the evolution of the social dynamic is less and less based on felt experience and more and more based on reasoned rhetoric [electronic social media], whatever bullshit reasoning goes viral and floats to the top will predominate in conditioning the nooisphere (idea repository which is now electronic) which is at the same time conditioning the social dynamic.

This intellectual-spiritual 'rot' that we are feeling is coming from the short-circuiting of our experience-based evolving of the social dynamic by electronic media whose currency is 'reason' and 'reason' is inherently subjective and incomplete as is the exposure of all binary logic based propositioning. will DDT kill mosquitoes? will drones kill Middle East rebels? what do such subjective and incomplete propositions have to do with how our interventions into the transforming relational continuum engender 'externalities'? fuck all. As McLuhan said, what we set out to do matters fuck all, what matters is how our interventions into the transforming relational continuum transform our relations with one another and the habitat. to put reason into an unnatural precedence over our experience-based intuition is a recipe for 'incoherence' [Bohm].

as Bohm also pointed out, it is our noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar that is killing us since it is 'being-based' [over-simplistic abstraction based] and ignores the relational complexity of the physical world of our actual experience.

so, yes, there is 'rot' and it derives from the over-amplified role of reason-based semantic discourse in shaping the evolution of our social dynamic, and the correspondingly attenuated role of 'actual experience'. since reason is inherently subjective, the only way to select which/whose reason based semantic reality achieves common 'operative reality' status is by the principle of Lafontaine; "la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure'"

thecollective
from emile totw millenarians

"Space is a participant in physical phenomena" -- Einstein

a biologist whose expertise is prairie grass, in studying the factors which promote/inhibit the top three species (in terms of their tendency to predominate the arable space in a meadow), finds that one of the grass species, X, which is appreciated as a tasty morsel by a grazing animal, is soon to get a reprieve as the grazing animal is being wiped out by its predators. according to the calculations of the biologist, the removal of the grazing predator will guarantee that the rise to predominance of the X species of grass.

But as it turns out, the grazing animal was also consuming tree seedlings, which, in the absence of the grazing animal, grew up and developed a forest canopy beneath which none of grasses survived.

* * * this is what Einstein was talking about; i.e. 'Mach's principle';

"The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- Mach's principle

In other words, 'epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing, orchestrating and shaping genetic expression [e.g. the manifest growth of plants].

"Space is a participant in physical phenomena" applies generally, impacting social relational dynamics that are discussed in this forum; e.g. crony alliances can suffocate the development of non-cronies by intercepting the flow of goods and services and the opportunities to deliver same, as with the forest canopy.

Most of the discussion in this forum is in terms of 'linear thinking' wherein space is not a participant; i.e. where people, governments and political groups are treated as if they are 'things-in-themselves'.

Is this not itself worthy of discussion? I realize that this 'takes more words' than 'linear thinking' based dialogue, but it can also deepen understanding.

the 'competition' and relative ability to 'rise to dominance' of a diverse collection of groups is not simply due to the relative competencies of the groups since 'space is a participant in physical phenomena'. It's possible for whites to set up the equivalent of a 'forest canopy' to intercept and bleed off nutrients so as to starve out blacks. this is the real meaning of 'a trickle down economy'.

whites are predominantly linear thinkers so they/we will interpret the results in terms of the 'inferior performance capabilities' of blacks.

Western society in general denies that 'space is a participant in physical phenomena' and depicts the world dynamic in the one sided terms of 'what things do'.

thecollective
from emile totw millenarians

high resolution close-up vision is like logic, it is inherently subjective and incomplete. as a near-sighted male exploring a female, one would have each breast, the pubes and other parts clearly resolved but don't we naturally crave the gestalt? the holographic view comes through the connections, maybe the intuition of holographic vision is the inductive/addictive pull that associates with the internet.

this reminds me of Wittgenstein's observations on the limitations of language. our logical debates are 'single issue at a time' which makes for very subjective (selective) and incomplete visual interpretation; i.e. each discussion is like driving through complex topography one linear road at a time but what we really want is the 'synoptic view'. as Wittgenstein puts it;

“There is a truth in Schopenhauer’s view that philosophy is an organism, and that a book on philosophy, with a beginning and an end, is a sort of contradiction [Elsewhere Wittgenstein quotes Heraclitus' “everything is in flux” on this same problem of being forced to capture a complex continuing dynamic by notional ‘parts’]. One difficulty with philosophy is that we lack a synoptic view. We encounter the kind of difficulty we should have with the geography of a country for which we had no map, or else a map of isolated bits. The country we are talking about is language, and the geography its grammar. We can walk about the country quite well, but when forced to make a map, we go wrong. A map will show different roads through the same country, any one of which we can take, though not two, just as in philosophy we must take up problems one by one though in fact each problem leads to a multitude of others. We must wait until we come round to the starting point before we can proceed to another section, that is, before we can either treat of the problem we first attacked or proceed to another. In philosophy matters are not simple enough for us to say ‘Let’s get a rough idea’, for we do not know the country except by knowing the connections between the roads. So I suggest repetition as a means of surveying the connections.” -- L. W.

the addiction may be a naturally inbuilt intuition that what is really going on is something that is not 'out there' in front of our nose (and tongue) where we can lick, suck and eat it, ... but something that we are included in, together. "The life that we are reaching out to grasp is the 'we' who are reaching out to grasp it" [laing].

not saying that the internet is the wormhole that is going to get us there, but is it not a kind of cheap substitute that allows us to step into a semantically constructed 'virtual reality', tailored to our ego's biases? one can find the materials for constructing any virtual reality one wants to put oneself inside of on the internet. people who are all the while supporting the authoritarian system which demands their self-abnegation are not going to use the internet's virtual reality capabilities for painting them inside an honest picture of their self-abnegating selves, ... the addiction comes in being able to paint oneself into a more ego-satisfying semantic pseudo-reality while persisting to live a self-abnegating life. it is a liberation of a synthetic sort [like 'the spectacle'] and it stabilizes the exploitive social system. those who are playing xbox games all day are going to find their liberation in virtual reality without having to change their self-abnegating physical lives.

thecollective
from emile totw millenarians

our experience is subjective and personal, from the time we are infants with pre-lingual conscious sensitivity and memory.

when we get language, we get a bundle of basic assumptions of the world depending on what culture we are raised in.

in Western culture, we get the dualist inhabitant-habitat split [the dualist mind-matter split]. the assumption is that 'the world' is a thing apart from us that we should be able to describe 'objectively', like man and earth created separately by God, a separate earth that we are encouraged to dominate, as in Genesis 1:28.

for those other non-dualist cultures who believe we are strands-in-the-one-web-of-life, our experience is acknowledged to be subjective [each with our own relational fetalization] so that it is pointless to debate whose view of the 'garden out there' is most correct, we are the garden as the storm-cell is the flow. that's why non-dualist cultures that ground their reality in 'experience' have 'restorative justice systems', no way to separate doer and done-to [subject and object] [we 'do it to ourselves', as Mach's principle says].

Western culture puts semantic reality constructions ahead of experience, that is why [we] is so fucked up. everyone's actual experience of the world is unique so it is nonsense to debate which interpretation is most true. subsuming 'moral judgement' with cultivating, restoring and sustaining balance and harmony, as in restorative justice, doesn't require agreeing on an interpretation [semantic reality construction], ... like, 'who is causally responsible for the conflict in syria?' ... 'we must identify them and bring them to justice'.

for the indigenous anarchist, one's personal path is situationally actualized and the courage, and even ecstasy, of accepting it and letting it inductively actualize one's creative potentials (genetic expression) is 'amor fati'.

"“We must be willing to let go of the life we planned so as to have the life that is waiting for us.” … “If you can see your path laid out in front of you step by step, you know it’s not your path. Your own path you make with every step you take. That’s why it’s your path.” — Joseph Campbell

Western politicians try to construct a semantic reality or view of the world 'apart from ourselves'; e.g. "the eruptions of violence among our bum-boys in our Middle East colonies/kennels are NOT inductively actualized by colonizer-colonized relational tensions, ... they arise in-situ from local evil-people who are the fountainheads of destructive violence, ... who are 'not like us' local good people who are the fountainheads of constructive development." Our squatting on and pissing on our black and brown brothers and sisters who we have under harness to exploit their labour to extract the resources of their lands is God's way of stressing them up a bit to test whether they are evil beings in disguise. The more we tighten the bonds and yokes of economic and military colonization, the more that normal-looking people are abandoning their facade and revealing that they are evil beings.

The more we intensify the test by increased surveillance and exemplary punishments, the more people who we thought were normal are turning out to be evil beings. We therefore have good reason to be suspicious of everyone apart from ourselves, and even then, more and more of yesterday's 'ourselves' are turning out to be 'evil bastards'.

the sad conclusion is that the more we step up surveillance and testing programs to smoke out evil beings, more and more of those we believed were like us are turning out to be evil beings. even worse, there are indications that the internet has the ability to create virtual semantic realities in which an evil being is disguised as 'one of us'. there is evidence that such cybernetic 'image management' is being used to replace our leaders with evil beings.

thecollective
from emile je ne suis pas charlie

'Identity' is a moving target in the natural world. The search for a 'national DNA' is futile.

Our experience as participants in a continually evolving relational dynamic is one of continually receiving/taking and transmitting/giving. if we are evolving, we 'are' this non-duality wherein situational receptions are in a natural primacy over intentional transmissions; i.e. 'identity' is an inherently 'moving target'.

This is nature's 'free trade'. As Marx and Engels pointed out, the bourgeoisie coined version of 'free-trade' is based on the unnatural condition of restricted trade.

Narcissism [isn't the French (British, American) 'identity the best thing ever] is a personality disorder. It has all the trappings of cancer. The insiders no longer allow receptions and updates from outsiders. Narcissist intention is put into an unnatural primacy over the epigenetic influence of 'situational reception'.

Authoritarianism/sovereigntism is identity politics. It is a cancer that will suck the nurturance out of a previously healthy body of participants in which it is included.

Sovereigntism-based colonization of the globe has been, as Einstein put it, 'an infantile disease'. It is an outbreak of narcissism that has produced local cancers that suck the nurturance out of the world body in which they are included. 'Free trade' has been a partial thawing which has restored some receptions/transmissions of goods and people in and out of the narcissist enclaves, and this has been starving some cancers/states and nourishing others. The 'former greats' in the sovereigntist community of narcissists have become frightened of the possibility of restoring the natural evolution [that elevated them to 'greatness'] that, with 'free trade' threatens to return its evolutionary making and taking of 'greatness', thus threatening the persistence of their own 'better than everyone else' narcissist French (British, American) identity. Of course, 'identity' is a moving target, a standing-wave phenomena like that of the storm-cell, made of continuing continuing receptions and transmissions from all participants into all participants as in nature's 'free trade'.

Trump, and other leaders of the narcissist cancers aka 'states' have tweaked to the resuscitation of global evolution by way of free trade [e.g. the rise of china] wherein the 'greats' become 'former greats' as 'new greats' continue to surface. "Making America great again", in narcissist thinking, means opting out of free trade with its exposure to trade-based global evolution, and intentionally concretizing the inferred 'national DNA'.

Of course, the identity of any system within a global relational suprasystem is a standing wave phenomena; i.e. it is all context and no content. 'Identity' is not some 'fixed thing-in-itself' that can be defined by some list of 'common properties' as if they were the system's DNA, it is a moving target.

"“As is described by Nijhout, genes are “not self-emergent,” that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by “environmental signals.” Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” —Bruce Lipton, ‘The New Biology’"

There is no "national DNA" other than as pushed by politician-opportunists who garner power for themselves by plying the egos of their group with the ecstasy-arousing ambrosia of narcissism.

