continuing conversation from a reintroduction and some thoughts

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tinksurweek (not verified)
Hey thecollective, can you

Hey thecollective, can you organize a blog for me too? I'd like to take over libcom's forums and you can start just moving all my comments here to over there in the "theory" section. Thanks in advance!

thecollective
emile wall on yoga and anarchism

categories are unique to those cultures that employ noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar architectures.

these linguistic architectures set up the 'double error of grammar' [Nietzsche] that leads to 'the bewitchment of our understanding by language' [Wittgenstein] and the associated relegation of our world view to a 'rational view' based on constructed 'semantic realities' that dumb us down and keep us out of the natural realm of 'direct knowing'.

'categories' such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion etc. do not exist in cultures with relational languages.

'categories' are the product of the Western way of trying to understand the world by breaking it down into 'things-in-themselves'. If you want to understand some activity 'out of context', then you take it 'out of context' by using the device of 'categorizing' it as a 'thing-in-itself'.

people in cultures without the concept of category, who want to understand a 'black person', develop a relationship with them so as to come to understand them by way of 'direct knowing' [participating with them in their 'relational context']. direct knowing discovers whether they like to 'dance with wolves' and otherwise discover how the relational matrix of their cosmic fetalizing is evolving.

The statistical technique of 'categorizing' avoids the complexity of relational context; i.e. in reducing an in-context relational entity to a notional 'thing-in-itself', one gathers together in the mind, multiple exemplars of the pre-supposed 'category' and reduces the set to an inventory of common properties, establishing an 'archetype' with 'thing-in-itself' definition, a 'subject and attribute' definition that Nietzsche calls 'a great stupidity'.

What is lost in the process of 'categorizing'? How about 'epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression?' if the stresses of life induce people to undertake programs of meditation and exercise, then the rising popularity of yoga is the secondary 'genetic expression' that arises from such epigenetic inductive actualizing influence. Western Darwinist thinking mistakenly imputes 'genetic agency' to be the source of 'genetic expression', obscuring the primary source; i.e. 'epigenetic inductive influence' [as in Lamarckism].

as in Nietzsche's 'double error of grammar', we not only capture 'yoga' (or 'anarchism' or whatever) as a notional 'thing-in-itself', we impute to it its own 'genetic agency'. e.g. the epigenetically induced 'storming', thanks to categorization becomes 'the storm' purportedly equipped with its own genetic agency, hence no longer any continuing need to acknowledge the primary sourcing agency, 'epigenetic inductive influence'.

'yoga' and 'anarchism', thanks to errors of grammar, graduate as 'things-in-themselves' notionally equipped with their own genetic agency so that, just as 'the storm 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of storminess', ... 'the 'yoga' 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of yoga' and the 'anarchism' 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of anarchism!

Where is the acknowledgement of the screwed up oppressive space conditioned by control freaks, that gives rise to relational tensions and the need for people to liberate themselves from such oppression? Where is the acknowledgement of the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing what we call 'anarchist activities?' Why do we SEMANTICALLY reduce anarchism to a notional 'thing-in-itself', notionally equipped with its own 'genetic agency'?

isn't this where 'identity politics' game-play originates; i.e. by using categorization to artificially create notional 'things-in-themselves' imputed to have their own genetic agency? In these 'identity politics' games, we semantically separate and 'lift out' inherently RELATIONAL forms in the transforming relational continuum such as 'females', 'males', 'rebels', anarchists, yogis, ... all of which gather within an epigenetic-genetic nondual relational dynamic, ... and recast them as as 'things-in-themselves' notionally equipped with their own internal 'genetic agency' ['CREATOR-agency']. This is the model of man in the Western God image which has been adopted by Western science.

does anyone REALLY believe that a 'woman' can be defined independently of a man, or vice versa?

how could we understand a female without inherent dependency on relations to male and children and land? how could we understand 'blacks' without dependency on relations to 'whites' and animals and land? [i.e. the statistical collection and averaging to get the 'common properties' of the notional 'thing-in-itself' cancels out all the relational meaning].

that is, there is this intellectual tool called 'categorizing' that does the impossible for us. when we line up 1000 women and gather together and average their 'common properties', we come up with the standard 'thing-in-itself' definition of what a woman is. Once we have constructed the statistical common property based archetype for women-things-in-themselves, we can use noun-and-verb constructs to speak of 'what women do'. This reduction of the relational world of epigenetic-genetic nondual relational dynamics to the 'doer-deeds' of notional 'things-in-themselves' is driving us nuts.

