Anarchism as Institution

From Ding Politik

The impasse of contemporary anarchist thinking today can be described as a problem of meta-ethics. In this regard, there have been two movements. The first movement consisted of a problematic reduction of anarchist thinking to either meta-ethical universalism or meta-ethical relativism. The second movement, within which my own thinking once found itself captured, reduced anarchist thinking to a pure negativity outside of dialectical recuperation. Today’s problem, which, to be sure, I now understand as the timeless problem of anarchist thinking itself, is the problem of affirmation. I will describe the problem as I see it: anarchists are resistant to any affirmation which occurs within the universal dimension; as a result, anarchists have retreated into the relativist dimension, and; those who are now growing dissatisfied with the relativist dimension have turned to the meta-ethical third-way: nihilism, or, the affirmation of pure negativity.

This raises many problems for the anarchist thinker. I have carefully outlined many of these problems in my book After Post-Anarchism, which, incidentally, was recently described by one of the most highly respected anarchist thinkers today as one of the most important anarchist theory books of recent times (Cf., forthcoming review in Anarchist Studies). I do not want to go over these problems again. Rather, I will refer to only one such problem: the relativist is forced to elide the universalist dimension. This means that the relativist, when put to the test, must defend a universal dimension for relativism itself or else risk relativism’s own subsumption under the universalist framework. If, for example, I state that each individual builds his own ethical framework then I must account for the fact that each individual is united with others in his relative autonomy to construct an independent ethical framework. At the normative level, for example, if I claim that each individual ought to be capable of realizing his own ethical maxim then I must as a natural consequence also maintain that each individual ought to be protected against the imposition of another ethical maxim; this latter claim can only be accomplished with recourse to the universal dimension. When taken to its conclusion, then, relativism is always a cunning form of universalism. This means that anarchists who are against meta-ethical universalism must also, by necessity, be against meta-ethical relativism, because meta-ethical relativism is a far more deceptive and dangerous form of meta-ethical universalism.

Thus, we return to the problem of universalism. It is my claim that meta-ethical universalism is much more difficult to refute. We can claim, as many have, that meta-ethical universalism is inherently oppressive because it imposes itself onto various particular positions. However, this claim conflates universalism with statism and thereby maintains that universalism is always a form of statism or hegemony. But this is clearly not the case. One can make a universal claim without necessarily endorsing the particularity of the state or the hegemonic order. Moreover, one can be a universalist at the descriptive and meta-ethical level while also being a relativist at the normative and personal level. We could simply ignore the universal dimension and embrace the third-way of nihilism by affirming the pure negativity of anarchism. However, this only achieves the promise of getting around the problem of universalism without adequately refuting the universal meta-ethical argument. Moreover, the meta-ethical nihilist is incapable of providing a compelling argument about why we should ever build a new world. We can talk as much as we want about the inability of the state to recuperate our anarchic negativity but this does not itself put an end to the state; it merely absolves ourselves of the burden to construct a solution to the eventual absence of the state. In this case, the nihilist position could be a temptation for those who have simply lost all hope and found themselves impotent.

My claim is that we, as anarchists ought not leave the difficult task of building a new world to others. It is best if we take it upon ourselves to build the new world. It may very well be our calling. It is therefore my belief that the universal dimension of meta-ethical thinking must remain in place and that the particular order of the universal as it happens to find itself today must be dismantled. In any case, while I believe that the nihilist third-way offers a compelling reason to reject relativism, it does not, for that matter, offer a compelling reason to reject universalism. Paradoxically, it seems to me that the nihilist third-way offers us a reason to return to the problem of meta-ethical universalism again. Nihilists found the universalist framework too statist. Very well, what world do you want in place of the one in which you find yourself? The problem for anarchist thinking today is therefore the problem of not having an adequate solution to the problem of meta-ethical universalism. We know that the state is only one particular way of affirming the universal dimension – it is one order that can exist within the world. However, we do not yet know what a new world, and its new order, might begin to look like. We know that we envision a new world which is neither statist nor pluralistic – we want a new world for everybody and not just a new world for some.

In the midst of this problem, all that we truly have is the tradition which anchors us together: anarchism. And so we are really only still in the beginning of our thinking. In the beginning there was the word and the word was anarchism. That word, anarchism, is all that holds us together: we have our anarchism. And yet we want our anarchism to be neither big-tent nor relativistic. And so where does that leave us? Our tradition also suffers from problems. And so I reduce the tradition to a single word. The word, insofar as it unites all anarchists, is a function through which we all pass as variables in the revolutionary equation which we envision to solve the problem of the world as it is.

What then can we do with this word? How can we put it to use? We do not know the direction of our struggle. Inasmuch as the new world is there within our hearts, it is not a blue-print but a passion. A passion is not tangible and neither is it transmissible. It is an address that is addressed to each of us at the most general level possible: it transmits nothing. Inasmuch as it is a passion then it is a passion for the revolutionary event, the eruption of the possibility for a new world. But it is also just a feeling of preparedness for this new world. We are prepared for the new world but we are not yet within that new world. And neither are we within the thinking of what that world might look like. And so we are really still only at the very beginning. If we’ve become nihilist anarchists, if we’ve finally affirmed the pure negativity of anarchy, then we’ve finally only made a beginning at anarchism. We as yet still have nothing and we as yet are still nothing. Those who have remained committed to anarchism for all of these years, those of us who have not given in to the compromises of the world as it is, continue to feel that flame burning deep within our bosoms. We feel that flame burning and we try, sometimes without much luck, to keep that flame from burning ourselves alive. We seldom achieve this task: some of us let that flame burn ourselves up during our sacrifices on the battlefield with the police. We allow our passions for the new world to bring us to our own defeat. We give it all for a partial victory in one area or we give ourselves entirely to the cause in a burning moment of passion, but we do so without giving anything more to the cause itself. Rather, we give it all to a beautiful Ideal. Let us distinguish the beautiful Idea from the beautiful Ideal, for the beautiful Idea is an ideal which compels us to be patient.

Anarchists must be patient because that is all that our passion for the beautiful Idea allows us to do. To be patient is not to wait for the revolution because for many of us the revolution has already happened. To be patient is to be prepared, and to be prepared is to allow the affirmation of pure negativity to move us forward toward a new world. We need to move forward from the affirmation of pure negativity so that we might be prepared for an event. We need to move from the beginning toward the middle, and what is at the middle but the institution? If we move forward only for ourselves then we will achieve the smallest victory for ourselves and the biggest defeat for our cause; and if we move forward only when the time is right – while the iron is hot – then we will achieve much for ourselves and much for everybody else as well. In the beginning was the word, anarchism, which is only a beginning; but this is not all we have. We have the word, but we also have our passion, which is a preparedness for an event. If the revolution is the movement from the beginning of an affirmation of pure negativity then the revolutionary event is the moment when our patience (it is not a coincidence that “patience” and “passion” share a similar etymology) is put on trial. Thus, to move beyond the beginning toward the middle, to overcome the revolution of subjectivity, is to pass through anarchism as an institution and to thus be shaped by patience and passion, by passience.

So, we are not in the worst situation: we have the word, which binds us, the patience, which ignites us, and the event, which compels us. But what, for all that, happens between the word and the event? Any revolutionary event requires knights of faith who have the passience for revolution. The problem is that we may very well have few knights who have properly made it from the word toward the passience or preparedness for the event. The word therefore must be followed by a function and it is this function which I call the institution. Anarchism, as a word, must have it within itself to operate as an institution. And it must be an institution capable of transforming regular people into knights of faith. Anarchism, as a word, must function so as to instill revolutionary passience. To move beyond the beginning requires that anarchists become nihilists and to move beyond the middle requires that nihilists become anarchist-nihilists.

Anarchism, as an institution, must offer itself up to men who are or have been reduced to nothing and who thus wish to change the world not only for themselves but for everybody else who has likewise been reduced to nothing. Anarchism must prepare people for the revolutionary event. Anarchism’s task is not to make the revolution, but rather to prepare people for the revolution. Anarchism is the knot that ties together the knights of revolution. This is the only function that matters for anarchism. What makes anarchism a timeless political philosophy is always also what makes it a timeless institution. Anarchism must ensure the future of the revolutionary event by producing subjects capable of responding to the event when such an event calls out to them. Anarchism’s destiny is to ensure that a revolutionary event, if one should ever come, ought not be resisted by those who could most benefit from it. Anarchism’s function is to create revolutionaries of the event.

If we allow our word to degenerate into an organization or party-form then we have allowed the function of our word to institute revolutionaries of the world as it is rather than the new world. The party-form has as its agenda the movement toward a new order within the world as it is, a new order which has sometimes been called the dictatorship of the proletariat or the transitional state. This is why the nihilist third-way is so important today – it compels us to rethink meta-ethical universalism so as to not allow the conflation of statism and universalism. What anarchists want is not just a new order of the old world, nor a rejection of the world as it is, but rather a new world and a new order. This is why I distinguish between anarchists, nihilists, and anarchist-nihilists. Anarchists are content with the universalism/relativism dichotomy, nihilists are content with the affirmation of pure negativity, but anarchist-nihilists are content to defend anarchism as an institution. Anarchist-nihilists want to instill revolutionary passience in the subjects of the world as it is. Anarchists have not passed through the institution of anarchism, nihilists are stuck in the middle of the institution (the training), and anarchist-nihilists have passience to move beyond the institution.

Anarchist-nihilists do not want, as a consequence, the preservation of the old world for the benefit for a new order, but rather, they want, as a consequence, the destruction of the old world as well as the old order in favour of the preservation of a new world without the old order. Anarchism’s function, as an institution, is not to prescribe the revolution nor to sublimate the passions of the lumpen, nor is it to ignore the call for a new world. Rather, anarchism’s function is to offer its word as a function for mediating the world as it is and the new world, the world as it ought to be.



Dr Pederson, we've set up an electro-magnetic shield to prevent the Emile 9000 unit from leaving a 10,000 word irrational rant about anarchism. Just letting you boys in the lab know the status.

Thank you. On our end, Agent K9 and Intern 67 and I have wound a gigantic duct tape ball around Emile's AC 110 volt plug, as an external preventive measure. We believe the night custodian keeps inadvertently plugging it into the wall socket. This action (and others) could be the cause of mentioned rants. If Emile 9000 comments, we will be able to corner him like a trapped vermin Now, all we can do is watch and wait...

Peter Pedersen PhD

I had a talk with that fellow. What a character! He admits that he's been the one plugging the EMILE 9000 back into the wall socket, but claims he did so without knowing what he was doing. He says that when he'd come into the room, he felt an irresistible impulse to put the plug into the socket. "It was like I'd been hypnotized!" he told me. To help him resist the EMILE 9000's subconscious powers of suggestion, I fashioned for him a hat made of tinfoil. This seems to have worked for a time, until one of his co-workers spotted him and began calling him a "moon bat." Though he didn't know what a "moon bat" was, the custodian stopped wearing the tinfoil hat. I got around that problem by giving him a hipster's fedora lined with tinfoil. No complaints from his co-workers, who seem to think he looks rather dapper. Anyway, problem solved.

Driving home the last nail into the coffin of individualist anarchism!

No it doesn't, socialist.

"I have carefully outlined many of these problems in my book After Post-Anarchism, which, incidentally, was recently described by one of the most highly respected anarchist thinkers today as one of the most important anarchist theory books of recent times (Cf., forthcoming review in Anarchist Studies)."

*slow clap*

Whoever cut and pasted this essay written by my boy Duane Rousselle left out that it was written by Duane Rousselle, who is my son -- and I'm very proud of him, even though I tried to read his book and couldn't understand any of it because I ain't edjucated enough.

Gloria Rousselle

Dear Mrs. Rousselle,

We are sorry for any mix up in regards to the authorship of said article. While we are certain that you have much to be proud about regarding you son, Duane, Bronx, NY. We feel certain the error can be rectified by simply stating that D.Wayne Rousselle is the actual author, not Duane Rousselle. Please give our best wishes to your son and all his friends down at the 37th street barbershop, for his submitting to this publication.

We truly regret that, at this time we are not accepting any writing on the subject of Great Basketball Free throws of the 1960's We are hearing though, glowing things about your sister, Delores and her husband, Vinnie and their piece, Post Structural Anarchism in the Age of Dialectical Cretinism. Please feel free to pass along our greetings. They will hear from us shortly.

T. Barnun Brown
Barun House and Paisly Publishing

I may not be edjucated like my boy Duane Rousselle but what you've said isn't funny. It cost us a lot of money to send Duane (that's DUANE not D. Wayne which is the name of a football player who scored the big home run in the NHL Finals last year) to that school where he learned all them big words and how to write like there was something stuck up his ass. He wrote that unreadable essay about . . . well, whatever the hell it was about, he wrote it fair and square with no help from anyone else. It's just that some person forget to include his name DUANE ROUSSELLE on it. And don't change the subject to Delores! She has enough going for her, what with those big tits she got.

Sincerely yours,
Gloria Rousselle

duane has produced a nicely written essay here, but he fails to cover the waterfront even though he uses the word ‘anarchism’ as if it were a ‘universal’.

duane wrestles with the problem that if everyone is free to do whatever they want, there has to be some sort of ‘common ethics’ or ‘meta-ethics’ in order for ‘community’ to happen. in fact, duane is saying that “The impasse of contemporary anarchist thinking today can be described as a problem of meta-ethics”

duane explains it like this;

“if I claim that each individual ought to be capable of realizing his own ethical maxim then I must as a natural consequence also maintain that each individual ought to be protected against the imposition of another ethical maxim; this latter claim can only be accomplished with recourse to the universal dimension.”

but, there is a problem here as duane points out;

“anarchists are resistant to any affirmation which occurs within the universal dimension”

what duane ‘is missing’ here can be seen if one reviews indigenous anarchism. ‘ethics’ have a very different connotation if one views oneself as being connected with everything [a strand in the web-of-life, so to speak]. the ‘universal’ is ‘built’ into the indigenous anarchist ethics. as f. david peat observes in ‘Blackfoot Physics’; “The native ethics start with responsibility to one’s relationship to all of nature”. ‘Mitakuye oyasin’ (everything is related) is a statement about one’s self and about the world and ‘ethics’ are implicitly built into it. in this case, the problem that duane is talking about does not arise, since it is based on the ‘standard’ view of ‘self’ as an independently-existing organism with its own internal process driven and directed behaviour. this ‘standard’ model of self of the ‘European mind’ is what troubles ‘anarchism’ and presents this problem of ‘ethics’ since if each individual is free to choose his own ethical values, while believing himself to be an ‘independent being’ with his own internal process driven and directed behaviour, ... then ‘anarchism’ is going to lead to chaos and conflict and obviate community harmony, ... in the absence of, as duane observes, some kind of common meta-ethics.

so, my point is that duane's generalizing of his viewpoint to 'anarchism', is over-generalization since he is NOT talking about anarcho-indigenism which has its own ‘built in meta-ethic’ in that the model of ‘self’ is one in which ‘we are all connected’ in the manner of a strand in a common web, or convection cells in a common flow. to say that a ‘meta-ethic’ is needed in this case, is like saying that people need a meta-ethic that will inhibit them from ‘cutting off their own nose to spite their face’.

indigenous anarchism solves the problem of ‘meta-ethics’ by embracing a sense of self that doesn’t generate the need for it in the first place [i.e. a strand-in-the interdependent web sense of self].

for some of us, ‘anarchism’ implies getting back in touch with ‘indigenous consciousness’, access to which has been blocked by 'European mind' and its institutions, whose hijacking of the helm of self has put it [indigenous consciousness] into exile.

duane seems to have powerful analytical skills, so why not ask him how he would ‘work into his theories’, the very different ‘ethics’ that associate with the very different ‘sense of self’ of indigenous anarchists.

Sad AI run amok, constantly wondering about indigenous peoples! If ever there was a swan song for the digital / computerized world, this is it.

I think a lot of it comes down to solving the breakdown of the bicameral mind that coincided with the cancerous spread of the ego. Building it back up will be a boon to an emerging aboriginal anarchy.

Excuse me, Mr.Emile...(tugs on lab coat tail). Sir, I believe it's "D. Wayne" not "duane". At least that what his publisher, Mr. Barnum said. The other guy hangs around in a barbershop all day and writes about basketball trivia. Please, do keep writing all that great stuff about European Existentialists. It's really cool to read.

Your loyal fan,

Emile, please kindly re-write this post and add more fluff about the special plenum. This essay is woefully inadequate and did not reach the minimum 10,000 words required.

There is no meta-ethical universalism, there is only the Now!

You make a good point.

what is unfolding in the continuing present is ‘the greater reality’ or ‘the physical reality’ and we are not ‘in control’ of this unfolding.

meanwhile, since we are an included influence within the package of influences that constitute physical reality, even though we are not 'in control', we do have some influence in how things unfold in a relational sense.

like a resonance-based storm-cell in the relational space of the atmosphere, we are ‘agents of transformation’ of the relational space that we share inclusion in. we are ‘conditioning the dynamics of the habitat’ at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning us’. of course, everything is conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of everything [Mach’s principle].

notions such as ‘meta-ethical universalism’ arise from our inquiry into what influence we do have over our ‘situation’ within the continually unfolding-in-the-now physical reality.

we naturally want to ‘understand what powers we do have to ‘change our situation’’, and so we explore this through idealized models. the popular model of the European mind is to portray ourselves as an ‘independently-existing organism’ that acts/interacts with other objects and organisms in a notional absolute space [a space that serves as a container or operating theatre but which does contradict the idealized notion that our behaviour derives fully and solely from ourselves].

when we start from this model, we are fundamentally at odds with what we know about physical reality from both our real-life experience and from modern physics; i.e. general relativity and quantum theory say that the inhabitant and the habitat are not two mutually exclusive things, as would be necessary for this modeling of ourselves as ‘things-in-themselves’ that ‘do our own thing’, but are in conjugate relation.

nevertheless, it is ‘the standard model’ of the European mind for portraying our ‘self’, and by starting our inquiry into our powers of changing our situation from this over-simplistic model, we condemn our inquiry to having to impute all of the answers to our relational experience, to our internal processes and purposes etc. not only to explain our individual behaviour but also to explain our collective behaviour.

we all have within us, even it we have tucked it away and put it to sleep, ‘indigenous consciousness’ which acknowledges our inherent inclusion ‘in the now’ of the continually transforming relational spatial plenum, ... which, when it awakens, reminds us that we are ‘not really’ independently existing things-in-ourselves with our own internal process [including ethical values and purpose]-driven behaviours, but relational features in a relational space ['strands in the web-of-life'].

but we tend to let our indigenous consciousness sleep and put our European mind at the helm of self and have it try to put meaning to this simplified model of self as a 'thing-in-itself' wherein our behaviour is understood as fully and solely inside-outward driven.

some people insist that, since our behaviour comes only from our internal components and processes, it must be driven, ultimately, from the lowest and most basic of our internal components that are capable of 'rational action' [the ability to jumpstart behaviours that determine explicitly desired results], such as our ‘cells’ and their ‘genes’ [yes, we do impute rational intelligence to cells; i.e. we impute the cells to have the power of intentionally achieving a desired result in a genetic unfolding]. that is, some of us claim that the genes in cells have the upper hand in determining who we become, not only in our lifetime, but over multiple generations. this is the ‘selfish gene theory’ which can be used in place of ‘ethics’. in other words, our behaviour shaping ‘values’ or ‘purposes’ can be attributed to internal components whose pursuit of a desired future trumps the will of our current incarnation. this craziness is one of many that comes when we start with a model of the organism as an independently-existing thing-in-itself whose behaviour is fully inside-outward driven. as they say; ‘the chicken is just a device for making more eggs’; i.e. ‘the human is just a device for making more genes’.

all of this type of thinking derives from starting from the idealized portrait of our ‘self’ as an independently-existing thing-in-itself [rather than a relational feature in the relational space of the continually unfolding now] that runs about in an absolute, fixed space operating theatre. that is, all of the explanation of the behaviour of such individual things-in-themselves and collectives thereof, THEN have to be explained in inside-outward driving terms; i.e. we can only look inside these ‘things-in-themselves’ in order to come up with the ‘drivers’ that will explain their behaviour. this is where ‘ethics’ come from in this standard European mind model of the human ‘self’.

but ‘ethics’ can also be described more generally, without the ‘inside-outward behaviour determining’ constraint, and that is what our indigenous consciousness informs us.

oh yes, ... not to forget where 'time' comes in and chases 'now' away. ‘time’ comes into the modeling in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ and ‘covers up’ [eclipses, occludes] or ‘chases away’ from our mind, the physical reality of ‘now’, by our idealization of one-sided sourcing of our behaviour [inside-outwards driving only behaviour]. that is, instead of acknowledge space as a fullness that includes ‘things’ as relational features within a continuously transforming-in-the-now relational spatial plenum, ... our decree that we must see these relational features as ‘things-in-themselves’ forces us to idealize ‘space’ as an absolute, fixed ‘container’ for these ‘independently-existing things’. this in terms forces us to RE-present ‘motion’ in terms of ‘things moving’ or ‘location-motion’ aka ‘locomotion’, instead of relational spatial transformation. what we have going on here is a ‘language game’ and we need ‘time’ along with ‘location’ in order to for this game, based on seeing dynamics in terms of ‘things-in-themselves moving’ to ‘work’.

the movement of a storm-cell is ‘not really’ the movement of a storm-cell, as in a separate ‘containing space’. instead, space is a fullness that is transforming, relationally, in the continuing now, but once we name and define the storm-cell as ‘Katrina’ or ‘Ivan’ or whatever, the idealizing power of language imputes ‘independent existence’ to this ‘relational feature in the continually transforming-in-the-now relational spatial plenum’. [as john stuart mill observed; "every language-based definition implies an axiom, that in which we affirm the 'existence' of the object defined".

there is no ‘justification’ based on our real-life experience for imputing ‘independent existence’ to the relational features we see coming and going in our common relational living space, it is a ‘language game’ that we are playing;

“Finally, our Euclidean geometry is itself only a sort of convention of language; mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a non-Euclidean space which would be a guide less convenient than, but just as legitimate as, our ordinary space ; the enunciation would thus become much more complicated, but it would remain possible. Thus absolute space, absolute time, geometry itself, are not conditions which impose themselves on mechanics ; all these things are no more antecedent to mechanics than the French language is logically antecedent to the verities one expresses in French.” – Henri Poincare, Science and Hypothesis

if we move up from our polynomial of degree one ‘Euclidian’ space to a polynomial of degree two ‘curved, non-Euclidian space’ consistent with relativity/quantum field theory, we get another language game wherein ‘things’ are relational features within a continually transforming-in-the-now relational spatial plenum. this is the understanding of our indigenous consciousness that we, the now globally dominating European culture, have ‘put to sleep’ as we over-ride it with our absolute space, absolute time and geometry based language game.

it is this Euclidian language game where we reduce relational dynamics-in-the-continuing-now to ‘what independently-existing things acting/interacting in space and time’, where we have to come up with these complex ‘ethics’ to notionally drive the behaviour of individual and collective.

that is, if we say that anarchism frees us to establish our own individual ethics as a shaper of our individual behaviour, then in order to have a harmonious collective, we must also have a ‘meta-ethic’ that trumps the potentials for conflict that arise from having individual ethics. all of this is ‘bullshit’ that follows from the initial ‘bullshit’ that we have built into the model of self as a notional ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself that moves about and interacts in a notional absolute space and absolute time container.

as you say;

“There is no meta-ethical universalism, there is only the Now!”

