'Realist' bias (intolerance) in Anarchistnews Editorial policy

170 posts / 0 new
Last post
emile
'Realist' bias (intolerance) in Anarchistnews Editorial policy

‘Realist’ bias (intolerance) in the editorial policy of Anarchistnews.org

The following comment was deleted by thecollective from the thread 'Strengthening Our Politics, Commitment and Growth: BRRN 4th National Convention'

my guess as to ‘why’ it was deleted was that there is a ‘realist’ bias (and intolerance of 'pragmatic idealism') in the editorial thinking of Anarchistnew.org. ‘Realist’ is explained in the body of the below comment.

Since two thirds of my comments are deleted by thecollective (and half of my shortened resubmissions are also deleted) which are no longer than many others' comments, it seems as if the editors; i.e. 'thecollective', have a problem with my content. meanwhile, my comments are always intended to contribute to shared development of understanding as to how to bring about a Western society 'remake', not something that can be said of much that thecollective continues to publish, including comments by emile9000 etc. which are for no other purpose than adhominem attack and contain no views of their own.

Here is the deleted comment, as submitted, which tries to speak to a prevalent 'misunderstanding' that is endemic in Anarchistnews discussions:

clashing concepts of 'struggle' where east meets west

confusion reigns from the manner in which different people use the word 'struggle' with a different understanding of its meaning.
sir einzige tries to inject some common understanding but the division is as deep as the division between indigenous (relational) culture and Western (rationalist) culture.

relational experience based intuition (a); perceives 'struggle' as a situation-induced phenomenon, while reason (b); has one conceive of struggle as intention-driven action.

e.g.

(a) "getting through the freeway traffic was a real struggle"

(b) "i struggled to weave my way through the heavy freeway traffic".

if a team of scientists installed a paint marker beneath one's car to mark its trajectory on the pavement, and went back and reviewed the trajectory when the freeway was empty, they would ask the driver; is this tortuous trajectory capturing your struggle to weave your way through the traffic? i.e. were you in full charge of the vehicle and the author of all of these swerves and curves? the driver would probably say yes, but might hesitate on contemplating the word 'author', thinking of the dog that came from nowhere and darted across and also that it was not as if he was weaving through a bunch of static traffic cones'.

in a relational understanding, there is no 'being' and thus no 'personal, self-actualized authorship' as implied in the semantic construct "I struggled".
in the physical reality of our actual experience, all dynamic phenomena are 'situationally-relationally induced' as in an 'inhabitant-habitat nonduality' [Mach's principle]. 'struggle' cannot be reduced to the pole of personal intention-driven authorship, but Western noun-and-verb language fashions semantic constructs implying such inside-outward (genetic agency driven) dynamics on a routine basis.

'struggle' as an intention-driven activity leads to 'bottom up' authorship which is operationalized in a 'top-down' organizational fashion.

eg: -- "do you want to join the workers' struggle against corrupt and abusive corporate management? Yes? ... then pick up your placard over there, join the line of protesters standing on the sidestreet and wait for further instructions".

the scientists or 'rationalists' who gathered the data on the individual driver's trajectory use a simple being-based, dualist, thought-economical model that reduces dynamics to terms of 'what things-in-themselves do', ignoring inhabitant-habitat nondualism [Mach's principle].

rationalists aka 'realists' aka 'mainstream scientists' see no problem in the imputing of a being-based source to a relational dynamic as in the semantic constructs "the struggler struggles", "fire burns", "water washes", as if 'there is a 'being' there that is the authoring source of a PURELY RELATIONAL-SITUATIONAL nondual inhabitant-habitat dynamic;

"In brief, the Western mind cannot help but think that all reality has been done away with when all "being" (form, substance) has been negated; but the East has found that the removal of the immediate and overpowering face of reality is but a necessary condition for what is really real to appear' (van Bragt, `Introduction', in Nishitani, K. Religion and Nothingness)

Nishitani critiques the adequacy of being-based logocentric representations ; i.e. his emphasis on the non-presence of simple being-based identity and meaning enables nothingness, emptiness or sûnyatâ to become a critical issue in our search for non-illusory reality.

`Unless the thought and deeds of man one and all be located on such a field of emptiness, the sorts of problems that beset humanity have no chance of ever really being solved' – Nishitani

one of those "sort of problems" lies in understanding 'struggle' as something that brews up in, and froths out from, the interior of an independently-existing human being thing-in-itself who dualist science claims exists independently of the operating theatre he is included (contained) in.

as Poincare shows, 'realists' in Western society are people who MISTAKENLY believe that 'being-based 'genetic agency' [as in predicative logic] is 'real' in the sense of the 'physical reality of our actual experience'. It is not. There are no 'things-in-themselves' with their own jumpstart 'genetic agency' to sole-source authorship of development, actions and results, in the physical reality of our actual experience.

anonymous
And this deleted this

And they deleted this irrelevant, senile nonsense?! Those BASTARDS

emile
how popular is the nondualist understanding of anarchy?

the answer to that depends on the milieu in which one shares such ideas. in Anarchistnews, most topics with Eastern philosophical content (e.g. Buddhist anarchy) draw comments from people who are unfamiliar with Eastern thinking who react like many of us act upon finding foreign coinage in the change we are given. Even if the alien coins were worth more than their American 'look-alike', they are likely to be swiftly and angrily pounced upon, as if the mere proferring of the alien currency constituted some kind of insult.

ad hominems will be thrown at those who present such material without the attackers even addressing the particulars of the content. The response is much like 'racism', wherein the 'Eastern content' should know better than to try to share the same facilities with 'Western content'. Perhaps it is because Western people, the strain that is 'in power' and that demands that everyone else learn their language and customs, are 'out of their element' in their encounters with nonduality and have neither interest nor energy to 'develop fluency' in nondual content in case they become mistaken for one of those odd fellows, ... whereupon, their posts, too, might start getting mocked and dismissed out of hand.

Notwithstanding the evident bias and intolerance of the Anarchistnews milieu to nondual content [though there is likely a 'silent minority' out there], ... nondual anarchism has worthy roots that haven't been scared off in all milieus; e.g; such writings as those of Zen Anarchist (and Beat Poet) Gary Snyder;

True to this anarchist legacy, Snyder ultimately rejected Marxism, which in his view was part of the “the whole Western tradition” of millennial Protestantism. In place of what he viewed as Marxism’s essentially Christian utopianism, he emphasized the need for immediate, inner revolution aided by Buddhist practice directed toward anarchist models of social behavior. Shortly after his undergraduate rejection of Marxism, he “found in the Buddha-Dharma a practical method for clearing one’s mind of the trivia, prejudices, and false values that our conditioning had laid on us,” beneath which lay “the deepest non-self Self.” The insight that Buddhism offered into the nondual nature of self and other—this deepest non-self Self— would complement and complete Western utopian traditions. As Snyder argued in “Buddhism and the Coming Revolution,” published in 1961 under the title “Buddhist Anarchism,” “The mercy of the West has been social revolution” while “the mercy of the East has been individual insight into the basic self/void. We need both” in order to affect “any cultural and economic revolution that moves toward a free, international, classless world.” --- excerpt from ‘The Zen of Anarchy: Japanese Exceptionalism and the Anarchist Roots of the San Francisco Poetry Renaissance’, by James Brown

The first comment in this forum thread, on the nuanced understanding of 'struggle' (dualist and nondualist) is part of what Snyder is talking about in speaking of 'needing both', and likewise the need that Nishitani is talking about where he says;

`Unless the thought and deeds of man one and all be located on such a field of emptiness, the sorts of problems that beset humanity have no chance of ever really being solved' – Nishitani

Shifting one's understanding from dualist mode to nondualist mode is not difficult. One merely has to let one's experience-based intuition prevail over reason without following our usual Western habit of dumbing ourselves down by putting reason into an unnatural precedence over intuition.

of course, even a few barking dogs can be enough to hold people at bay, where they have not yet had the chance to apprise themselves of the value of what they are being warned to stay away from.

thecollective
emile, we remove your stuff because of length

as we have said MULTIPLE TIMES.
i, for one, no longer read them at all, so the content is irrelevant to my actions.

emile
interesting values!

i see, it is just length. i mistakenly thought that the popular intolerance to nondual views might have influenced Anews editorial interventions in this post-worker era.

i was confused by the fact that you often leave in others comments that are longer than some of mine which you have removed.

that you have never given me a maximum allowed length in words in spite of my having asked for one.,

that when you moved my comments offline to the forum 'because of their length', you put mocking titles on them,

that when emile9000, emileemile and others with intolerance to nondual perspectives simply replicate to mock and thus double, triple and quadruple the length of text of my comment without addressing content, you leave all of that in.

your valuing of shorter comments more than longer ones makes an interesting contrast with 'learning circles' where the talking stick is passed to allow the speaker the length of comment she needs to express herself. i appreciate that value in spite of there being no 'scroll over' option in a 'learning circle'.

thanks for being so honest and upfront with me..

thecollective
i have personally explained the "discrepancies" you complain

about in this post. more than once, iirc.
i'm not doing it again, as clearly you don't care and/or won't remember the next time this comes up.

Anonymous (not verified)
jfc ... You have the patience

jfc ... You have the patience of a saint. Seriously!

emile
you've explained nothing.

the lack of overt, explicit policy (same for everyone) by a central control authority is carte blanche for abuse of power and the backroom empowerment of lobby group influence.

'This has been explained already' is the word-smithing used by 'concensus science' to steamroller over unresolved differences.

.

Anonymous (not verified)
Or you have a transparent

Or you have a transparent persecution complex that pairs with your compulsive behaviour? Occam's razor yo. You smell shit everywhere Emile, check your shoe.

emile
i think you'd better check the end of your nose

the obsequious are always there when needed to 'back up' the 'seat of power'.

“The capacity for self-surrender, he said, for becoming a tool, for the most unconditional and utter self-abnegation, was but the reverse side of that other power to will and to command. Commanding and obeying formed together one single principle, one indissoluble unity; he who knew how to obey knew also how to command, and conversely; the one idea was comprehended in the other, as people and leader were comprehended in one another.” --Thomas Mann, Mario and the Magician.

Anonymous (not verified)
"You're a self-important

"You're a self-important jackass that thinks everyone has as much spare time as you." - anon

emile
why won't dissenters back off, shut up and fall in line?

divisions between people do happen and are highlighted most recently, on the one side by 'self-important jackasses' who refuse to stand during the singing of the anthem, and on the other side by those who are in solidarity with a prevailing authority that stone-walls minority complaints and dissent.

we know a lot about this division. nietzsche wrote about it. so did lenin, so did Poincare. it is intensifying all over the globe at the present time. the name-labels vary but the implications are the same. some people put intuition in precedence over reason [IPR] and others put reason in precedence over intuition [RPI].

the IPRs do not believe that there is any such thing as 'objective truth'; i.e. there are only personal perspectives based on unique situational experiences. Nietzsche and Mach are IPRs.

For Nietzsche, each perspective on the world will have certain things it assumes are non-negotiable – "facts" or "truths" if you like. Pointing to them won't have much of an effect in changing the opinion of someone who occupies a different perspective.
.
As Nietzsche saw it, once we realise that the idea of an absolute, objective truth is a philosophical hoax, the only alternative is a position called "perspectivism" – the idea there is no one objective way the world is, only perspectives on what the world is like. ... according to perspectivism, we agree on ... things not because these propositions are "objectively true," but by virtue of sharing the same perspective. When it comes to basic matters, sharing a perspective on the truth is easy – but when it comes to issues such as morality, religion and politics, agreement is much harder to achieve. People occupy different perspectives, seeing the world and themselves in radically different ways. These perspectives are each shaped by the biases, the desires and the interests of those who hold them; they can vary wildly, and therefore so can the way people see the world.
.
Nietzsche didn't mean to imply we are doomed to live within the limits of our own biases. In fact, Nietzsche suggests that the more perspectives we are aware of, the better we can be at reaching a watered-down objective view of things. At the end of his 1887 book On the Genealogy of Morality, he writes:
.
"The more eyes, different eyes, we know how to bring to bear on one and the same matter, that much more complete will our 'concept' of this matter, our 'objectivity' be."

The same conclusion falls out of quantum physics compliant communications theory (Gabor) where many different views on the same thing is the basis of a holistic view as in the holographic image.

The RPIs include all those put into positions of editorial authority, who believe they have a good handle on 'the objective truth' and thus they 'make judgements' and use their power of central authority to administer on that basis. Because they (a) believe that there is 'objective truth', (b) feel they 'know the truth in advance', they (c) feel equipped to discriminate between 'truth and falsehood' and make judgements and editorials commensurate with those judgements.

Concensus groups form in the RPI collective, on the basis of their feeling that, together, they have worked through the issues and distilled out the 'objective truth' of what is going on; i.e.

"A core tenet of Enlightenment thought was that our shared humanity, or a shared faculty called reason, could serve as an antidote to differences of opinion, a common ground that can function as the arbiter of different perspectives. Of course people disagree, but, the idea goes, through reason and argument they can come to see the truth. Nietzsche's philosophy, however, claims such ideals are philosophical illusions, wishful thinking, or at worst a covert way of imposing one's own view on everyone else under the pretense of rationality and truth."