'Patriotic national unity' is a narcissistic attempt to 'can' something which does not exist, a presumed national DNA. In fact, this very attempt to preserve the identity is changing the identity that it seeks to preserve, in its ugly and cancerous narcissist act of trying to preserve it.

thecollective
from emile new years resolutions

the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum; i.e. an energy-charged field which is a plenum and not a void, without a split between subject and object, observer and observed, inhabitant and habitat. this 'one-ness' is commonly referred to as 'non-dualism' simply to distinguish it from Western-culture popularized mode of understanding known as 'dualism'.

dualism (binary splitting where inhabitant and habitat are seen as two separate and mutually excluding things) is propped up by noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar.

in the physical reality of our actual experience, we understand how relations are the basis of things, how thermal-field conditions in the atmosphere and oceans or 'epigenetic influence' brings forth (inductively actualizes) genetic expression that we call 'storm cells'. storm-cells and atmosphere are a non-dual, relational development. There are no pluralities in a transforming relational continuum, there is only one-ness and it is in continual flux so there is no 'is-ness' aka 'being'.

do you see two things when you see a storm-cell; i.e. do you see (a) the cell, and (b) the space in which the cell resides, move about in, and interacts with other things in? perhaps it is just the semantic realities we construct with noun-and-verb language that takes 'appearances' (how relational forms in the flow-plenum appear) and reduces their non-duality (one-ness) to a duality by a double error of grammar (well described by Nietzsche); i.e. by imputing local thing-in-itself 'being' to a relational activity; i.e. a 'storming', within the atmosphere-plenum and having it inflect an action verb; e.g. "the storm is raging" so that we have by intellectual trickery, removed the epigenetic inductive influence from the plenum, notionally infusing it into the notional 'interior' of the relational form, which we have grammatically endowed with 'independent being', so as to construct a semantic reality in which the relational form is a local independent thing-in-itself with its own local powers of authorship of development and behaviour. in other words, WE (the Western culture users of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar) have endowed a relational form in the flow with POSITIVE FREEDOM by way of an intellectual Declaration of Independence' of the inhabitant from the habitat.

you ask;

"And why call your ideas "non-binary"? This is a false negativism for something based on positive freedom."

they are not simply 'my ideas', non-dual understanding has a history that precedes the arrival of dualism (Western religions and noun-and-verb languages) and 'non-duality' or non-binary is just a label to distinguish the mode of understanding wherein the world is understood as a one-ness or transforming relational continuum, from the currently popular and globally dominant 'dualist' mode of understanding which imputes independent being to relational forms and reduces the plenum to a notional void [absolute Euclidian space and absolute time measuring/reference frame that serves as a notional 'operating theatre' for grammar-created things-in-themselves].

there are not 'two choices' unless you make it so by imputing a mind-matter split; non-dualism is the physical reality of our actual experience and dualism is 'pragmatic idealization' that makes for thought-economical discourse.

The point is that by constructing dualist semantic realities [worldviews in terms of what independent being-things-in-themselves are doing] and employing them as our 'operative reality' [a reality that orchestrates and shapes our individual and collective behaviours] we engender incoherence and dysfunction.

the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum; i.e. an energy-charged field which is a plenum and not a void, without a split between subject and object, observer and observed, inhabitant and habitat. this 'one-ness' is commonly referred to as 'non-dualism' simply to distinguish it from Western-culture popularized mode of understanding known as 'dualism'.

dualism (binary splitting where inhabitant and habitat are seen as two separate and mutually excluding things) is propped up by noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar.

in the physical reality of our actual experience, we understand how relations are the basis of things, how thermal-field conditions in the atmosphere and oceans or 'epigenetic influence' brings forth (inductively actualizes) genetic expression that we call 'storm cells'. storm-cells and atmosphere are a non-dual, relational development. There are no pluralities in a transforming relational continuum, there is only one-ness and it is in continual flux so there is no 'is-ness' aka 'being'.

do you see two things when you see a storm-cell; i.e. do you see (a) the cell, and (b) the space in which the cell resides, move about in, and interacts with other things in? perhaps it is just the semantic realities we construct with noun-and-verb language that takes 'appearances' (how relational forms in the flow-plenum appear) and reduces their non-duality (one-ness) to a duality by a double error of grammar (well described by Nietzsche); i.e. by imputing local thing-in-itself 'being' to a relational activity; i.e. a 'storming', within the atmosphere-plenum and having it inflect an action verb; e.g. "the storm is raging" so that we have by intellectual trickery, removed the epigenetic inductive influence from the plenum, notionally infusing it into the notional 'interior' of the relational form, which we have grammatically endowed with 'independent being', so as to construct a semantic reality in which the relational form is a local independent thing-in-itself with its own local powers of authorship of development and behaviour. in other words, WE (the Western culture users of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar) have endowed a relational form in the flow with POSITIVE FREEDOM by way of an intellectual Declaration of Independence' of the inhabitant from the habitat.

you ask;

"And why call your ideas "non-binary"? This is a false negativism for something based on positive freedom."

they are not simply 'my ideas', non-dual understanding has a history that precedes the arrival of dualism (Western religions and noun-and-verb languages) and 'non-duality' or non-binary is just a label to distinguish the mode of understanding wherein the world is understood as a one-ness or transforming relational continuum, from the currently popular and globally dominant 'dualist' mode of understanding which imputes independent being to relational forms and reduces the plenum to a notional void [absolute Euclidian space and absolute time measuring/reference frame that serves as a notional 'operating theatre' for grammar-created things-in-themselves].

there are not 'two choices' unless you make it so by imputing a mind-matter split; non-dualism is the physical reality of our actual experience and dualism is 'pragmatic idealization' that makes for thought-economical discourse.

The point is that by constructing dualist semantic realities [worldviews in terms of what independent being-things-in-themselves are doing] and employing them as our 'operative reality' [a reality that orchestrates and shapes our individual and collective behaviours] we engender incoherence and dysfunction.

thecollective
emile on new years

the video scene demonstrates 'quantum logic' [Stephane Lupasco, 'the logic of the included third'] wherein a third element is introduced into standard two-element binary logic which resolves the contention in a higher level of reality that transcends the reality in which things appear to be in binary opposition. [google 'le tiers inclus' (the included third); i.e. most interesting commentaries, such as by Basarab Nicolescu, are in french]. the logic of the included third aka 'quantum logic' is presently coming into education as 'edusemiotics' which teaches how the logic of the included third [as in non-duality] can open the mind.

the videoclip recalls the coral snake-watch rhyme "red on yellow kill a fellow. red on black, that's a jack".

the two terms are resolved by a third term which invokes a higher level of reality that includes and predominates over the first two. e.g. if you immunize yourself against snake venom (as some have) the binary aspect dissolves.

the higher level of reality comes from acknowledging the participation of space.

for example, if you are on a ship deploying mines, once deployed, if you are not circling it, you are EITHER increasing your distance from the mine OR decreasing your distance from it. this two term logic does not mention the participation of space. if you are in curved space as in the space on the surface of the earth, you can be BOTH increasing your distance from the mine AND at the same time decreasing your distance from the mine.

another example mentioned in these discussions was the competition between two species of grass as impacted by a grazing animal that found one tastier than another. when the grazing animal moved away, the tree seedlings it was also eating were then able to grow up and erect a forest canopy blocking the light on the forest floor [former meadowland] and exterminating all grass species. the participation of space introduced a higher reality level.

in Western justice, the logic is one of EITHER guilty OR innocent of authoring some action and causing some result. however, if we are in a reality space where the movements of the participants are mutually influencing; e.g. an aerobatics team with three or more participants emulating out-bursting petals on a blossoming flower, it is impossible to separate location from motion since the only reference they are using is the unfolding configuration they are co-creating [ditto synchronized swim teams that emulate opening lotus blossoms]. "The relational form that we are reaching out to fashion is the 'we' who are reaching out to fashion it" [inhabitant-habitat non-duality]. As the 'three-body problem' attests, it is mathematically impossible to calculate the individual contributions to such motion.

the video clip is a good lesson in quantum logic [non-duality] where APPARENT binaries are resolved in a "higher level of reality".

thecollective
from emile on chomsky, MIT

"i'm just crazy about that stuff" is what the buck rabbits might say about the bunnies and because they really are crazy about that stuff, they are not held 'criminally responsible' for rape. the point here is not that 'rape is ok' in human society, but that it is by inductive actualization rather than by willful intention.

law-governed systems use binary decision-making grounded in the concept of willful intention and Western society uses noun-and-verb-language-and-grammar to reduce situationally-induced actualization to 'willful intention'.

in the physical reality of our actual experience, ‘situation’ or ‘epigenetic influence’ inductively actualizes ‘genetic expression’ so that ‘willful intent’ APPEARS to be the animating influence [in the semantic portrayal, that is]. the person who rebels against suffocating oppression is induced to do so, although Western culture (not all cultures) will immediately bring to bear the concept of ‘willful intention’ which makes him ‘responsible’ for his actions and results. if he is found to be insane; i.e. if he is not being driven by his own reasoned willful intention, then he will be found ‘not criminally responsible’, so the notion of 'willful intention' is foundational in law-based governance.

the disappearance from the scene of ‘situational influence’ by invoking the notion of ‘wilful intention’ hides the fact that the primary animating influence in physical phenomena is ‘inductive’ rather than ‘actional’. a society of rich crony alliances can monopolize essential resources and make others beg [prostitute, do slave-labour] for access to them. such people are entrapped/enslaved ‘situationally’ but violent rebellion will be described as ‘wilful intention to do harm’. as nietzsche and whorf and others have noted, this is where ‘Euclidian’ space framing is brought to bear in noun-and-verb language. to describe a person or animal that does injury to his captors in his attempt to break out of his entrapment, is to delete from the scenario the primary animating influence which is epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing his ‘genetic expression’ [escape from entrapment].

the basic problem in law-based governance is, at the same time, the basic problem in Western civilization’s mode of understanding, the, ‘in-effect’, imposing of Euclidian space framing which removes from consideration ‘epigenetic animating influence’ and substitutes ‘willful intention’. indigenous anarchist society is grounded in the understanding that epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression [strands in the interdependent web-of-life are inductively actualized].

for those employing noun-and-verb language-and-grammar, ‘genetic expression’ [induced behaviour] is re-cast as willful intention by fashioning the appropriate subject and verb constructs. ‘the rebel did it’, is a formulation that can be proven to be true [so long as one assumes the physical existence of ‘will’ which, as nietzsche points out, “is only a word”]. logical propositions such as ‘he did it’ are inherently subjective and incomplete and fail to capture the situational reality wherein the animating influence is inductive actualization [breaking out of an enslaving situations]. the fences of entrapment don’t have to be metal or concrete walls, they can be in the form of monetary admission tolls and club membership, where access is permitted to ‘the haves’ and denied to the ‘have-nots’.

thecollective
from emile health

You say;

"Pointing out the social origins of illness, in my experience, does little to alleviate the suffering of affected individuals."

pointing out the social origins of illness (malnutrition from starvation wages, crippling injuries from working in unsafe conditions managed by cutthroat employers) was undertaken by the IWW and other union movements and resulted in major improvements that have had real impact on health.

in many cases, jobs remain dangerous and the focus has shifted to medical plans and workers compensation that treat the symptoms after the fact of the socially-induced accidents and illnesses; i.e. it is easier to use money from profitable operations to give 'danger pay' and insurance because the social dynamics assures a plentiful supply of needy/desperate people who will take risks to feed their families.

the resistance of the social order to change is rock-solid while the casualties and other symptoms of a dysfunctional social order are the 'hard place' that is easier to do something about. a pension will help the crippled worker get by, and serves as a substitute for improving safety in the work environment. the same 'trade-off' is playing out in the mental health arena, pharmaceuticals will help offset mental stress, and recovery from breakdowns, while social conditions continue to put more stress on people.

Your comment seems to demean the efforts such as the IWW's and union movements which have improved the social conditions for following generations. What we seem to be missing today is an IWW equivalent that addresses social relational tensions cultivated by a dysfunctional social order. The difference is that the physical issues of physical labour are more visible and measurable than the mental issues of mental labour.