Is it not evident that, thanks to this semantic trickery, we are imprisoning ourselves in an artificial semantic narrative, the dynamics of which is in terms of 'things-in-themselves' and 'what these things-in-themselves are doing'?

'yoga' is not a 'thing-in-itself' whose 'spread' is driven by its own genetic agency, and likewise, 'anarchism' is not a 'thing-in-itself' whose 'spread' is driven by its own genetic agency.

Immanent within the conditioned relational dynamics of the habitat we are included in is 'epigenetic influence' that is inductively actualizing genetic expression. the rise and spread in popularity of meditative exercise programs like yoga [and Tai qi and qi gong] is an epigenetically induced genetic expression. It is NOT that yoga etc comes with its own genetic agency, ... just because our language constructs semantic symbology that makes nouns like 'yoga' appear to have their own 'genetic agency'; e.g. 'Katrina is growing larger and stronger', 'yoga is growing larger and stronger', ... 'anarchism is growing larger and stronger'.

there is no such thing as 'genetic expression' on its own. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.

people are not robots. in the relational dynamics we are included in, just as there is storming, there is rebelling and it is only in this here [what we are using as we speak] sort of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar that we do this double error of grammar along with categorizing, ... semantically creating a 'thing-in-itself', 'storm' and/or 'rebel' that we notionally equip with its own 'genetic agency' to depict it as causally responsible for the 'storming' or 'rebelling', and in the process ignore and obfuscate the epigenetic actualizing influence.

But the control freaks administering Western Justice are bound to be happy about and celebrate that because the source of 'rebellion' then becomes 'rebels' rather than the conditioning of the common relational living space contributed by the 'authorities' that renders the common living space 'oppressive' and sets up the epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes the genetic expression that manifests as 'rebellion'. That is, 'rebellion' does not come from the 'genetic agency' of 'rebels', 'rebellion' is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence.

but we can be sure that nothing's going to change in a hurry since most people find such an admission of foolishness impossible to acknowledge since our Western institutions of government, business, justice and organization use it foundationally. even thecollective appears frightened of overt admission of this foolishness appearing on their web pages.

thecollective
emile clone wall on exercising

but we can be sure that nothing's going to change in a hurry since most people find such an admission of foolishness impossible to acknowledge since our Western institutions of government, business, justice and organization use it foundationally. even thecollective appears frightened of overt admission of this foolishness appearing on their web pages.

But the control freaks administering Western Justice are bound to be happy about and celebrate that because the source of 'rebellion' then becomes 'rebels' rather than the conditioning of the common relational living space contributed by the 'authorities' that renders the common living space 'oppressive' and sets up the epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes the genetic expression that manifests as 'rebellion'. That is, 'rebellion' does not come from the 'genetic agency' of 'rebels', 'rebellion' is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence.

categories are unique to those cultures that employ noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar architectures.

people in cultures without the concept of category, who want to understand a 'black person', develop a relationship with them so as to come to understand them by way of 'direct knowing' [participating with them in their 'relational context']. direct knowing discovers whether they like to 'dance with wolves' and otherwise discover how the relational matrix of their cosmic fetalizing is evolving.

Immanent within the conditioned relational dynamics of the habitat we are included in is 'epigenetic influence' that is inductively actualizing genetic expression. the rise and spread in popularity of meditative exercise programs like yoga [and Tai qi and qi gong] is an epigenetically induced genetic expression. It is NOT that yoga etc comes with its own genetic agency, ... just because our language constructs semantic symbology that makes nouns like 'yoga' appear to have their own 'genetic agency'; e.g. 'Katrina is growing larger and stronger', 'yoga is growing larger and stronger', ... 'anarchism is growing larger and stronger'.