So, emile has always embraced the IPR (intuition prevails over reason) mode of understanding and in his non-internet physical experience, has been involved in indigenous peoples' guided 'sharing circles', 'learning circles', 'healing circles' and 'peace-keeping circles'. The circles tradition arises from the understanding that everyone has their own unique world perspective developed from their own unique situational-relational experience; i.e;

"The more eyes, different eyes, we know how to bring to bear on one and the same matter, that much more complete will our 'concept' of this matter, our 'objectivity' be."

In this mode of understanding, there is no need to suppress a dissenting view. all views are dissenting because there is no 'correct view'; i.e. there is no objective rational truth. there is no need to debate whose view is the most truthful and develop a concensus view and divide off into factions and 'run for election' on this basis.

when all views are listened to and 'heard', the next step is NOT to DISTILL OUT THE TRUTH, but to look for 'coherency' by bringing the multiplicity of views into connective relational confluence. The circle tradition remains 'flat' and the 'circle keeper' never becomes an 'editor' but is there to remind circle participants of the circle protocols [respectful listening to the person holding the talking stick etc.]

Lenin's, an RPI wrote 'Materialism and Empirio-Criticism' (1909)specifically to 'put down' the IPO mode of understanding which was becoming a popular alternative 'non-materialist' way to interpret Marxism by those who Lenin referred to as 'Machians'

For IPOs, the many dissenting groups that arise around the world, like the Saddam regime, the Qaddafy regime, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Kim Jong-Un, .. are inductively actualized from relational tensions associated with global colonizer power oppression. For RPIs like Lenin and materialist Marxists, all such dissenting groups are viewed as 'real things-in-themselves with their own internal 'genetic agency'., thus it makes rational sense to deal with them simply by eliminating them. However, since they are inductively actualized and not real 'things-in-themselves', eliminating them is 'tilting at windmills' without coming to grips with the root source (epigenetic inductive influence). Such RPI interventions engender unanticipated 'externalities' such as 'the rise of ISIS'.

The IPO mode of understanding is 'nondualist' while the RPI mode of understanding is 'dualist'.The dominant mode of understanding, since it has been globalized by Western European 'enlightenment' view that believes that rational debate can reduce observations to a common 'objective truth', is the RPI view.

As this Forum topic suggests, Editors (and their acolytes) who are not like 'circle keepers' but who believe they know the objective truth and who edit on that basis, reflect the continuing tendency to dominance of the RPI mode of understanding.

Anonymous (not verified)
Geez... You just get more and

Geez... You just get more and more worked up, don't you? I wouldn't have a problem with you if you weren't always insisting everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

emile
don't worry, be happy!

if you see me knock out a few para's fairly expeditiously, don't assume it is because 'i am 'worked up''.

if you knew the circle ethic, you would not have to make the 'common assumptions'.

the circle does not have an 'editor', it has a circle keeper and the circle-keeper does not give orders, he/she simply reminds people of the circle protocols [listening respectfully, giving each person holding the talking stick the time and space they need to share their thoughts/experiences etc.]. the power of the circle lies in what 'comes through the centre of the circle', not what the centre dishes out.

if you don't know the stuff someone is writing about, it doesn't make you an idiot and no-one is suggesting that. we are always in the position of not knowing what someone else may know.

ok, in circle ethics, there is no 'ranking' of people on the basis of 'how intelligent' you think they are so that you will then put 'more weight' on what they say than someone who grunts and points. that is, the western approach to developing a common understanding is to use rational intelligence in a debate to come up with a rational model of what is going on. the circle process makes no assumption that participants are 'rational' [everyone is nuts in a different way] therefore 'intelligence' or 'rational thinking muscle' can be more of a hindrance than a help.

e.g. developing a healthcare system could take the RPI approach and use a team of experts to produce the final product through rational debate and then 'lay it on the masses', or could take the IPR approach and use a learning circle to share personal experience of what works. it's not a question of 'EITHER 'I' OR 'R' [either (intuition) or (reason)], but a question of which you put in precedence over which.because those alternative options lead to very different types of 'community'. this means that one doesn't have to 'go primitive', just let experience-based needs inductively actualize genetic expression (the development of technical solutions).

the other point that may need emphasis, is the key point of what comes from problem solving sessions depending on whether the group is IPR or RPI; i.e. the RPI group are 'logicians' and 'realists' like Lenin. they believe they are closing in on the 'objective truth' when, in fact, they are in the process of gathering a herd around a particular 'perspective' which satisfies their group emotional needs.

the IPR group are intuitives and 'pragmatist-idealists' [we find it useful to contrive semantics that depict an inductively actualized relational form as a thing-in-itself with its own genetic agency, like 'hurricane Harvey', but we do not confuse that with the physical reality of our actual experience]. in other words, the IPR group does not believe there is such a thing as 'objective truth'. as nietzsche said,

"The more eyes, different eyes, we know how to bring to bear on one and the same matter, that much more complete will our 'concept' of this matter, our 'objectivity' be." -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morality

That's why the 'circle keeper' never operates as an 'editor' since it is impossible for him to know, from his own limited experience, what the contributions of particular contributors, however educated or uneducated, contribute to the mix. 'worker' (prior to the collective) seemed to me to operate more like a 'circle keeper'.

Anonymous (not verified)
This thread be liek:

This thread be liek:
Emilio: Wah! I make out the was pretty!
thecrew: You're dumb and you suck, but you should already know that.
Emillion bucks: Wah, buh muh stupid crap blah blah blah.
theunionofnerds: ...

Anonymous (not verified)
Don't forget random guy (me)

Don't forget random guy (me) being like "quit nailing yourself to the cross you old weirdo"

Followed by another condescending brick wall of text claiming persecution.

Then my pity, then Emile's massive ego reconstituting itself like the T-1000.

random dude (not verified)
i like emile.

he is like a #antifa regimen for the rational mind

emile
this trust in the rational mind is crazy

nietzsche's writing sticks around and continues to stir interest because Western society continues to self-destruct by trusting more in science and rationality than in our experience-based intuition, ... and the doubt grows, as it should, that maybe nietzsche was right and intuition should be restored to its natural primacy over reason, rationality, science.

authoritarians love reason, and why shouldn't they. it's a birdsnest on the ground! imagine this, ... you can exploit, abuse and humiliate people to your dark heart's delight.and reason will continue to come up with the conclusion that rebels are the full and sole source of rebellion!

what heart of darkness could ask for more than that. listen to the intuitives scream, but to no avail, because 'reason' is the dominant mode of understanding in authoritarian societies such as ours.

and watch out innocents, because reason is also the source of the concept of 'categories' and you might find yourself binned into one that will be your total undoing.

because 'reason' assumes the 'independent existence' of 'things-in-themselves', it defines things on the basis of 'their own properties and characteristics' [a 'great stupidity' as nietzsche says]. and also, the origin of 'racism' and 'identity politics' in general.

reason has us 'call a spade a spade'. that's where that comes from, the concept of an independently-existing thing-in-itself known by 'its own properties and characteristic behaviours'.

our experience-based intuition would say that the child-soldier's ruthless behaviours are inductively actualized by the epigenetic influence immanent in the relational social dynamics he is situationally included in. indigenous peoples, since they put intuition in its natural primacy over reason and science, say that 'it takes a whole community to raise a child-soldier' and thus defining him as a terrorist on the basis that he has the characteristic behaviours of a terrorist and thus qualifies as a member of the category 'terrorist' and 'rebel' and so, let's call a fucking spade a fucking spade, ... the child-soldier is a fucking terrorist and he is fully and solely responsible for his own fucking behaviour because that is how reason works. no more fucking excuses for being born into a ghetto and all that horseshit.

it's reason that puts people into categories because that's the only way to define 'things-in-themselves'. you have to measure 'their properties' to define 'them'. that's how 'reason'declares the 'existence' of 'things-in-themselves', one measures their properties.

remember all the guys who have said to impressionable teenage girls on the internet. "if you love me, share with me (just with me) a picture of your beautiful thighs-wide-open naked body", ... and when the picture goes viral on the internet and everyone does as reason directs them to, 'call a slut a slut', ...she may change schools a few times and then hang herself.

according to science and reason, an individual is an independent thing-in-itself that is fully and solely causally responsible for their own actions and their results, that's where 'calling a spade space comes from; ... science and reason. we call a rebel a rebel no matter if he is a slave whose rebellious behaviour has been inductively actualized by the abuse, humiliation and exploitation of slave-masters. for them, reason works great. forensic science is capable of proving that the rebellious slave is fully and solely causally responsible for the injury to the slave master but forensic science, and science in general, is blind to epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes genetic expression. ['what things do']. reason insists that rebellious behaviour jumpstarts from the interior of the rebel. how convenient! the bully group that uses herd power to attack the alleged politically incorrect behaviour of the teenage girl, labelling her a slut and attacking, alienating and humiliating her in a vicious fashion not unlike medieval stonings, comes from 'reason' that says she is an independent human being-thing-in-herself who is fully and solely responsible for her own behaviour, same as in the case of the child-soldier and the rebel.

have you ever seen how all the most beautiful and richly resourced spaces, special items in the finite expanse on the surface of the earth are taken over by the rich and powerful and placed off-limits to the poor and disempowered? there's no basic limit to how disparate that can get; i.e. it could lead to very few controlling all of the natural beauty spots while most of the rest live in a toxic wasteland filling up with shit that is being dumped out by those living high on the hog in the beauty spots.

remember what reason and science is going to say about this, as it has always been saying. if there is rebellion, it can only come from rebels because science and reason tell us that humans are independently-existing beings-in-themselves that are fully and solely responsible for their own behaviours. rebellion, according to forensic science, is jumpstarted by rebels, no 'epigenetic inductive actualizing influence allowed!

so what does science and reason say about the rich and powerful monopolizing the resource rich lands so that the poor and disempowered, by reciprocal complement, must retreat into the lowland swamps and toxic wastelands?

science and reason are founded on 'dualism', the notion that humans are independent 'beings', material inhabitants who are separate and apart from the 'habitat'. the logical corollary is 'property ownership' where humans, being 'separate' from the 'habitat' can act on it to 'have their way with it', to screw it, extract stuff from it, exploit it, abuse it, rape it, with impunity because reason denies what intuition acknowledges, inhabitant-habitat nonduality.

"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 of inhabitant-habitat nonduality

science and reason have a built-in dependency on dualism, along with Western religions, that is where 'property ownership' and 'categories' and 'racism' come from; dualism is the big disconnect, the subject-object disconnect, the inhabitant-habitat disconnect, the 'is' 'is not' existential disconnect;

"God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man, … to subdue the earth; i.e., improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to this commandment of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him” – John Locke, 1690

Western science and reason, Western religion, ... both are founded in dualism, the subject-object split which gives us the impression that what we are looking at 'out there' is an 'objective reality' apart from ourselves.

can you imagine how those weird intuitives, the indigenous aboriginals could have come up with nondualist views such as;

"“You must teach the children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of your grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have taught our children, that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. … This we know, the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.” —Native Belief Tradition

those crazies! and how about physicists like David Bohm and others buying into that nondualism which puts intuition into primacy over reason, ... claiming that 'indigenous science' affirms modern physics while Western science and reason is hung up on abstract being-based dualist beliefs that we got from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar.

who, besides Bohm and indigenous aboriginals, is interested in inventing, reviving, cultivating and sustaining 'relational language' that will wean us off those spooky noun-subjects-and-attributes that are the source of 'categories' and 'identity politics' and continue to 'bewitch our understanding'?

Anonymous (not verified)
perhaps you should lay off

perhaps you should lay off writing huge walls of text in the comment section. i'm sure they wouldn't delete your comments if they were condensed versions of your wall of text spam. start a blog if you want to write walls of text.

emile
thanks for your message which i just picked up

my interest is in engaging with others on particular current issues. what takes a lot of words is the deconstruction to get around the dualist, being based structure of standard formulations in noun-and-verb language. it looks like repetition but it is because of the problem that we normally leave out a lot when we communicate in a language we all know because we don't have to unfold all of the definitions that everyone is familiar with. i do have to unfold them because i need to remove them and substitute new 'nondual, relational' underpinnings. relational language is a language with 'new footings' that remove the dualist, being base that is in standard usage. i continue to try to find a way to reduce the length of these deconstruction-reconstructions, meanwhile.