The invisibility of relational tensions arising from the social order shifts our focus to the addressing of symptoms. Militarizing of the police force and intensified government surveillance of the public is a symptom-oriented response to rising relational tensions from the dysfunctional social order. Drone assassinations of Middle East rebels are a symptom-oriented response to rising global social-relational tensions.

the general global trend in the social dynamic is to bring science and technology to bear in addressing 'symptoms' rather than 'source', as with pharmaceuticals, militarization of police, increased government surveillance of the public, drone assassinations of those pushing back against colonizer oppression etc. all of these increasingly effective efforts to treat symptoms rather than source (the social order) serve to perpetuate an unchanging social order.

the public buys into what is going on here because the social order is based on the confusing of figureheads (symptoms) for fountainheads (source). labelling rebels as 'evil' rather than acknowledging they are 'pushing back' against a dysfunctional social order, means that they are 'local, fountainhead sources' of violence, the remedy for which is to eliminate or neutralize them. [e.g. see, for example; 'Confusing Figureheads for Fountainheads']

Without a shift in mode of understanding [from dualist to non-dualist, both of which we are all capable of], the general trend of addressing symptoms rather than sources will continue; i.e. police crowd control will get better at squelching public protest, government surveillance will get better at sniffing out potential protesters/insurgents and making pre-emptive strikes, perhaps making use of drones.

ALL OF THIS ACTIVITY IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM IS LOCALLY INCIPIENT. the simplistic good-and-evil narrative is employed by those in control of the current social order.

you say;

"Pointing out the social origins of illness, in my experience, does little to alleviate the suffering of affected individuals."

do you not think it would help to call bullshit when the media and presidents and leaders of the prevailing social order capture what is going on in a simple binary good and evil narrative? how does the social order evolve if insurgents are portrayed as 'evil' (fountainhead sources of violence, rather than 'symptoms'). if insurgents themselves buy into a simple binary good and evil narrative [as in nihilism] then the needed shift from dualism to non-dualism will be indefinitely deferred. As Heraclitus pointed out, strife in nature is the fuel of continuing evolution (relational transformation), it is NOT a binary polarity and NOT a material dialectic [thesis, antithesis, synthesis]. That is, material genesis is 'appearances' and field is primary [epigenetic influence is primary].

The binary mindset of the prevailing social order and its gatekeepers [who look out at the world through good and evil lenses] will continue to identify insurgents, protesters and change agents as 'fountainheads' of violent action, rather than as symptoms of a sick social order.

i hear what you say; i.e. in a physical sense, the rock-solid resistance to change of the prevailing social order appears impossible to change so why not refocus our attention on caring for the many casualties it is producing [symptoms rather than source]. i am not arguing against that, but suggesting that the battle with the social order is not a physical one, it is a psychological struggle between dualism (binary thinking) and non-dualism (relational understanding).

thecollective
from emile on health

kelly brogan's point that mental disorders are an 'epigenetic syndrome' is right on target. her description of how we are hell bent on eliminating symptoms without addressing root cause could describe Western authoritarian politics [domestic and global] as well as Western medicine; i.e.

“The implication is that these symptoms must go away at all costs, and we don’t care what they’re from, we just need them gone, so it’s like we say in functional medicine, it’s like taking tylenol every day for the rest of your life when you have a piece of glass in your foot. like, take a look at the pain in your foot and see what it’s about because there may be a meaningful solution available to you if you’re not just so focused on suppressing the symptoms.” -- Kelly Brogan

Two more 'on target' quotes from Brogan;

1. In six decades, not a single study has proven that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.
- The serotonin theory of depression is a myth that has been supported by the manipulation of data and an echo chamber of industry and media rhetoric.
- Depression is not a genetic disease. It is an epigenetic syndrome. -- Kelly Brogan

2. “But the other more subtle issue that I just want to put out there for people to chew on is like, why do we have so little tolerance in this culture for struggle, for suffering and for our own evolutionary process which can be a bit messy. You know, in every other culture, in indigenous culture and in traditional culture the world over, there is an appreciation that growth is not always a pleasant experience, right? ... and that growth comes from walking through a specific fire. It’s absolutely a product of the way that we have been thinking about our health, the way we have been trying to commandeer our bodies and dominate nature and focus on productivity and ambition at all costs, ... the way that we’ve de-spiritualized everything about the American way of life. You know, it’s a product of that that psychiatry is the most powerful instrument that, ... frankly, you know, not to sound conspiratorial but that our government has , you know, to keep us, really, ‘in line’. And so I’m actually a deep believer, more recently in my life, in the relevance of suffering. I think it has a point. I think there’s a reason for it, and I think if you fight it and avoid it like all of the great philosophers since the beginning of time have tried to share with us, it only makes things worse.” – Kelly Brogan

in other words, 'symptom chasing' engenders externalities that make things worse, whether we are talking about military interventions or medical interventions.

thecollective
from emile on health because he can't seem to stop

Western science, as Nietzsche points out, is always looking for a causal author to every 'change'. He died in 1900 and in 1903 Poincaré wrote 'Science and Hypothesis' where he pointed out that science has built in the assumption that "the present depends only on the immediate past".

Thus, if global temperatures rise between one year and the next, scientists look for causal agency responsible for the rise. As Poincaré notes;

"We recognise at the outset the efforts of men of science have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena, and that in three different ways.
.
First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past.
.
Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton." - Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics'

If there was a big snowfall for a decade, a century ago, that extended the surface area of ice deposits (and thus seasonal melting ice that is called the earth's refrigeration system), at some point, this surface area will abruptly shrink when areas of thin ice melt to nothing [thin layers are just as good at refridgerating as thick areas (only surface melting contributes to refridgerating the atmosphere)] so the drop in atmosphere-refridgerating power can be rapid.

the upblip in temperature that occurs in one year will have scientists searching for a positive causal authorship, but this effect is 'negative causal' or 'inductive' since it comes from a withdrawal of refrigerative influence that has been keeping the 'baseline' temperature down for a long, perhaps forgotten or even unknown period of time dating back to the heavy and complexly distributed deposition.

inductive actualizing [negative causation] of temperature change or any other phenomena, is in science's blindspot because of the simplification mentioned by Poincaré. science's 'not looking for negative causation' [deficiency-induced causation] was a huge problem that delayed recognition of the cause of the collection of infections and cell degenerations associated with scurvy (deficiency of vitamin C). the 'genetic expression' was visible and material but the inductive influence of the deficiency was invisible and non-material. the root cause was not a positive causal author but a negative cause or 'inductive actualizing influence'.

There are a number of biologists and epidemiologists who have suggested that AIDS, a syndrome comprising a list of about 25 illnesses is deficiency-induced, rather than causally authored by HIV. if you just have the illness and are HIV-negative, you don't have AIDS and if you have the illness and are HIV-positive, you are said to have AIDS.

When scientists are looking for positive causal authorship, they will look for 'correlations', as with CO2 increase which is crudely correlated with rising global temperature. Negative causal or inductive actualizing of change will not be found because it is not looked for and because the search presumes that "the present depends only on the immediate past without influence from the remote past". both CO2 and HIV show up as 'smoking gun' correlations; i.e. they seem to often but not always show up when the 'pathology' (sic) in question shows up. in this sense, they are like seratonin in Kelly Brogan's observation that;

“In six decades, not a single study has proven that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.
.
- The serotonin theory of depression is a myth that has been supported by the manipulation of data and an echo chamber of industry and media rhetoric.
.
- Depression is not a genetic disease. It is an epigenetic syndrome.” – Kelly Brogan

the same has been said about the HIV-AIDS and CO2-temperature correlations as the serotonin-mental disorder correlation; i.e. there is a statistical correlation that has never been proven to be 'causal'.

Also in the same category of blindness from linear (binary dualist) thinking, thousands die every year from 'c.difficile' 'infection' which medical science describes as an increasingly lethal, virulent and anti-biotics-resistant superbug. but only those who have earlier been on ordinary courses of anti-biotics [e.g. as precautionary for minor surgery etc.] are seriously troubled by it while doctors, nurses, hospital visitors and staff are not bothered]. There is a 90% successful cure which is only slowly being accepted, called FMT (fecal microbiota transplantation) which has come about by those who can see this is a deficiency-induced problem where the battle can't be won by going to war against the 'presumed pathogen'. FMT is a procedure that corrects the deficiency by introducing balanced flora into the digestive tract which the anti-biotics had introduced deficiency into to create the conditions for deficiency-induced illness.

the popular game of calling FMT aka 'fecal transplant' ... moonbat nonsense ... held it up since 1958 when it was first proven effective, and thus helped to deliver about 20,000 per year to an easily avoidable early grave in the US alone for 60 years (1.2 million).

thecollective
comment from emile health because he doesn't give a shit

morphostasis acknowledges the non-dualism in nature's dynamics in general.

northern towns that don't dispose of their garbage expeditiously are plagued by bear attacks and need to keep a large contingent of riflemen on the alert to provide 'immunity' against the rising incidence of 'pathogenic bear attacks'. meanwhile, some towns have found that their being more fastidious in managing their disposal of wastes reduces "bear attacks" to almost nil.

evidently, bear attacks are inductively actualized and it is not true that bears are becoming increasingly pathogenic as media reports often claim. in other words, epigenetic influence [poor garbage disposal] inductively actualizes genetic expression [in this case, "bear attacks"].

such non-dualist symmetries pervade the relational world we live in, and Western allopathic science typically interprets what is going on by reducing the non-dualism to dualism.

superimpose the fixed viewing frame of the video camera over the attacking bears and all you see is bears invading the town and getting into struggles with dogs and people in and around their homes. any forensic scientist examining the body of a mauled dog or villager can determine that the individual was killed by a bear. it is therefore evident that people are being attacked and injured and killed by bears and this appears to be on the rise in many areas. The response will most often be to build up defenses against these attacks (build up the immune system) and develop a robust capability to neutralize the attacking pathogenic bears. A less common response is available to those employing a non-dualist mode of understanding wherein it is understood that the genetic expression [bear attacks] is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence [a ready supply of easily accessible wastes for bears to feed on].

Evidently, Western science likes to bypass the Hygiean model of health and go with the Aesculapian (binary, dualist) 'good' and 'evil' model which blames 'pathogens' for system degeneration, and has not yet come around to seeing things in the non-dualist mode of understanding of modern physics wherein epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression [pathogen attack].

As Jamie Cunliffe says;

"I have suggested that the core function of the immune (or morphostatic) system is to dispose of tissue debris (mess/non-mess discrimination) and restore order. The debris of degenerating cells provides a rich source of nutrients for micro-organisms. Could it be that the major goal of the immune system is to rapidly dispose of such debris? This strategy could lead to a 'denial-of-nutrient-substrate' that starves invading bacteria out of contention and, in consequence, suppresses infection." -- Jamie Cunliffe

thecollective
from emile health in a war against all

the videos you reference demonstrate how Western science's causal model is inherently incapable of addressing epigenetic influence where the animating source of the dynamic is inductive [negatively causal].

in the human modeled as microbiome, deficiencies in the ecosystem produced by anti-germ treatments can change the soup mix in such a manner that the new mix which is missing a few bacterial participants that were essential to balance (morphostasis) is now fertile for the proliferation of strains that throw the ecosystem out of balance. attacking the runaway strain, whether it is c.difficile or staphylococcus epidermis is not a solution because the out of balance system derives from a deficiency [negative cause] rather than a surplus of trouble-makers [positive cause].

as Nietzsche pointed, the one-sided causal way of thinking [where the solution is a hammer that sees every problem as a nail, as the staph sufferer in the second video puts it] ... derives from the structure of our language which infers a subject-author for every action/change.