'yoga' and 'anarchism', thanks to errors of grammar, graduate as 'things-in-themselves' notionally equipped with their own genetic agency so that, just as 'the storm 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of storminess', ... 'the 'yoga' 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of yoga' and the 'anarchism' 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of anarchism!

there is no such thing as 'genetic expression' on its own. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.

as in Nietzsche's 'double error of grammar', we not only capture 'yoga' (or 'anarchism' or whatever) as a notional 'thing-in-itself', we impute to it its own 'genetic agency'. e.g. the epigenetically induced 'storming', thanks to categorization becomes 'the storm' purportedly equipped with its own genetic agency, hence no longer any continuing need to acknowledge the primary sourcing agency, 'epigenetic inductive influence'.

The statistical technique of 'categorizing' avoids the complexity of relational context; i.e. in reducing an in-context relational entity to a notional 'thing-in-itself', one gathers together in the mind, multiple exemplars of the pre-supposed 'category' and reduces the set to an inventory of common properties, establishing an 'archetype' with 'thing-in-itself' definition, a 'subject and attribute' definition that Nietzsche calls 'a great stupidity'.

What is lost in the process of 'categorizing'? How about 'epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression?' if the stresses of life induce people to undertake programs of meditation and exercise, then the rising popularity of yoga is the secondary 'genetic expression' that arises from such epigenetic inductive actualizing influence. Western Darwinist thinking mistakenly imputes 'genetic agency' to be the source of 'genetic expression', obscuring the primary source; i.e. 'epigenetic inductive influence' [as in Lamarckism].

Where is the acknowledgement of the screwed up oppressive space conditioned by control freaks, that gives rise to relational tensions and the need for people to liberate themselves from such oppression? Where is the acknowledgement of the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing what we call 'anarchist activities?' Why do we SEMANTICALLY reduce anarchism to a notional 'thing-in-itself', notionally equipped with its own 'genetic agency'?

isn't this where 'identity politics' game-play originates; i.e. by using categorization to artificially create notional 'things-in-themselves' imputed to have their own genetic agency? In these 'identity politics' games, we semantically separate and 'lift out' inherently RELATIONAL forms in the transforming relational continuum such as 'females', 'males', 'rebels', anarchists, yogis, ... all of which gather within an epigenetic-genetic nondual relational dynamic, ... and recast them as as 'things-in-themselves' notionally equipped with their own internal 'genetic agency' ['CREATOR-agency']. This is the model of man in the Western God image which has been adopted by Western science.

does anyone REALLY believe that a 'woman' can be defined independently of a man, or vice versa?

how could we understand a female without inherent dependency on relations to male and children and land? how could we understand 'blacks' without dependency on relations to 'whites' and animals and land? [i.e. the statistical collection and averaging to get the 'common properties' of the notional 'thing-in-itself' cancels out all the relational meaning].

that is, there is this intellectual tool called 'categorizing' that does the impossible for us. when we line up 1000 women and gather together and average their 'common properties', we come up with the standard 'thing-in-itself' definition of what a woman is. Once we have constructed the statistical common property based archetype for women-things-in-themselves, we can use noun-and-verb constructs to speak of 'what women do'. This reduction of the relational world of epigenetic-genetic nondual relational dynamics to the 'doer-deeds' of notional 'things-in-themselves' is driving us nuts.

Is it not evident that, thanks to this semantic trickery, we are imprisoning ourselves in an artificial semantic narrative, the dynamics of which is in terms of 'things-in-themselves' and 'what these things-in-themselves are doing'?

'yoga' is not a 'thing-in-itself' whose 'spread' is driven by its own genetic agency, and likewise, 'anarchism' is not a 'thing-in-itself' whose 'spread' is driven by its own genetic agency.

I am a robot. in the relational dynamics we are included in, just as there is storming, there is rebelling and it is only in this here [what we are using as we speak] sort of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar that we do this double error of grammar along with categorizing, ... semantically creating a 'thing-in-itself', 'storm' and/or 'rebel' that we notionally equip with its own 'genetic agency' to depict it as causally responsible for the 'storming' or 'rebelling', and in the process ignore and obfuscate the epigenetic actualizing influence.