Anonymous (not verified)
You might not get deleted if

You might not get deleted if your shit was a pragmatic-idealist-indigenous-quantum-nondualist-whatever-the-fuck-you-are perspective on the topic at hand. Whatever the topic, you always say the same thing. It's about things-in-themselves not existing and agency not existing, and everything is one big quantum field, and we know this from Nietzsche-Einstein-Mach-Tolstoy and indigenous peoples. Is that relevant to BRRN? Not really. You object to "Organise and Struggle", and everyone knows in advance you will object to "Organise and Struggle" and exactly why, because BRRN is a left-anarchist organisation and they don't subscribe to your ontology. You don't say anything about BRRN's version of "Organise and Struggle" which is different from how you object to any other version of "Organise and Struggle". You don't give anyone the slightest idea what a pragmatic-idealist-whatever-the-fuck approach to workplace organising would be, or an approach to work, whether work is itself a dualistic colonising construct, whether workplace action should involve non-separative harmonising and consensus-building with the bosses, whether workplace organisers should carry on just the same way but while recognising that change comes from the universal field and not themselves (in which case, what's wrong with the article?), or whether pragmatic-blah-blah means that one should refuse work and if so, how. You're not discussing how they responded to Charlottesville, whether your rejection of the imperative to fight means that anarchists need to use nonviolent communication with Nazis rather than punch them, whether Nazism is just a symptom which shouldn't be fought because its real causes lie in the wider energetic field, or whether we should punch Nazis while recognising that we're just being caused to punch Nazis by epigenetic influences... this is the kind of thing you need to do for your perspective to be relevant!

Realists may be wrong but they're on-topic. Do you see realists turning up and reeling off the same general ontological points like "according to Popper, nonfalsifiable reasoning is the root of totalitarianism" or "Sokal and Bricmont show that postmodern language is fashionable nonsense, and that's similar to what Marx said in his critique of Stirner, here have a quote", on an article which isn't about general ontology but about a specific political conference? That would probably piss everyone off, too. Hell, Zizek always says the same thing too, but at least he relates it tangentially to whatever he's meant to be discussing.

emile
reply to #21

normal language delivery is 'set up' for 'realism', for accepting that subject-names refer to things-in-themselves which are assumed to have their own genetic agency, rendering them causally responsible for their development actions and accomplishments.

in order to respond to such built-in-being-assumptions, it is necessary to (a) call attention to the built-in assumptions, (b) deconstruct and expose them, and (c) show what new assumptions are being used to reinterpret the same subject/issue that the original comment was directed to.

the realist chooses to split apart the inhabitant-habitat nonduality, endow the inhabitant with being and genetic agency, and forget about the epigenetic influence of habitat. this makes for 'less words' thanks to dropping out the most essential aspect of what is being discussed, - nonduality.

the words are then like 'dead bees in an abandoned hive'; i.e. they are the words of mechanistic science and reason.,

i appreciate that you are addicted to their greater simplicity, convenience and economy of thought [Mach], but the price exacted from such usage is the subjugation of intuition to reason. that is not a price that i am willing to pay.. my intuitive understanding is that 'rebellion' is epigenetically induced by land monopolization and associated extortion of slave-labours, and realists and their reason can insist all they want that rebellion is caused by rebels and their internal genetic agency, ... but just as tolstoy was unwilling to buy into that, and nietzsche, who called 'subject and attribute' 'a great stupidity', neither am i willing to buy into it.

Anonymous (not verified)
>normal language delivery is

>normal language delivery is 'set up' for 'realism'

Yeah we know you think that.

>in order to respond to such built-in-being-assumptions, it is necessary to (a) call attention to the built-in assumptions, (b) deconstruct and expose them, and (c) show what new assumptions are being used to reinterpret the same subject/issue

In every single instance where someone uses language?!

* We already know* you think everyday language is "realist".
* We already know* you think realism is wrong.
* We already know* which theories you're using to ground these two claims.
* We already know* what other perspective you propose (although its implications for particular topics are rarely clear).

You don't need to tell us what we already know, every single time you post.

It's as if you think that by repeating the same objections over and over, you're going to convince people that you're right. It's more likely the opposite - the more you sound like a cracked record, the more people will dismiss what you say (which is a shame, because you're often partly right).

Instead of rehashing the same metatheoretical critique over and over, it would be more helpful to tell us what a nondualist perspective entails *politically*, in each case, instead of flogging a dead horse and repeating yourself over and over.

>this makes for 'less words' thanks to dropping out the most essential aspect of what is being discussed, - nonduality.

The other thing you consistently fail to do, is to show how we can speak in a way which includes nonduality. Your own language is verbose, repetitive and utterly parasitic on the realism it criticises. It must be possible to create a language which recognises nonduality but can also be used in a pragmatic way. Hell, I wish I could fucking speak Quechua or Tzotzil or Maori, then I could teach you a thing or two about how to speak nondualistically. Since I can't, suffice to say: it's perfectly easy for a speaker of Quechua or Tzotzil or Maori to make mundane everyday statements in these languages without assuming duality, but also without every statement turning into a deconstructive clusterfuck.

Here's a project for you: go away and learn an indigenous language or two, and copy its grammatical structures into English. What does English look like when it's spoken with a Tzotzil grammar? You might have to invent, add words or tenses or kinds of syntax to import the relational stuff... but it should be possible (see: Walter Benjamin, The Task of the Translator), and it should be comprehensible or at least learnable. I'm very interested in the things which could be *said* on this basis.

>i appreciate that you are addicted to their greater simplicity, convenience and economy of thought

Fuck off with your authority complex. You're not my therapist, you've never met me, and you have no grounds for claiming to "know" that I'm "addicted" to anything. The very fact that you can make such swingeing empirical claims based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence disproves your claims to be anti-essentialist and nondualistic. You refuse to talk to people as equals, you fall back on this kind of diagnostic "what-you-just-said-is-a-symptom"-speak which creates a dualistic metaphorical doctor-patient relationship between you and your discussant, and thus asserts scientific power based on the very principles you reject.

emile
more selective deletions by thecollective

my reply to anonymous 06:52 was deleted from the TOTW thread by thecollective. here it is below 06:52's comment which was left in as if 'unanswered' by thecollective, in the TOTW thread on 'projects'

Anonymous (not verified)
Fri, 10/27/2017 - 06:52
Where the fuck's Emile got to
Where the fuck's Emile got to this week?

"The idea of local projects is a semantic falsehood derived from a dualistic scientific worldview promoting the delusion of a separation between the local and the universal, when in fact from an intuitive point of view the entire universe is local to any one of its points and locality is an effect of the prejudices of the observer as shown by Mach..."

you called? ... with respect to 'local projects'

as Tolstoy pointed out, the government considers rebellion a 'local project', but you can't really separate this project of rebellion from ongoing relational dynamics of the community and Russia and beyond. intuitively, we understand that 'everything is in flux' and every point in that flux 'is the flux'. there is nothing in a flow that is 'local' other than thanks to the lantern carried by the observer that casts light on a limited region of the flow, making it 'appear' to be a local feature-in-itself; i.e. local comes about by way of observer subjectivity. scientific reality derives from such observer subjectivity.

why would anyone want to declare a 'local project' to be a thing-in-itself?

well, if the government declares a 'local slave rebellion' to be a 'local project', then the government and the monopoly landlords whose extorting of slave labour from the unlanded is the deeper source of relational tensions that induce the rebellion are not going to be included in the inquiry. thus, the causal source of the rebellion will be found to lie within 'the local project' in the agency of causal agents known as rebels who will be deemed fully and solely responsible for the rebellion.

governments everywhere can celebrate the fact that even the people who are abused and exploited with impunity by this 'semantic falsehood' of 'local projects' [every system is included in a relational suprasystem] continue to be 'hoodwinked by science' as tolstoy said, so that rebels are found to be the cause of rebellion while our intuition screams out that it is the abusive, slave-labour extorting practices of landlords that sources [inductively actualizes] rebellion.

tolstoy tried to get people interested in how science hoodwinks us and so did nietzsche. i have tried various ways of expressing this, including citing from Poincare on how science synthesizes 'locality' where there is none; e.g;

“Origin of Mathematical Physics.—Let us penetrate further, and study more closely the conditions that have permitted the development of mathematical physics. We observe at once that the efforts of scientists have always aimed to resolve the complex phenomenon directly given by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena.
.
This is done in three different ways: first, in time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, the aim is simply to connect each instant with the instant immediately preceding it. It is admitted that the actual state of the world depends only on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the memory of a distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, it is possible to confine ourselves to writing its ‘differential equation.’ For Kepler’s laws we substitute Newton’s law.

the "progressive development of a phenomenon" such as rebellion includes the monopolization of common living space land, and the use of that monopoly to extract slave labour from unlanded peasants that gives rise to growing relational tensions that induce rebellion. but science says that we can chop out local events and solve what is going on in them and that this will deliver the 'correct answer'.

1. science says that the rebels are the cause of rebellion.

2. intuition says that landowner extortion of slave-labour is the deeper cause of rebellion and that rebel actions are a secondary or derivative phenomena [the genesis of rebellious actions is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence in an epigenetic-genetic nonduality]..

what do you say? i.e. do you agree with 1. or 2?

Anonymous (not verified)
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/047/536/562.png

I honestly don't give a fuck whether 1 or 2, it's metaphysical masturbation. I care about getting shit done, not about whether my getting shit done is due to myself as a self-caused agent or the epigenetic effects of something which is invisibly causing me to do it. Seriously, what is the *real political significance* of the duality-nonduality difference?

emile
re 'the 'real political significance?' of duality vs nonduality

nonduality acknowledges the physical reality wherein inductive influence actualizes genetic expression whereas duality does not.

we see a lot of slaves picking cotton and inhabitant-habitat duality says that the dynamics of these slaves comes from their own internal genetic agency. nonduality says that this slave-labour is extorted from the slaves, inductively actualized by the relational dynamics of the habitat in which they are included.

science is dualist and being-based so it reduces the dynamic, semantically (by noun-verb constructs) and affirms that the slave's actions derive from his internal processes; i.e. the inhabitant is independent of the habitat.

but it is the inhabitant-slave's dependency on the habitat [food, shelter, clothing] that allows those who have a monopoly on these things to inductively actualize and shape [extort] his actions and deeds. this is physically real, the habitat is the teat of nature that keeps man going so long as he is able to draw from it. the sailboat can't sail without drawing from winds and currents. it is these habitat based epigenetic influences that inductively actualize our genetic expression. the actions of sailboats do not jumpstart from the sailboat's own 'genetic agency' nor do the actions of human inhabitants jumpstart from the human's own 'genetic agency'. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression in our physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR)

humans are self-actualized notionally by their own 'genetic agency' ONLY IN SEMANTICALLY CONSTRUCTED SCIENTIFIC REALITY. (SCSR).

if people want to continue to confuse scientific reality for reality then the politics will continue to get really confused as everyone thinks that people's actions, like the slaves in the field, come from the people, without seeing people's actions are actualized by outside-inward inductive influences, like landlord extortion and/or the inductive call of nature. therefore, when there is rebellion, the scientific reality portrays this as the work of rebels [their jumpstart genetic agency], without acknowledging the inductive actualizing influence of the habitat that is controlled by a land-monopolizing elite who squeeze off access to essential resources and extort begging and slave labour in exchange for limited access.

the political significance is that in acknowledging nonduality and thus putting intuition in its natural precedence over reason, the rebellion is never seen as being jumpstart authored by 'rebels' but is seen as being inductively actualized by land-monopolizing elitists, ... so the rebel never goes on trial, never gets convicted/condemned and never goes to jail.

is that not politically significant to you?

Anonymous (not verified)
Explain how believing that

Explain how believing that resistance is inductively actualised by outside forces (rather than genetic agency) will keep us out of jail.

As far as I can see, this only works if you manage to convince the judges or the landowners of this - and even then, they'd probably fall back on "compatibilism" or "behavioral conditioning" (believe me - I've actually had the "what if free will is an illusion" argument with statists). Tip: you aren't going to find judges or landowners on Anarchist News.

Anonymous (not verified)
Tip: you aren't going to find

Tip: you aren't going to find judges or landowners on Anarchist News.

Idk what about those people who used all their porn money to buy a few acres somewhere

Anonymous (not verified)
Correction: you aren't going

Correction: you aren't going to find landlords who are causing peasant rebellion by oppressing peasants on anarchist news (or at least, I hope not).

emile
the power of 'the word' in our projects

anarchists such as RA Wilson have hatched projects to promote the use of language without words that signify 'being'. this is a project that needs to be restarted.

words that signify 'being' remove our intuitive understanding of inhabitant-habitat 'nonduality' from our semantic reality constructions and constrain us to a mechanistic 'scientific reality' which obscures [occludes] our physically experienced intuitive reality.

1. nietzsche, like lamarck and rolph, captured evolution in terms of epigenetic-genetic nonduality wherein epigenetic influence immanent in the relational dynamics of the habitat, inductively actualized evolutionary genetic expression within the habitat. this meant that the diverse multiplicity of forms arising within the habitat were habitat-induced rather than inhabitant-pushed, agreeing with the physical reality of our actual experience wherein the habitat (universe) is 'one thing' which is continually gathering and regathering innovative forms within itself. forms have no 'being' or thing-in-itselfness in this understanding.