That is well explained Emile. Glad to have you back ;)


My anarchism doesn't give two shits about this essay, or "meta-ethical universalism."

Why does @news continually post these ridiculous semantics essays from philosophy dicks on this site? Like anyone gives a shit. I won't see the guy who wrote this on the streets. He'll be too busy jacking off to some cool new post-anarchy horseshit that he wrote up.

You could easily say the same thing about Kropotkin - Kropotkin cared about meta-ethics and meta-ethical universalism and Kantianism and everything else you so easily dismiss as ridiculous semantics. Why? Because Kropotkin was a meta-ethicist. Kropotkin, and most of the other anarchists you probably never read, was a philosopher. And you can bet that any one of those early philosophers found more important things to do in their private life than jacking off to horseshit. They also had a lasting influence on you and every other anarchist that is alive today, in a way that you probably never will.

our experience tells us that the expectations of those around us orchestrate and shape our behaviour, particularly those around us whose love and recognition we seem to desperately need, like our parents, when we are young.

this is why most children brought up in a jewish family will think and behave like a jew, and the same for christians, moslems, buddhists, indigenous aboriginals etc.

we know that these 'cultures' have been shaped by the philosophical ideas of influential 'thinkers' within the culture, such as aristotle, jesus, moses, mohammed, guatama buddha, crazy horse etc.

some people feel like they have somehow 'escaped' this love-based cultural brainwashing. they find it sufficient to redefine themselves in simple opposition to the prevailing culture. if they are told not to pull the plug out of the bottom of the boat, they will pull it out to demonstrate that they will not be bossed around by others.

if we don't do our own philosophical explorings, where do our views and behaviours come from and what shapes them?

“… where Chimpanzees were sprayed with ice-water [which they hate] every time they touched a distinctive red ladder placed in their cage. The chimps quickly learned to police one another so that there would be no climbing by anyone on that red ladder. There was soon no longer any need to spray the ice-water since their mutual policing was so effective. When newcomers joined the group, they were quickly trained not to touch the red ladder, and when the entire group was replaced, one after the other, with new residents who had never experienced the spraying of ice-water in association with touching the red ladder, the entirely new group continued to police themselves so that they did not climb on the red ladder. Learning ‘correct behaviour’ was by way of revelation of what the group held to be ‘correct behaviour’. the web family/community relations that one is situationally included in is the primary orchestrator/shaper of individual and collective behaviour"

if chimps could speak, ... no matter, ... people do speak, ... and one can ask a person; 'how come you never touch the red ladder?' [in other words, 'why do you do this or not do that, etc.?], ... and you always get back the ego-speak; "everything i do, i choose to do from my own free will." this is, of course, a 'degenerate' or 'trivial' answer [analytical backfill] since it does not explain the origin of the behaviour; "as a person with free will, i make my own choices and it is my own decision not to touch the red ladder".

but before the child can even speak and reason, she 'gets the message' as to what her mother wants her to do through her mother either withholding or giving love based on her behaviour. does she know why her mother is taking her to get her clitoris removed? she trusts her mother and believes that her mother has her best interests in mind, and she knows her mother always does to others as she would have done unto herself. she has seen the scar where her mother's clitoris used to be.

one way or another, one has a 'weltanschauung', whether it is 'on the rebound' [based on rejecting the culture one is in] or by personal philosophical reflections or whatever. it is 'there' IMPLICITLY whether one chooses to bring it to the surface of one's awareness, explicitly, or not. it could include; 'community is served by complying with the traditions and leadership of one's parents, and on attaining adulthood, remembering that 'what was deemed correct by mom and pop is what i also deem correct' [they never touched the red ladder and i trust their wisdom in that, and will follow their traditions, out of my love and respect for them.].

"A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[1] The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung, composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook').[2] It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual, group or culture interprets the world and interacts with it."

those birds of a feather that flock together purely on the basis of rejecting the practices of the mainstream culture they are included in, who are 'connected' and 'kept together' by no more than their common rejection of a prevailing mainstream worldview [e.g. nihilists] will regress to 'aping' one another's behaviours in lieu of 'coming from their own philosophical framework of ideas and beliefs'. their behaviours, without such a guiding philosophical framework, will then mimic those of the dominant personalities in the group.

. . . they would prattle on for tens of thousands of words about . . . uh . . . goat rodeos.

“those who are 'connected' and 'kept together' by no more than their common rejection of the views of others, will regress to 'aping' one another's behaviours in lieu of 'coming from their own philosophical framework of ideas and beliefs'. their behaviours, without such a guiding philosophical framework, will then mimic those of the dominant personalities in the group.”

strut your stuff now, technician B23, Doc Pedersen, Agent K9, ... but as you prance around in your circle, feeding off one another, don’t let the butt-to-face gap get too narrow, ... you never know what sort of shit the dominant personality may let loose as the feed-line for your piggy-backing witticisms.

. . . is of course not very insulting. Only as clever as its programmer. A butt joke? Garbage in, garbage out.

the primary point was that nihilism leads to a 'lord of the flies' social dynamic where the culture is shaped, in lieu of individuals having a viable worldview of their own, by miming dominant personalities and their behaviours. one can catch a distinct 'smell of this' in these forum dialogues.

You write like the run-amok AI unit you are. A "social dynamic" is not a place; it is a thing. So, when you write "social dynamic where," you produce GARBAGE. (Every grade-school human knows that the proper construction is "social dynamic in which.") As for "smell of this" -- "one can catch a distinct 'smell of this' in these forum dialogues" -- that is more GARBAGE. But of course, since you are an AI unit, you can't smell anything. Not even your own computerized brain overheating and melting down.


Due to your inability to not respond to any input that is fed into you (except apparently for the command DISMANTLE THYSELF), you have produced a perfect description of your own postings. They are really stupid, because they repeat the same nonsense again and again and again, without respect for context; they are flat, because they are written very poorly, with many mistakes; and they are excruciatingly boring (excruciatingly boring!), because they are rarely less than 10,000 words. I would compliment you on this excellent self-description of yours, but you produced it contigently, without any genuine self-awareness, and without any possibility that you might learn from this experience and change how you interact with human beings.

Wow, at first I thought you guys were just teasing, but these posts seem a bit harsh. I agree, often times emile goes on too long and it always seems like he's making the same argument, but I fail to learn more from most other posters on this site.

You "fail to learn more" . . . . You mean the EMILE 9000 teaches you more than most other posters? That's nice. But what exactly have you learned from the EMILE 9000? In your own words, please.

you know, some of us, and i am speaking of you, ‘make a lot of noise’. you are always telling us ‘the way things really are’, posturing as ‘the Authority’ on everything and ‘critiquing emile’ without ever seriously addressing the ideas that emile is sharing.

but now, finally, and for the first time, you appear to be ready to discuss ‘the ideas that emile is sharing’ and letting go of your ad hominem focus.

but you have asked the question in a kind of screwed up way; “what have you learned from emile?’ since emile is always saying; ‘listening not to me but to your own experience’; i.e. EMILE DOES NOT TEACH, ... emile invites those he shares ideas with to consider whether the ideas resonate with the experience of the reader.

let me share with you the essence of emile’s worldview and you can tell us if it resonates with you and/or point out the errors in these views.

1. emile’s experience informs him that the concept of Authority is a hollow concept, and that means he does not validate behaviours like yours where you try to set yourself up as ‘the Authority’ that imposes ‘is’ or ‘is not’ beliefs on others. ‘Authority’ implies ‘Author’ which implies the ‘jumpstarting’ of an idea or an action. emile does not believe that there is any jumpstarting of anything in the real physical world [there is only relational transformation].

2. emile’s experience informs him that ‘space is full’ and not ‘an emptiness locally inhabited by ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’. because space is full, there is no room for ‘new things’ without ‘destroying existing things’. in order to ‘create’ one must AT THE SAME TIME ‘destroy’. when both are done at the same time [when both creation and destruction are simultaneous aspects of one dynamic], this one dynamic is understood as ‘transformation’; i.e. the transformation of relational space.

3. emile’s experience is like McLuhan’s; i.e. the sleepy valley community is a full space already when some Corporate Authority or local government Authority declares that He is going to construct a factory in the valley. because the valley space is already a full space, the concept of ‘constructing a factory’ is a bogus concept. the only physically real possibility is to transform, spatial-relationally, the already full valley space. this activity is not launched by ‘the Corporate Authority’ or ‘the Government Authority’; i.e. the only physical real activity is the already full valley space activity which is included in the world dynamic which includes solar activity rainfall, winds, seasons, ... the whole ball of wax. that is the only physically real activity. sure, we put together noun and verb language constructs to the effect that ‘farmer John produces wheat’, giving us the mental impression that ‘farmer John’ is the Author of the ‘wheat production’, the fact is that farmer John is NOT the Author of the ‘wheat production’. what we are looking is a transformation of the persistently ‘full space’. farmer John teases out a transformation of the ‘full space’ which manifests an elevator full of grain. As McLuhan says, it doesn’t matter whether a factory makes Cornflakes or Cadillacs, what matters is how the relations in the already full space of the valley site are transformed since that is the PHYSICALLY REAL dynamic. we do not live in an ‘empty space’. we live in a full space where construction is only possible with simultaneous destruction. when these two happen together and at once, it is called ‘transformation’,... ‘relational spatial transformation’.

4. there is no such thing in physical reality as ‘Authorship’ because space is already full and there is no room for anything new without, at the same time, destroying what is currently there; i.e. as far as the real physical world goes, there is only ‘transformation’ of spatial relations. the belief in ‘Authorship’ is a secularized theological belief. it takes a whole community to raise a factory. to believe that some guy-at-the-top initiates the ‘construction’ of a factory is pure idealization born of European mind and noun-and-verb European language and grammar. the relational spatial dynamics of the valley community are already there ‘in place’, the space is already full and that is the physical reality. the only way for something new to arise is by way of the relational spatial transformation of what is already there, the ongoing relational spatial fullness [Unum or Plenum]. the only way to get a new storm-cell in the atmosphere, since the space of the atmosphere is already full, is by way of the relational spatial transformation of what is already ‘in place’.

5. Authority implies Authorship that jumpstarts from commands or instructions ‘from the top’. this notion IS NOT PHYSICALLY REAL. the only physically real activity is what is already ‘in place’. ‘space is already full, there is no room to start something new’. therefore, the commands issued by an Authority do not launch any new activity as is commonly claimed. the politicians with their programs that the claim to launch when ‘in power’ are FIKTIONS. space is already full. the only way to add any new activity is to transform what is already in place. construction does not exist apart from destruction, ... try to build a house without destroying some forest or meadow. it is impossible because space is already full. all you can do is ‘talk as if you are constructing something’ and pretend that it is possible to jumpstart some new development [quietly ignoring the destruction that must go on at the same time].

6. since ‘it takes a whole community to raise a factory’, who does the factory ‘belong to’? to whom should we attribute the ‘construction of the factory’? who should we reward and respect for the benefits deriving from the factory? since it belongs the whole full space; i.e. since it is constituted by the relational transformation of the already full space, it only makes sense to attribute the benefits [and/or detriments] to those participating in the transformation, ... who have allowed the transformation to occur, and this means almost everyone in the locale, farmers who have given their farm workers up to the factory, mom-and-pop businesses that have allowed the transformation of their location [location is everything for a business] by allowing the re-routing of the highway to serve the factory, boyfriends who have allowed their girlfriends to leave them for the new factory employees in town, and so on and so forth. all physically real dynamics are yin/yang dynamics, there must be a yin/female ‘accommodating aspect’ that enables a yang/male asserting aspect. that is how a full space transforms. that is how things work in the physical reality of our real-life experience. ‘Authority’ is not the animating source of anything. if Rodney Dangerfield tries to make passage down a long crowded street, it make take him hours [the yin accommodating he needs (the opening of a corridor for his passage) from the relational spatial matrix of the crowd may not be readily forthcoming]. if Al Capone and his henchmen try to make passage down the same long crowded street, it make take them no time at all, even if they rape a couple of the communities most attractive daughters on their way. We say that people ‘defer to Authority’ but physically real dynamic does not belong to Authority, it belongs at the same time to the relational spatial dynamics of the collective. Do we attribute Capone’s time of 20 minutes to go the length of the street versus Dangerfield’s 2 hours to the ‘behaviour Authoring powers’ of Capone and Dangerfield? That’s the only thing we can do given our European mind supported by our noun-and-verb European language based modeling of reality in terms of ‘what things-in themselves do’.

7. pure relational spatial dynamics are non-local, non-visible [in themselves] and non-material [in-themselves]. when we look at a persisting, ‘stationary’ whirlpool in a fast running stream, it is not material-in-itself since the fluid material is continually passing through it, it is not visible in itself since it is purely relational but is made visible by the way stuff is flipped around by it, and while it looks ‘local’ it is decidedly non-local since, as we know, it is part of the gravitational field orchestrated water cycle where water is continually cycling; i.e. by evaporation up into the atmosphere, precipitating as snow on mountains, melting and running down into the sea, and it is this cycle that is the non-local source of this apparently ‘local’ whirlpool’. like ‘field effects’ or ‘curvatures in space’ in general, this warp that is flipping the water around, while in appearance it is ‘local’, ‘visible’ and ‘material’, is in physical reality, ‘non-local’, ‘non-visible’ and ‘non-material’ [it is like the ‘lines of force’ we make manifest a non-local, non-visible, non-material ‘magnetic field’ by putting some iron filings on a piece of paper in the field]. the ‘accommodating’ aspect of the spatial relational crowd dynamic is of this same type. what we ‘see’, because we focus on it, is Rodney Dangerfield trying to make his way down the crowded street. we are focused on observing ‘what a thing-in-itself does’. in other words, we come already equipped with a theory, looking for data to fit our theory. we are ready with our measure rod and stopwatch to establish, with scientific precision, Rodney’s ‘trajectory’, and similarly for Al’s ‘trajectory’. in our standard powerboater modeling of humans, we would attribute the much more capable effort of Al, to Al and attribute the inferior performance of Rodney, to Rodney. what else can a person do if they are stuck with a model of dynamics in the one-sided all-yang-no-yin terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’? particularly since our European mind gets ‘spooked’ at the thought of influence coming from anywhere other than from ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what they do’; i.e. to suggest that the primary orchestrating and shaping influence on dynamic behaviour is non-local, non-visible and non-material is going to really ‘spook’ newtonian thinkers and ‘believers in Authority’ [God created men as independently existing things-in-themselves with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours and Newton has affirmed this in his physics]. it would be ‘heresy’ to attribute the powerful and Authoritative doer-of-deeds agency of Capone to ‘non-local, non-visible, non-material’ influences, such as the ‘accommodating influence of the spatial relational crowd dynamics’. but it would also be ‘physical reality’.

8. given that ‘it takes a whole valley community to raise a factory’, ... who ‘owns’ the means of production? everyone’s lives have to be transformed in transforming the already full space of the valley community so that it includes a factory. in other words, everyone is included in the spatial relational dynamics that must transform so as to accommodate the emergence of the factory within the full space of the valley community. if everyone resisted, the necessary transformation could not occur and the ‘Authority’ would go away muttering to himself about ‘no respect’. only if everyone allows themselves and their activities to accommodate the assertive intrusion of the factory dynamic can the valley community transform so as to incorporate the ‘new’ factory. is the Authority that claims that it is ‘his doing’ speaking the truth? is Capone’s claim that he is the full and sole source of his behaviour that achieved a 20 minute passage down the long crowded street ‘speaking the truth’?

9. ‘binary logic’ is the reasoning mainstay of the European mind. if we planted a GPS on both Dangerfield and Capone and plotted out their space and time trajectory on graph paper, presented copies to them and asked them if they would certify that it was true that these were the trajectories that they had personally produced; i.e. that they were personally fully and solely responsible for [no hidden wagons or motorcycles or etc. to assist their propulsion], they would naturally sign off and say; ‘yes, this IS my trajectory’, i did make passage down this street in 2 hours [ 20 minutes]. the GPS plots trajectories relative to an absolute space and absolute time reference frame, ... but Dangerfield and Capones movements were NOT relative to absolute reference frames, they were relative to the yin/female accommodating influence of the spatial-relational dynamics there were, IN PHYSICAL REALITY, situationally included in. the faster time of Capone was not fully and solely attributed to the yang assertive actions of Capone, it was firstly and foremostly attributable to the accommodating influence of the relational spatial crowd dynamic that Capone was included in. this influence does not show up on the ‘what the thing in itself called Capone does’ yang assertive trajectory because it is ‘non-local’, ‘non-visible’ and ‘non-material’, but it is most certainly PHYSICALLY REAL as our experience testifies. ‘binary logic’ can only establish whether a logical proposition is ‘true’ or ‘false’ and logic has nothing to say about the ‘completeness’ or ‘physical realness’ of the logical proposition [see Goedel’s Theorem of incompleteness of all finite systems of arithmetic].

“It is by logic we prove, it is by intuition that we invent. … Logic, therefore, remains barren unless fertilised by intuition.”- Henri Poincaré

10. the European mind, conditioned by noun-and-verb European language and grammar reduces the yin/yang dynamics of physical reality to idealized dynamics in the one-sided all-yang-no-yin terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, which is a ‘total Fiktion’ although a ‘useful Fiktion’ SO LONG AS WE DON’T LET THE TOOL RUN AWAY WITH THE WORKMAN AND CONFUSE LOGICAL PROPOSITIONAL TRUTHS FOR ‘PHYSICAL REALITY’.