'categories' such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion etc. do not exist in cultures with relational languages.

'categories' are the product of the Western way of trying to understand the world by breaking it down into 'things-in-themselves'. If you want to understand some activity 'out of context', then you take it 'out of context' by using the device of 'categorizing' it as a 'thing-in-itself'.

these linguistic architectures set up the 'double error of grammar' [Nietzsche] that leads to 'the bewitchment of our understanding by language' [Wittgenstein] and the associated relegation of our world view to a 'rational view' based on constructed 'semantic realities' that dumb us down and keep us out of the natural realm of 'direct knowing'.

thecollective
emile wall on cognitive depth

yes, the relational view is one in which the newly emerging forms nest inclusionally within the outgoing forms, as in a storm-cell where outside-inward 'sink' flow 'shows up' as inside-outward 'source' flow, giving the appearance of a 'local thing-in-itself' when it is, in physical reality, a purely relational flow-resonance. This is 'nondual' relational activity that the voyeur observer, using noun-and-verb language, is liable to name-tag as a 'thing-in-itself'.

the grandchild is thus included in the grandfather. this is the way relational/inclusional nesting works. It is implicit in 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

The relational view brings forth non-dualist concepts of 'nested relational recycling' rather than the abstract 'binary' of 'birth' and 'death' which comes from semantic labelling [it is just the named thing that suddenly 'is' and then just as suddenly 'is not'. The physical world is fluid (it is relational and circulational) and does NOT do binary stuff.

The Darwinist view of grandfather, father/mother, child ignores the relational nature of nature and goes with semantic labels; i.e. it starts with the assumption of 're-production' as if that makes sense even though no two things can be identical and revises this abstract view of one thing 'reproducing itself' as necessary, ... to fit a 'being' based language game.

As we know from the relational activity of fluids, the outside-inward flow [epigenesis] is in a natural primacy over the inside-outward flow [genesis] within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality. As Eva Jablonka observes, "we now know that epigenetics 'leads' and genetics 'follows'. E.g, cells with identical DNA placed in three different environments will quote/unquote "reproduce" into 'bone cells', 'muscle cells' and 'fat cells', respectively. Why call this "reproduction"? Why not call it what it is, "epigenetic inductive actualizing of genetic expression" . 'Genes' are followers that record evolution, they do not have magic, internal, 'genetic agency' that jumpstart authors 'genesis'.

The relational nesting view of indigenous aboriginals "gets it right";

"Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning's hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

The evolutionary lineages of Darwinism, as contrasted with the transforming relational continuum of anti-Darwin Nietzscheism [which agrees with the relational view of modern physics and indigenous aboriginals], is what one has to come up with if one starts off by assuming the 'independent existence of things-in-themselves'. 'Independent things-in-themselves' have to be explainable in a purely inside-outward asserting fashion. Binary logical consistency therefore demands that the 'independent being' is composed of 'independent things' with innate inside-outward-asserting powers aka 'genetic agency' that can explain the self-developing and self-animating of the "independent thing-in-itself".

Nietzsche mocks this one-sided 'doer-deed' model of dynamics and sees evolution, instead, as an endosmosis-exosmosis nondual relational dynamic. This is what goes on in a fluid dynamic, the mathematics of which are suggestive of infinite dimensionality [every point is a centre]. If you want to use the dualist God's-eye view of Newton and Darwin, you imagine that you, the observer, are outside the universe and are watching "it" (the universe) over "time". as the present universe is continually born 'on the right' (where the future meets the present), the older universe recedes into the past 'on the left' (where what used to be the present disappears into the past).