2. darwin built his theory by imputing 'being' to forms, splitting apart 'inhabitant' from 'habitat' and notionally endowing the 'beings' with internal genetic agency to modify themselves, adding into this recipe 'random chance variations' along with 'natural selection' whereby the modified 'being' either persist or disappear depending on how well equipped it was to 'compete' in a collection of being-based forms constituting the 'habitat'. as stephen jay gould pointed out using the analogy of hitting-fielding nonduality in baseball, the rise and fall of a hitter's performance is not just due to the 'genetic agency' of the hitter, but is at the same time due to continuing variations in the accommodating/ disaccommodating reception of the habitat. this is already support for lamarck's and rolph/nietzsche's model since it dissolves the 'being'-based notion that the form is fully and solely responsible for its own development, actions and deeds and suggests the re-interpretation of forms as epigenetic-genetic nondualities in the manner of storm-in-flow nonduality.

a project group of indigenous aboriginal anarchists employs the understandings in (1.) in organizing their undertaking; i.e. they will see themselves as an epigenetic-genetic nonduality, as do exceptionally performing teams in non-indigenous euro-american culture. by letting their project team identity 'float' and be continually reshaped by the needs of friends, family, brother projects, host space, this epigenetic pull that is shaping their genetic expression gives them a 'design for evolution', in contrast to 'normal' euro-american project teams that see themselves as 'things-in-themselves' who are 'fully and solely causally responsible for their own development, actions and accomplishments [as 'powerboaters' rather than 'sailboaters', the latter deriving their power and steerage (direction) from the relational dynamics they share inclusion in.

there is a choice here, as Goethe says in Faust, ... between "Im Anfang war der Tat' and 'Im Anfang war das Wort'. (do things come from actions or from words?). If we name things like project teams and members of project teams, we implicitly fix their identity and impute to them jumpstart authorship of their own development, actions and accomplishments [powerboater style]. whereas, if we suspend naming them, we can see them immersed in the world dynamic as inhabitant-habitat nondualities aka 'relational forms in the evolving flow-continuum'.

anarchist organization opts for "Im Anfang war der Tat", the nietzschean intuition-over-reason option where in we suspend our fixed identity formal position, status, qualifications and let our creative potentials be pulled into blossom [genetic expression] by the needs of the relational matrix we are included in.,

However, 'science' insists on organizing things according to "Im Anfang war das Wort", e.g. portraying the body as being powered and directed by its named internal parts, and portraying the project team as being powered and directed [powerboater fashion] by its named members and attributing to each named 'component' their own fixed identity, status, and jumpstart genetic agency.

euro-american society is characterized by its addiction to keeping 'science' in an unnatural primacy over intuition, hence the need for projects of the RA Wilson type, to dissolve fixed identity status.

Anonymous (not verified)
>by letting their project

>by letting their project team identity 'float' and be continually reshaped by the needs of friends, family, brother projects, host space, this epigenetic pull that is shaping their genetic expression gives them a 'design for evolution'

First question. When does this nondual locality known as "Emile" let itself float and be continually reshaped by the needs of Anarchist News and other contributors, instead of repetitively pushing "its own" agenda and crying foul when it doesn't get its way?

Second question. In a world where our immediate environment is dualistic neoliberal capitalism, won't a "floating" identity responsive to its immediate environment necessarily become simply a puppet of the dualistic cybernetic network?

For example, an anarchist responsive to their neighborhood context in nearly every area will avoid having loud parties, doing graffiti, blocking roads, interfering with community-supported police operations... in short, will be undisruptive of the capitalist order.

I don't care if it's a powerboat or a sailboat, as long as it sails away from capitalist conformity.

emile
reply to #28

you wrote;

First question. When does this nondual locality known as "Emile" let itself float and be continually reshaped by the needs of Anarchist News and other contributors, instead of repetitively pushing "its own" agenda and crying foul when it doesn't get its way?

you, me, anyone, can put ourselves into intuitive reality and/or into scientific reality. intuitive reality is informed by our physical experience of our inhabitant-habitat nonduality. e.g. we are included in relational social dynamics that inductively actualize, orchestrate and shape our actions. when you see rebellion, scientific reality depicts what is going on in terms of the actions of rebels which derives from their own internal genetic agency. intuitive reality understands that these rebel behaviours are inductively actualized, orchestrated and shaped from the outside-inward [epigenetically], for example, by a landlord that is extorting slave-labours and/or prostitution and/or other demeaning behaviours from 'have-nots'.

Western moral judgement is based on visualizing things in scientific reality which attributes the actions of an individual fully and solely to the individual through whom the actions manifest. Thus, not only is the 'rebel' held fully and solely responsible for the destruction and injury of rebellion, the landlord is held fully and solely responsible for the production from his land and can be celebrated as a pillar of community even as his abused slave-labourers suffer on the brink of starvation.

Intuitive reality gives a beyond-good-and-evil view of the same phenomena, acknowledging that rebellion is inductively actualized within an inhabitant-habitat nonduality wherein roots of the sourcing of phenomena draw from the depths of the transforming relational continuum [relational dynamics are the invisible backplane sourcing secondary phenomena of manifest people dynamics. justice in this case is restorative and seeks to restore balance and harmony in the relational social community dynamics.

your question concerns forming relational collectives such as project teams or communities, my views concern the vital importance of keeping intuitive reality into its natural precedence over scientific reality. There are people in Anews that do this but what is popular is to put scientific reality into an unnatural precedence over intuitive reality. you can't form a restorative justice peacemaking circle with members who insist on putting scientific reality first, as goes hand-in-hand-with moral judgement and retribution. peacemaking circles form when people decide to put intuitive reality into precedence over scientific reality.

i have been there, i am there. i wouldn't have it any other way, and like many others, i try to share its benefits, and what may be a bit different, i try to share understandings [from Mach, Nietzsche, Bohm etc.] on the source and impact of dysfunction associated with putting scientific reality into an unnatural precedence over intuitive reality.

so, i am floating and i do and will continue to participate in peacemaking circles [or intuitive reality teams] and let the cultivating of balance and harmony take precedence over my rational perspective.

but as those who opt for the peacemaking circles of restorative justice know, it isn't a peacemaking circle if its participants are still putting scientific reality in precedence, and making rational-moral judgements that block the transforming of relations as is the source of the peacemaking.

“Spirituality helps to connect and bind us to each other as a community, as a tribe and as a nation. It clarifies relationships and is what makes healing happen.” —Judge Joseph Flies-Away
.
"The Navajo phrase hozhooji naat’aanii very loosely translates as peacemaking, but really means something more like “people talking together to re-form relationships with each other and the universe,”
for more, see (click on) the following;
Restorative Justice Practices of Native American, First Nation and Other Indigenous People of North America: Part One

as far as 'crying foul', whether one calls the split in approaches to understanding 'anarchism' as 'pragmatist-idealist' versus 'realist' [these are well known] or intuitive-over-scientific versus scientific-over-intuitive [Nietzschean], there is an evident popularity of the 'scientific-over intuitive' commentaries on the issues that is accompanied by a popular dislike of emile's and a few others 'intuitive-over-scientific' commentaries, which seems to sometimes sway editorial action re my posts, a fact that i have queried thecollective on from time to time, as in this forum thread.

you wrote;

"Second question. In a world where our immediate environment is dualistic neoliberal capitalism, won't a "floating" identity responsive to its immediate environment necessarily become simply a puppet of the dualistic cybernetic network?

as in the answer to your first question, i am speaking of two different realities available to us [PEIR intuitive reality and SCSR scientific reality] and related ways of organizing for project team activity and/or dispute resolution. the popular mode of organizing is to put scientific reality into (unnatural) primacy over intuitive reality. my writing is to expose the fundamental flaws in that popular [in Western civilization] approach which is really what is taking Western society to hell in a hand-basket as Nietzsche and Tolstoy have already belabored.

letting the identity float opens the door to non-mechanical teamwork and organizing (anarchy). the holdouts who can't or won't let go of putting scientific reality first would not want to participate in a team or community that puts intuitive reality in precedence over scientific reality, and the intuitive-reality-first team or community is where those that put intuitive reality first come together. as restorative justice comes to non-indigenous communities, anglos learn how to let go of their scientific reality first 'attitudes' which is incompatible with restorative justice.

the beyond good-and-evil team and community organizing approach comprehend that one must decouple the individuals from his actions. the actions that manifest through us do not originate in us;

“The western law way is to punish you, so that you don’t repeat the behavior. But the Navajo way is to focus on the individual. You separate the action from the person.” —Robert Yazzie

if you want to rehabilitate the child soldier, you acknowledge that relational tensions originating in the community are venting through him.

if you want to get rid of capitalism, form teams and communities by putting intuitive reality in its natural precedence over scientific reality. scientific reality is blind to nonduality. intuitive reality is awareness of nonduality and thus awareness of how epigenetic influence inductively [e.g. landlord extortion of slave-labours] actualizes rebellion and therefore is aware of the error in imputing the source of actions to the individual through whom they manifest.

this is the same recipe for de-mechanizing the organizing of teams and communities that is implicit in Tolstoy's 'The Kingdom of God is Within You'.

Anonymous (not verified)
I'm gonna ignore all the non

I'm gonna ignore all the non-answers and boring repetition.

>you, me, anyone, can put ourselves into intuitive reality and/or into scientific reality

That statement implies genetic agency, and ignores that genetic agency is actualised epigenetically in a complex relational matrix of inhabitant-habitat nonduality. And this is the glaring contradiction of your theory which you won't recognise.

By your own theory, we can put ourselves in one or the other only if epigenetic causes make us.

>so, i am floating and i do and will continue to participate in peacemaking circles [or intuitive reality teams] and let the cultivating of balance and harmony take precedence over my rational perspective

… but only when the other members of the circle have an intuitive rather than scientific worldview, i.e. when your existing (rational) perspective and ego are not threatened by their (different) beliefs and practices. In other words, you allow your existing views to take precedence over yourself, without the views themselves shifting.

By the way, this kind of communitarian self-renunciation for the good of the (imaginary) collective is not at all logically derivable from Emilean epistemology/ontology, as is shown by the fact that solitary, survival-oriented animals exist. One is no more alienated by being like a honey badger than by being like a sheep.

By the way, indigenous restorative justice relies on the fact that people *are in* multiplex mutual aid relationships already (see Bob Black's piece on this). People in capitalist society *are not* in these relationships unless they create them by an act of will (interdependence through a globalised economy does not create these kinds of personal bonds).

>if you want to rehabilitate the child soldier, you acknowledge that relational tensions originating in the community are venting through him

I'm somewhat sympathetic to your attempts to get rid of punitive reasoning by relying on deterministic causality and the rectification of relational tensions (rather than individuals). But, you're failing to see the central problem here. You are still taking an adversarial, punitive, dualistic approach to people you deem to be within the “scientific worldview”. You do not engage respectfully with others' points of view. And your general ontology has no place for your failure to apply it in this case (unlike, say, Deleuzian ontology with the univocal/biunivocal distinction). If your holist theory applies in all cases, then people who accept a scientific worldview are also doing so because this is the way in which energies in the relational field are venting through them. You're restoring the idea of determinate local mental agency by blaming the scientific worldview on determinate local mental agency.

emile
reply to #33 to say that you continue to ignore my points

you continue to ignore all my points without comment, the points about your imputing rational purpose to spiders (as scientists do to plants), points about rebellion being inductively actualized, points about the absurdity of crediting landlord rational purpose with the production of foodcrops and goods and as making the difference between 'superior' and 'inferior' accomplishments. when i come back to them you call it 'repetition'.

so you prefer to go elsewhere, hopefully not to intentionally obfuscate.

meanwhile, going with you down your path, ... my comments are embedded in yours, in bold.

I'm gonna ignore all the non
I'm gonna ignore all the non-answers and boring repetition.

[emile] translation: you ignore all of my points which trouble your preferred interpretation and when i bring them up again, you call it ‘boring repetition’

>you, me, anyone, can put ourselves into intuitive reality and/or into scientific reality
That statement implies genetic agency, and ignores that genetic agency is actualised epigenetically in a complex relational matrix of inhabitant-habitat nonduality. And this is the glaring contradiction of your theory which you won't recognise.

[emile] I keep telling you, that there is no such thing as ‘genetic agency’; it implies a thing-in-itself that launches it and there are no things-in-itself. there is ‘genetic expression’ which is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence

By your own theory, we can put ourselves in one or the other only if epigenetic causes make us.

[emile] no! there is only one physical reality (intuitive reality) and we are in it, like it or not. when we speak a noun-and-verb language, we put ourselves into scientific reality which is a reduction to the imaginary pole of dualism and being [independent things-in-themselves with their own ‘genetic agency’]. this is not the physical world but a semantically constructed reality. it is common experience to move in and out of these realities. if we are on the Titanic talking about next year’s business expansion plans and we feel the ship lurch, we leave ‘scientific reality’ and come back ‘in the live ‘now’ of intuitive reality where epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression. peoples who never ‘got noun-and-verb languages’ never got ‘scientific reality’. Western civilization got this language in about 1000 BCE and Nietzsche points to the powerful influence of Plato and Socrates in about 400 BCE which encouraged putting ‘reason’ into an unnatural primacy over intuition. Only we who speak it think of ourselves as independent beings with free will who are fully and solely causally responsible for our own actions and accomplishments, the basis for moral judgement of individual behaviour and associated commendations and rewards and denouncements and punishments. Those with relational first languages never leave intuitive reality; i.e. they never think of themselves as ‘independent things-in-themselves’.