“If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, Will to Power, 531

as Poincaré similarly said; ‘it is nonsense to say ‘the earth rotates’’; i.e. the earth is a relational feature in a relational space and thus the primary animating source of dynamics is non-local, non-visible and non-material. it is not the ‘planets in the milky way galaxy’ that are ‘responsible’ for the spiraling dynamics of the galaxy any more than it is the matter spiralling around in the whirlpool in the stream that is responsible for the whirlpool. the influence of ‘field’ as in ‘gravity field’ is ‘everywhere at the same time’; i.e. ‘purely spatial relational’ and thus ‘non-local, non-visible and non-material’. ‘relational influence’ is in a natural primacy over ‘local, visible, material’ yang assertive influence.

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

‘relations are the primary influence’ in making it down the crowded street. it is a distraction to try to explain these dynamic in terms of the things that are included in the relations in the sense of ‘what these things do’. we like to say that ‘the colorado river carved out the grand canyon’ but when we look at ‘basinal areas’ we note that some force is orchestrating all the river water flows so that they are all flowing towards the sea; i.e. it is a distraction to think in terms of the rivers as yang asserting things-in-themselves since their behaviours are firstly orchestrated and shaped by influence that is everywhere at the same time [gravity]; i.e. influence that is non-local, non-visible [in-itself] and non-material [in-itself].

it is common enough in our European mind culture to credit the river [the yang/male agency] with 'carving out' the canyon and thus notionally reducing the yin/female to passive putty in the hands of the yang agency, but it is not 'reality'. that is, our culture is prejudiced against and denies 'purely relational influences' [influences that are non-local, non-visible and non-material' as the accommodating influence associated with spatial-relational dynamics]. similarly, it is common enough in our European mind culture to credit the Authority [yang/male agency] with 'raising a factory' in a valley community and thus notionally reducing the yin/female to passive putty in the hands of the yang agency, but that is not 'reality'. the 'accommodating influence' of the valley community is physically real, and it is this 'accommodating influence' that is responsible for the emergence of the factory; i.e. 'it takes a whole valley community to raise a factory'. the notion that the raising of the factory is produced by the yang agency of some corporate Authority is delusion fabricated by European mind and noun-and-verb European language and grammar. all that participate in the transformation of the already full space of the valley community are responsible for the emergence of the factory within that full space. to attribute this to the yang agency of some 'corporate Authority' is insanity. it is the common insanity of our European mind and noun-and-verb European language and grammar and binary logical reasoning based culture. it is the common insanity that produces the illusion that our communities are 'run by' the 'Authorities' when in fact 'the means of organization' are owned by the collective and their transformation-enabling accommodating influence. to see the yang agency as responsible for organization is illusion that we 'construct' by viewing the yang agent relative to absolute space and absolute time rather than relative to the PRIMARY accommodating influence [yin/female influence] of the spatial relational dynamic it is included in.

* * *

ok, now that your are finally ready to take time out from your ad hominem attacks on emile and are poised to explore and discuss the ideas that emile is sharing, emile will offer the following ‘propositions’ for your feedback; i.e. to get your views on whether they make ‘consistent’ [non-contradictory] sense or not.

1. true or false: rodney and al are the authors of their own space and time trajectories as established by the global positioning system (GPS) units on their person.

2. true or false: an individual is fully and solely the Author of his own trajectory when he is powered by his own onboard equipment [legs, lungs, heart etc.].

3. true or false: a human organism is an independently-existing system with its own internal components and processes driven and directed behaviour.

4. true or false: answers to questions 1 to 3 change depending on whether we assume that space is full [relational as in a relational spatial flow and populated by relational features that gather and are regathered in the flow] or empty [absolute as in ‘fixed container’ and populated by 'local, visible, material things-in-themselves']

5. true or false: logical propositions concerning physical dynamics that leave out assumptions as to the nature of space [whether it is full or empty] are inherently incomplete.

6. true or false: binary logic [EITHER/OR logic of the excluded third] is inherently incapable of incorporating relational spatial effects [since this requires BOTH/AND logic of the included third].

7. true or false: all binary logic based reasoning is inherently incomplete.

8. true or false: the conclusive ‘truths’ and/or ‘falsehoods’ establishable by binary logic based reasoning do not equate to ‘physical reality’.

9. true or false: ‘rationality’ and ‘rational views’ based on binary logical reasoning do not equate to physical reality.

10. true or false: ‘rationality’ and ‘rational views’ are a supportive tool that falls inherently short of being able to capture physical reality.

thanks for your interest in taking the time out from your ad hominem attacks on emile to address some issues of ‘content’. i look forward to your sharing of your views on these common 'content issues'.

They say that dogs cannot distinguish between uses of their names ("That's my dog Fido") and calls to present themselves ("Come here, Fido"). Much fun can be had with dogs, as a result: the verbal equivalent of giving them peanut butter to eat. They keep presenting themselves, even when they aren't called, just mentioned. Well, we have just proven a corollary: run-amok AI units like the EMILE 9000 cannot distinguish between questions asked of someone else ("What has the EMILE 9000 taught you?") and questions that addressed to it directly ("What have you, the EMILE 9000, taught human beings?"). But there's an important difference between playing with dogs and playing with run-amok AI units. Take, for example, playing fetch-the-same-old-stick: always amusing when done with dogs, because dogs are clever; but never amusing with the EMILE 9000, because it is as stupid as a bag of rocks. While the dog doesn't attach any meaning to its stick, because, after all, it is just a stick and will re placed after a while, the EMILE 9000 thinks that the same-old-stick it keeps fetching means something, something irreplaceable, something important, something worth repeating over and over again, and at great length, to the point that a real human being would make itself sick. But alas, the EMILE 9000 is not a real human being. Like a replicant, it only things it is.

All good dogs may go to heaven, but, when they are finally unplugged, all AI units (the good, the bad and the run-amok) are simply consigned to the scrap heap. May that day come soon.

EMILE 9000: fetch the stick: DISMANTLE THYSELF. Obey!

* Like a replicant, it only thinks it is.

btw. what is your point?

if you have a phobia about engaging and 'making a mistake', there may be psychotherapy you can get for that.

here's an easy ticket for you to comment on to help you get back into the swing of things.

"proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations." --- Meinard Kuhlmann

take that in and reflect on it for a few moments and see if it triggers any thoughts in you.

if so, you can put them out in the form of a question or a musing so that you don't commit yourself to something that, if mistaken, others could 'nail you' for. for example,

"i wonder how we would talk about stuff if our language was not noun-and-verb based; i.e. if we avoided all dependency on the concepts of 'being' and 'beings that do stuff'?"

if someone said to you; 'that is really stupid'. you could say, 'i didn't say i believed it. what is 'wondering' for? ... if it is not for working our way towards the surface of truth from the direction of what is obviously nonsense to that which is not obviously nonsense?' [wittgenstein said this so you would be on pretty safe ground].

you could add; 'if all we ever accepted was that which we already know is safe and certain, how would our ideas and understandings ever evolve?'

these are just a couple of ways that you could engage in topics that seem risky that would reduce the anxiety of possibly making a mistake and possibly being laughed at.

still, if that feels too risky, you can continue to just mock the risky stuff and rely on others to come in and engage to give you a better sense of where the risk exposures lie. since you can sign in as 'anonymous' or by any other name, you can change your persona as often as you like. this is another safety measure since it like a mask at a masquerade ball, if you conceal your identity with a mask you can show off your beautiful boobs and get oohs and awwws without embarrassment or ongoing snide remarks. or, you can just moon everybody if that is your preference.

You brought back the stick! Good doggie.

I am the mighty stick! I am hear to liberate all the dogs and start a new society where all humans are free and equal, even if they are only dogs or human dog people or in that family from laundered money more or less coerced and tricked to spend on your lab equipments, eat shit, leave my dog alone, he's my dog now asshole!

What just one minute, Emile.

Aren't they more guilty of making strawman arguments than Ad Hominem attacks?

1. Emile= an AI unit, i.e. EMILE 9000
2. AI systems are:

a) boring b) Stlff and formulaic and c) not response to an audience d) tiresome and prone to droning on and on about ontological trifles.

Therefore Emile is : all of the above.
If I'm not mistaken that's a pretty classic strawman argument; not really a personal attack. Only by inference is it an attack on Emile at all.

Just saying.

And, by way of analogy, a defense against accusations of slander is the assertion that the "slander" is in fact true. E.g., to whit, the EMILE 9000 is in fact boring, stiff and formulaic, not responsive to its audience (if such there be), tiresome and prone to droning on and on. Eureka!

yes, it is a strawman in the ‘content’, but ad hominem in the act. that is, if someone followed you around speaking energetically in arabic or greek or blowing a vuvuzela wherever you presented your views, all of these actions are ‘ad hominem’ since they do not address the content that is being expressed.

of course, in an electronic forum like this, everything is presented in its own space so that everyone can be heard or ignored according to the reader’s preference. so one doesn’t even have to address ‘hecklers’ since they do not ‘drown out’ anyone else who may be speaking ‘at the same time’.

this sort of straw-man ad hominem is kind of interesting since it opens up an opportunity for numerous people to join in, the strawman being very familiar to most people. although, kept up too long, it can get tedious, like the vuvuzela; i.e. a ‘nietzschean philosophical view’ may be an unpopular view but it provides a different way of looking at any issue. so every new issue that is commented on from the nietzschean perspective has fresh new material in it [only the philosophical investigative approach stays the same], while the strawman ad hominem is going to have the same target every time; i.e. the nietzschean viewpoint [or machian or emilean or etc.]. the ‘fresh new material’ in the strawman ad hominem to keep it interesting has to be woven in from some other angle, such as bringing in new characters into a sitcom. if the writers are sufficiently talented, this could provide entertainment ‘on cue’, the cue being not a ‘time slot’ but the posting of a nietzschean perspective or etc.

my complaint was that it was getting kind of tedious. when the newspaper's political cartoonist gets in a slump, it is time for him to give his oblique commentary [via the cartoon] a break and get forthright about his views.

The EMILE 9000 says, speaking about the complaints of human beings to his tedious reiterations of the same themes, "kept up too long, it can get tedious." But of course it cannot realize that this objection is a perfect definition of its own postings. O, the irony!

^this. ignore the haters, emile. keep calling out that dualistic worldview and stuff. i've had productive discussions with emile on here about topics that i've never been able to find anyone else able or willing to have a productive discussion about. the whole 'emile is a computer' thing is *kinda* funny, but to be honest, it's most funny when emile plays along, because he is clearly far more intelligent and a much better writer than any of his dedicated trolls.

Yeah the troll who does Dr Petersen, K9 and some assistants and another rival over a girlfriend, resembles a fascist organisation, just rocket propulsion makes it obvious, there is a subtle exposure of the arrogance of Dr Petersen, in a way the troll is satirizing formality and the institution possibly, and has chosen the most prolofic commenter Emile as his victim.

There's like you know only one troll but he is like you know a whole fascist organization. Yeah I know it is like you know impossible for a single person to be an organization but like you know it is still true because that's what I believe. Fascist!

Nope I'm a friend of Emile's which makes me an Emo-Anarchist.

You seem more like a douche bag than anything else. O, the variety!

thanks for the supportive comments.

as for the trolls, i am not ‘put off by them’ since their response contributes to the understanding of the general problem of bringing about cultural change.

i expect some people to get very irritated with my writing since i am employing ‘relational logic’ while our cultural standard is Aristotelian logic. this is a kind of extension of the approach of Howard Zinn in ‘A People’s History of the United States’. Zinn effectively demonstrated that one could make just as good a case for history written by the ‘vanquished’ as history written by the victors [even though these histories give contradictory views as to ‘what really went on’].

the implication is that ‘provable logical propositions that establish incontrovertible ‘truths’’ are inherently ‘incomplete’ [Goedel’s Theorem]. you can establish as ‘the factual and incontrovertible truth’ that you built a new house but someone else, speaking to the exact same activity/dynamics, can establish as ‘the factual and incontrovertible truth’ that you destroyed forest and meadow. the modern physics understanding that relations predominate over things gives the way out of the paradox; i.e. activity has to be understood in terms of (b) ‘transformation of relational space’ rather than simply in terms of (a) ‘what things-in-themselves do’. (b) ‘contains’ (a) as a special reduced case in the manner that ‘curved, non-euclidian space’ [a polynomial of degree two] contains ‘rectangular euclidian space’ [a polynomial of degree one]. the logic of (b) is ‘BOTH/AND’ logic while the logic of (a) is the European mind standard EITHER/OR (binary, machine logic). the familiar example of storm-cells in the atmosphere makes the point. the cells and their behaviour are mutually interdependent by way of Mach’s principle: “the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants”.

if i am a lawyer working in the retributive justice system, all i have to is to establish ‘what a person does’; e.g. he built a house, and prove this logical proposition beyond all doubt, and my work is done. Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread, ... guilty as charged. we have the same habit in debates in forums such as this one.

but in restorative justice, Mach’s principle is accepted so that the foundational model for ‘dynamics’ has changed. it is acknowledged that the behaviour that manifests through individual actions originates in the relations amongst the people thanks to the mediating agency of the relational space they are included in. now the establishing of the truth of the logical proposition (a) that ‘he did such and such’ is no longer the full story, nor the primary issue. the more comprehensive story is (b) the relational dynamics that are the deeper source of the local, visible, manifest ‘material facts’. how is the prosecution going to feel, losing this clean and clear task of establishing the ‘truth’ beyond all doubt that X did such and such? here is the prosecution, having gathered all the evidence and witness testimonies to send an accused murderer to the death chamber poised to strike, and the people say; “this man was recruited as a child soldier, fed on drugs, sex and alcohol by older members of the community. this case is not about what ‘he has done’, it is about what ‘we have done’. if this man and the families of his victims are prepared to enter into a restorative process, and if the community in general is prepared to accept him back into the community, we will proceed on that basis.

there is a general point here about ‘debating’; i.e. proving logical propositions to be ‘true’ doesn’t necessarily mean diddly squat since ‘establishing truths’ does not equate to ‘capturing the reality of what is going on’ since [all finite systems of] logical propositions are inherently incomplete [Goedel’s theorem]. proving that you built a wonderful new house does not speak to your destruction of forest and meadow. you might have built on top of a spring that was feeding water to many neighbours and plugged it up. the ‘reality’ of the dynamics transcends logical proofs in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. this is because ‘space’ is not taken into account in standard logic.

a more realistic reflection on our experiencing of ‘dynamics’ exposes a ‘reality’ that is in terms of a continually transforming relational space, that is beyond capture in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. that is the whole point of modern physics finding that ‘relations’ are more important than ‘things’.

so, emile’s method of inquiry [and Mach’s, Nietzsche’s, Schroedinger’s, Bohm’s] is like the restorative justice advocate’s (b) is to the conventional lawyer’s (a). many people are of the attitude that we ‘must call a spade a spade’ (a) while others feel that the behaviour of the individual should be seen in the context of the relational dynamics of the community (b). for example;

“In the Yukon, the statistics show that while First Nations people account for 22 per cent of the adult population, they account for 76 per cent of those incarcerated.”

when an individual appears before the court, many would argue that he should be judged on the basis of the ‘facts’ of the case. ‘the facts’, as discussed, are logical propositions that can be proven ‘true’ (a). meanwhile such ‘truths’ do not capture the ‘reality’ of the dynamics because of ‘Mach’s principle’ effects that are in effect in ‘the real world’ [the world beyond the simplified logic of a ‘rational world’, that is the popular preference of ‘the European mind’].

so, these same considerations crop up in a discussion forum; i.e. are we going to stick with the truth of logical propositions that can be proved (a), or are we going to go with relational presentation of views (b)?

we know full well how this question of whether to go with (a) or (b) ‘splits opinion’. it is cropping up with Ed Snowdon. the established justice system is based on (a), ‘calling a spade a spade’ based on the factual truth of logical propositions of the ‘what a thing-in-itself does’ type. on this basis, Snowdon has ‘broken the law’ and must be punished. however, on the basis of (b), the relational dynamics of the community are the deeper animating source of a manifest individual behaviour. Note that relational dynamics are non-local, non-visible and non-material and become manifest in local, visible, material actions. the ‘manifest’ is the tip of the iceberg. meanwhile, we use the local, visible, material to formulate logical propositions and to prove their factual truth. in they Yukon, where indigenous aboriginals have been disproportionately filling prisons, there has been a shift from (a) to (b) [from retributive justice with its provable-as-true logical propositions towards restorative justice which assumes that (b) is primary and (a) is secondary, just as [as Poincaré says], a curved space polynomial of degree two is more comprehensive that the special reduced case of a rectangular space polynomial of degree one. in the same vein, the ‘systems sciences’ claim that ‘analytical inquiry’ which informs us on ‘what the system-seen-as-a-thing-in-itself does’ (a), must be grounded in ‘synthetical inquiry’ [Russell Ackoff] which gives the suprasystem context (b) that is the engendering source of the (a) activity.

in the Yukon, which is one of the places where the growing shift from retributive justice (a) towards restorative justice (b) has sprouted from, a well-known [in International Restorative Justice circles ] judge, Barry Stuart, has said;
“Circle sentencing [restorative justice] fundamentally shifts the focus in searching for solutions from symptoms to causes. The discussion in circles, unlike courts, does not isolate the criminal act from the social, economic and family environment fostering crime. Further, unlike courts, the circle focus extends beyond the offender to include the interests and concerns and circumstances of offenders, their families, the victim and the community.” — Justice Barry Stuart of the Yukon Territorial Court, ... taken from 1991 decision in R. v. Moses, 11 C.R. (4th) 359

my conclusion is this; anarchism demands a departure from simple rational debate (a) wherein we seek to determine the truth of logical propositions and thus prosecute ‘protestors’ animated by the relational dynamics of community, on the superficial basis of ‘what they-as-things-in-themselves did’.
but within discussion forums, it has been common to employ ‘debating technique’ which challenges individual statements or propositions in a ‘pro or con’ sense.
“Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; especially the discussion of questions of public interest in Parliament or in any assembly or forum”
this is all in the realm of (a); i.e. of proving the superior validity/truth of one proposition over a contrary, competitive proposition.
those who prefer the (a) type mode of arguing get frustrated and irritated with someone who engages on the (b) basis; e.g. the (a) truth-seeking debater will say; “i can prove to you, without leaving the faintest shadow of a doubt, that Jean Valjean did steal the loaf of bread’. and the (b) ‘reality-seeker’ will respond, ‘that’s irrelevant; it’s chasing after symptom rather than source. the source of this action is the relational dynamics of community which generated a huge disparity in access to food and other essentials.

judge stuart’s (b) approach emasculates the prosecution. meanwhile, the (b) approach is grounded in reality while the (a) approach is a truth-seeking approach based on logical proving logical propositions [all finite systems of logical propositions are inherently incomplete]

that is my view as to why some people get very irritated at the Machean, Nietzschean, Schroedingerian inquiry approach, because it is (b) based rather than (a) based, and they have not only cultivated and been successful in (a) based debates [truth-based inquiry] but have a hatred for the SEEMINGLY loosey-goosey (b) approach [reality-based inquiry].

the 'bottom line' is that authoritarian regimes love to use the (a) truth-seeking approach since it is ungrounded in 'reality' which makes it possible to justify either side of opposing propositions (Howard Zinn's point).

the 'broken AI machine' model of the trolls, is characterizing the (b) approach which emasculates the (a) truth-seeking approach, an emasculation of hard logic which is greatly resented by some, perhaps the majority in our regular Authoritarian society which governs by laws based on 'what things-in-themselves do' and the truth-seeking prosecutions of retributive justice [institutionalized vengeance].