This simple minded binary dualist causal model of dynamics is leading to the horrors that the guy describes in his MRSA experience, which is horrific in its fast moving action, but c. difficile that gives rise to acute colitis where you are on the toilet numerous times in the day and night and after 18 months die of exhaustion is not so nice either, both being situations that allopathic medicine puts people into, and 20,000 or more people per year (US only) continue to experience this horror and death from an easily correctable flora deficiency wrongly interpreted as the attack of schizophrenic pathogen, c. difficile, whose commensalist personality, it is said, can flip into an infectious pathogen that is "increasingly virulent and lethal and anti-biotics resistant" (repetitive attack to remove something just do more damage when the problem is that there is a deficiency that requires filling).

In the staph infection video, the guy who fortunately 'did his own research' and escaped death (found the solution) observes;

"The dead skin cells on the surface of our skin are a food source for many different types of bacteria. It is quite literally, an ‘ecosystem’. One way or another that ecosystem is going to be occupied. Avoiding ‘bad bacteria’ is impossible. Staph is everywhere. In fact 20 percent of the population carry it at all times. The only long term protection is to fill that niche with strains that are beneficial."

Good on him! ... because the NIH journals are still saying;

"Whereas previously only regarded as an innocuous commensal microorganism on the human skin, Staphylococcus epidermidis is nowadays seen as an important opportunistic pathogen."

While the staph sufferer's researcher went out and sideways (into epigenetic influence), the NIH's continues to go down and in to try to understand, if you can believe the stupidity of this, ... why is it that a nice well-behaved commensal staphylococcus epidermis gets mean and pathogenic.

"In this review, the molecular basis of the commensal and infectious lifestyles of S. epidermidis will be discussed."

here comes more 'serotonin causes depression' stupidity; i.e. the search for correlations and smoking gun connections that can be imputed to be 'cause-effect relations' that will preserve the allopathic model.

but there's more to it than allopathy, there's anthropomorphism; e.g;

In a Nova documentary entitled ‘Slime Mold Smarts’ we hear the following

“The slime mold Physarum polycephalum is a single cell without a brain, yet it can make surprisingly complicated decisions. In this animated video short, watch as a slime mold navigates through a maze and solves a civil engineering problem.” — Nova

This personification, based on our ego model of self, is a means of explaining change that imputes 'independent being' and 'internal process sourced drive and direction' to relational forms.

whether we are talking about slime mold, 'smart plants' or schizophrenic staphyloccus epidermis that can't decide whether they want to be commensal or infectious, the common pattern is that the unfolding dynamics have to be attributed to a 'causal agent' rather than to epigenetic influence. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a whole book, 'Full House', to make this one point, that if a baseball hitter's average takes a big drop, it needn't be due to a drop in his causal powers, it could be that the fielding he was hitting into got a whole lot better. i.e. 'hitting and fielding are a non-duality, but by imposing an absolute Euclidian space and absolute time measuring reference frame to view things through, we reduce the dynamic we are observing from non-dualist to dualist and shift all attribution for 'genetic expression' [what we see unfolding] from epigenetic influence to genetic agency.

As Nietzsche points out, that comes from how Western man sees himself (how his little sagacity ego self sees himself), as an independently existing thing-in-itself with internal intelligence and purpose driven behaviour, rather than as his big sagacity natural Self sees himself as a non-dual Brahman-Atman relational form in the flow.

Brogan and the man solving the staph problem himself 'blur the line' between' organism/inhabitant and habitat. The model of the human as a microbiome whose composition depends on her relational situation (vaginal birth at home equips the infant with a different, more likely to be commensalist assemblage than hospital birth) implies inhabitant-habitat non-dualism. 'immunity', or, 'morphostatic resilience' must be seen 'relationally' rather than in one-sided terms of the hitter out of the context of the hitter-fielding relation.

so it is not just allopathic medicine where the problem of egotist anthropomorphism comes in, it is there in plant biology where scientists are explaining complex relational ecosystems in terms of the intelligent cooperation of the participant plants,... rather than the other way round, wherein the relations are the source of the participant forms, as in the cosmos generally;

" “[In nature]… “the individual parts reciprocally determine one another.” … “The properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,” … “Every single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.” Therefore, no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” – Ernst Mach

what is holding up the coming of more open and realistic views in medical science and biological sciences and political science and science-in-society in general is the Western sense of 'who we are' since our science is inherently anthropomorphist. we see change as coming from our own internal will [Nietzsche].

Was Krupp a successful businessman? How about if he chained people to his factory machines and used them as slave-labour. He's still a successful businessman, or 'business leader, right? As Nietzsche observes, it's our concept of 'will' (purpose, intention) that we credit with 'causal agency' that has us attributing 'success' [productive result] fully and solely to 'him' and his 'powerful will'.

Is Trump a successful businessman? If he manipulated the 'fielding' would his soaring batting average not still be seen as the product of his 'powerful will'? If a successful businessman derives his success from sweatshop labours in Bangladesh, he is still a successful businessman or 'business leader' right? He mixes with monarchs and presidents and may even be elected to a presidency. The 'leader' in 'business leader' refers to 'strong will' and not to whether he has manipulated the fielding to get his batting average to soar. When Stalin at-the-bat flubs and hits a pop-up, who wants to catch it?

That is what binary dualist thinking does for us, it reduces the non-dualism of hitter-fielding dynamics to simple one-sided causality where we portray the hitter NOT IN-SITU IN NON-DUALIST HITTING-FIELDING RELATIONAL SPACE, but in an abstract absolute Euclidian space and absolute time measuring/reference-frame-come 'operating theatre' notionally transferring the animating authoring influence from the epigenetic field source to the perceived 'genetic agency' [as we do by naming a purported 'genetic agent' such as 'Katrina' who we say was responsible for doing damage to New Orleans. This is anthropomorphism and it is built into Western science and reasoning by way of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar.

thecollective
emile on health - whining or not

'genes' and 'instinct' are concepts invented to make the 'being'-based model of organisms 'hang together'; i.e. if the organism is assumed to be an 'independent being' aka 'thing-in-itself', whatever development and behaviour that the observer associates with it must derive from the organism-as-thing-in-itself.

'independent being' is impossible in the world as we know it from modern physics. The Shroedingerian world is a transforming relational complex. The Newtonian world starts by assuming the existence of 'independent material objects, organisms, systems'. This is, as Mach pointed out, a simplifying semantic convenience that delivers 'economy of thought' that we have mistakenly carried over into biology and physiology.

as modern cell research is showing, 'epigenesis' is in precedence over 'genesis' just as 'field' (epigenetic influence) is in precedence over 'matter'. 'genetic expression' is 'appearances'. this conforms with Lamarck's model of biological organisms, relational forms that are inductively actualized; i.e. their development and behaviour are inductively [outside-inwardly or 'epigenetically'] shaped.

the biological orthodoxy is still clinging to a 'being'-based model of cells and organisms, but the 'fixes' that this forces to many observations are like the epicycles that kept being added to preserve the ptolemaic cosmology. the copernican cosmology was also 'being-based' [things revolving around things] within an fixed absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame, but never satisfied the relational transformation evident in the universe. as Mach said;

"“the motions of the Universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view” of celestial dynamics, … “both views are, indeed, equally correct.” i.e. the geocentric and the heliocentric views are merely two “interpretations” of a Universe that “is only given once.”. Mach goes on to warn; “we … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.”

it seems to me that you are taking your lead from 'what we actually experience' as relational forms within a transforming relational continuum or holodynamic [according the Machian, Bohmian, Schroedingerian view]. The experience of a relational form in a transforming relational continuum does not derive from 'the genetic endowment' that purportedly came with 'conception' and was responsible for producing its embryonic development that resulted in the 'birth' of a 'new being'.

This simple causal model may remain 'convenient' but it is contradicted by the accepted understanding that field is in a natural precedence over matter which implies that epigenesis is in a natural precedence over genetic agents (genes).

as wikipedia STILL says;

"Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors."

there are no behaviours which are NOT informed by prior experience in a transforming relational continuum. this phraseology comes from assuming the birth of 'beings' of no experience. no such entities exist in a transforming relational plenum.

"“Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” — David Bohm"

the relational form in the flow is not born with no experience. one might say it IS AN EXPERIENCING; i.e. the experience of an inhabitant-habitat non-dualism is ever present.

it is only when we impute 'independent being' to newborns [thanks to our absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference framing] that we reduce an 'experiencing' to a 'thing-that-experiences', such as when we reduce the 'storming' in the atmospheric flow to a 'storm-cell' that 'experiences' influences that we say explain ITS development and behaviour.

there are no 'things-that-experience' in a relational world, there are only 'experiencings', as in the case of the storm-cell. the imputing of 'being' as Nietzsche points out is a double error of grammar [imputing 'being' to a relational activity such as storming, and then using the created 'being' as a subject to inflect action verbs to re-install the action which is in the physical reality of our actual experience, deriving from epigenetic influence, to make it seem that is coming from the 'being' [thus the ego is born to TRUMP the physically real source of action and result].

its only when one grounds one's models in 'being' that one has to postulate 'genes' that drive development and 'instinct' that explains complex behaviours in newborns and new mothers [nest-making in birds as they become mothers].

in light of modern physics wherein epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression, as is showing up in cell research;

"“As is described by Nijhout, genes are “not self-emergent,” that is, genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by “environmental signals.” Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” —Bruce Lipton, ‘The New Biology’

[note that this 'repetition' is repetition of findings/terminology that apply in many different relational contexts, in this case, 'instinct'].

the finding that epigenesis is in natural precedence over genesis [as in field over matter] show that 'genes' are not 'agents of genesis', but 'records' of 'epigenetic conditions'. e.g. the so-called 'growth-rings' of a tree are not records of 'growth of the tree' unless one makes the grammar error that depicts the 'tree' as as 'thing-in-itself' that is the author of ITS own development. in fact, all of the diverse multiplicity of plants [there are no multiplicities in a relational/ecosystemic space, its only when we use language to impute 'being' to them] will record the same unique pattern of lean years and fat years; i.e. the rings are NOT 'growth rings' that attributes fat or lean growth to the plant/tree, but records of epigenetic conditions that are inductively actualizing such 'genetic expression'. there is no generative agency coming from each of the participants in an interdependent relational ecosystem, relations inductively actualize and shape the participants, not the other way round.

so, a long note to suggest that if one takes 'being' out of it, 'genetics' and 'instinct' have to give way to some other concepts since they are both born from the assumption of the existences of biological organism-things-in-themselves which is impossible in a world as understood through modern physics. sure, the notion of things-in-themselves is retained because it is built into the basic architecture of noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar, and it is evident that we (Western culture) regularly make the 'double error of grammar' that inverts, in our semantic representations, the natural precedence of intuition over reason and epigenesis over genesis.

in a relational world, we ARE 'experiencings' and not 'beings that experience' and we are not 'born' and subsequently 'die' but are continually gathering and being regathered within the transforming relational continuum.

the conflict we have in our modern society is between 'the physical reality of our actual experience' and 'culturally constructed semantic reality'

"“The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group . . . We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” – Edward Sapir

thecollective
from emile on post truth and text walls

The media is a mediator between the people and the 'authorities' and reports on both 'what people are experiencing in the now' and various 'constructed semantic realities' that attempt to explain our experience in terms of 'beings' and 'what 'beings' do. For example, the Western cultural standard uses the logical causal modeling paradigm to try to explain 'what is going on'. this 'reasoning' or 'logical-causal modeling is inherently subjective and incomplete. E.g. 'Saddam is causing problems; ... let's eliminate Saddam and thus eliminate the problem-causing source and thus eliminate the problem.

Because our intervention to do so [we are using our reason-based semantic reality as our 'operating reality' to guide our actions in so doing] is an intervention into the transforming relational continuum, it induces major 'externalities' that are neither anticipated nor addressed in the subjective and incomplete constructs of 'what things do' based reasoning [semantic reality construction].