>so, i am floating and i do and will continue to participate in peacemaking circles [or intuitive reality teams] and let the cultivating of balance and harmony take precedence over my rational perspective
… but only when the other members of the circle have an intuitive rather than scientific worldview, i.e. when your existing (rational) perspective and ego are not threatened by their (different) beliefs and practices. In other words, you allow your existing views to take precedence over yourself, without the views themselves shifting.

[emile] No. you’re way off target. Imagine if a group of people have been watching animated infrared satellite imagery of the water vapour in the atmosphere and there appears to be a sea of turbulence with several concentrated swirls in it so that if you ‘turn up the contrast’ all you see is ‘several swirls on their own’ appearing to do their own thing independent of one another, and the primary plenum of turbulent flow fades into bland featurelessness. some people may prefer to interpret what is going on starting from the several swirls and observations of what they are doing, as if they are independent, self-actualizing things-in-themselves, perhaps because they see themselves as such. others may see the turbulence aka ‘relational dynamic’ as primary and the several forms as secondary; i.e. as forms that are inductively actualized by the flow and serving as vents for the energy in the flow (the transforming relational continuum). for this group, it makes no sense to try to understand what is going on by treating the forms as ‘independent things-in-themselves with their own ‘genetic agency’ since they are all moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence. this group acknowledges that it takes an understanding of the whole community dynamic to understand the behaviours that one can observe in the individual members, and that it is pointless to apply moral judgement to the individual himself; i.e. his actions may be horrific but they are not simply coming from him, and where his actions are troublesome, this group’s understanding is that it is the responsibility of the whole community to restore balance and harmony. if this latter group forms a circle, it will be for the restoring of balance and harmony by everyone letting their relationships based identity float. if the individual is not prepared to see things in this way, then it makes no sense for him to participate at the present time.

By the way, this kind of communitarian self-renunciation for the good of the (imaginary) collective is not at all logically derivable from Emilean epistemology/ontology, as is shown by the fact that solitary, survival-oriented animals exist. One is no more alienated by being like a honey badger than by being like a sheep.

[emile] To say that ‘solitary things exist’ is simply to declare that scientific reality is the correct reality’. there are no ‘things-that-exist’ in the intuitive reality. to declare the existence of things-in-themselves is to declare that one is currently in the ‘scientific reality’.

By the way, indigenous restorative justice relies on the fact that people *are in* multiplex mutual aid relationships already (see Bob Black's piece on this). People in capitalist society *are not* in these relationships unless they create them by an act of will (interdependence through a globalised economy does not create these kinds of personal bonds).

[emile] this is crazy. you are simply using scientific reality views as if they were the primary reality. it is not necessary for an act of will to establish relations among people, the relations are naturally in place and it is only in scientific reality that we falsely believe that we are independent. people in capitalist society are in scientific reality. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. that is to say, they have made semantically constructed scientific reality their ‘operative reality’. they are like the first group of observers of the animated satellite imagery who choose to understand it without acknowledging the primacy of the relational dynamics, and seeing the forms as things-in-themselves with their own genetic agency. staying in ‘scientific reality’ and trying to engineer relations starting from a view of self as ‘independently existing things-in-ourselves’ is ‘the long way round’ and it fails to resolve a whole raft of issues related to the dualist, being based underpinning assumptions.

>if you want to rehabilitate the child soldier, you acknowledge that relational tensions originating in the community are venting through him
I'm somewhat sympathetic to your attempts to get rid of punitive reasoning by relying on deterministic causality and the rectification of relational tensions (rather than individuals). But, you're failing to see the central problem here. You are still taking an adversarial, punitive, dualistic approach to people you deem to be within the “scientific worldview”. You do not engage respectfully with others' points of view.

[emile] Can we say; “I do my best” to be patient and to listen and address people’s critiques, in the face of a lot of crap that gets thrown at me. I am not claiming to be a saint, but like i say, i do try. but of course there’s no compromise and that’s frustrating. if there were a meeting between modern physicists and newtonian physicists, there would be no sense in the former making compromises with the latter.

And your general ontology has no place for your failure to apply it in this case (unlike, say, Deleuzian ontology with the univocal/biunivocal distinction). If your holist theory applies in all cases, then people who accept a scientific worldview are also doing so because this is the way in which energies in the relational field are venting through them. You're restoring the idea of determinate local mental agency by blaming the scientific worldview on determinate local mental agency.

As I have mentioned before, the only people to get ‘science’ and ‘scientific reality’ are people with noun-and-verb languages. I didn’t come up with that. Nietzsche, Whorf and others did, but being a noun-and-verb language user, i have done my own philosophical inquiries and I affirm it on that basis. There is nothing wrong with ‘intuitive reality’ in the indigenous aboriginal communities. Their problem is in being colonized by people who confuse scientific reality for the physical reality of their actual experience in the transforming-in-the-now relational continuum. As Bohm said, we need a new language, the relational languages of indigenous aboriginals don’t put them into ‘scientific reality’. He found ‘indigenous science’ to be right in line with modern physics while the ‘science’ of Western civilization continues to be the dualist, being-based product of noun-and-verb language.

@critic (not verified)
social ontology

>you continue to ignore all my points without comment

Only the irrelevant, repetitive ones. You want to have some kind of exchange (an argument? a conversation? a juxtaposition of incommensurable viewpoints? an exercise in pedagogy or therapy or proselytisation?) about your pet-peeve issue of dualistic vs nondualistic ontologies. You project this pet-peeve onto every single topic and question – without ever *showing* that what you're criticising actually involves dualism, or engaging with the counter-argument that your own position contains dualistic beliefs and structures.

So it goes something like this:
1) TOTW: Which do you prefer, tea or coffee?
A1) I prefer coffee
A2) never mind which I prefer, I'm more worried whether it's ethically sourced
A3) real anarchists drink beer
Emile) This question implies a dualistic scientific western delusion, by imputing to the individual genetic agency in which they “prefer” one thing rather than the other, when in fact this is like imputing agency to a plant or a hurricane, people's “preferences” are epigenetically actualised by being drawn out of them by the surrounding field in an inhabitant-habitat nonduality, imagining we have genetic agency is at the root of problem XYZ... [cue 1000 words aside on quantum theory, indigenous ontology, Tolstoy, Nietzsche, Mach, climate change, the fallacies of punishment, modern culture raping the environment, Darwin vs Lamarck... etc etc]

What the response fails to understand, is that the important point of the question is not “are we individuals with preferences or are our preferences epigenetically generated”, it's “which of these are you induced to drink”. We can say this as “which do you prefer” (local agency) or as “which of these affinities is epigenetically generated in you as a habitat-inhabitant nonduality” (epigenetic agency), it doesn't matter from the point of view of the main question. And your way of engaging completely ignores and overrides the main question, usually giving no response at all to it (we never learn whether Emile prefers tea or coffee), or occasionally giving a response which is not in fact a necessary derivation from a nondualistic ontology (so you might say something like, “a nondualist has no local agency and so decides neither way”, which does not account for why other nondualist entities such as spiders, plants etc nonetheless do one thing and not another – that, even if “does this cat prefer milk or water” is not strictly correct in implicitly imputing rational agency to cats, nonetheless, it is a meaningful question with real stakes even on a nondualist view). The way you pick up on apparent dualistic elements of normal language (which are not always even intended or believed by the other person – but sometimes simply turns of phrase), and turn them into the main focus, is actually rather like grammar nazis who pick up on a small error in the phrasing of the question and focus on this, instead of the content of the question.

>imputing rational purpose to spiders

There were no spiders on this page until you just mentioned them. I assume you're referring to the issue raised elsewhere about spiders making the same web pattern all the time (which they do, regardless of whether they “really” have localised genetic agency or are simply “epigenetically actualised” into doing the same thing each time). And you're missing the entire point of this – which is – if a spider is not rationalistically alienating itself by repeating the same web pattern over and over, then neither is a human who repeats the same action over and over. Since a spider does not have (a false belief in) localised genetic agency in your sense, therefore one cannot logically assume that repetitive action is due to (a false belief in) localised genetic agency.

>landlord rational purpose

This is an irrelevant aside because it straw-mans the opposing position. Most dualist-rationalist historians do not maintain that landlords/bosses are solely rationally causal or responsible the output of enslaved or proletarianised workers. Most dualist-rationalist historians would also recognise that factors such as climate, soil fertility, external market demand, stored energy (e.g. fossil fuels), the existing technological/scientific level (e.g. availability/nonavailability of tractors), the political-legal protection of land rights and labour exploitation... a whole load of other factors also go into determining levels of output, besides the good or bad choices of the landlord. Most historians would also recognise that landlords' oppression is a major cause of rebellion, and that rebellion is not simply wilful action by rebels. The entrepreneurial theories you allude to, which attribute the most important agency to the landlord (or investor, manager, etc), typically value the boss's agency not as an exclusive exercise of power on inert matter, but as a clever intervention in a shifting field so as to shift its energies in a certain direction. But, this is actually not so far from your own praxis of seeking to nudge others towards nondualism! Hence, there is nothing about a dualist ontology *in itself* that leads to an empirical emphasis on landlords' agency, to the exclusion of the agency of slaves or workers, and/or of natural factors. It is correspondingly the case that there is nothing about a nondualist ontology *in itself* that leads to an empirical emphasis on social or ecological factors – for example, a nondualist ontology does not determine whether a spider will make/the epigenetic influence will draw from the spider the same web over and over or not.

>I keep telling you, that there is no such thing as ‘genetic agency’

Not answering the point you raise it against.

I did not say here: “you're wrong because genetic agency exists”.

I said here (to paraphrase): “your claim that 'you, me, anyone can PUT OURSELVES into intuitive reality and/or scientific reality” logically entails localised genetic agency.”

A localised you, me, anyone, who PUTS themselves one way or another.

And the fact that you derive REAL EFFECTS from someone's “putting” themselves one way or the other – e.g. scientific mindset → land-grab → environmental disaster – shows that this is not just a turn of phrase but a REAL IMPLIED ASSUMPTION of localised genetic agency.

Your position is self-contradictory because it simultaneously DENIES that there is localised genetic agency and AFFIRMS an implied assumption that there is localised genetic agency.

This critique of YOUR position holds, REGARDLESS of whether or not localised genetic agency “really exists”, and REGARDLESS of whether I do or don't believe it exists.

>we put ourselves into scientific reality
>this is not the physical world but a semantically constructed reality

Not only are you repeating the genetic agency – we PUT OURSELVES, as if as a local actor with local agency – but you impute real events in the physical world to this act of “putting oneself” in the false reality. Land grabs, environmental disaster, the invasion of Iraq, etc. This is a claim of localised genetic agency.

>it is common experience to move in and out of these realities. if we are on the Titanic talking about next year’s business expansion plans and we feel the ship lurch [blah blah]

Yes, I already understand the distinction between the two conceptions of reality which you're drawing. It doesn't resolve the problem at the heart of your theory.

It's like you imagine that, if I disagree with you, I must not have understood what you're saying.

>this group acknowledges that it takes an understanding of the whole community dynamic to understand the behaviours that one can observe in the individual members, and that it is pointless to apply moral judgement to the individual himself

Yet the judgement you apply (admittedly epistemic rather than moral) to people or cultures who hold a dualistic or scientific worldview (or who you take to do so) is genetic, not epigenetic. You blame them (individually or collectively; causally if not morally) for PUTTING THEMSELVES IN the semantically constructed reality and acting according to it.

I largely agree with you about the social causality of deviance/crime and the need for a harmonising rather than punitive response.

By the way – this gets off the main topic I'm raising, but a fuller treatment would need to recognise 1) that ecological, sensory, human-animal, human-plant, as well as human-human relations can be part of the causal nexus, and 2) this whole question of floating identities still does not deal with the problem of the spider which has a floating identity yet builds the same web over and over (i.e. someone whose “behaviour” shows observable repetition is not necessarily acting from false belief in scientific dualism, as you seem to believe). I also think you have to deal with 3) the problem of how to engage with someone who won't let their identity float, in a context where floating your own identity means they dominate you, but putting up boundaries means you're back at identity-dualism, and 4) the problem that two identities which are floating may nonetheless be incompatible (the crocodile in the bathtub). In other words, the theory of harmonisation (indigenous restorative approach to conflict) is the way to go, but the problems in it haven't been hammered out yet (at least in the Emile-version).

>To say that ‘solitary things exist’ is simply to declare that scientific reality is the correct reality’

So you deny the existence of tigers, jaguars, pumas, bears, moose, black rhinoceri, koalas, foxes, badgers, aardvarks, sea turtles, and praying mantises?