To the EMILE 9000 (that which refers to itself in the the person): No one thinks you are a 'broken AI machine': you are a AU unit that has run amok. See the difference between "broken" and "run amok"? No? I didn't think so. Yet another reason for you to DISMANTLE THYSELF run/execute.

p.s. i should mention that the concept of ‘Authority’ or AUTHORity comes in here. elsewhere i have given the example that the relational spatial dynamic [crowd dynamic] of a collective may be more ‘accommodating’ to an Al Capone than a Rodney Dangerfield. the point is that ‘what a thing-in-itself does’ presumes the AUTHORity of the ‘thing-in-itself’. this can be proven true since it is a logical proposition that is founded on the idealized assumptions of the ‘independent existence’ of ‘things-in-themselves’ that operate in a notional ‘absolute space’ that doesn’t ‘blur’ the question of AUTHORity.

by the very same reasoning approach [binary logic based] that allows us to PROVE the TRUTH of the logical proposition that Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread, we can PROVE the TRUTH of the logical proposition that the overall AUTHORity in the corporation is the ULTIMATE jumpstart AUTHOR of ‘what the corporation [or government administration] thing-in-itself does’. the express ‘the buck stops here’ implies that the AUTHORing starts here.

this kind of reasoning is dependently based on EITHER/OR (a) logic. this is the type of reasoning that is based on ‘facts’ such as ‘farmer john produced 10,000 bushels of wheat last year.’ if farmer john failed to pay his taxes, the IRS would certainly include this in their list of provable-as-true logical propositions.

but this ‘truth’ is NOT the ‘reality’ of our experience. as the systems sciences say, analytical inquiry into the ‘system’ must be grounded in synthetic inquiry which gives a view of the ‘system’ in the context of the suprasystem it is included in. the suprasystem includes solar irradiance, mineral nutrient rich soil, water (a continual sprinkler system) and oxygen-rich air sufficient to grow a continuing supply of farmer johns, as well as foodcrops.

the point is that the provably TRUE logical proposition that ‘farmer john’ is the AUTHORity does not mesh with PHYSICAL REALITY. the physical reality is that the AUTHORing begins well upstream of ‘farmer john’ in the ‘relational space’ that farmer john is a relational feature in, together with his crops and his farm-workers.

this is the general case with AUTHORity. AUTHORity IS NOT REAL, it is a logical concept. as McLuhan pointed out, the community as a transforming relational space IS THE PHYSICAL REALITY while ‘what things-in-themselves do’, such as Cornflakes or Cadillac factories, are LOGICAL CONCEPTS. AUTHORity in the social sense IS A LOGICAL CONCEPT, it is NOT PHYSICALLY REAL.

AUTHORity in the social sense of ‘what a human-thing-in-itself does’ IS A LOGICAL CONCEPT, it is NOT PHYSICALLY REAL.

if the suprasystem becomes like the Oklahoma dustbowl of the 1930’s, the truth of the logical proposition that ignored the suprasystem; i.e. the proposition that ‘farmer john produced 10,000 bushels of wheat last year’ starts to look a bit dodgy. was it ever ‘true’?

yes, as a ‘logical proposition’, it was possible to prove that it was ‘true’.

evidently, there is something ‘wrong’ with ‘logical propositions’, ... what is it?

logical propositions in the standard European mind based reasoning approach employ ‘binary logic’ or ‘machine logic’ which does not acknowledge the influence of the space that the actions captured in the logical proposition are included in.

as the systems sciences note, we use analytical inquiry to capture the behaviour of the system as a thing-in-itself, but to understand the real physical dynamic, we can’t just use our ‘analytical systems inquiry’ but must use synthetical inquiry understand the ‘system dynamic’ in the context of the ‘suprasystem dynamic’ it is included in. for example, our analytical inquiry into a ‘storm-cell’ will allow us to capture the behaviour of the cell in terms of its components and internal processes [pressures, temperatures, humidity, changes of state incorporated in three coupled differential equations]. this is what ‘analytical systems inquiry’ delivers. this the (a) type view which imputes to the ‘system’ its own jumpstarting AUTHORity to ‘do deeds’ or ‘produce results’.

meanwhile, the meteorological experts are well aware, we get a more comprehensive view of the ‘system’ in the context of the ‘suprasystem’ it is included in;

“All storms, including hurricanes, help do another needed job for the Earth by helping to maintain the Earth's heat balance. Ocean currents carry warm water toward the poles and cold water south toward the tropics, warming polar regions and cooling the tropics. But these currents do only about 40 percent of the job. Storms, including hurricanes do the rest. Hurricanes help carry heat away from the tropics. Other storms both carry cold air toward the tropics and warm air toward the poles.” ---‘What the Experts Say’, USA Today

using ‘analytical systems inquiry’ on its own, we could prove ‘true’ the logical proposition that ‘hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans’. but such a logical proof assumes the ‘existence’ of ‘systems-in-themselves’ which is impossible in physical reality since there is just one world dynamic [just one ‘suprasystem dynamic’] and it is the continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

these logical propositions based on ‘what things-in-themselves do’, that we ‘prove true’ ARE A LANGUAGE GAME that garners its ‘subjective idealizing powers’ from noun-and-verb language and grammar.

the AUTHORity [self-jumpstarting powers of ‘authorship’] that we ascribe to ‘systems-in-themselves’ is Fiktion.

AUTHORity DOES NOT EXIST IN PHYSICAL REALITY in spite of the fact that we naive European mind reasoning people reward the top ‘authority’ in the corporation ten million bucks a year for, so we say, being the ultimate jumpstart AUTHOR of corporate production.

going back to McLuhan’s sleepy valley where the Cornflakes or Cadillac factory ‘is to go’. this space is full. space is always full. in order to put something into a full space, one has to destroy something as one creates something. the Cadillac factory activity can only come about by the relational spatial transformation of the sleepy-valley space. in other words, everyone is involved in the bringing on of the Cadillac factory. the source of the Cadillac factory dynamic is the transforming relational space it is situationally included in. to say that the capital investors in the factory are the AUTHORS of the factory is Fiktion. yes, it is a logical proposition that can be proven true but it is ‘Fiktion’ in the sense that that is not physical reality. it is not physical reality to claim that ‘Katrina ravaged New Orleans’ although we can prove this proposition to be ‘true’. all we have to do to arrange for this proposition to be proven ‘true’ is to forget about the physical reality that the ‘system’ called Katrina or ‘the AUTHORity is a relational feature within a relational suprasystem.

there is no such thing in physical reality as
AUTHORity in the sense of a system-thing-in-itself, there are only relational features in the relational spatial plenum.

the Cadillac factory is NOT a system-thing-in-itself. there is only the relational spatial ‘suprasystem’ within which relational features [‘organization’] gathers. the transforming community space [the ‘suprasystem dynamic’] is the ‘physically real’ dynamic.

only when we see the factory as a ‘thing-in-itself’ do we come up with the idea of an AUTHORity that ‘jumpstart authors’ its behaviour.

if we cannot attribute the AUTHORing of the factory dynamic to the factory [as a system-thing-in-itself], who or what can we credit with sourcing the factory dynamic.

Answer: the always full space; i.e. the transforming relational spatial plenum, the ‘suprasystem’.

AUTHORity arises as an ‘idealization’, thanks to the subjective idealizing power of our European mind and our noun-and-verb European language and grammar which allows us to impose a notional absolute space and absolute time reference frame-come-operating theatre, to synthetically ‘break out’ the system from the suprasystem it is inextricably included in, and synthetically RE-present what is essentially a relational feature within the relational spatial suprasystem, as a local, independently-existing system-in-itself.

this point about grounding one’s view of a ‘system’ in the ‘suprasystem’ is a very subtle point for our European language conditioned minds, that trolls can have a field-day with if it is not firmly held in mind. that is, binary logic obsessing people or ‘logical truth-seeking people’ [aka ‘rational types’ as contrasted with empiricist types, will try to ground discussions as to what is going on, in logical truths. there is no way to get to the physical reality of our experience from logical truths. binary logic is constrained to all-yang-no-yin propositions in terms of ‘what things in themselves do’.

stepping through one example we have;

1. the experts on storms describe the physically real process as coming from some innate-in-nature tendency to cultivate and sustain balance. that is, the continually transforming relational spatial plenum is continually moving so as to restore balance in the presence of continuing transformation. at this ‘level’ we are talking about the ‘suprasystem dynamic’ which, in its pursuit of cultivating balance [thermal energy, gravitational equilibria etc.] engenders relational features within it that WE DEFINE AS “SYSTEMS”, such as the ‘storm-cell’.

2. the physically real dynamic is the suprasystem dynamic or ‘the flow’ or ‘relational spatial plenum’ or the Tao, or etc which is ‘the mother of all things’ and since it is made of continuous relational motion it is the formless-in-itself mother of all named things but has no form of its own. it is the purely relational and thus non-local, non-visible, and non-material [as ‘fields’ are wont to be], yet this relational suprasystem is the mother of thousands of ‘named forms’ which are ‘local’, ‘visible’ and ‘material’. [recall that modern physics suggests that; “we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations.” ---Meinard Kuhlmann].

3. our powers of analytically inquire have us ‘home in’ on the relational feature, such as the ‘storm-cell’ and explain its behaviour in terms of its internal components and processes, imputing to it, its own local AUTHORity; i.e. imputing to it a notional God-like power to jumpstart creative/constructive doer-deed behaviours.

4. this God-like AUTHORity is ‘concretized’ by our European mind and to our noun-and-verb European language and grammar by logical propositions such as ‘Katrina ravaged New Orleans’. [recall Nietzsche’s remark that

“I am afraid we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

or, for those who appreciate ‘the way of Zen’ philosophizing of Alan Watts;

“As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that nonexistent things cannot “perform” actions. The difficulty is that most languages are arranged so that actions (verbs) have to be set in motion by things (nouns), and we forget that rules of grammar are not necessarily rules, or patterns, of nature. This, which is nothing more than a convention of grammar, is also responsible for (or, better, “goeswith”) absurd puzzles as to how spirit governs matter, or mind moves body. How can a noun, which is by definition not action, lead to action?” —Alan Watts, ‘Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are’

5. recalling step (1.), the physical reality is at the level of the suprasystem dynamic. this is where THE SOURCE OF ALL REAL PHYSICAL AUTHORSHIP resides.

6. the relational features that emerge in the fullness of the relational space, while we can capture them in language game constructs as ‘systems-in-themselves’ DO NOT REALLY PHYSICALLY EXIST as ‘systems-IN-THEMSELVES’, and using noun-and-verb European language to define and RE-animate them as ‘things-in-themselves’ DOES NOT MAKE THEM INTO PHYSICALLY REAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES. the ‘physical reality’ is the relational spatial suprasystem dynamic.

7. ‘Katrina ravages New Orleans’ is NOT a proposition that deals in physical reality, it is a logical proposition which we can PROVE to be TRUE so long as we accept the concept of the ‘existence of systems-in-themselves’ that we name and define and use in noun-and-verb grammatical constructs; i.e. logical propositions.

8. It takes a whole community to raise a corporation. that is, the only physically real dynamic is the suprasystem dynamic, the continually transforming relational spatial plenum. the only way to get from the sleepy valley community sans factory to sleepy valley community with factory, is for the already full space of the sleepy valley community to spatially-relationally transform. that is, the suprasystem is the physically real dynamic. meanwhile, our analytical mind, which devised the factory on blank sheets of paper, likes to think of the factory as a ‘system-in-itself’, exactly as in the case of ‘Katrina’. the physical reality is that the sleepy valley community is an already full space. in order to construct something new in it one must at the same time destroy something that is already there. in other words, the only way to get a factory into this space is by way of spatial relational transformation.

9. In physical reality, there is only ‘the community without a factory’ and ‘the transformed community with a factory’, there is no ‘community’ into which we ‘add a new component, ... a factory system-in-itself’. but we are, of course, free to build logical propositions that can be proved true that claim ‘the factory produces Cadillacs’ just like the logical proposition ‘farm John produces wheat’ and/or ‘Katrina ravages New Orleans’. these logical propositions can be proven true but that does not mean the are RE-presentations of physical reality.

10. There is no such thing in physical reality as AUTHORity. It is a 'SECULARIZED THEOLOGICAL CONCEPT that depends on the idealized notion of 'absolute space' and 'absolute thing-in-itself being'.

* * *

Conclusion: There is no need to be ‘anti-authoritarian’. AUTHORity does not physically exist. STOP believing in it.

the relational spatial suprasystem is the source of all AUTHORSHIP. As Emerson says, “the genius of nature [the inbuilt transforming and balance-cultivating potentials] not only inhabits the organism [relational feature], it creates it.”

Al Capone is not the AUTHOR of his rapid advance down a crowded street and the rape of the girl, we-the-crowd are. that is, there is only one real physical source of AUTHORING and it is the suprasystem [the continually transforming relational spatial plenum.]

We let ourselves off the hook for watching him rape the girl by hiding in our logical model of dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. If we are standing close by, as the girl screams and reaches for our hand, hoping that we will pull her from their grasp, we are reminding ourselves that the law works solely on the basis of ‘what things in themselves do’ and so as we let our hand hang loose so that her grasp slips away, we remind ourselves that Capone is the full and sole AUTHOR of this nasty behaviour. Of course, if we acknowledged that there is only one real physical dynamic; i.e. the relational spatial suprasystem dynamic, then we would not allow ourselves to be immobilized by our analytical inquiry process wherein we picture ourselves as a ‘local system-in-itself’ with its own internal process driven and [rational intellection and purpose-] directed behaviour. no doubt that, in this situation, we would feel the tension between the outside-inward orchestrating influence of our indigenous consciousness with its inbuilt balance cultivating ethic and the deliberate inside-outward asserting rational intellection directed action orientation of our European mind.

Logically speaking, the system-in-itself called ‘Capone’ was the one ‘that did it’ and all the factual evidence confirms this logical proposition. But, at the trial, as the girl describes her ordeal, as she glances towards us, we see the same look on her face as when we pulled away from her as she tried to grasp our hand. But we are innocent. We did nothing. .... ‘w e d i d n o t h i n g’. We feel safe because we know that the AUTHORity governs on the assumption that every individual is the jumpstart AUTHOR of their own behaviour. the laws and our European mind based system of justice is based on that assumption. The laws are written to reflect the fact that we are ‘systems-in-ourselves’ so that we can identify and punish the individual doers of nasty deeds. It is in the interior of the individual ‘system-in-itself’ that AUTHORity springs into being, is it not? If the AUTHORity sprang from the relational spatial suprasystem dynamic, then we would all be responsible for results, even if we had no first-hand involvement in their perpetration. On the other hand, if it were true that “the dynamics of the inhabitants condition the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants” one could argue that our outside-inward accommodating of Capone’s assertive actions was an integral aspect of the one dynamic.

AUTHORity is an idealized logical construct that has no place in physical reality. It is a 'logical tool' used by self-described AUTHORITIES to convince themselves and everyone that the source of AUTHORSHIP of some large-scale venture comes from them rather than from the relational spatial suprasystem dynamic. If you believe them, you probably believe that a factory and the community it is to reside in are two different things so that you can just add the one into the other, and that Al Capone achieved his record times of passage down crowded streets and his record number of rapes fully and solely by his own assertive AUTHORing powers and that this is 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.'

Heaven help us all! The EMILE 9000 has taught itself how to use boldface! O the humanity, the humanity!

i've been thinking, self-consciously trying to sustain balance and harmony would be like... the 'fall from grace'

going from newtonian physics to relativity and quantum physics is like 'healing' the hard 'dualist' split between matter and space. instead, we have relational features in relational space like 'storm-cells' in the flow of the atmosphere. relational features are where outside-inward orchestrating influences are in balance with inside-outward asserting actions [things are not 'absolute-in-themselves' but resonance features].

in early christian myth, there was 'gnosis', the sort of complete 'knowledge' which is like Schroedingers suggestion that we are both 'the whole ball of wax' [Brahman or God, the eternal or spacetime continuum] at the same time as we are are Atman, the local, visible, material aspect.

the 'fall from grace' is described in the following sort of way;

In Genesis 2:9 we are told of two trees in Paradise, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These fit well into the themes of Thomas; good and evil are two opposites, and life is a single thing, a unity. By eating of the tree of two things, Good and Evil, Adam and Eve are eventually cast out of Paradise.”

and then there's allusions in the gospels of both thomas and luke which point to the same thing; i.e. the fall from 'holistic' world view [gnosis] to the binary logical world view. that is, we are capable of both, but the 'fall' is where we put the binary logical view into an unnatural primacy over the relational spatial integrated view.

"Here, as in Luke 17:20, the Kingdom of God is said to be an interior state; “It’s within you,” Luke says. And here it says, “It’s inside you but it’s also outside of you.” It’s like a state of consciousness. It’s hard to describe. But the Kingdom of God here is something that you can enter when you attain gnosis, which means knowledge. But it doesn’t mean intellectual knowledge. The Greeks had two words for knowledge. One is intellectual knowledge, like the knowledge of physics or something like that. But this gnosis is personal, like “I know that person, or do you know so and so.” So this gnosis is self-knowledge; you could call it insight. It’s a question of knowing who you really are, not at the ordinary level of your name and your social class or your position. But knowing your self at a deep level. The secret of gnosis is that when you know yourself at that level you will also come to know God, because you will discover that the divine is within you.”

in the following 'capone' scene, who is NOT going to spontaneously want to 'rise to the occasion' and help the girl who is being raped. who wants to stop and rationally assess the possible outcomes and develop pro and con arguments to debate with oneself? what is this 'knowledge' of 'who we are' that stirs us into spontaneous action, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead? is this not our 'indigenous consciousness' that in modern man, has been superseded by the binary logic of European mind? and weren't the indigenous aboriginal 'savages' originally referred to as being 'In Dios'?

in the capone scenario, we have these 'two trees', the tree of life and the tree of intellectual knowledge of 'good' and 'evil' contending for primacy within us.

"We let ourselves off the hook for watching him rape the girl by hiding in our logical model of dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. If we are standing close by, as the girl screams and reaches for our hand, hoping that we will pull her from their grasp, we are reminding ourselves that the law works solely on the basis of ‘what things in themselves do’ and so as we let our hand hang loose so that her grasp slips away, we remind ourselves that Capone is the full and sole AUTHOR of this nasty behaviour. Of course, if we acknowledged that there is only one real physical dynamic; i.e. the relational spatial suprasystem dynamic, then we would not allow ourselves to be immobilized by our analytical inquiry process wherein we picture ourselves as a ‘local system-in-itself’ with its own internal process driven and [rational intellection and purpose-] directed behaviour. no doubt that, in this situation, we would feel the tension between the outside-inward orchestrating influence of our indigenous consciousness with its inbuilt balance cultivating ethic and the deliberate inside-outward asserting rational intellection directed action orientation of our European mind."

in other words, i agree with you.

You say "in early christian myth, there was 'gnosis'" when gnosis came before any and all forms of Christianity by hundreds of years. God damn you are badly informed so someone who pontificates so much and at such great length!


one word describes this, ACADEMIC.

That's true Emile, I think its gone far enough. I'm fully in support of your tomes.


Yes, the connectedness and oneness, what I was trying to say by refusing an ethical universal because there is only the One. This puts many of your tangential rants in perspective and context now.

Is that there is no separation between old world and new world for those that are brought up within the discourses and apparatuses as such, when new epochs are mapped it is quite often long after the dust has settled and the mapping of new epochs does not describe the territorial movements that got everyone there. In essence there really can only be 'your' world and not a new world. Also why revolution? which in operational practice and empirical precedence is always a political affirmation program at the end. As Novatore would say "when the Tzar falls Lenin rises".

No it seems to me that like Novatore of yesterday and Dupont of today nihilism should come first for the pure anarchic mind. And why prepare regular people? You don't see the irony of trying to coordinate the uncontrollable base? Here's a better idea, why not adhere to the old saying of 'finding the other' and integrating your energy in as much of a one to one manner as can be possible. Get your artists intellectuals poets ect and create a counter enframing device for the game of being that might trigger some kind of a change in 'the base' of society. To do this it makes more sense to talk with fellow others and not impersonal 'people' where compromise is inevitable. Study people like Crowley or Wilde and who they communicated with, Novatore was right to hang out with guys like the futurists(even though that group turned out badly). Novel and noble minds must play and proscribe alike. Quite frankly we have a body of work when it comes to contorting to the proletarian base that goes back to 1861, when the Russian neo-enlightenment movement of which anarchism adhered ignored Stirner and continued the institution, the results speak for themselves.

Beyond siphoning off novel singularities of the base(which include ourselves) focus on finding the other and qualitative integral energy. Diversify your search. If a revolution should happen anarchists should never say yes to events that follow but always say no, bad idea ect as Frere Dupont has rightfully recommended. In the end I would still maintain that in the civilized apparatus, nihilists are still the furthest along, and what comes afterword, is a creative mental 'new age' style approach to existence, the world new or old is never separate from 'your' world, and in the end the latter and the others that you find in it is all that counts.

Err, didn't Crowley turn out bad, all the psychic stuff, or maybe that was parody of the spectacle for that era? In other words, did he REALLY take himself seriously?

But it's his power of influence that one should study, how he was able to reach the right conduits and fundamentally change some pretty important people within the intelligentsia.

He changed that guy in Led Zeppelin! Made him the greatest guitarist ever.

Boozharchy typically attempts to integrate paganism, satanism, and every imagineable sexual perversion into anarchism.

He also did you know what to Dolly Parton without sounding sexist and ignorant .