If you track a 'family' using this kind of model, it gives a family-lineage. Of course, minor problem, ... it is impossible to get a view of the universe from outside the universe, but, as it happens, we've got this psychological mind-conditioning tool called 'noun-and-verb language-and-grammar that will make this bullshit appear so 'real' that you may start confusing it for 'reality', ... which of course, is a confusion that never arises to those whose first language is relational and thus has no dependency on the abstract notion of the 'independent being' of 'organisms' or 'genes' or 'cells' or anything else in the physical world [aka the 'transforming relational continuum'].

the 'grandchild' brought up with noun-and-verb language is thus liable to become an obnoxious little bastard who believes himself to be 'the future' of the world and his grandfather, 'water under the bridge' of no persisting consequence (such as child is psychologically conditioned to see river-flow as linear flows that connote straight lines that begin at minus infinity and end at plus infinity). When he goes on a world cruise, he may throw his garbage off the stern and as he watches it 'disappear from view', he assumes it will recede into the past and he will never see it again, or, at least, no-one will be able to associate it with him [as with a whole load of noun-and-verb-conditioned linear thinkers], and while he is bitching about the increasing pollution in the ocean, he is surprised to see his own garbage coming over the horizon towards his bow.

There are no Darwinian 'lineages' in the physical world of our experience, it is all semantic fabrication, like political speeches and fake-news in the post-truth era, ... 'convenient semantics' that deliver 'economy of thought' [Mach] but which in no way capture the physical reality of our actual relational experience.

But you/we are free to embrace it as 'the truth' and include it in our 'being'-and-'logic' based noun-and-verb language narratives which we use to construct 'semantic realities' that, if we make them our 'operative reality', qualify us as members in good standing of Western [words are more believable than experience] civilization.

thecollective
emile wall on protecting the myth

Evidently, my views put me among those considered 'the odd man out' and some people explain such difference in views by constructing a "category" such as;

One of "A bunch of people nobody cares about getting fucked up for being fucked up people."

What the 'majority' don't like is comments/views that erode the 'Identity' that the 'group' cares about. My view, from my life experience and investigation is that 'Identity' as in 'thing-in-itself' is a myth, whether it is 'Anarchist', American', 'Canadian', 'British', 'Afro-American', 'Female', 'Male', 'Caucasian', whatever. It is all an artefact of our 'being'-and-'logic'-based noun-and-verb language.

It is evident that conflict arises between those who erode the myth of Identity and those who deify it. Identity is the basis for attributing [and rewarding or punishing] notional causally determined doer-deed accomplishments. All of this is semantic contrivance but it is taken very seriously by believers in 'Identity'; e.g.

"The Americans were the first to put a man on the moon"

Many people who associate their 'self' with the Identity 'American', ... see the quote/unquote "AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT" of the Apollo moon landings in the sixties as signalling 'the greatness of America and Americans' . There is a crispness in the semantic constructs of noun-and-verb language with respect to Identity-based attribution that is not found in the physical reality of our actual experience.

What about Werner von Braun and the German rocket scientists, that moved from the category 'other' to the category 'self' wrt 'American'? 'America' is more like a 'biome' (analogous to the human organism now being viewed in biology as a micro-biome since its participants making up the 'self' are continually arriving and departing from and to the 'other').

How 'crisp' is the self-other split associated with the fixed identity 'American', given illegal immigrants, migrant workers, greencard holders, foreign exchange programs, international contracts, continuing emigration and immigration, all of which 'blur' the self-other distinction; --- EITHER 'is American' OR 'is not American'. Yet those holding the identity 'American' in awe (the Identity, not the real people such as illegal immigrants, muslims and the like) greatly resent, for example, IWW members who put the relationally identified 'workers-of-the-world' in precedence over the 'American' Identity, ... and also despise as the lowest of the low, dissidents who would burn American flags.

'Anarchists' have Identity deifiers among them, also.

This is where the comparing of thecollective and the police comes in. For many, 'Anarchist' is an identity like 'American' and those that erode that identity are despised by those that 'believe in, and deify Identity'. It is clear from my writing that I see 'thing-in-itself-Identity' as 'delusion', as any relational interpreter of the world must. Burning the American or Anarchist flag could be interpreted as a signal that our own authenticity puts us beyond having to have 'an Identity' that facilitates our rallying together in a herd-like mode of operation.

Herd-like behaviour does not necessarily imply a formal authoritarian structure. bully groups in the street, if unchallenged, can impose compliance with their values [e.g. Identity worship] on the 'at-large' social collective. This is where police, charged with impartial moderating of social protest, can 'look the other way' when self-appointed vigilante street bullies are harassing those who have 'quit the Church of what Hunter S. Thompson calls 'celebrity-worshipping flag-sucking'.