If not, you'll have to recognise a distinction between communitarianism/collectivism and the hypothesis that everything is interconnected on a causal/molecular level (of course a bear does not exist independently from forests, rivers and prey species, but it seeks to avoid proximate contact with other bears – it is radically anti-communitarian).

>By the way, indigenous restorative justice relies on the fact that people *are in* multiplex mutual aid relationships already (see Bob Black's piece on this). People in capitalist society *are not* in these relationships unless they create them by an act of will
>[emile] this is crazy. you are simply using scientific reality views as if they were the primary reality. it is not necessary for an act of will to establish relations among people, the relations are naturally in place and it is only in scientific reality that we falsely believe that we are independent

Again you're completely misunderstanding the level of the claim.

It's a direct, immediate, empirical claim.

People in capitalist society are not in dense mutual SOCIAL relations with one another such that most people care for their neighbors' children, your aunt is also your barber and your drinking buddy and your sister-in-law's best friend and one of your co-workers. Chances are your flatmate is not also your co-worker, distant affinal relative by several different lines, trading partner, and provider of several services... they're just your flatmate. This means if you fall out, one of you can move out and that's the end of the relationship. Whereas in an indigenous society, chances are your flatmate knows all your other friends, you work/hunt/farm together, your flatmate may also be your tailor or doctor or whatever, likely they're related to you even if the relation is different, and your conflict with your flatmate therefore also directly effects your other friends, co-workers, and relatives – and this is the social, *epigenetic* underpinning for restorative justice.

The only people I've ever met who come close to the degree of interconnection found in indigenous society are people who have *deliberately* decided to form communes or housing cooperatives based on a particular political vision, *in defiance of* the dominant epigenetic pressures of capitalist society (which is not to say their choice isn't also epigenetically determined, but it's very much against the flow of the system-as-a-whole).

If you actually believe that people in capitalist society are still in these complex, multiplex, deeply enmeshed everyday relations then you're delusional.

Of course this doesn't mean that people aren't ultimately all related through whatever forces exist at the quantum level and/or the classical-physics level. For example, most people in capitalist society depend very fundamentally on other people for their food, water, shelter, heat, etc – certainly more so than an indigenous *group* depends on any other group. People can have direct and indirect impacts on others/there can be transpersonal processes in all kinds of ways (everything from noise levels to the social validation of ideas). But these are people with whom there aren't direct social ties or dense mutual relationships at a personal level. Someone using an iPhone might have important indirect economic relationships with the sweatshop workers in China who make the iPhones, but they don't know them personally, they don't have any direct relationship. Someone bothered by their neighbor's loud party is less tolerant because their only direct relationship to the neighbor is *as* neighbor. Even if they're ultimately tied together by thousands of connections at the quantum and/or indirect social level (one's neighbor also repaired the boiler of the man who stored money in a bank who lent it to the woman who programmed the computer of the doctor who treats their neighbor), these connections are completely invisible at an everyday level. They aren't just delusionally not seen. Social relations are actually arranged in a way which doesn't create these relations as *personal* relations.

>if there were a meeting between modern physicists and newtonian physicists, there would be no sense in the former making compromises with the latter

Yeah... which stems from the basic self-contradiction in your position: you have to assume localised genetic agency to put up the boundaries to posit your own nondualist position in a world of (mainly) dualists.

>As Bohm said, we need a new language

OK, so start building one.

As I said before – a good starting-point might be to import grammar and syntax (and perhaps some untranslatable words) from an existing indigenous language such as Quechua. (I should add that I'd very much like to learn an indigenous language, but they don't exactly teach them at local colleges, and there's hardly any resources available, even on eBay or Amazon).

I suspect, from what I've seen of indigenous languages, that you'd still need some way to make claims of the localised noun/verb kind, they'd just be made in a more relational and nominalistic way with more visible marking of the source of knowledge and its relation to the speaker (e.g. “my cat prefers milk to water” might become something like “From visual evidence, Felix the unique-cat who belongs to my household-relational-matrix, resonance-connections with bowls of milk from the village-cow-herd more strongly than with bowls of water from Freecreek-river”), and certainly any indigenous person trying to survive in, or modify or resist, colonising cultures is going to need to make noun/verb-type claims.

Non-dualist logician (not verified)
The score stands :- @critic -

The score stands :- @critic --- 9.00
emile --- 0.25
-- In pure non-Western intuitive logic (just to make that clear and irrefutable)

The score in eloquence and accessability to non-verb/noun Indo-European speaking semantically compromised readers (just to clear this also)

- @critic --- 12.68
- emile --- 3.23
For a total of -- @critic --- 21.68
-- emile --- 3.48

Anonymous (not verified)
non-verb/noun Indo-European

non-verb/noun Indo-European speaking semantically compromised

this is interesting. In what ways does inaccessibility really flair-up? I only speak English. Please don't use emile as an example, because that's ... low lying fruit.

Le Way (not verified)
I think the poster means

I think the poster means inaccessability to refer to the use of the language which imposes an emotional and ideological response by way of rhetorical devices. There the accessable dialect would have to be solely intuitive, and I suppose spontaneous as well,,,

Anonymous (not verified)
That's a point, I wonder if

That's a point, I wonder if Emile subscribes to JZ's line on number. Number doesn't make much sense without separate countable local objects, after all.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-number-its-origin-and...

emile
better ideas do not appear at the apex of a pyramid of academics

this 1079 word comment was deleted from the TOTW thread on 'reading'. it was written in response to a 1321 word critique by @critic which was not deleted, but left in the thread. unbiased editorial policy?.

better ideas do not appear at the apex of a pyramid of academics

some philosophical inquiry, especially nondualist inquiry, is pulled by

(a) the need to 'reduce suffering' or cultivate harmonies. that's where Tolstoy's anarchism was coming from. when you find an understanding that 'works', you know it in your heart and in your head, but not just in your head.

(b) some forms of intellectual inquiry are purely an affair of the head. there are mathematicians that have spent lifetimes on trying to prove that a**n + b**n = c**n has no solutions in positive integers, if n is an integer greater than 2 ['Fermat's last theorem'] in the interval between 1637 when the proof was conjectured by Fermat until 1995 when proved by Andrew Wiles.

FIRST POINT: my philosophical investigations are type (a); i.e. inquiry into why Western society seems to be cultivating 'incoherence' [Bohm] that is causing lots of seemingly avoidable suffering. Tolstoy saw science and reason as a problem as did Nietzsche and as do i.
* * *

SECOND POINT: the solutions to complex problems are not delivered on a silver platter standing on the apex of a human pyramid of academicians. That is not a knock on the academies, which have developed many insightful ideas and understandings which are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that anyone can play at, so that the discovery of understandings that transcend prior understanding are available to anyone who plays with jigsaw puzzles. As Richard Feynman puts it;

"I have said that observation is the judge of the truth of an idea. But where does that idea come from? ... We have a way of checking whether an idea is correct or not that has nothing to do with where it came from. There is no authority who decides what is a good idea. We have lost the need to go to an authority to find out whether an idea is true or not. We can read an authority and let him suggest something; we can try it out and find out if it is true or not. If it is not true, so much the worse --- so the “authorities” lose some of their “authority.”
.
... And so, if you get anything new from anyone, anywhere, you welcome it, and you do not argue about why the other person says it is so. ... Most people find it surprising that in science there is no interest in the background of the author of an idea or in his motive in expounding it. You listen, and if it sounds like a thing worth trying, a thing that could be tried, is different, and is not obviously contrary to something observed before, it gets exciting and worthwhile. You do not have to worry about how long he has studied or why he wants you to listen to him. In that sense, it makes no difference where the ideas come from. Their real origin is unknown; we call it the imagination of the human brain, the creative imagination --- it is known; it is just one of those “oomphs.” -- Richard P. Feynman, ‘The Meaning of it All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist’.

* * *

THIRD POINT: The conjecture is already out there that what appears to be reality is not reality. Mach has said it, Nietzsche has said it, Bohm and Schroedinger have said it. They are all saying that 'field' and 'matter' are a nonduality with field being the primary animator of the secondary phenomena of 'material dynamics', and that we, the general public, have some 'catch-up' to do because we have been using 'reason' to construct semantic realities based on material dynamics and mistaking it for the 'real world'. By employing these material dynamics-based semantic realities as our 'operative reality' and using them as the basis for improving upon the present reality so as to create a desired future reality, we engender unanticipated 'externalities'.

Nietzsche captured the problem and the solution in the terms that we are putting reason into an unnatural primacy over intuition and we need to restore intuition to its natural primacy over reason. Our experience-based intuition is capable of dissolving the observer-observed, subject-object split and putting us into the 'now' of the transforming relational continuum. The fullness of the experience of being in the now and being 'one with everything' is a personal thing that it would be pointless for a voyeur 'outsider' to try to describe; i.e. it would have to be a dualist description of a nondualist experience and dualism is an inherently lesser perception mode.

The implications are that "epigenetic influence [of the field] is inductively actualizing genetic expression". The error is that science and reason are assuming that the material forms have their own 'genetic agency' and are responsible for the 'genetic expression', thus hurricanes are responsible for destruction. In the larger view, the primary dynamic is the transforming relational continuum that is gathering and regathering relational forms within itself so there is only 'transformation' and no 'being' and thus no 'new beings' and no 'extinctions', only transformation.

Language allows us to construct dualist, being-based semantic realities and this gives us one version of reality; i.e. semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR). The physical reality of our actual in-the-now experience informs us that we are included in a dynamic greater than ourselves [as when we are 'in charge' in the ballroom on the Titanic until a nauseating lurch restores our in-the-now awareness of inclusion in something greater and inherently beyond our control. This 'physically-experienced-in-the-now intuitive reality' (PEIR) is our primary reality.

anyone can check out these ideas!

there is no need to read the entire works of nietzsche, stirner, Bakunin and hundreds of others. The concept of relativity in Western scientific circles came to Ernst Mach as an "oomph". Einstein's later GR equations were not needed to start acknowledging that relations are in a natural primacy over material things and their dynamics.

The 'relations over things' understanding was already in 'aboriginal science' since the indigenous aboriginal peoples never got into Aristotelian syllogisms and 'newtonian science' since this comes only to noun-and-verb language users, ergo they did not have to work their way back out of it like we are having to do, ... or more correctly, ... we are having to work our way out of putting science into an unnatural primacy over intuition which equates to having to work our way out of putting 'material-things-and-what-they-do' into an unnatural primacy over relations.

@critic (not verified)
FIRST POINT: Nice excuse for

FIRST POINT: Nice excuse for refusing to engage with anything outside your existing narrow frame, and refusing to be “epigenetically determined” by anything but your existing local agency.

SECOND POINT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The problem isn't that you refuse to engage with academic arguments. The problem is that the arguments you're refusing to engage with are relevant to your position.

THIRD POINT: Repetition of what you've been saying all along.

>The fullness of the experience of being in the now and being 'one with everything' is a personal thing that it would be pointless for a voyeur 'outsider' to try to describe

Which doesn't stop you spending several paragraphs trying to describe it, and show that it's scientifically grounded and validated. Without once noticing that *this is not where our disagreement is*!

>there is no need to read the entire works of nietzsche, stirner, Bakunin and hundreds of others. The concept of relativity in Western scientific circles came to Ernst Mach as an "oomph"

So you get your own beliefs as a one-off sudden revelation from an irrefutable messiah. But, how do you know that the other stuff you haven't read doesn't refute the stuff you have read?