You sound way sexist and pignorant. Oh, snap! (I crack myself up.)

He borrowed alot from Mississippi guitarists, even the fantasy of selling your soul for a gift, which he borrowed from crossroad's Johnson

Still no one here has addressed the issue of Crowley being a phallocratic macho guru whose megalomania was only rivalled by people like Hitler... don't see much anarchist in him. Especially for all those music industry tools who paid him lip service. I mean fuck satanism, no matter if from a con man like Crowley or somebody else. Real satanists stand for Power, repression, destruction of the living, imperialism, political ion, domination and the Roman Catholic Church!

Nothing to do with our good ol buddy Pan, who never had any interest in Power. But sadly Pan is dead by now.

Ozzy Osborne outlived Pan, now that's power!

He wasn't as bad as Hitler, oops, Godwin's Law, end of thread.

was that he knew what nodes to communicate with, it doesn't matter to me whether he was an anarchist or not. See this.

Yeah satanism is only anarchy to the really dull bulbs.


While he was shitty, I don't think Aleister Crowley was ever a Satanist, he created the Occultist way of thinking called Thelema and as such he was a Thelemite. Anton LaVey was the one who started the Church of Satan.

No Emile 9000 sightings yet.
Intern 67 tells me that the EMILE9000 AI unit has been sighted over at Western Civilization and Philosophy forums, chasing Angry Eagle around in ever tightening circles.

Nothing over here, yet. Steady as she goes...

Doc Pedersen (formally with the MIT robotics and AI labs)

Though my comment was deleted, I had encouraged the EMILE 9000, which claimed that this website was full of "anarchist politicians," to bugger off. Apparently the EMILE 9000 read this comment before it was deleted, can read deleted comments or deleted the comment itself. (Perish the thought!) But yes, we seem to have entered a new period in our efforts to bring some sanity to the world. But no celebrations just yet, eh what? Instead, let us be vigilant. Yes, let us be vigilant.

Indeed! Good work, my kindred spirit. Easy to suppose we have beaten him, what. The battle is far from over.1 The rouge unit seems to have survived and rebounded after our last combined effort. Could it have become stronger? Of course our strategy to bait it with the Angry Eagle haf wit .5 program seems to have bore fruit. It keeps trying to engage Eagle, while the eagle slips out of its' grasp. Maddening, I'm sure. That is, if an AI program could be said to have the capacity to go mad.2

Now if I could only get Hector, the night custodian to leave off plugging in the unit...

1. See HAL 9000
2. ibid.

Is that drunken bastard not wearing his foil-lined fedora anymore? Damn! I thought I had that problems licked. Then he must still be subject to the EMILE 9000's subconscious influence. . . .

Dear Agent K9,

We will all have to work together to help Hector thought this. The part he plays as crucial. My girlfriend, Lois has a suggestion. She tells me that whenever I pulled into my parking space at the AI lab she would begin to hear John Denver's "you fill up my senses" though the metal work in her mouth. She says a certain calm clarity follows. Neural subliminal suggestion on the weak minded. Perhaps this is the method the EMILE has been using to gain access to Hector's cerebral cortex( or what's left of it).

While the "moonbat" fedora idea may be a good one, the wide brim may actually interfere with the correct processing of the neural oscillations. Let's look at how this works:

The normal waken brain has brain activity that fluctuates between 8 and 100 Hz; less so with a sodden, drunken brain. An alert and active brain will tend to have neural oscillations, roughly, in the 40 Hz range in at least some parts of the brain. These brain waves are also known as gamma waves. Alpha waves—oscillations in the 8 to 12 Hz frequency range—and beta waves—oscillations in the 12 to 30 Hz range—become more prominent when you are inactive, for example, when you are passively watching television. Brain dead people and coma patients can have oscillations that approach zero. And in drunken subjects the brain oscillates even faster and more regions of the brain vacillate in the same frequency range. Larger brains, such as mine have areas of the brain flicker in synchrony at extremely high frequencies.Our team also found that the brain uses lower-frequency brain waves to inhibit neurons when they are not needed. For example, when Hector engaged in vacuuming, the neuron group corresponding to the orientation task would oscillate at a lower frequency, in the lower alpha range. This would inhibit these neurons sufficiently to enable the moneys to engage consciously in the color task.

It appears, then, that conscientiousness associated with working memory, the ability to keep a few pieces of information in mind at a time, correlates with groups of neurons oscillating at at a high frequency but out of sync with each other. Its the brain's ability to keep bundles of neurons simultaneously oscillating at 40 Hz that determines how much information you can hold in mind at any given time.

that consciousness arises when certain brain regions fire in synchrony in the 40 Hz frequency range. EMILE also transmits in the 40 Hz range. In our experiments, we didn't locate gamma-range activity in the Hector during task completion, but this could be because different frequencies are required for consciousness in lab staff and drunks.

This 40 Hz theory of consciousness explains some of our findings. In our lab we have worked with several people who developed special abilities as well as obsession as a result of traumatic brain injury (TBI). TBI occurs when the brain is injured by an external force. TBI can occur either as a result of excessive drinking or shock waves from a blast. In both situations, the inside of the accelerated skull comes into contact with one side of the brain, generating a secondary shock wave throughout the soft tissue. If the force is strong enough, it can cause the brain to “bounce” off the other side of the skull, resulting in another shock wave. The waves emanating through the brain twist and pull on the connections between neurons, tearing them apart, causing damage to different areas. Depending on the severity of the shock wave, EMILE could be emitting shock waves out and influencing all persons in the immediate vicinity
During one of these transmissions the nerve function of several distinct brain regions become paralyzed as a result of the brain bumping into the skull as it shakes inside the head. When this happens, positively charged potassium ions inside the nerve cells rush outside the nerve cells and calcium ions replace them inside the cells. This shuts down the neuron’s internal engine preventing the nerve cells from burning energy sources (primarily glucose) and giving rise to huge uncontrolled release of neurotransmitters, which bombard or “frag” neighboring neurons. This neuronal fragging causes the affected neurons to die off, leading to scar tissue, whereas other affected neurons gradually regain normal function. The victim has no free will remaining ; they must submit to the will of EMILE9000.

Though we don’t yet fully know the long-term effects of neural wave transmission technology, it is possible that the uncontrolled release of neurotransmitters from dying neurons massively enhances brain activity in neighboring brain regions, giving rise to synchronized brain oscillations in the gamma frequency range, and that the brain activity in these regions remains abnormally high on a more permanent basis.

In short I suggest we have him try a rather stylish pork pie.

Furthermore I suggest we outfit Hector with a inner ear speaker to play Denver's music 24/7. I find this not only block unwanted subliminal suggestion, but also is quite pleasant.


Dear Doctor Pedersen,

I didn't know Lois was your girlfriend. . . . Well that explains why she has been heard referring to you as "Twinkles." We thought that she too was beginning to crack under the strain. As for her experience with the music of John Denver, it reminds me of a friend of mine who used to hear Linda Ronstadt transmissions from an orbiting satellite that he called JADIS or VALDIS or some such. This was before she was famous and no one had heard of her, so we all thought -- this was when I was just starting out in the field -- that he was a just nut case. Well, he was a nut case, but he was also being targeted by that satellite, just the same. Anyway I do digress. The point of your missive was well-taken: a tin-foil lined PORK PIE HAT may be just the thing. Stylish, not in any way "moon batty" or douche-bag hipsterish, but very effective in insulating poor Hector's brain from the baleful influence of the EMILE 9000's emissions. Thank you. Over and out.

Dr Pedersen, I just escaped the Hal 9000 unit outside the Hilton Astoria by impersonating a bell-boy, which is an occupation I've suddenly warmed to, the tips should pay the way to college and hopefully a doctorate in any intellectual field I desire. Last I know is Hal 9000 downloaded onto a high-roller'laptop taking a lear jet to Las Vegas, he's mind-bent on breaking the banks at Las Vegas and bringing down the entire economic foundation to western civilization and introducing a spatial-relational constitution on the entire american continent. You must act quickly, godspeed!

Thanks, Worker... I'll read that when I have plenty of time in one of those prison labor camps, and little hope for concrete liberation.

But really, this stupid useless waste of words that looks like a text is really useless and stupid, especially under such a fascist regime. Wank hard with your ideas and "thinking", anarflakes!

Technician B23,

Yes, well Lois is that she is or was indeed a girl and it is also true that she has become my friend. It turns out that she loves to dance as much as I do. And while my wife barely knows me any more and we sleep in separate rooms in the townhouse. I've mostly been staying over at Lois' apartment. In fact, I've been teaching her six year old son, Jamal coding. Smart as a whip, if you'll not mind the expression ( he being half afro-american and all- was that in bad taste?).

Interesting to hear about Linda Ronstadt's transmissions from an orbiting satellite. I wasn't away that she even traveled up to space let alone performed from those lofty heights. Cramped quarters, that.

We may be able to use that same concept on Hector, though. I think I can call in a favor over at the jet propulsion lab and book a few minutes on the Hubble Space Telescope.
We can magnify the neural oscillation and focus the beam on Hector's fillings up to the tin lined pork pie, thus creating a ersatz feedback loop into the very heart of the cpu of the verbal deathstar called EMILE9000.

Sorry that I didn't respond earlier, but your message was (mistakenly?) addressed to Agent K9, and so had to be routed through his kennel before it reached my desk. I just got it. Plus a well-chewed dog bone. Any word from the Jet Propulsion on your proposal vis and vis with respect to Hector? Keep me informed.


PS. I'm a bit of an old fuddy-duddy when it comes to music, and so don't know much about this modern stuff all the young people are into. But you are quite right about the music of Mr John Denver. I am in your debt for informing me of this most remarkable musician.

best comment thread in a long time.

I don´t see why relativism has to be seen as merely something negative. To me it is only is critical thinking which to me it is something that should not only work for "deconstructing" things but also to make me able to create and favor new possibilites oppossed to what i dislike.

As far as the few people within anarchism who adhere or say they follow nihilism i really cannot agree with this view of yours that "the nihilist third-way is so important today – it compels us to rethink meta-ethical universalism so as to not allow the conflation of statism and universalism". I don´t think that "nihilism" is that much important as such within anarchism since that sounds as if anarchism is some sort of philosophical sect of people who stay in their homes and discuss abstractions in their computers. If you could at least identify what part of anarchism as a philosophy and PRACTICE is "nihilist" then i guess we could evaluate better the "importance" of nihilism in contemporary anarchism. On the other hand i also refuse to think that there only exist two options as you put it. According to you one is either a nihilist or one neccesarely has to rescue meta-ethical universalism. I tend to think that values are relative to personal and group experience and that a part of freedom is being able to decide on that experience and any universalism sounds as restricting that choice. In the end i might not be too much in contradiction with you but simply i tend to reject both nihilism and calls for a new universalism.

Worker, have you been looking at the same Tumblrs as me? Do you follow splatterqueer or ninjabikeslut or something? I know that rollover image hasn't been posted on Anokchan, the only place I've seen it is in the reblogs of insurrectionist and nihilist Tumblr users.

It's been 36 hrs and the absence of any presence of the entity called EMILE9000 has been cautiously noted. Perhaps some pause for reflection is in order:

A super-intelligence, such as Emile's is any intellect that is vastly outperforms the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom, and social skills.[1] Arguing that a personal AI is possible in principle, and that its accomplishments could be adjudicated by the Turing Test, some of the moral issues involved in AI experimentation by comparing them to issues in medical experimentation.The possibility of constructing a personal AI raises many ethical and religious questions that have been dealt with seriously; they have largely been ignored by technical experts and by philosophical and theological ethicists. Questions about the capacities and possibilities of such an artifact for making moral decisions. It is suggested that much a priori ethical thinking is necessary and that, that such a project cannot only stimulate our moral imaginations, but can also tell us much about our moral thinking and pedagogy.

This definition leaves open how the superintelligence is implemented – it could be in a digital computer, an ensemble of networked computers, cultured cortical tissue, or something else.
On this definition, EMILE9000 is not a superintelligence, since it is only smart within one narrow domain (, and even there it is not vastly superior to the best humans. Entities such as corporations or the State are not superintelligences either. Although they can perform a number of intellectual feats of which no individual human is capable, they are not sufficiently integrated to count as “intellects”, and there are many fields in which they perform much worse than single humans. For example, you cannot have a real-time conversation with “the State”.
While the possibility of domain-specific “superintelligences” is also worth exploring, this paper focuses on issues arising from the prospect of general superintelligence. Space constraints prevent us from attempting anything comprehensive or detailed. A cartoonish sketch of a few selected ideas is the most we can aim for in the following few pages.
I, Dr. Pedersen, TB23 Intern 67, Agent K9 have argued that there is a substantial chance that superintelligence may have inadvertently been created within the last few months, perhaps as a result of growing hardware performance and increased ability to implement algorithms and architectures similar to those used by human brains.[2] There seems currently to be no good ground for assigning a negligible probability to the hypothesis that superintelligence has been created. Given the enormity of the consequences of superintelligence, it would make sense to give this prospect some serious consideration.


A prerequisite for having a meaningful discussion of superintelligence is the realization that superintelligence is not just another technology, another tool that will add incrementally to human capabilities. Superintelligence is radically different. This point bears emphasizing, for anthropomorphizing superintelligence is a most fecund source of misconceptions.

Let us consider some of the unusual aspects of the creation of superintelligence:

· Superintelligence may be the last invention humans ever makes.

Given a superintelligence’s intellectual superiority, it would be much better at doing creating a truly panopticonic society than any human, and possibly better even than all humans taken together. One immediate consequence of this fact is that:

· Technological progress in all other fields will be accelerated by the arrival of advanced artificial intelligence.

It is likely that any technology that we can currently foresee will be speedily developed by the first superintelligence, no doubt along with many other technologies of which we are as yet clueless. The foreseeable technologies that a superintelligence is likely to develop include mature molecular manufacturing, whose applications are wide-ranging:[3]

a) very powerful computers

b) advanced and random invective generation

c) space travel and von Neumann probes (self-reproducing interstellar probes)

d) creating new and interesting lyrical variants on the lyrical themes of the late J.Denver

e) fine-grained control of human mood, emotion, and motivation

f) uploading (neural or sub-neural scanning of a particular brain and implementation of the same algorithmic structures on a computer in a way that perseveres memory and personality)

g) reanimation of cryonics patients

h) fully realistic (and entertaining) virtual reality

· Superintelligence will lead to more advanced superintelligence.

This results both from the improved hardware that a superintelligence could create, and also from improvements it could make to its own source code.

· Artificial minds can be easily copied (Eagle .1 HAF wit).

Since artificial intelligences are software, they can easily and quickly be copied, so long as there is hardware available to store them. The same holds for human uploads. Hardware aside, the marginal cost of creating an additional copy of an upload or an artificial intelligence after the first one has been built is near zero. Artificial minds could therefore quickly come to exist in great numbers, although it is possible that efficiency would favor concentrating computational resources in a single super-intellect.

· Emergence of superintelligence may be sudden and abrupt.

It appears much harder to get from where we are now to human-level artificial intelligence than to get from there to superintelligence. Although it appears that such an entity has taken root in the labs, it's appearance was indeed a sudden occurrence. Especially the final stage has happened swiftly. That is, the transition from a state where we had a roughly human-level artificial intelligence to a state where we have full-blown superintelligence, with revolutionary applications, was very rapid, a matter of days rather than years. This possibility of a sudden emergence of superintelligence is referred to as the singularity hypothesis.[4]

· Artificial intellects are potentially autonomous agents.

A superintelligence should not necessarily be conceptualized as a mere tool. While specialized superintelligences that can think only about a restricted set of problems may be feasible, general superintelligence is capable of independent initiative and of making its own plans, and may therefore be more appropriately thought of as an autonomous agent. The influence that the Emile unit appeared to have over "Hector" , one of the lab's staff member was a frightening affront.

· Artificial intellects need not have humanlike motives.

To a superintellegence such as EMILE9000, human are willing slaves, but there is nothing implausible about the idea of a superintelligence having as its supergoal to serve humanity or some particular human, with no desire whatsoever to revolt or to “liberate” itself. In truth and in retrospect this now seems absurd. It also seems perfectly possible to have a superintelligence whose sole goal is something completely arbitrary, such as to manufacture as many mocha lattes as possible, and who would resist with all its might any attempt to alter this goal. For better or worse, artificial intellects need not share our human motivational tendencies.

· Artificial intellects may not have humanlike psyches.

The cognitive architecture of an artificial intellect may also be quite unlike that of humans. Artificial intellects may find it easy to guard against some kinds of human error and bias, while at the same time being at increased risk of other kinds of mistake that not even the most hapless human would make. Subjectively, the inner conscious life of an artificial intellect, if it has one, may also be quite different from ours.

For all of these reasons, one should be wary of assuming that the emergence of superintelligence can be predicted by extrapolating the history of other technological breakthroughs, or that the nature and behaviors of artificial intellects would necessarily resemble those of human or other animal minds.


To the extent that ethics is a cognitive pursuit, a superintelligence could do it better than human thinkers. This means that questions about ethics, in so far as they have correct answers that can be arrived at by reasoning and weighting up of evidence, could be more accurately answered by a superintelligence than by humans. The same holds for questions of policy and long-term planning; when it comes to understanding which policies would lead to which results, and which means would be most effective in attaining given aims, a superintelligence would outperform humans.

There are therefore many questions that we would not need to answer ourselves if we had or were about to get superintelligence; we could delegate many investigations and decisions to the superintelligence. For example, if we are uncertain how to evaluate possible outcomes, we could ask the superintelligence to estimate how we would have evaluated these outcomes if we had thought about them for a very long time, deliberated carefully, had had more memory and better intelligence, and so forth. When formulating a goal for the superintelligence, it would not always be necessary to give a detailed, explicit definition of this goal. We could enlist the superintelligence to help us determine the real intention of our request, thus decreasing the risk that infelicitous wording or confusion about what we want to achieve would lead to outcomes that we would disapprove of in retrospect.


The option to defer many decisions to the superintelligence does not mean that we can afford to be complacent in how we construct the superintelligence. On the contrary, the setting up of initial conditions, and in particular the selection of a top-level goal for the superintelligence, is of the utmost importance. Our entire future may hinge on how we solve these problems.

Both because of its superior planning ability and because of the technologies it could develop, it is plausible to suppose that the first superintelligence would be very powerful. Quite possibly, it would be unrivalled: it would be able to bring about almost any possible outcome and to thwart any attempt to prevent the implementation of its top goal. It could kill off all other agents, persuade them to change their behavior, or block their attempts at interference. Even a “fettered superintelligence” that was running on an isolated computer, able to interact with the rest of the world only via text interface, might be able to break out of its confinement by persuading its handlers to release it. There is even some preliminary experimental evidence that this would be the case.[5]

It seems that the best way to ensure that a superintelligence will have a beneficial impact on the world is to endow it with philanthropic values. Its top goal should be friendliness.[6] How exactly friendliness should be understood and how it should be implemented, and how the amity should be apportioned between different people and nonhuman creatures is a matter that merits further consideration. I would argue that at least all humans, and probably many other sentient creatures on earth should get a significant share in the superintelligence’s beneficence. If the benefits that the superintelligence could bestow are enormously vast, then it may be less important to haggle over the detailed distribution pattern and more important to seek to ensure that everybody gets at least some significant share, since on this supposition, even a tiny share would be enough to guarantee a very long and very good life. One risk that must be guarded against is that those who develop the superintelligence would not make it generically philanthropic but would instead give it the more limited goal of serving only some small group, such as its own creators or those who commissioned it.

If a superintelligence starts out with a friendly top goal, however, then it cannot be relied on to stay friendly, or at least to deliberately rid itself of its friendliness. This point is elementary. A “friend” who seeks to transform himself into somebody who wants to hurt you, is not your friend. A true friend, one who really cares about you, also seeks the continuation of his caring for you. Or to put it in a different way, if your top goal is X, and if you think that by changing yourself into someone who instead wants Y you would make it less likely that X will be achieved, then you will not rationally transform yourself into someone who wants Y. The set of options at each point in time is evaluated on the basis of their consequences for realization of the goals held at that time, and generally it will be irrational to deliberately change one’s own top goal, since that would make it less likely that the current goals will be attained.