Incoherence [Bohm] arises from the mismatch between using subjective and incomplete logical-causal [what things do] reasoning as one's 'semantic reality' [action-guiding operative reality] when what we are experiencing is unique, situational inclusion in a transforming-in-the-now relational continuum. Faced with massive externalities from our interventions into a too-relationally-complex-to-fully-know continuum, we once again rely on inherently subjective and incomplete being-based ['what things do based] logically reasoned analysis, to try to eliminate the problems we have just induced, thus inducing more problems.

This incoherence is inherent in a system wherein the media reports on the people's actual experience in-the-unfolding-now, ... and various political groups and braintrusts try to come up with REASONED [what things-are-doing-based] interpretations explaining the 'cause' of problematic experience and how to eliminate the cause. The logical-causal reasoning used in such interpretation is, again, 'inherently subjective and incomplete'. No-one investigated the relational tensions within the notional place called 'Iraq' (relations do not stop at imagined colonizer-imposed state boundaries) to anticipate how relations would be transformed by the intervention to surgically excise the purported 'local causal source'.

The point is that reasoned interpretations of 'what is going on', presented as a 'semantic reality' featuring a cast of independent beings imputed to have local jumpstart causal powers,... is a ridiculously over-simplified mock-up of the relational world of our actual, unfolding-in-the-now experience. We use such logic-based semantic realities because they are convenient and they deliver great 'economy-of-thought' [Mach] by obscuring the relational complexity in the physical reality of our actual experience. As Poincare pointed out, people split into two groups; 'realists' and 'pragmatic idealists', the former group accepting logical constructs as 'reality' [the map IS the territory] and the latter group seeing logical constructs as 'pragmatic idealization' [the map is NOT the territory; it is a finger pointing to the moon that is not the moon].

Trump and other capitalists and capitalist organizations are only the authors of "their" vast riches if one ignores the 'externalities' associated with their 'interventions'.

the term 'externalities' is just a dodge that keeps us from having to admit that the physically real world of our actual experience is a relational complex that cannot be broken down into a what-things-are-doing based material dynamic.

Conclusion:

The media is reporting two types of things; (a) the unfolding-in-the-now experience of the people, and (b) the various and sundry 'logical-causal [reason]-based semantic realities [all of which are inherently subjective and incomplete and ignore relational complexity] which are purported explanations of what is going on and which provide the basis for correcting the problematic aspects of what is going on.

The (b) reason-based semantic realities are pragmatic idealizations that, being subjective and incomplete, fall far short of capturing the physical reality of our actual experience, and fall far short of providing an 'operative reality' that can guide our actions in eliminating the problems identified and reported on that arise in the physical reality of our actual in-the-now experience.

What the media has been reporting on as (b) [the various and sundry 'semantic realities' split according to political biases] was inherently subjective and incomplete and therefore led to the election of authorities who claimed to be able to solve problems as interpreted through these reason-based semantic realities. The failure of this system is now being blamed on a biased media that is 'deliberately distorting the truth', leading to the election of charlatans who do nothing to resolve the difficulties actually experienced by some of the people in the community.

of course, the failure of the system to deliver is not arising from our being led around by the nose by the 'wrong version of the truth', but derives from the basic 'incoherence' in the system, based as it is on logical-causal [what things are doing] reasoning that is passed off, in constructed semantic realities, as 'the truth'.

As in the Nietzsche quote, there is no articulable 'truth' that is not subjective and incomplete and which falls well short of the physical reality of our actual experience.

So, the chronic problem of authorities not being able to fix things, and engendering 'externalities' in every attempt to try to do so [because their logical causal models are hopelessly inadequate (subjective and incomplete)] does not derive from a failure to lock-on to 'the real truth' but from inherent inadequacies in logical-causal 'reasoning'.

What is happening now, is that people who are suffering, chronically, from difficulties within the physical reality of our their actual experience, are accusing the media and politicians of feeding them 'distorted truth', and their response is to go in search of 'the real truth'.

The problem is, in Western culture, the 'truth' is presented in 'logical-causal what-things-are-doing' terms which are subjective and incomplete. So, the mistake is in 'searching for the truth' to use as the basis for intervention to alleviate chronic problems in the physical reality of people's actual experience. There is no ARTICULABLE 'truth' that can capture the relational complexity in a transforming relational continuum.

Trump claims to have access to this elusive 'truth' and is backing thus up by showing how the media and his political adversaries are 'distorting the truth'. In other words, he purports to have access to 'the real truth'. He doesn't need the FBI or the CIA to gain access to this truth, he needs access only to yes-men who will supply him with the truths he wants to hear, and this will not include hiring prostitutes to piss on hotel beds in Moscow etc. etc.

As Nietzsche suggested, 'reason' [which gives a binary dualist view of the world and self] was elevated to an unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition back in the era of Plato and Socrates, and Western civilization has been hanging on to this unstable equilibrium for a couple of millennia and engendering massive 'externalities' as a result, to the point that the relational space we are included in is becoming increasingly toxic to our persisting participation. The collapse of reason-based [binary, dualist] truth is inevitable, since, by employing it as our 'operative reality', we are shooting ourselves in the foot by way of engendering unanticipated 'externalities' via our 'reason-based interventions. [what's the good of reason-based truths if they are inherently subjective and incomplete?]

"The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- Mach's principle

Trump's 'real truths', because of his egotist belief in his own god-like powers of control-based crafting of desired futures, are going to engender 'externalities' BIGTIME and we are all going to experience the roller-coaster ride he is taking us on, unless we come to realize that he garners his power from our belief in his authority; i.e. by suspending our belief in his authority, the mad roller-coaster ride can be suspended.

thecollective
from emile - post truth, post wally

As the lead-off commenter correctly pointed out, the difference between the MSM and internet is that the latter can deliver its goods in an (a) unedited and (b) uneditorialized manner.

This suggests two approachs (a) and (b) of 'faking the news'.

The (a) approach derives from the fact that language has a photoshop-like ability to bring into collective confluence whatever snippets of information our emotionally conditioned imaginations wish to assemble in constructing a 'semantic reality'; i.e. a photoshopped mental picture which appears to tell a 'true story'. Photoshopped semantic realities abound on the internet and in the social media and there is no editor to 'vet' the constructed semantic realities so as to distinguish between photoshopped realities and those that can be 'verified' with actual visual proof.

But that is just the (a) 'editor-validating' aspect, while the political spin-infused (b) 'editorialized constructions of semantic reality as in the usual Western culture 'good guys, bad guys' narrative is something else.

What's essential in the (b) enterprise of constructing good-and-evil fake news narratives is the grammatical concept of a 'subject' [person, nation, political figure etc.]. Since conflict in the physical reality of our actual experience derives from 'relational tensions' within a unum/plenum, the 'subject' is a grammatical device ['deceptive witch' in Nietzsche's terms] that has us believe there is interior incipient generative agency built into the subject, so that we can blame conflict on a subject [Russia is doing it to us]. This is like making a storm-cell into a subject and saying 'Katrina is doing it to New Orleans.

'Russia' is the name we give to a relational developing within the global relational dynamic which includes the United States and Russia; i.e. it would be absurd to believe we could surgically scrape off all other nations on the planet except Russia and that Russia would still have an 'identity of its own' as if it were a 'thing-in-itself'. Russia is an inhabitant within the transforming relational habitat; i.e. the nation-inhabitants and the global collective habitat are a non-duality in the manner of storm-cells in the atmosphere.

The (b) mode of fake news construction that comes through editorializing that fabricates 'good-and-evil' narratives, relies upon the grammatical device of imputing 'isness' or 'subjecthood' equipped with internal generative agency to relational developings within the global relational dynamic, such as 'Russia' and/or 'Trump' for that matter. Are we so naive as to really believe that it is Trump's internal generative agency that 'produced his wealth'? Does the farmer produce wheat? Does the oilman produce oil?

The internet may be bypassing MSM's editing of photoshopped semantic realities, allowing for greater creativity in fabricating visual illusions, but it is not bypassing the use of the grammatical device of imputing subjecthood to relational forms that allow us to build semantic realities in the form 'good and evil narratives', the more popular morality-based form of faking the news.

thecollective
from emile post truth pro wall

What the internet does an 'end run' around is the stranglehold that comes the editorially controlled 'media organ'. The editorially controlled 'media organ' has two ways of defeating challenges to its practice of (a) selectively including and excluding contributors and/or contributions,and (b) tainting contributors and/or contributions with moral value-judgements and thus producing 'fake news' by the combination of selective exclusion and moral judging.

Anarchistnews is a 'media organ' that, under the former administration of 'Worker', largely suspended both of these fake-news producing authoritarian practices, opening the door to evolution of understanding.

In the internet 'at large', even if every website [media organ] is using both of these fake-news producing tactics [selective exclusion and moral tainting], the diverse multiplicity of contributors and contributions is large enough that new patterns of relational association can come together and give a sense of what may be 'real' on the basis of 'coherency' rather than establishing the 'truth' of each and every item of content contributed. 'coherency derives from the relations among things without dependency on the things themselves, and coherency is the basis of 'holographic imaging'.

For example, if one were studying the continual gathering and scattering of local forms (e.g. clusters of ants), by monitoring the relations among the ants rather than monitoring the 'growth' and 'decline' of the clusters [which assumes local generative agency or 'thing-in-itself status' of each cluster], one can produce imagery that is free from subject-based dependency and thus get an overall picture that is not a 'sum of the parts photoshopping'. In the general case where the relational suprasystem is the source of the local systems developing within it, this satisfies the 'grounding of analytical inquiry in synthetical inquiry' [Russell Ackoff],

relational coherency based holography incorporates views from multiple perspectives; i.e. it furnishes an 'aperspectival view'. Such a view transcends the 'individual perspective based views'. Comparing a large number of single perspective views so as to single out the best one, will not get you to the holographic/aperspectival view. What 'goes missing', as can be intuited from the ant cluster example, is the epigenetic [relational suprasystem] influence that is inductively actualizing 'genetic expression' [local system behaviour].

Perhaps an example 'closer to home' [aside from examining anarchistnews itself] are 'terrorist cells' instead of 'ant clusters'. epigenetic influences are the inductive actualizers of terrorist cells in a holographic aperspectival view, however the single perspective editorialized views of media organs do NOT ground their analytical inquiry in synthetical inquiry and thus deliver 'fake-news' that presents 'local cells' as 'things-in-themselves'. Editorial imposing of 'moral judgement' supplies the ersatz internal generative agency [aka 'evil'] that explains the sourcing of development and behaviour of the notional 'thing-itself' in the edited-out absence of epigenetic inductive actualizing influence.

since terrorist cells [or rebel-slave cells, anarchist cells etc.] are also contributing views to the internet, the potention for relational coherency based holographic imaging arises with its epigenetic-genetic non-duality.

meanwhile anarchistnews.org, since the departure of Worker, has been regressing to the fake-new producing practices of traditional media organs with selective deletions and moral tainting of both contributors and contributions.

thecollective
from emile on seeking an escape from text walls

talk of exiting the mainstream system is a semantic reality construction. in the physical reality of our actual experience we are all included in the same space, therefore, the 'new system' is NOT a 'new system' but a reconfiguring or relational transformation of the one suprasystem. intentional communities are thus more like drops of oil in a mainly watery plenum.

We are included in nature and 'societies' or 'social systems' of various types all share inclusion in that one-space. so what it is like to live in a drop of oil within a water plenum depends on the watery plenum that the drop of oil is incluced in and not just on what goes on within the drop of oil.

in other words, there is no such thing in the physically real world of our actual experience as a local system-in-itself. Therefore 'intentional communities' do not exist in physical reality; i.e. there is no physical boundary or demarcation that separates the inside and outside of an 'intentional community'. there may be a fence or some other symbolic separator, but there is no physical difference between the inside and outside of an intentional community that would be sensed by the most sensitive rabbit, bird or insect. being in an intentional community is a 'state of mind'.

there is no possible 'exiting of the mainstream system', except in one's mind. what is going on in the physical reality of our actual experience, by gathering together like a drop of oil in the watery plenum, is a relational transforming of the overall one-space. of course, if the transformation continued, more of the water in the plenum would become more like the oil until the plenum was mostly more like oil rather than like water [i.e. until the mainstream was more like oil].