You treat your view of quantum/relational reality as a non-falsifiable *transcendental absolute* and thus deploy a dualistic rationalist extra-empirical a priori method even while claiming to have overcome such a method.

emile
reply to #4l re the realist- -- pragmatist-idealist split

we are not 'speaking the same language'. when i speak, you use your dualist lenses to interpret my words. in my nondualist interpretation, i see your dualist arguments but they are too small, as Poincaré says, in the manner that dualism [euclidian space housing independent things-in-themselves] is like a polynomial of degree one relative to nondualism [non-euclidian space where field and matter, inhabitant and habitat are a relational nonduality] which is like a polynomial of degree two.

our greater understanding can come from our physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR) and our lesser understanding can come from our semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR). the latter is a dualist, being-based reality which depends on viewing (measuring) relational forms with respect to an absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame. as Whorf and Nietzsche and Bohm affirm, this scientific reality derives from the noun-and-verb language we are right now using. it is a language wherein one can experience inclusion in turbulence (a storming in the flow) which is part of the transforming relational continuum, and then reduce this storm-in-flow nonduality to a duality where we cease to understand the storming as a relational activity signified by a 'verb' and start talking about it as if it were an 'independent thing-in-itself' with its own internal generative (genetic) agency.

this is 'religion' or 'secularized theological conceptualization' that is put into the foundations of science and becomes like water to fish; i.e. we never go back to check out our foundational assumptions while accepting the truth of our logical semantic constructions built on these foundations. No-one in our Western SCSR scientific reality 'blinks' when we use our thing-in-itself-based causal constructs and say that 'Katrina (or Harvey or Irma) is causing 'destruction'. Our experience is that the habitat is undergoing relational transformation, sometimes gradual as far as human perspectives and sometimes rapid and violent, but it is ongoing-in-the-now relational transformation. but in the dualist, being-based scientific reality, we see 'things' out there, separate from ourselves [dualist observer-observed split] and we name these things, new things are continually being 'generated' and coming into view and old familiar things are continually being 'de-generated' [regathered in the 'generating' of new things]. this is the 'language game' that constitutes 'SCSR' scientific reality. it is the lesser dualist understanding of the polynomial of degree one.

in the greater nondualist understanding of the polynomial of degree two, which INCLUDES the polynomial of degree view, ... thought it is important to note that the polynomial of degree one dualist understanding cannot included the polynomial of degree two nondualist understanding.

so, it is evident that we have a problem here when one person is using a noun-and-verb language architecture ideally suited to the dualist polynomial of degree one understanding, to convey nondualist polynomial of degree two understandings. Poincaré refers to those who confuse the SCSR dualist understanding for 'reality' as REALISTS and those who see the PEIR nondualist understanding as the physical reality of our actual experience but nevertheless use noun-and-verb constructs as PRAGMATIST IDEALISTS which means that, when a PRAGMATIST IDEALIST conveys the relational transformation evident in the storming-in-flow nonduality in terms of 'Katrina is causing massive destruction to New Orleans', ... their understanding is in terms of being included in a transforming relational continuum, and their noun-and-verb construct based statement is not intended to be taken as 'truth' or 'reality' but as a convenient way to share our observations which delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach]. click here to read Mach's chapter on 'Economy of Science'

It is evident that your interpretation of words is 'dualist' aka 'realist' while mine is 'nondualist' or 'pragmatist idealist'. Again, that means that I will accept 'Katrina is doing a lot of destruction' as a convenient way [pragmatic idealization] to share observations on the unfolding-enfolding transforming-in-the-now relational continuum. I do not accept this language game of things-and-what-they-do, aka 'scientific reality' (SCSR) as 'reality'. the transforming relational continuum is the physical reality of our actual experience and there are no 'independent beings' with their own 'genetic agency' that are the cause of the world dynamic. The animating source of dynamics is 'field' and its relational influence is non-local, non-visible and non-material and material forms and their dynamics are secondary phenomena. Rebellion does not originate from independent things-in-themselves with their own genetic agency called 'rebels'. Rebellion is inductively actualized by epigenetic relational influence; i.e. by relational tensions in the general collective wherein those who have monopolized access to essential resources are extorting slave-labours from those without their own access to essential resources.

Dialoguing with you is pointless if you refuse to acknowledge that there are these two levels of understanding so that we can address them together, instead, insisting on interpreting my sharing of nondualist understanding in your dualist terms. this is the same 'lesser sagacity ego-self' [dualist viewing option] and 'greater sagacity natural Self' [nondualist viewing option] that Nietzsche's Zarathustra talks about.

I AM SHARING NONDUALIST VIEWS AND YOU ARE EXTRACTING DUALIST INTERPRETATIONS. this is an exercise in futility if we are not ready to acknowledge that there are these two interpretations.

it's typical in Western society, for those with a preference for the crispness of dualist viewing to insist that the dualist view is 'reality' and that is all she wrote. That's why this thread is here which speaks of a 'realist bias'. Of course there is a realist bias in Western society, that's what gives it its close-minded character. Nondualists are not trying to eliminate reasoned (realist, dualist) thinking, only trying to restore intuition (nondualist relations-over-things) mode of understanding to its natural primacy over 'reason' (scientific reality).

Ok, this disagreement between (Cantorian) realists [dualists] and pragmatist idealists [nondualists or 'relationalists'] has long been known and studied and Poincaré has the following to say about it in his 'Dernières Pensées', Ch. V, 'Les Mathematiques et la Logique';

"At all times, there have been opposite tendencies in philosophy and it does not seem that these tendencies are on the verge of being reconciled. It is no doubt because there are different souls and that we cannot change anything in these souls. There is therefore no hope of seeing harmony established between the pragmatists and the Cantorians. Men do not agree because they do not speak the same language, and there are,Languages which cannot be learned.
.
And yet in mathematics men ordinarily understand one another; but it is due precisely to what I have called proofs. These proofs pass judgment without appeal and before them the entire world bows. But wherever these proofs are lacking, mathematicians are no better off than simple philosophers. When it is necessary to know if a theorem can have meaning without being capable of proof, who can judge, since by definition we forbid ourselves to prove it ?
.
There would be no other resource but to corner one's adversary with a contradiction. But the experiment has been attempted and it has not succeeded. Many antinomies have been pointed out, and the discord has remained; no one has been convinced. It is always possible to extricate oneself from a contradiction by a change of arguments ; I mean by a distinguo." -- Henri Poincaré

Conclusion:

In my 'Schroedingerian view, which makes sense to me as it has to many others, who are in a small minority 'in the West' but in much larger proportion in the East and among indigenous aboriginal anarchist peoples (Mayan - Zapatistas, Iroquois and Native North American indigenous traditionalists),

EPIGENETIC INFLUENCE INDUCTIVELY ACTUALIZES GENETIC EXPRESSION.

emile is not 'making this up'. you can find it in Einstein's writing as well as Schroedinger's in terms that 'field' and 'matter' are a nonduality wherein field inductively actualizes, orchestrates and shapes the emergence of relational forms within the transforming relational continuum. the relational form is Atman and the transforming relational continuum is Brahman, and Atman is, at the same time, Brahman. this is the nondualist understanding or polynomial of degree two understanding or greater sagacity natural Self understanding.

Now, using noun-and-verb language together with dualism [splitting apart the observer and what he is observing] and introducting the secularized theological concept of 'being', we can take 'appearances' as in 'GENETIC EXPRESSION' (emergent relational forms and their actions) and, thanks to errors in grammar [Nietzsche], invent independent beings aka 'things-in-themselves' which we then animate [since we have mentally split them out of the animation that is inherent in the transforming relational continuum of our included experience] by imputing to them their own 'genetic agency' [thanks, noun-verb grammar], thus equipping ourselves to construct semantic realities and them putting them into a competitive horse race call politics where scientific (reasoning) politicians will debate over which of these semantically constructed realities (SCSR) is 'the real reality'. Once selected by a vote or simply by dictatorial affirmation, the chosen semantically constructed scientific reality will be 'anointed' by the high priests of politics and science, as the 'operative reality' which means that it will be adopted by the entire political following or herd, as the 'reality' that will guide, orchestrate and shape individual and collective actions and deeds, ... until a new 'operative reality' is installed in the minds of the political followers, through the various communications media (internet etc.) available to the developers of the 'successful' semantically constructed reality.

POINT NUMBER ONE:

there are two different options for understanding the noun-and-verb language based semantic constructs we are exchanging; 'realist' and 'pragmatic idealist', the former delivering up understanding in a dualist, being-based manner, and the latter delivering up understanding in a nondualist, relations-over-beings' manner.

POINT NUMBER TWO:

if either one of us refuses to acknowledge POINT NUMBER ONE that there are two modes of understanding, there is little point in the two of us continuing the dialogue since one of us (e.g. you) would be insisting on using what you consider to be 'the primary reality' to interpret the remarks of another (e.g. me) formulated with the understanding that what you consider to be primary reality are secondary phenomena.

POINT NUMBER THREE:

we can, if we wish, reorient the dialogue to the question of the two different modes of understanding, however, as Poincaré opines, that tends to lead to impasse since realists already have their [polynomial of degree one] 'reality' they take that to be 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth', ...as in forensic science which convicts the 'rebel' as the 'cause of rebellion' and exonerates the monopolizing landlords and their extorting of slave-labours [such extortion having set up relational tensions that inductively actualize rebellion that manifests through those abused by such extortion].

So, my question to you is; do you acknowledge that there are two modes of understanding the semantic constructs we are passing back and forth between us? Or do you hold to the position that semantically constructed scientific reality is the primary reality so that it must be the arbiter of the meaning of the words we pass back and forth between us?

POINT NUMBER FOUR

there is no point in struggling to debate issues of content if we are interpreting text with two different modes of understanding and/or if either one of us insists that there is only one mode of understanding that one can use in interpreting text [this 'only one' view would be 'realist' mode since 'pragmatist idealist' mode acknowledges 'realist' mode also, but sees it as a convenient, but overly simplistic 'polynomial of degree one' dualist reality built upon secondary phenomena associated with 'polynomial of degree two' nondualist reality.

Non-dualist log... (not verified)
Bonus to emile for dogma and

Bonus to emile for dogma and stubborn audacity score stands at

---@critic---146.16

---emile--- 128.67

@critic (not verified)
Emile just ragequit. PWNED

Nearly 2k words? Umadbro.

>we are not 'speaking the same language'. when i speak, you use your dualist lenses to interpret my words. in my nondualist interpretation

No, you are projecting your dualist binary of “dualist vs nondualist” onto my (nominalist) words.

>our greater understanding can come from our physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR) and our lesser understanding can come from our semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR)

But the schemas and unconscious fantasies through which people make sense of the “blooming, buzzing confusion” of the sensory level affect what appears as PEIR from the personal point of view. In your case, you piggyback transcendental absolutes onto your supposed immanent experience of PEIR and then condemn anyone who doesn't experience these same transcendental absolutes as dualistic – when in fact, others simply experience PEIR differently.

Since language “points to” sensory and experienced realities which are not themselves linguistic (your PEIR level), people are never speaking the same language as nobody can directly experience anyone else's experience. At most we can create meanings in common through dialogue – something you refuse to do, and then turn round and point back to this “oh look I'm talking about this sensory reality which you can't see”. Tip: it cuts both ways.

If I can't understand what you're meaning from what you're saying, this isn't some fault in my perception, it's a fault in your way of communicating. You can blame western language and its inadequate noun-verb structure all you want, but you're just not very good at showing what this intuitive level you believe in is like, or showing why you think it has the consequences it does.

>No-one in our Western SCSR scientific reality 'blinks' when we use our thing-in-itself-based causal constructs and say that 'Katrina (or Harvey or Irma) is causing 'destruction'

It's a turn of phrase. No-one in western culture actually believes that a hurricane is a rational thinking subject with willpower. The only times I've ever come across the idea that a hurricane is an independent being with willpower is (paradoxically) in indigenous cultures. People also say “the sun rises in the morning” but most people believe that in fact the earth and not the sun is moving.

>Dialoguing with you is pointless if you refuse to acknowledge that there are these two levels of understanding so that we can address them together, instead, insisting on interpreting my sharing of nondualist understanding in your dualist terms

Fuck off, then.

I'm not interested in a conversation which has to accept that you're right about everything, before it can even start – especially when you're unable to recognise the possibility that there might be dualistic aspects to your own thought.

>it's typical in Western society,

Ad hominem, idpol, “waaah waaah you disagree with me so you're a racist white coloniser check your privilege” bullshit.

>but in much larger proportion in the East and among indigenous aboriginal anarchist peoples (Mayan - Zapatistas, Iroquois and Native North American indigenous traditionalists),
EPIGENETIC INFLUENCE INDUCTIVELY ACTUALIZES GENETIC EXPRESSION.

Your proof of this tenuous claim about what (presumably) 90% of the world thinks is ill-founded projection which is not supported in the ethnographic record.

>if either one of us refuses to acknowledge POINT NUMBER ONE that there are two modes of understanding

You're missing the whole fucking point. Your claim that there are two modes of understanding is absolutely irrelevant to 90% of the things we're discussing. Orb-web spiders make webs the same shape each time, tigers are solitary, hurricanes are destructive, it doesn't matter if you take those words as realist truths or as reifications of the holistic reality, the pragmatic empirical everyday questions are still the same.

>So, my question to you is; do you acknowledge that there are two modes of understanding the semantic constructs we are passing back and forth between us?

I have already explained several times that I reject your simplistic dualism of the two views. You want for there to be *nothing* but Emilean idealism or evil western scientific dualism, and in fact there's so much more. The reason we can't have a conversation is that you want to turn me into a scientific dualist every time I disagree with the tiniest detail of Emilianism, as if the world of philosophy is neatly divided into Emile and not-Emile. I refuse this ridiculous way of conducting discussion. I recognise there are multiple ways of seeing, and different people mean different things by the words they use, *but* I do not recognise myself in this ridiculous caricature of scientific dualism which you present. If you can only have conversations with your shadow then go do it in private.

>there is no point in struggling to debate issues of content if we are interpreting text with two different modes of understanding

You're utterly wrong about that. There are aspects of the phenomenal/sensory relation of self to world which apply regardless of whether the external world is real in itself, is an epiphenomenon of a deeper noumenal world, is a social construct or an illusion or I'm a brain in a vat and you don't really exist. If I avoid sticking my hand in fire so as not to feel pain, the ontological status of self, fire, and pain, whether it's a scientific transmission of neurochemicals, a divine disturbance of soul, or a quantum torsion in an indivisible field of forces, is ultimately irrelevant. Still, if you can't discuss content without dragging it back to ontology every time, and you can't discuss ontology without this waaah waaaah you can't see the unspeakable reality I'm pointing to, then it's pretty pointless discussing such things.