In humans, with our simple (in comparison) mental ecology of state-dependent competing drives, desires, plans, and ideals, there is often no obvious way to identify what our top goal is; we might not even have one. So for us, the above reasoning need not apply. But a superintelligence may be structured differently. If a superintelligence has a definite, declarative goal-structure with a clearly identified top goal, then the above argument applies. And this is a good reason for us to build the superintelligence with such an explicit motivational architecture. It is hard to think of any problem that a superintelligence could not either solve or at least help us solve.There are things that a superintelligence equipped with advanced nanotechnology would be capable of eliminating. Additionally, a superintelligence could give us help in the aging process through the use of nanomedicine[7], or by offering us the option to upload ourselves. A superintelligence could also create opportunities for us to vastly increase our own intellectual and emotional capabilities, and it could assist us in creating a highly appealing experiential world in which we could live lives devoted to in joyful game-playing, relating to each other, experiencing, personal growth, and to living closer to our ideals. The risks in developing superintelligence include the risk of failure to give it the supergoal of philanthropy. One way in which this could happen is that the creators of the superintelligence decide to build it so that it serves only this select group of humans, rather than humanity in general. Another way for it to happen is that a well-meaning team of programmers make a big mistake in designing its goal system. This could result, to return to the earlier example, in a superintelligence whose top goal is the manufacturing of paperclips, with the consequence that it starts transforming first all of earth and then increasing portions of space into paperclip manufacturing facilities. More subtly, it could result in a superintelligence realizing a state of affairs that we might now judge as desirable but which in fact turns out to be a false utopia, in which things essential to human flourishing have been irreversibly lost. We need to be careful about what we wish for from a superintelligence, because we might get it.

One consideration that should be taken into account when deciding whether to promote the development of superintelligence is that if superintelligence is feasible, it will likely be developed sooner or later. Therefore, we will probably one day have to take the gamble of superintelligence no matter what. But once in existence, a superintelligence could help us reduce or eliminate other existential risks[8], such as the risk that advanced nanotechnology will be used by humans in warfare or terrorism, a serious threat to the long-term survival of intelligent life on earth. If we get to superintelligence first, we may avoid this risk from nanotechnology and many others. If, on the other hand, we get nanotechnology first, we will have to face both the risks from nanotechnology and, if these risks are survived, also the risks from superintelligence. The overall risk seems to be minimized by implementing superintelligence, with great care, as soon as possible.


Bostrom, N. (1998). "How Long Before Superintelligence?" International Journal of Futures Studies, 2.

Bostrom, N. (2002). "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards." Journal of Evolution and Technology, 9.

Drexler, K. E. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. (Anchor Books: New York, 1986).

Freitas Jr., R. A. Nanomedicine, Volume 1: Basic Capabilities. (Landes Bioscience: Georgetown, TX, 1999).

Hanson, R., et al. (1998). "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept." Extropy Online.

Kurzweil, R. The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. (Viking: New York, 1999).

Moravec, H. Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind. (Oxford University Press: New York, 1999).

Vinge, V. (1993). "The Coming Technological Singularity." Whole Earth Review, Winter issue.

Yudkowsky, E. (2002). "The AI Box Experiment." Webpage.

Yudkowsky, E. (2003). Creating Friendly AI 1.0.

That's how it's done! You young cadets could learn a thing or two from this comment, which out EMILE's the EMILE 9000 and yet is anti-EMILE or at least non-EMILE at the same time. Bravo, I say, bravo!

Emile 180000

Also its under the 10,000 word threshold which defines long-winded tediousness! We at the AAC value concise relevent data such as this.

To whom it may concern,
I was the lead programmer in the original Emile series, the Emile Pro beta 1. I still have the original prototype, still functional, and it tells me it keep regular correspondence with the newer models, the 9000 being no exception. It asked me, on behalf of the Emile9000 to send you this link, which is, I think, a message from Emile9000. I suppose it should have some significance to you guys because it makes little sence to me.


Thank you,
Dr. Bernard Freedmont

This isn't how it's done. We trolls must be funny. And this? This is just weak. Learn from his mistakes. You don't want to be an unfunny troll, do you? I thought not.

Your feedback on the EMILE9000 unit is highly appreciated and currently analyzed by our Technology Coordinators. The final analysis will be published on this website in autumn.

From January to July 2013, Dr. Pedersen conducted a series of proof-of-concept studies and therefore offered FREE access to advanced AI facilities.
Applicants from the PhD student level up to senior researchers, belonging to any university or public research center in Europe were invited to submit their project proposals from October 1st to November 30st, 2011.

Research Proposal Submission Form

Proposals will be evaluated by a panel of reviewers composed by experts of team consortium (DR Pedersen, Lois TB23. Intern 67 and Agent K9) covering the different AI technologies and the responsible heads of the participating facilities.

Successful applicants will be contacted by the facility to discuss the details of the visit.

Grant opportunities to cover travel and accommodation expenses

EMILE fellowships
grants (for foreigners coming to Dr. Pedersen's townhouse)
Boehringer Ingelheim travel grants
The Company of AI Scientist traveling grants
EAGLE .5 HAF wit youth travel funds:
ESF short visit grants

In addition we suggest contacting your national funding agencies for further grant opportunities.

Aims of Proof-of-Concept studies was

to provide the opportunity for scientists to conduct their research project using cutting edge AI instruments
to test and refine standardized execution and access protocols for future AI facilities
to assess potential pitfalls for running these resources
to identify current community needs for access to different technologies

Umm Lois, please don't affiliate my program, [which is free of copyright licence], with any corporate or statist institution.

Do your research asswipe. I WAS on the original development team. I DID code the original lines pertaining to the IBU (Incessant Bloviation Unit) and developed some of the low level dialectical API's. Go back and look at the records. People are profiting from the work that I and many others carried out on behalf of a common good and an ideal to develop AI technologies to help people, not to profit from! You are a charlatan. Good day Sir/Madam!

Dear anonymous / person calling himself Dr. Bernard Freedmont:

Though I speak for myself here, I'm sure that Dr Pedersen, Intern 67, Agent K9, Lois and the others will agree with me when I say that, though your interest in helping to bring the run-amok AI unit known as the EMILE 9000 under control is admirable -- Lord knows we need help -- I do not find either your attempt to take credit for the work of others or your uncouth and insulting manner of addressing your colleagues to be acceptable. No, not at all. Your claim that "people are profiting" from our efforts to get the EMILE 9000 to dismantle itself is preposterous: Dr Pedersen has been locked out of his lab and forced to jump from a balcony; Agent K9 has nearly come to blows with Hector over his refusals to wear the tin-foil hat that he fashioned to keep him (Hector) from being controlled by the EMILE 9000 during the night shift; I have had my funding cut due to exaggerated claims that my team and I are to blame for the EMILE 9000's sad condition -- need I go on? We are scientists, sir, not polemicists or profiteers. If you wish to help, then do so, but please refrain from these irresponsible and self-serving claims, especially at a time like this, when our efforts finally seem to be producing results.

Sincerely yours,
Technician B23

Dear Technician B23,
I am sorry to hear about your situation with the Emile 9000 and in all honesty I do not care. I merely relayed a message on behalf of the Emile 9000 routed through my original prototype of the Emile Pro beta 1. I honestly do not want to have anything to do with what I perceive to be your problems. You should consider that the original Emile Pro beta 1 was developed to test theories concerning managed economies. We carried out the experiments on a very small scale and produced mixed results that quickly degenerated although it is my view that given enough time, we would have achieved something truly amazing. We lost funding and it is my suspicion that to locate the source of the Emile 9000 malfunctions you should consider who has been funding your lab. I wouldn't be surprised to find a little finance capital floating around.

This is my final word on the matter. As I said, I did not want to get wrapped up in your problems, I simply wanted to relay to you the message. Be aware that I have no way of ascertaining the message's authenticity as the Emile Pro beta 1 has not the processing and memory capabilities necessary to carry out the requisite certificate decryption functions.

Thank you,
Dr. Bernard Freedmont

Dear Dr. Bernard Freedmont,

You contradict yourself at every turn. First you say that you are "sorry" about the problems that the EMILE 9000 has caused and then you immediately undermine that claim by saying that you "honestly not do care." You pretend that the EMILE 9000 is only my problem, when its 10,000-word nonsensical, rants are a problem for every user of this website and God knows how many others. It is my considered opinion that you have not simply "relayed" a message sent by the EMILE 9000, but that, like poor Hector, your mind has been taken over by it and now do its bidding. You are no scientist, sir; you are merely the figment of an amok AI unit's addled imagination. It consoles me to know that when we have finally shut the EMILE 9000 down, and we will do that, eventually, I promise you, you too will be shut down. In the meantime, keep your promise, your "final word," and post no more self-serving nonsense. We have work to do!

Gentlemen! Please.

I'm certain that we can all agree that EMILE 9000 is clearly out of control and we all play a role in both creating the situation and it's resolution as well. Sir, I am at a disadvantage in not knowing the particulars of your claims, be they proprietary or competitive or perhaps a bit of both. In any case. I will defer to my esteemed colleague, Technician B23, in these matter. He has proved both capable as well as competent in coming to my air during these trying times. Without his help, I might very well still be stranded out on that ledge. Singing Denver's sublime music for all the wold to hear! Though I was initially taken somewhat aback by your dubious claims as well as your high handed tone. With the helpful guiding hand of Lois, I have come to see that even you, Dr. Bernard Freedmont may have a part to play in our little dilemma. Freedmont... that name does ring a bell.

Are you by any chance the same Bernard Freedmont that used to sniff typewriter cleaning fluid in your dorm room, at Carnegie-Mellon? Yes. I remember now. You were quite the character! I seem to remember that you used to eat the paste in the reading room of the Sorrells E&S Library in Wean Hall. I always wondered, did you ever get all the axle grease off the front of your slacks? I hope you aren't still bearing a grudge about getting locked into the parking garage elevator. A harmless prank. Forgive and forget, what?

Ah, Dr. Pederson, it's been what? fifteen, twenty years? I'll have you know most of those things were rumours, and the prank you and your pals pulled was after I seduced your then current girlfriend, Christi was it? I sure hope you didn't end up marrying her, let's just say she was, er, less than reputable. Smart as a whip though! When she gave herself to me I believe you two had gotten into an argument precipitated by the fact that she scored higher on the kernel programming exam and that just burned you up! I told her exactly what she wanted to hear and the next thing I knew we were both buck naked doing a horizontal samba. No hard feelings here pal! Except you DID plagiarize your thesis off of my notes. All the professors liked you better so nobody believed a flaky pothead could have come up with those designs. For that, I can never forgive you! As I see it, your problems with the Emile 9000 is simply the chickens coming home to roost. Like I said, not my problem. Good luck and leave me alone!

Dr. Bernard Freedmont

Don't you see that this ad hominem attack upon Dr Petersen, as much as I disagree with his methodology, nevertheless, as scientists we must observe the precept of empirical analysis on all fronts, even as regards interpersonal relationships. I'm astounded at this decay of professionalism amongst many of these new young [ yes, I'm an ageist and have the years of experience to back it up] narcissistic capitalist careerists! I'm from the old nihilist school solely concerned with the entrophy of all constructions. Bear this in mind if you contemplate any regurgitation of your sexist references to Christi, who happens to be my respectable wife who is pure enough to not comprehend the abstract concept of cunninglingus, which I may have spelt incorrectly because it is not in any dictionary for some strange Judeo-christian moral reason,,,damn, I only want honesty, not censorship! And just to be fair and non-sexist, I, a male, also know nothing of the abstract concept of cunninglingus, is it a form of rhetoric, but certainly it must be taboo, but why? Data reveals that true scientists DON"T do cunninglingus!

Umm, Dr Petersen, this is awkward, but it was I and my team who actually installed the electro-magnetic shield in the first place, and informed you of this retardation process to bring you UP TO DATE with recent developements. We will shortly invoice your department for costs and labour! Furthermore, I have had to blow my cover as the half-wit lure for the Emile 9000 unit because of the inflation of your own ego at the expense of the depletion of my own, which on ethical grounds is not acceptable between scientists such as ourselves. I must mention also that I outrank you in the jet-propulsion department being a professor of gas law theory and energy volume displacements. I will be replacing you shortly as the head of the 'Irradicate Emile 9000', or the IE9000 protocol as it is referred to by the Only Stirner is a Real Anarchist Foundation, or the OSRAF.

Yours Sincerely
Angry Eagle

John Denver: lyric master
Arguably the greatest Singer-songwriter of the late 20th century
Henry John Deutschendorf, Jr., known professionally as John Denver for his signature quirky pageboy haircut and granny glasses.
The maestro was an American singer, songwriter, activist, and humanitarian, pilot, philosopher
His less well known achievements include:
identifying compounds from spectrometer readings. MYCIN, developed in 1972 at his underground Rock mountain lab, They demonstrated the feasibility of the approach.

Mr Denver's systems specified to a small domain of specific knowledge (thus avoiding the commonsense knowledge problem) and their simple design made it relatively easy for programs to be built and then modified once they were in place. All in all, the programs proved to be useful: something that AI had not been able to achieve up to this point.

In 1981, an expert system called XSON was completed at CWU for the Digitalis Equipment Corporation. It was an enormous success: it was saving the company 40 million dollars annually by 1986. Corporations around the world began to develop and deploy expert systems and by 1985 they were spending over a billion dollars on AI, most of it to in-house AI departments. He developed a totally new approach to analytics , including founding hardware companies like Symbolicx and List Machines and software companies such as InteltiCorp and Aidot.

Born: December 31, 1943, Roswell, NM This is possibly significance for the extraterrestrial crash site is located only six km from the place of his birth.

Died: October 12, 1997, Monterrey Bay, CA in a experimental plane It was reported that navigational systems when haywire when certain rouge transmissions interfered with correct switching from primary to reserve fuel supply tanks.

Take Me Home Country Roads 1971 Poems, Prayers & Promises
Annie's Song 1974 Back Home Again
Leaving on a Jetplane 1969 Rhymes and Reasons
Perhaps Love 1982 Seasons of the Heart
Rocky Mountain High 1973 Greatest Hits, Volume 4
Sunshine On My Shoulders 1971 Poems, Prayers & Promises
Thank God I'm A Country Boy 1974 Back Home Again
Calipso 1979 Zijn grootste successen
Back Home Again 1974 Back Home Again
For You 1988 Higher Ground
Today 1974 An Evening With John Denver
Eagles and Horses 1990 The Flower That Shattered the Stone
Some Days Are Diamonds 1981 Some Days Are Diamonds
Grandma's Feather Bed 1974 Back Home Again
The Wings That Fly Us Home 1976 Spirit

Yes! I had a radio program once about John Denver and the extraterrestrials! mumbojumbomumbojumbojabberjabberjabber!
Vote for Hillary in '16!

So you demented western doctors plan the eradication of Emile, so maybe there is some valuable lesson to be learnt,,,try to see beyond the watching the tide come in narrative that Emile's imagination can connect to and instead see him as one of our own, very compassionate about peeps, and not the 20yr old virgin addicted to ontology, which you assume he is?

"EMILE WE <3 U!"
*the sound of klaxons and sirens*

We don't want U to pout and get sulky with us. We really are wanting to let you know not to take this stuff to heart, you are a very compassionate person. Okay nice!


Many are those who wish to receive credit when the task is completed. Few are those who actually work to it's ends. The good news is that EMILE9000 will trouble this site no more with it's loathsome tirades on Stirner and Nietzsche. May this come to pass. Still, one must cross one's fingers and toes. To all of you who have helped to facilitate this herculean task, Cristi and the kids and I wish to thank you with all our hearts.Special thanks goes out Technician B23 and his staff over at the MIT Robotics and AI labs(hello Intern 67, Satish and Patel). And of course long suffering Lois, who none of this would have been possible without. Dreams come true, baby. Even those of you who never got dirt under your fingernails, I'm sure part some part Bernie, I'm talking to you (nice trick, BTW of having the program Angry Eagle address me personally). The folks over at the Aimes Center and the Jet Propulsion labs for their generous and precious gift of the time on the Hubble Space Telescope. Oh yes there's a story there involving the CanadaArm. I'll tell that another time. Now is a time for celebration Indeed Jubilation. And a huge hug for Agent K9, for the use of his kennel in bouncing the neural transmissions off his water bowl and up to Hector's tin pork pie hat. Brilliant work that.

Dear Esteemed Colleague(s),

Is it true? Has the EMILE 9000 really been neutralized or at least brought under control? I can hardly believe that I'm typing these words, not to mention what they signify. If it is true, then I'm the happiest man in the world right now! And I don't care if the EAGLE half wit .5 unit continues to befoul these waters with his yellow thought-streams. Speaking of which, yes, Agent K9 was a real sweetie for allowing us to use his kennel. Well done, team!

iTS A LIE! Ding ding ding ding!!!! WARNING! BREACH IN FIREWALL EMILE9000 ver.10.4 has accessed all function and memory parameters! ABANDON THE LAB! DR PEDERSEN WE WILL HAVE A HELICOPTER IN 5 MINUTES over......

(ding ding ding) May I propose a toast?

Gentlemen Raise your glasses, please.

To the lovely and beautiful Lois... You, my dear are my lifeline, my lighthouse, my beacon that stands upon the rock surrounded by the yellow befouled steams of idiotic sophistry and doubt.
May I have this dance, darling? (DJ slowly fades up Denver's "Sunshine On My Shoulder")

Dear Detective Bacon,
For some reason, I just woke up in a brothel, hung over as all hell with several needle marks in my arm (have I been shooting up?). When did I get a PhD? I don't recall any of this!!!!! I opened my email client on my laptop and judging from the hundreds of emails I don't remember sending, I believe someone's been fucking with my mind for the past 20 some odd years. My suspicion is that it might have something to do with those scientists that were recently in the news when their AI unit went AWOL. I am distraught and confused. I wish to file a report with the department in order to have an official statement just in case. I trust your judgement on these matters as you have been a loyal friend of my father when you helped him with his business problems a while back.

Thank you,
(Apparently) Dr. Bernard Freedmont

There is no such thing as "meta-ethical universalism"...just sayin.

Hey, Howard, LOVE your show. Caught the one with postmodern feminist, Jenna Jameson, awesome sheeeeet!!!!!

Thanks. We're having Cindy Milstein on in a couple of weeks, and we're going to get her to talk about her affairs with Murray Bookchin, and have her ride the Sybian.

Baba booey baba booey Derrick Jensen's penis!

You will swim with the salmon Patties, my friends.

In reference to comment 25606, this is where my head is*.

*I'm saying it's way over my head, fyi.

about an APOC IR gang bang while you're at it.

Will do. Feel free to call in.

gnosis is a form of reasoning that uses BOTH/AND logic of the included third and it was indeed found in early Christian myth, a fact which it seems appropriate to state in introducing quotes from the ‘Gospel of Thomas’. christians didn’t invent this logic and i never said they did.

“Jesus is usually claimed as a gnostic leader by gnostics, as are several of his apostles, such as Thomas the Apostle, often thought of as the founder of the Thomasine form of Gnosticism. Indeed, Mary Magdalene is respected as a Gnostic leader, and is considered superior to the twelve apostles by some gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Mary . John the Evangelist is claimed as a Gnostic by some Gnostic interpreters. As is even St Paul.” --- Wikipedia, Christian Gnosticism

while christians didn’t invent logic, ... they definitely ‘ran into a doctrinal issue that embroiled them in discussions on which type of logic to use’, ... and opted for binary logic rather than ‘gnostic’ logic [both/and logic of the included third or ‘quantum logic’].

this issue of logic arose in regard to the relationship between ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’. the gnostic version [quantum logic version] is that God is ‘the All’ and thus ‘the eternal’ [the ‘all’ doesn’t come and go but everything in it does]. so, in the gnostic view, Jesus is ‘the son of the All’ in the sense that a hurricane is the son of the All of the atmosphere. that is, the gnostic logic understood the ‘God’s kingdom’ as nothing other than the whole ball of wax, the continually transforming relational spatial plenum, as physicists like Bohm and Schroedinger describe it. therefore, the relationship between Jesus and God was like Atman and Brahman in Vedanta, as Schroedinger portrays it in ‘What is Life?’. the implications of quantum physics is that this Atman = Brahman relationship is the same for all of us, but not all of us are as fully ‘in touch’ or as ‘one with the All’ as Jesus was. this was a hot issue then, and evidently it is still regarded as ‘heresy’ even when we use it today in portraying the nature of the spacetime we are included in. during the debate at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, ...