'communism' was a theoretical 'intentional community' that the theorists believed could only be achieved globally and not as a drop of oil in a capitalist watery mainstream. nevertheless, and in spite of warnings from communist thinkers, russians decided to try to introduce it as a drop of oil in a watery (capitalist) mainstream, believing that they could make it work as if it were a local 'system-in-itself' even though it was like a drop of oil in a watery mainstream [in systems science terms, every system is included in a relational suprasystem and analytical inquiry (scientific reasoning) no longer 'works'; i.e. analytical inquiry must be grounded in synthetical inquiry which acknowledges that the local system is genetic expression that is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence].

this immersion in the watery mainstream distorted the dynamics of the oil-drop intentional community since in physical reality there is only one common space, and communities with different ethics/beliefs share inclusion in that one-space. it is only noun-and-verb language-and-grammar that allows us to speak of the drop of oil and the water as two separate communities (the communist world and the capitalist world). the 'separation' is 'in our heads'; i.e. the separation is in the semantic realities we construct wherein we impute 'independent being' to 'the communist world' and 'the capitalist world'. i.e.in the physical reality of our actual experience, the world is given only once, as a transforming-in-the-now relational plenum.

gathering into drops of oil within a watery mainstream is part of a transformational process, but the notion of 'exiting' from an obnoxious mainstream and forming a desired 'intentional community' or eutopia, as if these two communities were two different and independent things, is delusion.

thecollective
from emile on humor and walls

'race' is an example of a 'category' and 'categories' do not exist in the physically real world of our actual experience. they are a logical device created for convenience and economy of thought (category-based generalization allows us to avoid the overheads of particularity deriving from the relational complexity of nature).

that is, ... a 'category' is a logical device that 'generalizes' so as to cut down on the natural overhead of having to deal with 'particular' entities, as all physical entities are [every entity is uniquely situationally included in a complex web of relations].

categories are established by, first, assuming that there exists a multiplicity of things that are more or less the same [this is an unjustified assumption based on visual appearance while ignoring situation within the relational complex].

second, based on the assumption that there is a multiplicity of more-or-less the same things, assembling a collection of candidate members to do statistical regression on their 'common properties/attributes' so as to develop category membership definition that can be applied to determine if a particular entity is a member of the category. if an entity satisfies the membership criteria, then one can know all about it (as a local 'thing-in-itself') by downloading its 'common properties' without ever having to experientially engage with it.

'races' and 'categories' are an invention of cultures that employ noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar. they do not exist in the physical reality of our actual experience, and are unknown in cultures that employ relational languages; e.g. as F. David Peat says in 'Blackfoot Physics';

"The problem with English is that when it tries to grapple with abstractions and categories it tends to trap the mind into believing that such categories have an equal status with tangible objects. Algonquin languages, being for the ear, deal in vibrations [waves] in which each word is related directly, not only to process of thought, but also to the animating energies of the universe.
.
[In modern physics], ... It is impossible to separate a phenomenon from the context in which it is observed. Categories no longer exist in the absence of contexts.
.
Within Indigenous science, context is always important. Nothing is abstract since all things happen within a landscape and by virtue of a web of interrelationships. The tendency to collect things into categories does not exist within the thought and language of, for example, Algonquin speakers.
.
This leads to a profoundly different way of approaching and thinking about the world. For, in the absence of categories, each thing is mentally experienced on its own merits, and for what it actually is. Rather than indulging in comparison or judgment, Indigenous speakers attempt to enter into relationship with them.

Clearly, a black African raised from a baby in an Algonquin village would have all the 'common properties' to qualify, in Western minds, as a member of the 'black African' category and thus meet the qualifications needed to become an executive in the Black Lives Matter movement etc. In the Algonquin village, that person would be an Algonquin and the tribal council would undoubtedly grant the black person full Algonquin status since "The tendency to collect things into categories does not exist within the thought and language of, for example, Algonquin speakers"

'racial identity' and 'gender identity' based on 'common properties' is a logical device invented for convenience and economy of thought. not everything with a penis is male and not everything with a vagina is female. as in the indigenous aboriginal tradition which has no concept of 'category'; -- "each thing is mentally experienced on its own merits, and for what it actually is. Rather than indulging in comparison or judgment, Indigenous speakers attempt to enter into relationship with them."

thecollective
from emile (incomplete in original) : death of politics

if, by apolitical, we imply moving upstream from intellectual conditioning for the source of our social organizing, then i agree that apolitical is a more apt term than anti-political. in any case, i think that Léon de Mattis is on the right track by trying to express the desired social-organizing in non-being-based terms.

this is analogous to avoiding the use of a 'subject' as argued by Nietzsche and by R. A. Wilson in his advocacy of avoiding 'being' [as in using E-prime language].

Nietzsche's idea of natural organizing sees endosmosis and exosmosis as a nonduality. this is the same as Mach's principle where epigenesis (the dynamics of the habitat) and genesis (the dynamics of the inhabitants) are seen as a non-duality. in these cases, organization is relational and not being-based ['being' does not come into play at all and associates with superficial 'appearance' or 'schaumkommen'].

E.g. social organizing in an old fishing village may continue on, much the same, over the course of many generations. the so-called 'beings' flow through the village social organizational pattern like water flows through a whirlpool in a stream, or like air flows through a convection-cell in the atmosphere.

the relational dynamics of the village habitat are the source of the dynamics of the village inhabitants that keep passing through it. Only when we impose a notional fixed frame [absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame] do we invert this picture and attribute the authorship of the dynamics of the village habitat to the dynamics of the village inhabitants.

The village inhabitants are NOT the authors of the relational organization that manifests as the dynamics of the village habitat, just as the dynamics of storm-cells that inhabit that atmospheric flow are not the authors of the atmospheric flow. Turn up the solar irradiance and, (ceteris paribus), we get more storm-cells and more humans, and turn the solar irradiance down and we get fewer storm-cells and fewer humans; i.e. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.

organization in the physical reality of our actual natural experience does not start in the intellect. that's the point. politics constructs its own 'semantic realities' which are at odds with physical reality; i.e. politics is an approach to organizing based on programming the intellect with common theory and purpose based on abstract 'being'-based idealizations. the old fishing village was not created by politicians, it is 'genetic expression' that is inductively actualized, orchestrated and shaped by epigenetic influence.

the difficulty we have in breaking ourselves out of the habit of framing the village dynamic in terms of 'beings' and 'what beings are doing' comes from the fact that our noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar is inherently 'being-based'. Léon de Mattis is trying to render the desired social organization using non-being-based language; i.e. without specifying 'what people need to do'. he may call it 'communistic' but it is really 'anarchistic' in the sense of the apolitical social organizing of people in the fishing village.

political theory driven social organizing puts 'intention' into an unnatural precedence over 'situation' [epigenetic influence].

when we observe the dynamics of the inhabitants of the fishing village, our experience-based intuition informs us that the unfolding situation they find themselves in is inductively actualizing their fishing village dynamic. only when we start building people as 'independent beings' into our constructed 'semantic realities' do we see the villagers as being driven by their own internal purpose/intention.

This is where politics comes from; i.e. from viewing people as 'independent beings with internal purpose-driven actions', notionally making them receptacles for political infusions of 'common theory and common purpose'.

The trouble is, as McLuhan noted, while the group whose intellects are conditioned with the common purpose of building a community hall do so in 'Euclidian space', their ACTUAL operating space is relational space wherein it is impossible to build a structure in the forest without destroying some forest; i.e. the only dynamic possible in a relational space is 'relational transformation'. the binary opposites; 'construction' and 'destruction' are abstract artefacts of our imposing of Euclidian space frames and have no place in the physical reality of our experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.

The engendering of externalities that are unanticipated and unaddressed in the logical plans and implementations of politicians derives from the fact that 'politics' develops its common purpose based plans and directs their implementing by the social collective IN EUCLIDIAN SPACE [politics makes intention-driven beings out of us] while such actions are interventions within the transforming relational continuum. Meanwhile, our experience-based intuition informs us that It is impossible to construct a community hall in the forest without destroying some forest [transformation of relations is the physically real dynamic while 'construction' and 'destruction' are Euclidian space based binary opposite idealizations].

apolitical organizing awaits us OUTSIDE of the habitual [Euclidian] being-based semantic realities we are in the habit of constructing.

engendered by political movements that direct the behaviour of collectives within political dynamics political operations in a

emile
edit of above post:

the last paragraph is a fragment that was not intended to be included.

[edit option is not available]

thecollective
from emile the continuing hauntology of wall texting

the author of this article address three intellectual concerns about 'ego' as treated in popular interpretations of Stirner's work [not necessarily Stirner's views but others' views on Stirner's views. None of these concerns are grounded in the physical reality of our actual, relational experience. When such grounding is 'in place', the 'creative nothing' of Stirner and other philosophers who also point to it [eg Nietzsche, Emerson] makes 'intuitive' [experience-based] sense.

starting with an understanding of the world as given only once, as a transforming relational continuum [Mach, Bohm, Einstein, Schroedinger, Nietzsche], we have the Heraclitean situation wherein 'everything is in flux' and all forms are relational and in a condition of 'continual becoming' (strands in the evolving web-of-life). local forms such as 'our self' are inductively actualized by epigenetic (outside-inward) influences in which we are situationally included.

noun and verb language captures relational forms as the 'things-in-themselves' and imputes to them their own 'fixed identity' and their own intention-driven generative agency. the relational dynamics they are situationally included in and which are the source of their continuing development/becoming as well as the source of their behaviour [via an Emersonian venting wherein the relational form is a transmitting of influences from the nonlocal to the local], disappear.

Our individual life experience affirms Nietzsche's observation in 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' that we can understand our 'self' in two ways, as the web of relations we are situationally included in, which he calls the 'big sagacity Natural Self', ... and 'the little sagacity ego-self'. that latter derives from a 'double error in grammar' (Nietzsche) wherein we start with an activity (relational form in the flow) and impute to it thing-in-itselfness, semantically animating it from out of itself by imputing 'intention' (will, purpose) and 'creative agency' to it.

Western society builds upon synthetic 'semantic realities' based on the psychological belief in 'independent being'. Instead of reaching out, acknowledging and respecting the web of relations that inductively actualizing our continual becoming, we see ourselves as independent agents of intention-driven cause-effect results [as individuals, nations, corporations]. This 'little ego-self' game is one wherein we compete with one another to maximize 'our own' material accomplishments. This is a game of 'identity politics' wherein we glorify our semantically depicted 'thing-in-itselfness', whether as individuals or as notional 'independent nations'. Since this 'little sagacity ego-self' is a fixed identity purely on relations like storm-cell in the flow, as far as local content goes, it is 'hollow' [there is nothing there]. thus to impute its own creative agency to it, as we do semantically with storm-cells ["Katrina is growing larger and stronger and is ravaging New Orleans"] is to put a ghost inside an 'appearance' or 'apparition' deriving from purely relational and thus non-local, non-visible and non-material ['field'] influence.