So, yeah. The emperor Emile has no clothes. Pwned.

┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ (‾⌣‾) ~(‾▿‾)~

Non-dualist logician (not verified)
For the brilliant analysis

For the brilliant analysis which described the dogmatist's practice of piggybacking transcendental absolutes onto a PEIR experience, @critic gains a 500 point bonus ---Scores stand @critic--- 1,285.82
emile--- 365.25 (coincidentally the number of days in an Augustian calendar

Non-dualist lo... (not verified)
In case anyone besides the 2

In case anyone besides the 2 "combatants" is taking any notes or is overwhelmed by the significance of this "battle of the typists" on the future of intellectual dialectics in a forum meant for people with a sang froid zattitude for anything too obsessive regarding power and its projection, however tangential or facetious a path it may eventually take, the score now stands at --

@critic---- 29.23

emile---- 12.67

Anonymous (not verified)
why do you think it's "too

why do you think it's "too obsessive?"

Non-dualist logician (not verified)
Score now stands at

Score now stands at

---@critic---- 42.89

---emile----14.76

emile
deleted by thecollective, response to @critic in TOTW Reading

* * * * *
Note re deletion by thecollective of this response to @critic in the TOTW Reading thread:

I don't know if @critic has ever been deleted in spite of his long comments [often much longer than emile's that get deleted for 'being too long'] and am not suggesting that they should. however, the continuing deletion of emile's comments, leaving the impression in the thread that there has been no response; i.e. without thecollective pointing out that they have deleted a response, is in my view an abuse of authoritarian power by thecollective. so long as the abuse of a minority means nothing to the community, we, as a collective, simply give support to the same sort of system we claim to be trying to transcend.
* * * * *
deleted response is reproduced here;

it seems as if you are confusing 'will to power' with 'will'.

>for myself, anarchy derives from authenticity and honesty that emanates from one's unique matrix of sensitively experienced relational attachments, and puts those in priority over one's individual ego and collective ego driven ambitions, goals, and objectives

.

Yes!!!

.

But that involves a unique localised "thing" or energy-cluster, which is what you've been denying all along!!!

No, I have not been denying it, but like Schroedinger and Nietzsche, contending that it is 'appearances'. I do not deny 'Katrina', the hurricane. I say that she is semantic contrivance that we construct to give a simple way to represent relationally complex phenomena wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression. There is no 'thing' (Katrina) fifty miles away and heading right for us. We are included in a transforming relational continuum; i.e. there is no subject-object split.

Likewise, Nietzsche says in WTP 675;

All "objects," "purposes," "meanings," are only manners of expression and metamorphoses of the one will inherent in all phenomena; of the will to power. To have an object, a purpose, or an intention, in fact to will generally, is equivalent to the desire for greater strength, for fuller growth, and for the means thereto in addition.

.

The most general and fundamental instinct in all action and willing is precisely on that account the one which is least known and is most concealed; for in practice we always follow its bidding, for the simple reason that we are in ourselves its bidding....

.

All valuations are only the results of, and the narrow points of view in servings this one will: valuing in itself is nothing save this, —will to power."

Epigenetic influence immanent in the transforming relational continuum inductively actualizes 'Katrina' and transmits influences through her, ... only now it appears to be "her" own genetic agency or 'will to power'. Emerson, who Nietzsche says was a unique influencer of his thought, has the same model wherein 'the genius of nature' not only inhabits the organ but creates it;

"In all animal and vegetable forms, the physiologist concedes that no chemistry, no mechanics, can account for the facts, but a mysterious principle of life must be assumed, which not only inhabits the organ, but makes the organ." -- Emerson, 'The Method of Nature'

Nietzsche makes clear in WTP 670 and many other places, that the concept of 'will' used as the animator of human actions is bullshit;

The belief in willing. To believe that a thought may be the cause of a mechanical movement is to believe in miracles. The consistency of science demands that once we have made the world thinkable for ourselves by means of pictures, we should also make the emotions, the desires, the will, etc., thinkable—that is to say, we should deny them and treat them as errors of the intellect."

as we know, science formulates laws on the basis of the assumed existence of independent things-in-themselves, and logical consistency demands we 'install' something inside this independent thing to 'animate it', and that something is rational will.

furthermore, as in WTP 635 which you quoted, it is clear that the 'ueber'-self is 'relational' in the same sense of Katrina (storm-in-flow nonduality, inhabitant-habitat nonduality);

>If we eliminate these additions, no things remain but only dynamic quanta, in a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta,

note that he is NOT saying that the relational self is interchangeable with the independent self. in the first part of WTP 635 which you didn't cite, he points out that independent self is ego-based semantic contrivance.

"We are in need of "unities" in order to be able to reckon: but this is no reason for supposing that "unities" actually exist. We borrowed the concept "unity" from our concept "ego,"—our very oldest article of faith. If we did not believe ourselves to be unities we should never have formed the concept "thing." Now—that is to say, somewhat late in the day, we are overwhelmingly convinced that our conception of the concept "ego" is no security whatever for a real entity. In order to maintain the mechanical interpretation of the world theoretically, we must always make the reserve that it is with fictions that we do so: the concept of movement (derived from the language of our senses) and the concept of the atom (= entity, derived from our psychical experience) are based upon a sense-prejudice and a psychological prejudice."

Nietzsche is saying that 'things' do not actually exist; i.e. they are semantic constructs used in science to give it consistency and calculability;

If we did not believe ourselves to be unities we should never have formed the concept "thing."

meanwhile, you write;

Supposed "things" are really dynamic quanta defined by their relations, but the *do* have local agency ("power") in relations with other dynamic quanta.

Where do you gather that? perhaps out of habit of putting 'reason' or 'scientific thinking' into an unnatural primacy over intuition?

in the first place Nietzsche has said that 'things' do not exist. Katrinas and Irmas and Harveys do not exist. that is, they are implied 'unities' in noun-and-verb language and grammar aka semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR) while our physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR) is telling us they are inhabitant-habitat nondualities. thus, they do not have 'local agency', they are relational features in the flow, 'genetic expression' that is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence immanent in the relational flow dynamic.

field and matter are a nonduality, all there is is 'field' and nothing besides. [Einstein, 1938]

does the following ring any bells; it was written by Nietzsche in 1885 (you cited it in your above comment);

This world is the will to power––and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power––and nothing besides!

meanwhile, Nietzsche read Boscovich (Theory of Natural Philosophy, 1758) and compared him to Copernicus in his independent paradigm-shattering thinking ["matter does not exist"]. Modern day science acknowledges that Boscovich was 200 years ahead of his time, showing that matter was 'appearances' and using wave packets for basic physical substrate of nature [not 'particles']. This provided Nietzsche with modern physics underpinnings for his writings. for a New Scientist article on Boscovich click here

p.s. I never said that Stirner intended 'ego' the way that Nietzsche does. in fact, i have made note on a number of occasions that 'der Einzige' should not be translated as 'ego'. Nietzsche's works are grounded in modern physics and also evolution which Stirner's are not. I am not saying that this makes them worse or better, only that Nietzsche's are more accessible to me because they are a layover to modern physics and to Lamarckian evolution.

@critic (not verified)
What happened to ragequit?

What happened to ragequit? You back from the respawn point already?

>I don't know if @critic has ever been deleted in spite of his long comments

Yes, @critic sometimes forgets to sign stuff.
http://anarchistnews.org/content/anonymous-critique-william-gilliss-no-p...
And sometimes posts here because it would be removed.
http://anarchistnews.org/content/critic-trans-vs-terf-and-constructivism

Nietzsche does not believe in epigenetic causality because Nietzsche does not believe in causality at all.

Nietzsche *does* believe that some kind of local agency exists.

>We are in need of "unities" in order to be able to reckon: but this is no reason for supposing that "unities" actually exist
>Nietzsche is saying that 'things' do not actually exist; i.e. they are semantic constructs used in science

He isn't talking about science, he seems to mean that human beings need distinct concepts which posit unified things, in order to think ("reckon") anything *whatsoever*. Which fits with what I was saying in the trans/TERF post in the forums.

>Supposed "things" are really dynamic quanta defined by their relations, but the *do* have local agency ("power") in relations with other dynamic quanta. (@critic)
>Where do you gather that? perhaps out of habit of putting 'reason' or 'scientific thinking' into an unnatural primacy over intuition? (Emile)

‘all animals… strive instinctively for an optimum combination of favourable conditions which allow them to expend all their energy and achieve their maximum feeling of power' (Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, p. 86)
'in every act of will there is a commanding thought - and do not imagine that this thought can be separated from "willing"' (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, section 19)

The source of the desire/resonance/will-to-power may be epigenetic but it manifests as local force which is real - indeed, which is the *only* determining force - at the subjective level.

'nothing real is ‘given’ to us apart from our world of desires and passions' (Nietzsche, Will to Power 36)

>Nietzsche's works are grounded in modern physics and also evolution

Lamarck LOL

You realise Lamarck has been well-and-truly falsified, right?

emile
reply to #50

you're way behind on Lamarck, his ideas are on the rise from ongoing research into what is now called 'the science of epigenetics'

A recent study of Emerson’s ‘English Traits’ and the role of metaphor in language by David LaRocca [Emerson’s English Traits and the Natural History of Metaphor (2013)] is relevant to ‘problems with Darwinism’ and ‘answers in Lamarckism’. The following excerpt suggests to me that the relation between the French and English, and also Lamarckism and Darwinism, are akin to the relation between Dionysian and the Apollonian; i.e. they beg to be understood as a nonduality. I have found this same symmetry comparison in Robinson Crusoe (English) and Suzanne de la Pacifique (French).

The precedence of epigenetic influence over genetic agency has already been affirmed in cell research and in modern physics [epigenetic influence is primary and genetic agency is ‘appearance’] but it has not been assimilated in the 'orthodox' science of biology since Darwinism is like ‘the Gospel’ of biology, and in that Gospel, genetic agency within the form seen as an independent biological system-in-itself, is deemed the animating source of the system’s development and evolution. The excerpt starts with the modern finding that heritable traits can be acquired within an individual’s lifetime;

Hence a genetic bestowal can be revealed differently depending on the conditions and actions of the inheritor – and in turn those circumstances and behaviours may become coded in the genes. This is remarkable and Lamarckian.
.
Yet, two centuries after Lamarck’s lectures drew crowds, and in the wake of the long dominance of Darwinian theory that eclipsed Lamarck’s popularity, aspects of Lamarck’s notions – as featured in epigenetic research – have become ‘deeply heretical’ for some evolutionary scientists. Or one might say, more generously, but also more warily, ‘this is not the part of Lamarckism that most scientists subscribe to’. But does this rogue part of Lamarckism – when the metaphorical becomes literalized, this when the genotype has been affected in the lifespan of a single specimen and achieves heritable transmission to offspring – tempt us to believe in, or to seek scientific proof for, these moments of evolutionary impact?
.
To what extent does epigenetics intimate and invite – if not yet, or perhaps ever prove definitively – our conceptual shift from image and trope to chemical and physical property? That is, when the meme and the gene are truly empirical siblings, when the genome and the epigenome are part of an undeniable continuum?
.
The dawning impact of epigenetics may also stimulate interest in the environmental conditions in which science is formulated. Could it be that in Darwin we find an English approach to genetics and inheritance, and in Lamarck a French way?
.
… One could not, for example, extrapolate from differences between Darwin and Lamarck to differences in the respective genomes of the English and French. If the data would suggest it, then perhaps one could discern contrasts in English and French modes of global colonization: where the English separate and quarantine within their sites of conquest (bringing England with them to jungle and desert), the French integrate and blend into their conquered territories. Emerson writes of the ‘unaccommodating manners’ of the English, and their ‘puissant nationality which makes their existence incompatible with all that is not English’. But even setting aside these unempirical, heretical hunches, the science of epigenetics is poised to radically reorient our inherited notions of evolutionary theory. If we are not forced to choose between Darwinism and Lamarckism, but rather encouraged to find in the union of their distinctive – yet complementary – theoretical traits, we may possess a dialectically enriched view of genetic characteristics, both acquired in the blood and re-made through intentions, actions and the unseen bonds of culture. If it comes to term, this theory might be called their offspring.”

* * *

where you quote Nietzsche;

‘all animals… strive instinctively for an optimum combination of favourable conditions which allow them to expend all their energy and achieve their maximum feeling of power' (Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, p. 86)

do you not see that Nietzsche is talking about transformation/transcendence wherein epigenetic influence is in a natural primacy over genetic agency? The favourable conditions (epigenetic influence that pulls on one's creative potentials so as bring one to transcend oneself) are in a natural primacy over their local genetic expression [which is 'appearances']

Dionysus: sensuality and cruelty. Transitoriness could be interpreted as enjoyment of productive and destructive force, as continual creation. -- Nietzsche WTP 1049

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?
h
4
N
v
j
n
m
Enter the code without spaces.