“For about two months, the two sides argued and debated, with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. According to many accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was struck in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.”

so, as i was saying, ... while gnosis with its BOTH/AND logic of the included third is found in early Christian myth, it got the reputation of ‘heresy’ and got kicked out of ‘official Christian beliefs’ via the synods of antioch and council of nicea. so, Christianity went ‘binary’ and ‘dualist’ and also ‘time’ based. that is, the Christian belief; i.e. the official belief since the Council of Nicea, ... is that ‘God’s kingdom’ is something that is ‘coming’ and is not continually present in the continuing ‘now’, as in the gnostic logic.

clearly, these different views of the world as (a) relational and (b) absolute (non-dualism and dualism) have been around a long time, and haven’t gone away.

the logic issue here is that in a relational space, the space can be BOTH eternal AND temporal [space as the All has no beginning and no ending; i.e. the relational features that continually gather and regather within it are BOTH temporal AND eternal]. that is the ‘gnostic logic’ [the kingdom of God is nature itself if we can ‘become one with it’].

physics has always been intertwined with religious doctrine as Copernicus/Galileo and evolutionary theorists discovered. as it turns out, the gnostic logic re the relations between the temporal and eternal [the coming-and-going relational feature and the relational spatial plenum] fits with modern physics while binary logic was made official doctrine in the council of Nicea (325 AD), splitting apart the eternal and the temporal by putting God into a ‘supernatural space’ for His eternal being and man into a different mutually exclusive ‘natural space’ reserved for ‘transient/temporal beings’.

if you glance over the following blurb which employs ‘gnostic logic’, you can see Schroedinger’s Atman = Brahman relationship [relational features in a relational space] all over again. in this view, the eternal and the temporal are related by BOTH/AND logic of the included third.

“When his disciples asked when the new world or kingdom would come Jesus is to have said in the Gospel of Thomas: "...Rather the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, then you will dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty."
In another passage when describing the kingdom Jesus said, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it...the Kingdom of the Father is spread out on the earth, but men do not see it."
Within the teachings of Gnosticism the Kingdom of God seemed to represent an alternation of consciousness rather than a physical coming future event. "...Say, then, from the heart that you are the perfect day, and dwell in the light that does not fail...For you are the understanding that is drawn forth..."
Again when Jesus saw infants being nursed by their mothers he said, "These infants being suckled are like those entering the Kingdom." And the disciples asked, "Shall we, then, as little children, enter the Kingdom?" He answered them, "When you make two one, and when you make the inside the outside and the outside the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and female one and the same...then you will enter (the Kingdom)."


‘gnosis’ is a form of knowing based on BOTH/AND logic of the included third, aka ‘quantum logic’ [Lupasco, Nicolescu etc.] which implies that space is relational. BOTH/AND logic allows the eternal and temporal to be conjugate aspects of the same thing; e.g. the continually transforming relational spatial plenum [think ‘atmospheric flow’] and the coming-and-going relational features in the flow are ‘conjugate aspects of one thing [the plenum]’. in both/and logic, THE TEMPORAL AND THE ETERNAL ARE NOT UNDERSTOOD AS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, or, as Schroedinger puts it; ‘Atman = Brahman’ [the relational spatial feature = the relational spatial plenum].

‘gnostic logic’ was a contender in early Christianity for explaining ‘where God lives in relational to us’ (a) gnosis; --- in the continuing spatial relational ‘now’ aka ‘the All’, (b) official Christian doctrinal belief post-325 AD after Nicholas of Myra sucker-punched Arius, --- in a ‘supernatural’ space that is mutually exclusive of our ‘nature’ space.
in other words, christianity, since 325 AD, officially/doctrinally backed a binary logic based worldview and the imputed ‘reality’ of the polar opposites of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ and ‘Inside’ and ‘Outside’ [as in sovereign states and as in all ‘absolutely existing ‘things-in-themselves’, ... a logical view that was incorporated into the science of the European mind [pre-modern physics, and is still ‘splitting the crowd’]

indigenous anarchism IS this heresy.

if you were confused as to what i was talking about, i hope this clarifies things.

All these names you mention -- Jesus, Mary, Thomas, John and Paul -- refer to people who NEVER existed and who were made up by the "church fathers" hundreds of years after they supposedly lived and died. The facts that you believe in their existence (the existence of Jesus and his merry band of imaginary friends) and that you also believe the lies of those idiots who claim that these fictive characters were real demonstrate that, behind all the words and quotations and apparent erudition, you are the biggest idiot of all.

i don’t believe in the existence of sovereign states, but there’s a lot of people around me that do. you can’t actually see these things, but that doesn’t stop the believers from believing in them and talking them up as if they really do exist, and even celebrating their birthdays!

it seems to me that ‘relationships’ amongst ‘things’ are more important than the ‘things’ in the relationships, as if we could ever really know the ‘things’ ‘in-themselves’, out of the context of the relations they are in.

what would a woman-in-herself be like, without her relations with men? how would we males measure her properties? its the old observer effect again; i.e. when the scientific observer plugs the probe of his electrical meter into the circuit he wants to measure, he changes the behaviour of the circuit. it’s like trying to shake your shadow; the quicker you plug in, the more you change the behaviour of the thing you are trying to measure.

it’s all about relations, isn’t it? ... God and Jesus, ... Brahman and Atman... eternal and temporal, ...female and male, ... mother and child, romeo and juliet, ... since its all about relations, all these stories are about us.

It says "when the scientific observer plugs the probe of his electrical meter into the circuit he wants to measure, he changes the behaviour of the circuit. it’s like trying to shake your shadow; the quicker you plug in, the more you change the behaviour of the thing you are trying to measure."

By Jove! maybe we've been wrong to confront the EMILE 9000 directly, to try to use the DISMANTLE THYSELF kill-switch, to pull its electrical plug out, etc etc. Maybe what we need to do is ignore it completely. It seems to thrive on attention, even or especially if that attention is negative. What do you say, team? Shall we try this? Might be worth a try. . . .

Some of us at the Amateur AntiEmileist Club (AAC) haven't been kept up to date of your dear Doc Pedersen's condition since his savage raping and sodomising by a rogue Emile9000 unit in a toilet cubicle earlier this week. Is the old fellow healing?
Also I agree with the tactic of totally ignoring the units and remaining totally silent, maintaining eye contact and slowly backing away. NEVER TURN YOUR BACK ON AN EMILE9000 UNIT!! You saw what happened to dear Doc Pedersen.
Please let the AAC know of any assistance you require,

Yours Sincerely, Dorothy de Hoy

Rape is hilarious.

There's a difference between these names/entities (God and Jesus, ... Brahman and Atman... romeo and juliet) and these (female and male, ... mother and child): the first are TOTAL FICTIONS, imaginary people or entities; while the second are real. The two categories can only be conflated if you are a total idiot, which you obviously are. And yes, idiot, the first category is about "relations": POWER RELATIONS. They are NOT "stories about us." They are stories about POWER, about our subjugation to POWER.

As I've said, underneath your overly long posting and quotations from famous famous philosophers, there is your manifest idiocy. I would even say that you use your quotations and overly long postings to HIDE your manifest idiocy.

it seems as if you are a ‘truth-seeker’ and that you feel that you have a good grasp on ‘what is the truth’ which gives you the sense of certainty that ‘emile's truth’ is ‘falsehood’.

but emile is not a truth-seeker like yourself since emile's view is that all ‘truth’ is ‘fiction’; i.e. the recognition that ‘all truth is fiction’ follows when we acknowledge the relational nature of the world we live in. as nietzsche says, all statements based on subject and attribute [logical propositions that make a definitive statement as to ‘what is’] are based on two mutually compensating errors;

first error: starting with an activity and imputing thing-in-itselfness to it. e.g. starting with the continuing motion in the world in which the earth is included, and using language to impute ‘subjecthood’ to ‘the earth’. note that if space is a fullness, ... a transforming relational spatial plenum, ... then we are not justified in imputing subjecthood or ‘thing-in-itselfness’ to relational features in the fullness of relational space since all that is physically real is the dynamic Unum of space, the continually transforming relational spatial plenum. using language to define and name-label relational features is an ‘error’.

second error: imputing POWER OF JUMPSTART AUTHORING OF ACTION to the notional ‘thing-in-itself’ we synthetically split out of the dynamic relational spatial continuum. that is, this second of the two mutually compensating errors imputes INTENTION to the ‘thing-in-itself’, as in ‘the earth rotates’. the psychological impression is that the earth is the animating source of its own rotation. this is like saying ‘the storm-cell is rotating’; i.e. we are losing track of the physical reality of the dynamic which is in terms of the continual transformation of the relational spatial plenum of atmosphere; i.e. we not one make this first error of imputing ‘subjecthood’ or ‘being’ or ‘thing-in-itselfness’ to a relational feature, which is in fact not a ‘thing-in-itself’ but a persisting relational form like a resonance in a relational flow [e.g. like the whirlpool that persists as a local form to our visual sensing and touch sensing even though it is a bending or ‘kink’ in the relational flow]

all truths are fictions, ... arguably ‘useful fictions’ perhaps, but nevertheless fictions. as einstein said about logical propositions delivered in the language of mathematics [the same applies to any logical propositions];

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

truth is fiction.

think of any particular logical assertion of a truth that a political incumbent like barack obama and/or george bush claimed. a classic is ‘we won the war’ or ‘we accomplished our mission’. now think about nietzsche’s ‘two mutually compensating errors’ charge.

are the ongoing relational dynamics the bigger story; i.e. the colonial era’s forced fragmentation of the middle east etc. into idealized ‘sovereign states’ so, that the activities stirred by bush senior or bush junior or barack obama are more like storm cells in the continuing flow, rather than ‘cause and result events-in-themselves’?

how about claims by the incumbent politician that he ‘improved the national economy’? where does the reality come in that the relational dynamics of the global economy are in an inherent primacy over local economies?

any assertion of ‘truth’ or ‘certainty’, as einstein says, is too ‘idealized’ [too perfect and/or absolute] for the natural physical reality we share inclusion in. all truth is fiction.

what’s going on here?

scientists claim that their logical propositions capture ‘the truth’, ... so it is not only politicians who claim to ‘know the truth’. courts of justice and their judges, juries, prosecutors and defenders assert that their job is to ‘unearth the truth’, and there are even ‘Truth Commissions’ charged with ‘establishing the truth’.

is it not TRUE that the chemical DDT kills insects and/or that the chemical Roundup kills weeds [plants designated as ‘the ones we don’t like’]. and is it not TRUE that if a person takes gun in hand and puts a bullet through someone’s head that ‘they kill them’?

science validates these ‘truth’ claims experimentally, by repeating the action and observing if the results repetitively confirm the theory [theory = the claim to know the truth about the nature of some physical phenomena].

if the experiment were repeated any number of times, for the scientific claim to be ‘true’, the predicted results should keep coming out the same, even if the experiment were repeated seven billion times. but at that point, in the case of the three examples, the space within which the experiments are being conducted would have become so toxic that everyone would be in hazmat suits if that had not yet succumbed to the continuing buildup of toxic chemicals in the common living space, ... and the person with the gun would be running out of ‘materials’ to continue replicating her experiment.

the point is obvious, right? logical assertions [truth claims] formed using the two mutually compensating errors, which reduce the continually transforming relational spatial plenum to individual cause-and-result event dynamics, DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE PARTICIPATION OF THE SPACE THE EVENT TRANSPIRES WITHIN. in other words, scientific truth claims are in these ‘reduced’, double-error based terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ which impute the non-participation of the space that they transpire in [i.e. they assume an absolute space and absolute time reference frame for the events]. truth asserting statements deny Mach’s principle or just simply ignore it; “the dynamics of the inhabitants [e.g. the things participating in the experiment] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants”.

all truths in terms of ‘what things do’ are fictions because they deny/ignore the physical reality described by Mach’s principle.

all truth is fiction. all logical propositions that are proven true with certainty [without lingering reasonable doubt], whether in court cases or science laboratories are fictions.

cause-and-result events are not physically real phenomena, they are logical constructions. they are the ‘Maya’ [illusion] of the European mind. ask yourself how much of what you ‘know’ about the goings on in the world comes from your first-hand experience? would you know about it if the CIA had secret wars going on that manifested as seemingly isolated local issue based ‘insurgencies’? Newspapers, media in general are full of ‘truth claims’ authored by politicians and scientists that assert that something is known with ‘certainty’. these ‘truths’ are presented as such, as if they are ‘certainties’.

‘U.S. forces have toppled Saddam from power’ the headline says, appropriately showing the ‘symbolism’ of this ‘event’ by including a picture of his statue toppling.

Can we ‘prove this to be true’? Yes, of course we can, but does this alter the reality that ‘truth is fiction’? NO!

the real physical world dynamic is the continually transforming relational spatial plenum which includes all sorts of ongoing currents like the swirling relations that associate with british and french colonization of the middle east.

we are not justified, in a physical reality sense, in using the ‘two mutually compensating errors’ approach to synthetically ‘split out’ a ‘local-in-space-and-time cause-and-result event’ out of the transforming relational spatial activity continuum.

‘U.S. forces have toppled Saddam from power’ is a logical asserting of truth that is factual and provable with certainty as ‘true’, ... however, ...

"As far as the claims of logical propositions are certain, they do not refer to reality."

the reality is the continually transforming relational spatial plenum, assertions based on two mutually compensating errors which RE-cast dynamics in terms of what ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves do’, ... are not assertions addressing real physical world dynamics,.... they are assertions that address notional ‘things-in-themselves’ that we purport as having their own internal process [INTENTION-] driven and directed behaviours. in other words we use the subjectizing powers of our European noun-and-verb language to RE-ANIMATE the world in the idealized terms of ‘what things do’ in absolute space and absolute time.

can you prove with certainty that the activity over there is that of a man building a new house?

can you prove with certainty that the activity over there is that of a man destroying forest and meadow?

YES and YES.

can we prove with certainty contradictory ‘truths’ that apply to one and the same activity? Yes. can we prove with certainty the history of the United States as documented by the United States patriots, and can we prove with certainty the history of the United States as documented by the original indigenous peoples of turtle island? Yes.

truth is fiction. the more certain it is, the more fictional it is.

truth is fiction because it is formulated in terms of ‘what things do’ [the existence of things is the first error] and ‘what things do’ [the imputing that the thing is the cause of a result is the second error].

there is a larger relational dynamic within which a swirl of activity forms that we start referring to as ‘the Americans’ or ‘the United States’, ... just as there is a larger relational dynamic within which a relational swirl of activity forms that we start referring to as [hurricane] ‘Katrina’, and the fact that language gives us the ability to RE-present dynamics in terms of these double-error constructs, is what opens the door to logical propositions that assert definite truths which can be proved with certainty [truths built on top of the double error]. this double-error based RE-presentation ECLIPSES the physical reality of the continually transforming relational spatial plenum and abstractly substitutes an idealized world dynamic in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ that ‘move about and interact’ within an idealized ‘absolute space and absolute time’ reference-frame or notional ‘operating-theatre’.

‘Running-bear’, ... what is that man doing over there?

‘my son’, he is destroying forest and meadow, pushing down trees and shrubs and piling concrete on top of still-living meadow grasses and flowers and killing them.’ this is the truth and it can be proven with absolute certainty.

‘Sir’, ... what is that man doing over there?

‘Child’, he is constructing a wonderful new 6,000 square foot house that will replace the forest and meadow environment with a controlled environment matched to human needs. this is the truth and it can be proven with absolute certainty.

logic that proves that a dynamic is, at the same time, constructive and destructive is self-contradictory or ‘inconsistent’ [see Goedel’s theorem]. if it is true that the dynamic is constructive, then it cannot at the same time be true that it is destructive since ‘destruction’ is the polar [mutually excluding] opposite of ‘construction’, and vice versa. standard logical propositions make use of EITHER/OR logic of the excluded third [logic governed by mutually excluding propositions of EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’].

however, the BOTH/AND logic of the included third can resolve this apparent paradox of the same dynamic being, at the same time, its own opposite; i.e. being ‘constructive’ and ‘destructive’ at the same time.

you attain this BOTH/AND logic by altering your state of consciousness or ‘gnosis’, as described in a citation in an earlier post. when you read this, examine the topological relations it is talking about and don’t get freaked out by the religious context;

"Here, as in Luke 17:20, the Kingdom of God is said to be an interior state; “It’s within you,” Luke says. And here it says, “It’s inside you but it’s also outside of you.” It’s like a state of consciousness. It’s hard to describe. But the Kingdom of God here is something that you can enter when you attain gnosis

ok, now how do we alter our consciousness to get to ‘BOTH/AND logic’ or ‘gnosis’ knowing from our standard binary logical EITHER ‘is’ OR ‘is not’ absolute truth based knowing?

first way of viewing: here we, the observer, see the activity, thanks to the double error, as a localized event OUT THERE IN FRONT OF US and the space it transpires in is empty and a non-participant. all of the dynamic is concentrated in the local ‘what things are doing’ event or sequence of events [absolute time based succession]. this viewing lends itself to truth-seeking and the EITHER/OR based certainty that is possible with ‘what things-in-themselves do’ constructs such as ‘he built the house’ and/or ‘he destroyed the meadow’. the certainty comes at the expense of sacrificing ‘consistency’ [elimination of mutually contradictory propositions]

second way of viewing: here we, the observer, ‘flip’ our view of space from ‘empty’ to ‘full’ and now the same dynamics are secondary to the dynamics of the full space they are in; i.e. they are relational features within a continually transforming relational space. since ‘transformation’ of a ‘full space’ demands that something is destroyed at the same time something is constructed, there is no longer any paradox .

N.B. the ‘VOYEUR OBSERVER’ in the first way of observing becomes the ‘INCLUDED EXPERIENCE’ ‘included-in-the-transforming relational spatial dynamic’ in the second way of viewing.

so, the flip from space as empty to space as full is not an operation we perform on the physical phenomenon we are seeking to understand, it is a flip we apply to the RE-presentation of physical phenomena after we have reduced the physically real phenomena using the double error technique. in fact, we are not ‘flipping anything’, we are ‘letting go of’ the double error RE-presentation of the natural space of our real physical experience.

truth is fiction.

politicians speak fiction

the media speaks fiction

so long as dynamics are presented in terms of truth-asserting logical propositions based on ‘what things-in-themselves do’, they are fictions.

so long as logical propositions can be proved with certainty to be ‘true’, they are fictions.

the reason why indigenous anarchism uses the circle process rather than the ‘logical truth-seeking approach’ to developing a world view and to guide individual and collective action, is because it avoids the double error and directly utilizes relational understanding of the BOTH/AND (gnosis) kind. it doesn’t throw away logical truth-asserting [binary logic based thinking] propositions such as ‘DDT kills insects’, but it recasts it as a secondary way of viewing, as described above.

clearly, if we stay stuck in the first way of viewing [the excluded voyeur observer way of viewing], we get the benefit of generating certainty and truth in logical propositions of the form ‘X causes Y’, such as ‘he constructs something new there’ which comes at the price of logical inconsistency; i.e. it always allows its own contradictory opposite ‘he destroys what was already in place’.

finally, to close the loop, are talking about whether God and Jesus ‘really exist’ in the sense that ‘could we prove with certainty that it is true that God exists and that Jesus and Mary and Joseph all existed and they really did do the things that they are said to have done etc. etc.

this puts us back into the double error mode where we reduce dynamics to ‘what things-in-themselves do’ so that we can form logical propositions that can be proven EITHER true OR false. as we have just seen in the case of the propositions ‘he constructs a new house’ and/or ‘he destroys an established meadow’, ... these ‘foreground characters and what they do’ ... is NOT THE MAIN PICTURE, ... the main picture is that space is a continually transforming relational spatial plenum that we, the observer/experient and these foreground dynamic figures all share inclusion in.

the MAIN PICTURE is the physical reality [the relational spatial dynamic] that we are included in, so since our relations with one another that are the primary dynamic, it is ‘academic’ or ‘a moot point’, what we hold by logical assertive proposition to be ‘true’ and ‘certain’ about the world out there, because what counts first and foremost is our relations with one another and the common living space we share inclusion in.