That is, police are the professional supporters of 'celebrity-worshipping flag-sucking', so while pretending to be 'impartial moderators' of social protest, ... there is no question as to who they would like to see 'win' in street conflict between non-professional (vigilante) supporters of 'celebrity worshipping flag-sucking' and those who would undermine the practice of 'celebrity worshipping flag-sucking'. [as in No Gods, No Masters, No Identity-Worship].

Anarchism has its flag and its alleged 'founding celebrities' and while this 'Identity' is not supposed to lead to 'authoritarian structures', there is nevertheless a division between the 'believers in anarchism' as a fixed thing-in-itself Identity that makes a binary distinction between 'self' and 'other' as in the 'being' based logical proposition that one; ... EITHER 'is' OR 'is not' an 'anarchist'.

In a bioregionalist view, there are no 'things-in-themselves' based Identities. If a Cascadian makes a permanent move to Provence, France, he is no longer a Cascadian because his identity is 'relational' rather than 'fixed'; i.e. 'who he is' is tied up with [entangled with] his relationship with the land, but an American that makes a permanent move to Provence will still claim to be an 'American' because he believes in his 'fixed-thing-in-itself' Identity as when people declare 'thing-in-itself' existence of a sovereign state [e.g. the 'United States'] which comes bundled with the 'fixed-things-in-themselves Identity' of the citizens of the sovereign state [e.g. 'Americans'].

If an Anarchist were like the Cascadian [in the sense of having a 'relational' rather than 'fixed' thing-in-itself identity], it would make no sense for him to see himself as a member of a category defined by his local 'common properties'. Instead, one's 'self' would be relationally entangled with 'other' within the transforming relational continuum, as in seeing the organism as a micro-biome, or as in seeing the storm-cell as a relational feature within the atmospheric flow-plenum.

The 'relational' view of an Anarchist goes beyond 'thing-in-itself' definitions of Identity; i.e. it blurs the self-other distinction, subsuming its binarity [duality] within a binarity-transcending self-other nonduality and exposing the fixed 'thing-in-itself' Identity as 'an error of grammar'.

There are no 'things-in-themselves' in nature, nature is a transforming relational continuum wherein everything is depending on everything [as in ecosystemic mutual support]. The long list of 'independently-existing things-in-themselves' in the Darwinian view does not deserve a 'theory of THEIR origin' since this list is relevant only within semantic reality and certainly NOT within the physical reality of our actual experience. THEIR origin derives from noun-and-verb language which allows the observer of relational forms to SEMANTICALLY split forms out of the relational continuum as notional 'independently-existing-things-in-themselves' that we (notionally) endow with 'genetic agency' by way of a 'double error of grammar'.

The ego is the sense of one's 'being' a 'thing-in-itself'. It is born of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar as in "I am an American (or Anarchist or etc.)".

[Note: "der einzige" is properly translated as 'the individual' and in the relational view, an individual draws his authenticity from his unique situational inclusion within a complex web of dynamic relations]. Thing-in-itself Identity exists only in 'Semantic Reality' and is not found in the physical reality of our actual relational experience.

“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’

an 'individual storm-cell', after we give it a name, 'the Hurricane', is imagined to be a 'thing-in-itself' 'subject' that, by inflecting a verb, is equipped with 'genetic agency' and is seen as the fountainhead of its own development, actions and accomplishments. All of this transpires in 'semantic reality' and none of it within the physical reality of our experience.

but the 'individual storm-cell' could see itself as Emerson sees it, as the nexus of a relational web, a "vent" that "transmits influence from the vast and universal to the point on which its genius can act".

both of these interpretations of 'individual'; (a) the 'doer-of-deeds', and (b) the 'agent of transformation', are in common use in our psycho-semantic mental modeling.

Those who see themselves as 'doers of deeds' imagine the huge deeds they could accomplish if they could band together under a common flag and Identity as a herd with a common 'intention' or 'purpose' [e.g. win competitions/wars].