Western society, and Western science in particular, is based on a belief in ghosts and in ghost-based semantic pseudo-realities.. Indigenous anarchism, and this is not the exclusive preserve of indigenous aboriginals, acknowledges the relational, epigenetic origins of the big sagacity Natural Self.

thecollective
from emile this is never a dialog

only in a world of robots could speech be the seed of all action.

this suggestion is what oppressive governments aka "governments" use to garner public support for putting down rebellion; i.e. there is no 'real complaint', the unrest is being orchestrated by the lies of political extremists, as if extremist rhetoric were sufficient to incite violence.

there is always a 'real complaint' as in the experiencing of unrelenting relational tensions, as is the case with colonized peoples who have been long abused by colonizing powers.

as in nature, relational tensions are the source of energy buildups (e.g. the stress and strain based bending of layers of rock prior to earthquakes and/or accumulations of static electricity that reach and exceed a tolerance threshold where the accumulated energy potentials undergo violent release in association with major relational reconfiguring (a relational reconfiguring that naturally seeks to lower relational tensions [e.g. as in getting a monkey off one's back]).

speech can be a triggering agent and/or it can manipulate/direct the manner in which the violent release is directed (influence who gets zapped), but the suggestion that all action (including violence) is sown by speech occludes the role of experience.

when the prison camp warden ('Captain') in Cool Hand Luke, tells Luke that "what we've got here is a failure to communicate", the point is that the words of the authorities are the words that must be followed. whatever pain one is experiencing has nothing to do with it. the seed of rebellious action is therefore IMPUTED to be a simple matter of 'mis-communication', as if speech, the voice of authority, ... must be the seed of all action regardless of conflicting speech based on the physical reality of actual experience. this is the view of the (self-styled) authority.

push-back action is an action that is experience-driven, not speech and intellect driven. the dog that is poked one too many times will push back. sure, if dogs could speak they would say, 'let's get that motherfucker', but such action-inciting speech would be a secondary rather than primary animator of the action.

actions derive firstly from sensory experience, otherwise we would all be governed by intellectual discourse and doing what we are told; i.e. the speech of the most powerful would prevail (la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure).

the actions of the naturally free are not seeded by 'their own inner, intellectual voice', nor by the voice of authority, nor by any voice.

"Luke sneers at the rules and false beliefs of his fellow prisoners. He challenges their fear of a lightning bolt-wielding God by standing out in a thunderstorm and daring the ”Old Man” to strike him dead for his impiety. When Dragline tries to get him to stop, Luke asks, “Are you still believin’ in that big bearded Boss up there?"

actions derive firstly from experience, for man, as also for bear and wolf.

if the populace are people who do not let their own experience guide their actions [but instead put intellectual reasoning above experience-based intuition], then they may need protection against fascist rhetoric. but for a third party to step in to silence the fascists would be to go after symptoms rather than source and sidestep addressing the root source of the problem which is the Western culture addiction to putting reason into an unnatural precedence over [experience-based] intuition in the shaping of actions.

thecollective
from emile front groups of wall text

in both cases the goal is to bring an end to something which is only a symptom rather than a source.

the colonizers want to eliminate terrorists that they have created by their oppression of same. revolutionaries want to overthrow (disempower) leadership that draws its power from the people.

revolution refers to the continuing cycle wherein the underdogs take over top dog position relegating the deposed top dogs to underdog status. it is an eternally recurring game of snakes and ladders.

what is obscured by the word 'revolution' is that there are two of them; 'the lesser jihad' (that which goes on 'out there') and 'the greater jihad' (that which goes on 'in here').

'We have seen the enemy and it is us'. who the hell believes in the 'independence' of a sovereign state? who the hell believes in the 'independence' of a Trump corporation? This bullshit notion of 'independence' is protected by law. everyone demands it [Western culture conditioned people] because it is the 'ego' model of our 'self'. Everyone [individual, corporation, nation] claims the 'right' to act 'independently' which, in the relationally interdependent physical reality of our actual experience, is absurd, and all it does is engender 'externalities' that afflict everyone. As a businessman, Trump has never been held responsible for the 'externalities' he engendered because the law protects the 'right' of 'independent parties' to act as they please provided they don't 'break any laws'.

Corporations, nations and to a lesser extent, individuals, will give you the logical version of what they are doing; i.e. "we are constructing a tar sands production plant that will create many new jobs and provide energy for much new industry". That is like the drug company that tells you that "this pill will cure your headache" without mentioning the hundreds of 'externalities' [ 'side-effects'] that such an intervention into the complex relational living space will engender.

The greater jihad (that which goes on 'in here') is a fight with our own ego which supports this bullshit model of the self as an independent being whose internal creative agency is the full and sole author of his productive accomplishments. because our 'ego' buys into this absurd abstraction of selfhood, we end up attributing the 'productive accomplishments' of those like Trump to 'their own internal creative agency'. Likewise Clinton who was paid $200,000 per speech after serving as secretary of state and received over $22 million from lobby groups (in the period 2013 to 2015) leading up to her run for the presidency. what amazing 'internal creative agency' these 'independent beings' have acquired, ... who are, by law, seen as 'fully and solely responsible for their own actions and results.

we have seen the enemy and it is us. who in their right mind would declare a local cluster of humans in a wriggling and writhing globe-covering algal matte of humanity, an 'independent nation'. Would it be "your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore", who, after fattening up in the "land of opportunity" write back to their still tired, still poor, still huddled relatives yearning to be free", that their 'internal creative agencies" had suddenly self-actualized so that their actions and accomplishments that they were fully solely responsible for had multiplied a hundred fold?

We could NOT say that the epigenetic influence they moved into had inductively actualized this amplified 'genetic expression' because the ego would not take kindly to removing full and sole attribution from the 'independent being' and transferring it to the inductive actualizing of epigenetic influence.

the greater jihad is with 'what is going on in here'.

thecollective
from emile not a dialog but a great wall

as Emerson suggests, we are 'vents' that transmit influence from the nonlocal to the local point on which our agency can act so that an 'action' is not simply 'our action'. the slave or rebel may lash out like a loaded spring that has been spring-loaded by an oppressive/abusive slave-master class who then get to reap what they have sown. individuals are not the fountainheads of actions; i.e. actions are inductively actualized by epigenetic influence and not jumpstarted from a notional 'local creative agency' seated in the interior of a notional 'independent being'.

you speak of 'action' as if it is something authored by an individual; i.e. as if the source of action lies in the consciousness of the 'actor'; i.e;

"There are plenty of actions brought about by experience such as the response to immediate danger (eg. recoiling the hand when it touches something hot, swerving to miss a pedestrian that falls from the sidewalk, etc.). These types of actions are devoid of thought; the action is part of the experience with no thought motivating the response; there is no division between the experience and the experiencer; all are one."

compare your implicit positioning of action authorship as jumpstarting from an 'experiencer' with Nietzsche's (arising from influences we can't pin down and leading to results we can't pin down). in nietzsche's notion of 'action', which resembles emerson's, people are understood as 'vents' through which relational social tensions find release. that is, in the relational view of humans, there is the sense that we, as individual relational forms, are like 'magnetic lenses' that are simultaneous 'sink' and 'source' of influences;

“How false is the supposition that an action must depend upon what has preceded it in consciousness ! And morality has been measured in the light of this supposition, as also criminality. . . . The value of an action must be judged by its results, say the utilitarians: to measure it according to its origin involves the impossibility of knowing that origin. But do we know its results ? Five stages ahead, perhaps. Who can tell what an action provokes and sets in motion ? As a stimulus ? As the spark which fires a powder-magazine ? Utilitarians are simpletons —— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’

if we are transient relational forms situationally included within a transforming relational continuum, actions that others associate with us are 'our actions' only when we impute fixed IDENTITY to our transient form-in-the-flow selves, rather than acknowledging that we are included relational features undergoing cosmic fetalization within the transforming relational continuum.

the slave-master class rarely admits that the violent push-back of the long abused slave is an 'unloading' of a spring that has been loaded by the oppression of a slave-master relational bully ring. on the contrary, slave-master politicians will insist that the slave, like all people, is an independent being that is fully and solely responsible for 'his own actions'. If violent action is used by a slave-master to 'put down the rebellion', the same violent actions that were 'evil' and 'criminal' when the slave was deemed the author of them are celebrated as courageous and heroic when the slave-master is deemed the author of them.

the issue of authorship of an action is an important consideration when investigating the nature of 'human action'. in language, we make the human the subject and author of an action; ... this is a mistake;
.
“The re-establishment of “Nature”: an action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same ” crime ” may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’

as far as 'thought' goes, thought and language are tied together [e.g. Vygotsky, 'Thought and Language'] and consciousness is not the equivalent of thought; i.e. consciousness is like a field of awareness which is 'everywhere at the same time' [Schroedinger]. 'thought' associates with the word-pictures [semantic realities] we construct with language-and-grammar and this is where 'time' is invented because everything is happening at the same time in a transforming relational continuum and language is single-issue-at-a-time so that the 'synoptic view' is beyond the direct reach of language [as Wittgenstein suggests, each issue we discuss is like driving on a road from A to B which never gives us a view of the overall landscape.]

thecollective
from emile from fuck assad and wall text

"to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all..." -- Nietzsche

truth is for certainty-lovers; aka 'logicians', who opt to put it before reality.

reality, as derives from experience-based intuition transcends 'truth'.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein

The objects we deal with in mathematics and geometry, ... as Einstein further points out, ... "are to be taken in a purely formal sense; i.e. as void of all content of intuition or experience. These axioms [that define objects] are free creations of the human mind."

logical propositions dealing with formal objects can be 'proven true'.

science depends on proving the truth of logical propositions.

unfortunately, logical propositions are inherently subjective and incomplete, and void of all content of intuition or experience, rendering science and reason fundamentally inadequate for addressing the physical reality of our actual experience.

meanwhile, the truth that comes from proving logical propositions true has a quality that is not found in reality; i.e. 'certainty'. Forensic science can prove with absolute certainty; i.e. without a shadow of a doubt, ... that "it was the Black bloc that smashed the windows". Science can prove with absolute certainty that "the prostitute was enticing people to participate in unlawful (paid) sexual acts".

if we put back into our understanding, the intuition and experience that logical propositions have taken out in order to generate 'certainty', then we can see that epigenetic influence inductively actualizes the actions and results that have been heretofore attributed fully and solely to an 'actor'; the Black bloc, ... the woman convicted of prostitution. That is, the social relational dynamic that the 'actor' is situationally included in, is the source of epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes the actions and results that logic attributed fully and solely to the actor and his 'internal creative agency'.

if we want 'reality' that is consistent with our intuition and experience, the 'logical truths' of science and reason are not going to supply it.

The most honest and accurate journalists may have all their facts together and may have put more 'criminals' and 'protesters' and 'anarchists' in jail, all the while being honest, accurate and truthful, which gets us no closer to exposing the 'reality' of our situation, than sloppy journalism.

As a matter of fact, 'intuitives' care less about factual accuracy because they can see beyond 'truth' ... to 'reality'.

"to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all..." -- Nietzsche

It is one thing to criticize Trump for getting his facts wrong or simply lying to further his political aims, but quite another for journalists to insist that 'getting the facts right', as many pride themselves in doing, is some sort of holy grail. quite the contrary; 'Truth' is a smokescreen behind which the physically real world of our actual experience is concealed. It is like the VC body counts used to measure progress in the war in vietnam.

thecollective
fromemileemileemileemile fuck assad and so many other things

in discussing the role of 'truth' in reporting, in the case of eva bartlett, RT and CNN etc., the question arises as to what is 'truth' and how important is it to understanding the physical reality of the unfolding world dynamic. it's not just about eva bartlett and others whose views tend to be totally dismissed because of the questionable 'truth' of some of her 'facts', it's about Donald Trump and his ballooning power and influence.

When the sun shines on a balloon, wave dynamics infuse energy into the balloon so that it expands, becoming less dense than the ambient atmospheric plenum and proceeds to rise and 'balloon' even more. in the case of an 'unskinned' pocket of air, this relational phenomenon is referred to as "a thermal".

as with the ballooning power and influence of Donald, there is a question here as to whether the source of the ballooning arises from the generative agency in the 'thing-in-itself', or whether epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing this 'genetic expression'; i.e. the inflating of assets, power, and influence.

it has been pointed out that it is more 'convenient' and delivers 'economy-of-thought' [Mach] to attribute this ballooning to the generative agency (genetic agency) of the ballooning thing-in-itself, even though it is epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing its ballooning growth.

Which is responsible in the case of Trump? How about immigrants, you know the ones, ... " your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore"... whose assets and influence ballooned at the same time as they re-situated within the field of epigenetic influence. Shall we attribute their ballooning assets and power to their own genetic agency? Or, shall we understand their ballooning assets as being inductively actualized by epigenetic influence?

For speakers of noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar, it is 'more convenient' and it delivers more 'economy of thought' [avoids relational complexities] to assume that it is the genetic agency of the thing-in-itself that is the authoring source of its ballooning assets and power.

The "TRUTH" is something that we can 'nail down' with certainty, such as the actions of a notional 'thing-in-itself in 'doer-deed' terms, by measuring its actions (e.g. 'growth') relative to a fixed reference frame [absolute space and absolute time]. If we say that Trump makes this investment and his assets balloon, the correlation appears 'causal'; i.e. Trump's actions [his genetic agency] are the authoring source of his action and result [ballooning assets and power]. Likewise Hilary's actions in speech-giving after being Secretary of State and heading towards very favourable prospects in the run for President. Her assets ballooned by $22 million in a couple of years, thanks to her genetic agency, ... er, ... or was it 'epigenetic influence' that inductively actualized her ballooning assets?

Oppression is an epigenetic influence and as oppression gets more severe, rebel actions balloon. The convenient thing about attributing the ballooning of rebel actions to the genetic agency of the rebels-themselves is that such doer-deed actions can be established with certainty and thus established as 'the truth' beyond a shadow of a doubt. Western justice needs this certainty to condemn and punish law-breakers. Epigenetic influence is too loosey-goosey. Besides, Courts of justice represent 'the whole society' and they are not in business to put the whole of society 'on trial' but to enforce the law, and apply moral judgement to the actions of things-in-themselves.

So, 'truth' is all about establishing logical certainty, regardless of the physical reality of our actual experience, which understands very well how 'oppression' is an 'epigenetic influence' that inductively actualizes rebellion.

This problem of whether to credit 'genetic agency' or 'epigenetic inductive actualizing influence recently cropped up in medical science when it was discovered first with stem-cells and then in general with all cells, that cells with identical DNA, when in differing epigenetic influence fields, developed differently, as if 'genetic push' was a lesser influence than 'epigenetic pull' [as Nietzsche, Lamarck, Rolf and others had claimed]; As Bruce Lipton observes in 'The New Biology';

"“As is described by Nijhout, genes are “not self-emergent,” that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by “environmental signals.” Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” —Bruce Lipton, ‘The New Biology’

If a male's 'generative agency' in 'getting laid' is doing poorly, he can 'balloon it' if he re-situates in the midst of poverty where women are 'more accommodating' ["Me love you, long time. Fiftin dolla, me love you too much."]. His ego always attributes his ballooning accomplishments to his own 'generative agency', as is convenient and as delivers great 'economy of thought'.

Logical truths get their certainty by attributing actions and results to 'things-in-themselves' [logical elements/objects], as if the environment was empty Euclidian space that is without epigenetic influence.

As Nietzsche, Lamarck, Schroedinger have pointed out, epigenetic influence is primary while 'genetic agency' is 'appearances'; i.e. while it 'appears' as if " your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore" ... were all popeyes who downed a can of spinach and got a huge boost in their 'generative agency' as is the 'truth of the matter' certified by forensic science investigations confirming that they are fully and solely responsible for the ballooning of their assets and influence.

as Mach cautions, logical 'truth' should not be confused for 'reality';

"We … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach

thecollective
from emile totw banning wall text

1. exclusion based on 'genetic agency'; i.e. the banning of a person on the basis of a person's statements and/or actions.

this is the Western moral judgement based purificationist mode of banning where an individual is expelled for promoting certain ideas or practices that are NOT TOLERATED by the group as in "if you are not with us, you are against us".

communities that organize by using a central governing authority that employs intellectual directives 'selects' and 'excludes' on this basis.

2. epigenetic exclusion; i.e. the group forms on an 'inclusional basis' wherein coordinated actions are inductively actualized as when we are induced to 'rise to the occasion'. 'That the newlyweds need a house to live in' is an epigenetic influence that can inductively actualize a 'construction team'. Coordinated action derives from the creative influence of 'something that is not there' [creative nothing]. This can be a 'way of life'.

communities which function on this basis 'leave behind' (exclude by implication) those who aspire to be central governing authorities and are on their separate soap boxes spouting political rhetoric aimed as rallying a crowd of 'followers'.

when a natural 'need' aka 'epigenetic influence' inductively actualizes coordinated action, the group that forms does not have 'its own identity' and while noun-and-verb language-and-grammar ALLOW US to capture what is going on by saying "a construction team formed and built a new house for the newlyweds", ... there does not have to be any 'organization-in-itself' that serves as a creative fountainhead with its own 'genetic agency', ... the 'epigenetic' organization in this example (it is general in nature), is more like a low pressure zone or 'deficiency' in a transforming relational continuum that inductively actualizes a reciprocally complementary influx as in storm-cell formation.

* * *

in nature, epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression; i.e. ecosystems do not employ a central governing authority that uses intellectual directives. those that 'hang back' [usually, the control freak contingent] exclude themselves; i.e. we are all familiar with 'being organized' by rising to the occasion to fill a need that arises in the unfolding relational dynamic and we find ourselves drawn into working shoulder-to-shoulder with all 'genders' and 'races' rather than marching to instructions from a central governing authority that is given the power to 'select' and 'exclude' [group concensus can be an informal source of that power as in a lynch mob where 'exclusion' is guaranteed to be permanent]

thecollective
from emile totw some speech is too free

Western society sees the 'self' as an independent being with its own internal process driven and directed behaviour. 'In the beginning was the word' implies that 'the word' [of God] was the internal genetic agency that sourced behaviour. If 'the word' got contaminated by evil ideas, this was 'heresy' and according to religious believers, 'free speech' was a danger that people needed to be protected from, lest it be salted with dark thoughts.

Western science took over from Western religion in depicting man as an independent logical machine whose behaviour is driven and directed by his internal knowledge, intelligence and purpose. Western mainstream science tries to safeguard john q. public from exposure to unscientific heresies [termed 'pseudoscience'], such as disbelief in anthropogenic global warming, post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, holistic medicine, antipsychiatry, and even a disbelief in mainstream science associated with belief in relativity and quantum physics.

As Nietzsche said, the long-standing practice of putting 'reason/science' into an unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition is collapsing.

"The sociologist Gordon Gauchat studied U.S. survey data from 1974 to 2010 and found some deeply alarming trends. Despite increasing education levels, the public’s trust in the scientific community has been decreasing. This is particularly true among conservatives, even educated conservatives. In 1974, conservatives with college degrees had the highest level of trust in science and the scientific community. Today, they have the lowest." -- Caltech Commencement Address June, 2016, by Atul Gawande

The problem is that everyone [educated Westerners] believe they know what the truth is and they want their truth to become the 'operative truth' that directs the behaviour of the entire community/nation.

The point is that all scientific truth is 'logical abstraction', convenient simplification that delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach]. it is inherently subjective and incomplete. it is trivial for forensic science to prove with the certainty that logic can bring to bear, that the criminal committed the crime. That is over simplification since we live in a transforming relational continuum and "it takes a whole community to raise criminal". That is what our experience-based intuition is informing us, and it is on target. Science and reason are undergoing 'collapse' which is long overdue, and the physical reality of actual experience is being restored to its natural primacy over science and reason. Of course US military science can send in the drones and eliminate unwanted rebels as logically proposed and predicted, but our experience-based intuition informs us that the relational space we actually experience life in is nothing like the logical space that science builds its models in. Laboratories are built to avoid having to deal with the real world of our actual experience. Can you imagine the military science laboratory model for the US' shock and awe invasion of Iraq? Did it include the global web of relational interconnections that was transformed by the intervention? Could it ever address the 'externalities' the intervention engendered such as the rise of ISIS?

Free speech is dangerous to believers in science. Dawkins doesn't want to see Creationism taught in schools even if it is flagged as non-science because it leads to a very different social dynamic. Anti-fascists don't want to see fascism or racism preached in public forums for the same reason.

indigenous aboriginals don't have a problem with 'free speech' because they put 'situation' before 'intention'. Situations are experienced. The epigenetic influence of relational experience inductively actualizes 'genetic expression'.

Westerners see themselves as independent Cyborgs that are intention-driven. Open their lids and pour in a can of knowledge and they will use to direct their behaviour [ignoring the relational situation they are in] to accomplish their 'intentions'. So it better be 'the straight goods' and not heresies or pseudo-science.

science and reason start with making accurate, factual observations; e.g. surveillance camera footage of the 'pushback' from colonizer oppressed middle east colonized peoples, but what about observations of the root-source colonizer 'pushing'?

Could indigenous aboriginals from around the world come to an American university and give a full media coverage presentation on what everybody knows, that the real author of terrorist eruptions in the middle east is Euro-American colonizers such as the US, while terrorism is merely secondary pushback (symptoms rather than source). R.D. Laing explained why this doesn't happen;

They are playing a game. They are playing at not
playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I
shall break the rules and they will punish me.
I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game."

thecollective
from emile totw transhumanism

More to the point;

The flock echoes the authoritative pontifications of Western sheep-herders".

Can you imagine how many millions of people have, like yourself, without serious reflection, echoed the following ‘beliefs’ you state as if they were ‘the God’s truth’?

“Of course there are physical beings in reality. ... None of them can live independent of everything else; but any of them can live independently of any of the others.”

You echo these abstract idealizations with the authority of a faithful mouthpiece used by the Western priesthood to propagate its petrified orthodox doctrines, even though they cannot be validated in the physical reality of our actual experience.

“Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” — David Bohm

How, then, is what you say possible; i.e. that “physical beings ... can live independently of other physical beings” ?

Evidently, our actual experience based understanding of physical reality [contrast this with your being-based grammatical constructs] would have it that, as in ‘fields’, like gravity and electromagnetism, which are ‘everywhere at the same time’, independent being is impossible and the forms in nature are relational features in a continually transforming relational plenum, as in an inhabitant-habitat non-duality;

“The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants” – Mach’s principle

You say to me;

“You speak with the authority of a priest, with a narrative. And I gather you believe, like a fanatic, that your narrative is correct, true. Do you believe it too?

Have you ever stopped to reflect on the confidence with which you assume the existence of PHYSICAL BEINGS? ... as if it were ‘the God’s Truth’? i.e. you say;

“Of course there are physical beings in reality. Lots of them, already individuated.”

How can this be so if ‘field’ is in a natural primacy over ‘matter’, so that;

“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” -- Erwin Schroedinger

You may notice the consistency in the views of Bohm, Mach and Schroedinger in refuting the notion of ‘independent being’. If you wish to validate this rejection of 'independent being' from your actual experience, you will have to become conscious of ‘how language-and-grammar’ have been trapping you in a Euclidian being-based reality. As Benjamin Whorf puts it;

“It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” – Benjamin Whorf, ‘The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language’

Just because noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar allow us to speak in ‘being’-based terms, such ‘semantic realities’ as we construct using idealized ‘things-in-themselves’ are in no way equivalent to the physical reality of our actual experience, wherein ‘relations’ are in a natural primacy over physical beings;

““By the principle of Occam’s razor, physicists and philosophers prefer ideas that can explain the same phenomena with the fewest assumptions. In this case you can construct a perfectly valid theory by positing the existence of certain relations without additionally assuming individual things. So proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations.” – Meinard Kuhlmann, ‘What is Real’, Scientific American, August 2013

Bottom line; I quit the flock that echoes those abstract being-based beliefs flogged by Western sheep-herders that you continue to espouse, ... to speak, instead, from the authority of actual physical-relational experience.

Anonymous (not verified)
the plenum & I

"to speak, instead, from the authority of actual physical-relational experience."
… in which you acknowledge no actual being, human or otherwise…
have you any visionary preference about which to speak or,
is your objective authority so scientifically detached from such abstractionz?

Pages

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
z
n
N
x
9
m
j
Enter the code without spaces.