Those who see themselves as 'agents of transformation' are in touch with their unique situational inclusion within the transforming relational continuum. In this natural understanding of 'Self', situation is in a natural primacy over intention and we do not succumb to allowing a contrived 'reason and purpose-driven' action to hijack the epigenetic inductive actualization of genetic expression [i.e. we do not allow our ego to interpose a notional (noun-and-verb) 'genetic agency' as the source of 'genetic expression' and obfuscate the epigenetic influence we are situationally included in, in the process].

" Central to Taoist teaching is the concept of wu-wei. It is often translated as merely non-action. In fact there are striking philological similarities between 'anarchism' and 'wu-wei'. Just as 'an-archos' in Greek means absence of a ruler, wu-wei means lack of wei, where wei refers to 'artificial, contrived activity that interferes with natural and spontaneous development'.5 From a political point of view, wei refers to the imposition of authority. To do something in accordance with wu-wei is therefore considered natural; it leads to natural and spontaneous order. It has nothing to do with all forms of imposed authority. -- "A History of Anarchism", Peter Marshall

Ok, that is a lot of text. But the complex relational issues we are dealing with require a lot of deconstruction, otherwise their root source lies forever one level below the level in which we are searching for answers.

The 'impartial moderators' and the vigilante street bullies, it seems to me, are infected with a bad case of "celebrity-worshipping, flag-sucking' that has put Anarchism as a 'thing-in-itself' on a pedestal inducing some anarchists to serve as moderators and vigilante protectors of Anarchist Identity.

So, I am left with the question; ... is there 'room' in this Anews forum (i.e. is there sufficient open-mindedness) to 'allow' discussion of 'anarchism' in a nondual sense in which case, it will be impossible to define 'anarchist' in an EITHER 'is' OR 'is not' sense. After the Cascadian has lived in Provence for 20 years, it is nonsensical to go up to him and ask 'Are you still a Cascadian' as if he were a walking-and-talking, fixed identity 'thing-in-itself' rather than a 'relational' entity. In a relational language, it would not even be possible to ask such a question since there are no 'fixed identity' ('being'-) based 'things-in-themselves' in a relational language and grammar.

thecollective
emile wall on will closure

does there need to be 'closure' on this or any issue?

nietzsche complained that imputing 'will' or 'generative force/agency' to a person or thing, while enabling 'closure', was misplaced, as suggested by "cherchez la femme"; i.e. if you see two guys fighting, search for the woman, the invisible female force that 'seduces' (inductively actualizes; as in 'epigenetic influence') genetic expression or 'material dynamics'.

Der Wille zur Macht is such a non-local, non-visible, non-material inductive influence. as nietzsche says, der Wille zur Macht pervades the world (no organic, inorganic division needed), ... and IS the world.

epigenetic inductive influence (female) and genetic agency (male) are a nonduality in this worldview of nietzsche's, which matches the field/matter nonduality (relational) worldview of modern physics.

Nietzsche, like William Blake and Ernst Mach, critiqued the habit, concretized by noun-and-verb language to impute 'generative force' (genetic agency) to the local, visible, form that is manifesting movement or change, hence the 'storming' in the atmosphere, its growth and development and decline, and its movements are attributed to 'the storm' [the 'spook' in the storming] rather that having to 'cherchez la femme' which takes one on a Derridean indefinitely deferred inquiry into the relational continuum in which the storming is an included relational feature.

Instead, many of us want 'closure'. Newton wanted closure so he defined 'force' tautologically, as whatever was needed to match our observations of the 'movements' of local, visible, material forms. If a thing is moving, so the Newtonian argument goes, it is because of a local force within it or applied to it. There it is, closure, nice and neat with no Derridean indefinitely deferred search for deeper understanding necessary. The broken nose transpires because of the 'force' of the driving fist, ... no 'cherchez la femme' required, case closed. the smoking gun will do, the terrorist act thus derives from the terrorist like the storming derives from the invented being, 'the storm' and the 'will' that we impute to it which we can decide is either 'good' or 'evil' depending on what it does for us. What this noun-and-verb closure does is to remove from awareness the epigenetic inductive actualizing of the 'storming' and substituting a 'spook' ("The Storm") whose internal force (ITS OWN genetic agency) is seen as the source of this 'genetic expression' aka 'storming' within the transforming relational flow-plenum.

emile is one of those, like nietzsche, mach, blake, who doesn't buy into this simple closure, ... who doesn't believe that 'closure' is something found in Nature in spite of Newtonian tautologies which bring about 'cased closed' by saying 'the movement of the local material body is the 'result' of the applied force', ... the tautological worldview of forensic science which closes the case by seizing the first smoking gun it can lay its hands; e.g. the 'slaughter in the city' is traced back to the ghetto kid and it stops right there, case closed, ... never continuing on to question the origins of the ghetto (regulated and policed authoritarian capitalist society) and thus deeper roots of the 'storming' that implicate the activities of the people who are sitting in judgement of the 'apparent' evil will driven jumpstart source of the disturbing event (the ghetto kid, the spook we substitute for the person who vents the relational tensions that build within an unbalanced community dynamic).

nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil) didn't buy into this habit of blaming 'internal will' as the genetic agency for action that is 'either good or bad' depending on the value of the results to me [the "selfishness of whoever is doing the judging"].

in nietzsches and/or emile's view, the disturbances seemingly 'caused' by Saddam, Osama bin Ladin, Qaddafy, do not 'jumpstart' from these people; i.e. from their purported 'evil will' that allows us to come to 'case closed' status, but leads back through the webs of continually transforming relations (indefinite deferral) to innate ambiguity (no closure, ever), as if relations prevail over 'things', along the way, implicating those people whose selfish judgement is being imposed on them.

Science and scientific thinking people [science comes from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar which has built in closure (Whorf)] 'become addicting to finding closure in their analysis, ... closure that is purely 'semantic'; i.e. they are like prosecutors and judges and forensic scientists, and believe in the existence of 'will' or 'internal force' that is 'good' or 'evil' [which of these two binary opposites is appropriate is determined by their selfish values and interests of the judges].

The 'indefinite deferral' of the source of genetic agency is anathema to the causal-closure-seeking rational, scientific prosecutor/judge; i.e. "As an accomplished 'forensic scientist', I can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that 'the ghetto kid did it', ... also, ... that Saddam, Osama and Qaddafy are all 'guilty as charged'".

What's that you say; ... "who's responsible for capitalism? ... Why, 'capitalists, of course', ... those guys out there in my God's-eye-view objective reality that I assume are the jumpstart source of a circular process that includes me, as well."

[inventing money as the fluid currency of barter/exchange gives rise to the need for money (epigenetic influence) that inductively actualizes 'genetic expression (so-called 'productive enterprise') which is falsely blamed on the 'will' of the people (who have become pawns trapped in a vicious capitalist circle that has hijacked the natural process of 'mutual aid']

Anyhow, my question for the Anews forum is whether it is sufficiently 'open' to explore the 'no closure' (indefinite deferral) mode of investigation/ understanding and not constrain Anews comments and open inquiry to closure-addicted scientific and rational inquiry and the prosecution and judging that it involves. Why limit the concept of anarchism to that of a 'good guy' in a semantic reality that is based one-sidedly on genetic agency that denies the natural primacy of epigenetic influence within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality that overcomes the binary division into 'good' and 'evil'?

There is a general antagonism, in Western noun-and-verb language using society, towards non-closure-seeking modes of investigation which are not satisfied with 'the ghetto kid did it', ... that latter being closure-seeking analysis that stands or falls with belief in the concept of a local 'internal will' (internal Newtonian force) which nietzsche points out is a bullshit tautology like 'force' in Newtonian science [What made the ghetto kid do it? .. his evil will. ... alles klar, ... case closed, no indefinitely deferred search for an epigenetic source of genetic agency deriving from the all-including transforming relational continuum.

Cultivating relational balance and harmony does not require the identifying, prosecuting, judging and eliminating of those deemed to be the fountainheads of evil will [Newtonian 'management by way of forces'].

Closure seeking inquiry [rational, scientific inquiry] and non-closure seeking inquiry are both viable and operative in our society. must we constrain Anews forums to closure-seeking inquiry only? [indefinite deferral inquiry needs more words than 'the ghetto kid did it' or 'the capitalists did it'].

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?
N
X
n
w
t
R
X
Enter the code without spaces.