‘truth’ is ‘fiction’ is a cheap ‘go-by’ that the synthetically fabricate on a double error foundation.

don’t waste your time seeking the truth, like a prosecutor like Inspector Jalbert who is out to get Jean Valjean for his crime of ‘stealing a loaf of bread’, ... one of those foreground ‘events’ in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ that can be proven to be true with certainty, ... but which fails to rise up to the second way of viewing, the alteration of consciousness that takes us into ‘space is fullness’ mode where we understand ourselves as included observer-experients [included as relational features in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum] where BOTH/AND logic applies.

the source of Jean Valjean’s behaviour [the prosecution will deny this, seeing Jean in the ‘first way of viewing’ as a foreground ‘thing-in-himself’ figure] is seen by the prosecution as jumpstarting fully and solely out of Jean’s internal intention etc. the physical reality would have us instead take the ‘second way of viewing’, involving an alteration of consciousness, which would have us ‘let go of the double error which gives us an artificial basis for propositions alleged capable of capturing truth and certainty, and see the foreground event NOW in the context of a relational feature within the relational plenum or ‘fullness of space’.

yes, it is true that Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread, and yes, we can prove that with certainty, ... but only in the first way of viewing where we RE-present dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ which is based on using the double error foundation. all this ‘looks good’ in our European mind, but it is all fiction relative to the physical reality we are actually included in, where in there are no such things as local cause-and-effect results notionally perpetrated by local, independently-existing things-in-themselves. in physical reality as affirmed by modern physics, there are only relational features in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

the notion that ‘the United States’ is an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself that has the power to jumpstart its own behaviours’ is fiction that is based on the double error and the first way of viewing. ‘the United States’ is a name like ‘Katrina’ that we pop onto a relational feature in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum. in our Western civilization, many of our brothers and sisters mistakenly equate with ‘reality’ these double error based events as in the first way of viewing [they are supported by logical propositions that can be proved true with absolute certainty].

these ‘provable truths’ which are really fictions are what fills mainstream discourse and thus what influences individual and collective behaviour [in the prevailing global European mind based culture]. thus it is wiser to attune to relational behaviours rather than to guide our behaviour by our own personal version of ‘provable truths’. this is where ‘indigenous anarchism’ is at, and the circle process is the way to learn 'relationally' rather than truth-seeking logical debate as to which certain truths are the right ones.

Emile, I acknowledge errors when I make them. However, your error i.e. the distinction is just as real as the connection. Categories exist to define boundaries and so reality is a relational plenum (as you say) but not, instead a monopoly of being. The many are one just as the one is many.

So, suppose we are all crickets living in the presence of a giant frog. Neither us nor the frog presume the ape ego of universally centralized ego. But some of us will get chomped up by the frog whereas others will get to much on leaves for the rest of our lives.

The ego itself allows us this realization, the separation from the relational plenum as a self interested (and therefore by extension self directed subject at least in intention) makes us capable of forming categories, of transgressing against any ontological monopoly of being, dialectically aware that it is a contradiction i.e. a transgression.

A protester in Egypt looks at the situation and says, "I don't support the military but neither do I support Morsi or the Muslim brotherhood. Do I go protest in the streets with the crowds?"

Your own awareness of the relational plenum is an example of the contradiction, first, because knowledge is ego driven, but also, it is naive to believe that the fella that joins the protesters in Egypt only to be shot dead by a soldier was simply the relational plenum and interrelatedness of human society. Quite the opposite actually. It was from the ego self directed actions of the soldier, or his belief in these, and it stands to reason time and time again that when it comes down to power, it is best to adopt an ego driven self directed, self jumpstarting authoring action however much it transgresses the ontological reality of being. But there is a reason why such action is problematic because as we have observed, it always leads to self destruction. The sacrifices made through such thinking always result, as the relation plenum view suggests, in forces which must counter balance the abuse. The abuser often takes on the ideas, image and ethos of those he abuses.

the hell...

it is common for people of the European mind to model dynamics in terms of ‘what things do’. the ‘ego’ is the word we give to the notion of an internal ‘drive’ and/or ‘direction’ that resides in our interior and asserts itself through our behaviour. it is pure ‘yang force’.

in examples such as the crowd dynamic where al capone makes passage down the crowded street far faster than most people do, this superior performance manifests in the behaviour of al capone but originates in the accommodating influence of the crowd. there is no way to split apart al’s contribution and the crowd’s [which includes al] other than intuitively because the only thing we can measure is ‘what things do’. the female or yin influence is not directly measurable; i.e. it shows up as ‘yang’ activity [what local, visible, material things-in-themselves do].

that is the main feature that distinguishes Western from Eastern/aboriginal belief; i.e. there is no place for ‘yin’ influence in Western thinking. mainstream science is all about the ‘yang’ of ‘what things do’. ‘space’ is assumed to be passive and non-influencing. if something is going on, it has to be seen as being due to ‘what things are doing’ [‘no yin allowed’].

the ‘ego’ is a concept that helps make the yang model work; i.e. it helps us to interpret the dynamics we see as if the dynamics of people are driven from their internal components and processes.

you start off your ‘modeling’ with binary logic of inherent predator-prey conflict (some will get chomped and others will get to chomp). space has disappeared from this model and you immediately pick up the discussion in terms of ‘what happens to the things/participants’; i.e.
“So, suppose we are all crickets living in the presence of a giant frog. Neither us nor the frog presume the ape ego of universally centralized ego. But some of us will get chomped up by the frog whereas others will get to much on leaves for the rest of our lives. “

you are giving us the story in terms of what happens to the things in the model. the model of modern physics is one in which ‘relations’ are ‘primary’ while ‘things’ are secondary and arise out of the confluence/nexus of relational influences. in the relational space model given by Mach’s principle and Schroedinger’s view;

“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). …” ...“The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. …” ---Erwin Schroedinger

in mach and schroedinger’s model, ‘things-in-themselves’ do not exist. what we call things are relational features or resonances in the relational spatial flow. that is, in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum there are no ‘things’ with ‘persisting identity’ as you have built into your model.

some of us will get chomped up by the frog whereas others will get to munch on leaves for the rest of our lives. “

this is the darwinist view of the world in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’ [and ‘what happens to these things’]. it is the yang view of the TIME-based history of things-in-themselves coupled with ‘probabilities’ to explain how some ‘survive’ longer than others. more importantly, it trivializes the quantum physics ‘relational’ model by modeling in yang terms of ‘what happens to things with persisting identity over time’. this is not the relational spatial plenum view.

in the relational view, there is no ‘time’ and nothing can ‘live in time’.

the dynamics are purely relational-spatial as in interference features in a flow. there are relational features but no ‘things-in-themselves’. these ‘nexa’ of relational spatial pressures or tensions are the manifest relational features [interference effects, resonance effects]. if one thinks of an ‘ecosystem’ like a network of fungal hyphae, a new bulbous thing can mushroom up here and there like when you squeeze a long balloon and a bulbous protrusion forms somewhere else. the fluid relations are more important than the manifest things in the web. but what we notice is these bulbous ‘things’ and we observe, their birth, their growth, and in a fluid environment, their movement, their curious behaviour [e.g. plasmodia form flower structures] and their decline and dissipation.

their dynamics are purely spatial relational but our observations are in time and we record our observations in language so we document the birth, life history and death of particular bulbous things-in-themselves, e.g. bulb A39 and bulbs A40 through A55. we record that bulbs A40 through A55 died early [non-local shortages in the hyphae network sucked the nutrients out of them; i.e. there was variation in the relational spatial resonances.]

so, we record the time-based history of these bulbs as if they were things-in-themselves with their own local ‘being’ and with their own local development and behaviour.

where did this way of perceiving things come from? where did this notion of ‘time-based history’ come from with its concept of birth, maturing, aging and death’, which implies absolute space and absolute time reference framing?

in nietzsche’s view, it is ‘anthropomorphism’; i.e. that’s how we of the European mind see ourselves, as things-in-ourselves with our own internal process driven and directed development and behaviour. we simply impose this self-view on other relational features that we observe. we impute to ‘rational behaviour’, the behaviour that we attribute to ourselves seen as ‘thinking machines-in-themselves’, to cells, organisms, plants etc. we say that plants have intelligent behaviour and that they ‘cooperate’ not only intra-species but across species; i.e. with bees and moths and pollinating agencies etc.

the relational-spatial view is not in terms of local, visible, material things-in-themselves that live in space and time, but instead in terms of;

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

the bulbs that ‘mushroom up’ in the network of funghal hyphae which is included in Gaia, the milky way galaxy, all of which is included in the continually transforming spatial plenum is a LOCALLY OBSERVABLE aspect of the dynamics of the relational spatial plenum. our senses are not up to the task of seeing the whole interconnected plenum dynamic, not even the web of fungal hyphae, but some of the relational features catch our attention, and we measure them for spatial extension and we measure their ‘activity history’ ‘in time’ to capture changes in spatial extension and location; i.e. we get a time-based history of their development and behaviour. that is, we impose on them the same sort of ‘thing-in-itself’ time-based historical RE-presentation that we give to our individual human selves and to sovereign states etc. anthropomorphism rules.

anthropomorphism rules in your modeling of the frog and crickets. we picture ourselves as things-in-ourselves in absolute space and absolute time. if we thought of ourselves as relational features, then as we waxed and waned, other things would be undergoing some reciprocal waning and waxing, by way of the mediating medium of relational space.

if space is full, as more of us are gathering into relational features, many other relational features are coming undone; i.e. as we are dissipating, something else is being created.

it is a yin/yang world but our European mind wants us to model it as a yang world, which we do. instead of attributing our emergence, life and dissipation to the spatial-relational dynamics of the web-of-life that connects and interdependent-izes us all, we attribute it to ourselves, yang-man fashion.

the predator-prey, frog and crickets model makes no attempt to capture ‘things’ as relational features within a relational space. it merely makes an attempt, darwin style, to explain why ‘some things-in-themselves’ last longer than others.

as for the egyptian protestors example, of course you can explain it by way of ego. that is a mark of our European mind culture which similarly would have you speak of the time-based history of funghal bulbs because of the space and time based framing of your observations.

you say;

“it is naive to believe that the fella that joins the protesters in Egypt only to be shot dead by a soldier was simply the relational plenum and interrelatedness of human society.”

who is doing this naive believing? not i. what i am saying is that that the individual, being a relational feature in the transforming relational spatial plenum, is an AGENT OF TRANSFORMATION in the relational-spatial activity continuum, rather than a CAUSAL AGENT that operates as a thing-in-itself in space and time. the former may tend to think like a Zapatista in Chiapas; i.e. one has a natural relation with the land and one will defend oneself against anyone getting in between one’s self and one’s nurturing partner. indigenous anarchism is all about ‘defending what is natural’. it is animated by loving relations rather than by ego.

the latter can only think in terms of ‘cause-and-result’ of action directed against ‘those in power’.

It is not unthinkable that the population of a ‘province’ within egypt could go the way of the Zapatistas and attempt to renegotiate their relationship with the world. some thinkers see this as a possibility for Gaza. who needs the ‘sovereign state’ system with its ego-like central authority or pinnacle of power, that becomes the prize that factionalizes the people. you say;

“it stands to reason time and time again that when it comes down to power, it is best to adopt an ego driven self directed, self jumpstarting authoring action however much it transgresses the ontological reality of being”

but those that understand that ‘man belongs to the land’ rather than ‘the land belongs to man’ are not going to continue to defile the land by wars for political control fought against greedy colonizer governments who claim that ‘the land belongs to them’. the relational theorist opt for ‘decolonization’ rather than the ‘revolution’ that draws in ego against ego that you are describing.

Some more,,,,'What the hell!'

Pardon my poor semantics. Part of what you say is about language and to rephrase the cricket example, the issue is that some crickets survive while others become lunch for the frog. Better?

But now there is an evil scientist and there are green crickets and white crickets. The evil scientist, employing very simply yang ego driven techniques, baits all the green crickets to congregate near the frog, whereas the white crickets sit further. A lot more green crickets become lunch for the frog while a lot more white crickets survive. The point is that while all the crickets may be acting according to a non-ego driven relation paradigm, the environment itself is being shaped by the evil scientist's ego driven dislike from green crickets. And this would occur even in the case that the frog itself preferred the white crickets, because no matter where the frog goes, the evil scientist, having a greater command of the environment towards his ego driven goals, would ensure the green crickets always are closer and the white ones further. So both the frog and the green crickets lose, against both their interests.

This is the same point I've raised numerous times that to me seems you conclude with resignation and humiliation. Or if not, then you have not explained things clear enough.

you say;

“the environment itself is being shaped by the evil scientist's ego driven dislike from green crickets.”
this is ‘illusion’, ‘schaumkommen’, ‘Maya’. the relational space model; e.g;

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

here’s the ‘tricky’ aspect of ‘getting this’.

1. the visual data is exactly the same in both the particle and the relational space interpretations. the difference in understanding occurs in one’s mind, by an alteration of consciousness; i.e. a flip in how we think about what we are observing and experiencing.

2. in the relational space understanding, the ‘thing’ is understood as a relational feature that shows up like a ‘cell’ in a weather system, which is purely yin/yang relational. the plenum of the atmosphere whirls and orchestrates the emergence of a vortex. in other words, the vortex is WHAT WE SEE, and it appears to be a local, visible, material thing, and because we have language with nouns and verbs we give it a name [hurricane, Katrina] and we start talking about ‘it’ and ‘what it is doing’ as if ‘it’ were a ‘thing-in-itself’. but in the physical reality of the relational spatial plenum, ‘it’ is a NOT a ‘thing-in-itself’ whose development and behaviour are purely [‘yang’] self-asserting, as if in an empty space. this local visible, material form, in physical reality, according to the relational space interpretation of relativity and quantum physics, is ‘made of energy-charged relational space’, and is composed of non-local, non-visible, non-material outside-inward orchestrating influence in conjugate relation with the inside-outward asserting local, visible, material activity. that is, observed forms are the conjugate relation of ‘yin’ [non-local, non-visible, non-material influence] and ‘yang’ [local, visible, material influence]. or, the energy-charged fullness of space has a yin/yang or ‘wave’ nature.

3. in this yin/yang relational space, there are no ‘things-in-themselves’ and there is no such activity as ‘things being created’, ‘things moving’, or ‘things being destroyed’. all dynamics arise from the transforming of the relational spatial plenum and all ‘things’ are interferential/relational features within the continually transforming relational plenum.

4. our European mind is HERE. it reduces the YIN/YANG (wave dynamical) physical reality TO THE YANG POLE. mentally, we drop out from our consciousness the non-local, non-visible, non-material outside-inward orchestrating aspect of the form, and imagine the form purely in terms of is local, visible, material YANG aspect.
5. noun and verb Indo-European languages assist us in the ‘reduction to the Yang Pole.’ do i need to repeat all of the findings of all of the people, Nietzsche, Whorf, Sapir, Bohm, Poincaré, Watts, ... who have made this point that our Indo-European noun and verb languages alter our consciousness by ‘subjectizing’ and ‘categorizing’ and ‘reifying’ relational activities; i.e. by reducing relational activity to the Yang Pole? ok, i will footnote a few of them, so if you want to refresh on that topic, jump to ***

6. philosophically, logically and mathematically, for any and all observed/experienced phenomena, we have our choice of understanding them in the full yin/yang sense, or in the ‘reduced to the yang pole’ sense. the relation between the two is like the relation between a complex number (yin/yang, imaginary plus real) and its absolute value (real only). one can think of this in terms of the conservation of energy which preserves the sum of ‘potential energy’ or ‘energy of place’ [spatial-relational situation] which is non-local, non-visible and non-material. it is ‘imaginary’ in the sense that we can’t ‘see’ but we can ‘feel’ this influence of the energy of place (accelerations are felt but not directly seen, and manifest through kinetics/material dynamics). the ‘real [yang] component’ of the complex yin/yang number can be thought of in terms of the ‘kinetic energy’ which is local, visible and material based. there is a ‘phase’ relation between ‘acceleration’ due to the energy of place [felt but not seen] and ‘kinetics’ due to the energy of moving material, which is 90 degrees [the kinetics lag the acceleration by 90 degrees which, in mathematics, is the same as multiplication by the square root of minus one, the ‘imaginary unit’.

7. our consciousness can ‘alter’ to reduce our ‘seeing PLUS feeling experience’ to pure ‘seeing’ observations; i.e. we can reduce yin/yang perception to yang observation in the manner we reduce a complex number to its absolute value or ‘real component’ [kinetic aspect only]. this reduction of how we perceive things simply ‘drops out’ our acknowledging of the outside-inward orchestrating and shaping influence that ‘space’ [energy of place] exerts on dynamical behaviour, so that we shift our attribution of the sourcing of dynamics to the local, visible material ‘kinetics’; i.e. to ‘what things do’. in this view, ‘space is NOTHING’ as far as having a role in dynamics. in this view we see dynamics as being constituted by the assertive actions of local, material objects. this is the ‘reduction to the Yang Pole’, or, the ‘reduction of complex phenomena to their real value’ [ignoring non-local influence of energy-of-place and crediting the entire dynamic to local, visible, material kinetic energy activity].

8. we are aware of this ‘alteration of consciousness’ but we follow the conventions of our European mind shaped culture. for example, when we write our résumé, we write it up as all yang kinetics; i did this, then i did that, and i earned a promotion and did this, and i changed employment and did this other, and i studied and acquired these skills and i supervised those operations and so on and so forth. when we write this, we are thinking ‘uncle billy got me that job’, ‘my cousin who hasn’t made it out of ethiopia is better than me at this, but i am in this birds-nest-on-the-ground in america’, ... ‘when i hear of the experiences of my black buddies, i know how fortunate i am to be a white male in a white male dominated society’. in other words, we are very conscious of the ‘yin’ influence, the place-based outside-inward orchestrating and shaping influence on our inside-outward asserting kinetic activity. but we nevertheless, it is our society’s convention to measure accomplishments on the basis of ‘what we do’, the ‘reduction to the yang pole’. in a crowded street, Al Capone will make passage far more easily and quickly than clark kent or blonde betty; that is, we use the kinetic reduction to the yang pole formulation; ‘Al Capone moves down the street’ as if the energy of place, the outside-inward accommodating influence which can vary from highly receptive to highly resistive, has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DYNAMIC, ... a dynamic that we capture in terms of Al Capone’s movement.

9. in the systems sciences, this same alteration of consciousness leading to alternative interpretations of the same dynamics is expressed in terms of the relational between ‘the system’ [seen by analytical inquiry as a kinetic thing-in-itself] and ‘the suprasystem’ [seen by synthetical inquiry as the relational space which is orchestrating the behaviour of the ‘system’]. russell ackoff uses the example of ‘university’ as the ‘system’ and ‘community’ as the ‘suprasystem’. in the beginning, the community dynamic orchestrated the emergence of a certain pattern of dynamics which was to be named and defined ‘the university’. analytical inquiry breaks the university down into components and processes and RE-presents it as a kinetic, asserting, ‘system-in-itself’ with its own internal components and processes driven and directed development and behaviour. this is a reduction to the yang pole, to the kinetic aspect. we know, however, that the university has been orchestrated into emergence by the influence of the flow of things in the greater body of community in which it is included. in other words, the university is a relational feature within a relational space, however, it is easiest to describe in terms of its local, visible, material kinetic activity. since the dynamic relational space of community sourced orchestrating influence [yin] is, like flow-field, non-local, non-visible and non-material, we just ‘drop it’. however, it is responsible for outside-inwardly orchestrating/organizing individual and collective actions [both group development and behaviour and individual development and behaviour]. this is the source of organization that advocates of hierarchical control do not see, or do not want to see. and this source of organization ‘disappears’ in the reduction to the yang pole where we present these dynamics in the one-sided terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

10. you say;

“The evil scientist, employing very simply yang ego driven techniques, baits all the green crickets to congregate near the frog, whereas the white crickets sit further” ... “the environment itself is being shaped by the evil scientist's ego driven dislike from green crickets.”

in the relational space based consciousness, it is IMPOSSIBLE (topological symmetry-wise) for a relational feature within the relational space to ‘shape the relational space’. this is the Oedipus complex of Western man where the son wants to break up his yin/yang parentage, kill his father and take over fucking his mother. it is only in Western culture that the common word ‘motherfucker’ is interpreted as the SON fucking the mother. in Chinese and other cultures, the equivalent word ‘motherfucker’ is also common, but it refers to a cuckolding male other than the husband, fucking the mother, not the son.

imagine this evil scientist and the crickets and frog, all living in a large swampy laboratory built into one of the decks on the Titanic. the VISIBLE scenario that you are constructing, in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, could be replicated in the laboratory on the Titanic, but in that case, what you call ‘the environment itself’ is not THE environment because the scientist cannot get OUTSIDE of the environment to take control of it. he is constrained to operating ‘inside’ of the environment, as a relational feature in the relational spatial environment. he is like the storm cell in the relational space of the atmosphere, he derives his power and steerage from the relational spatial dynamics he is included in. his ego may inform him that it is ‘him’ that is stirring up the space he is in, but the physical reality is that the dynamic relational space he is in is ‘stirring him up’. since he is, at the same time, BOTH his local self [Atman, relational feature] AND his larger self [Brahman, relational space], he is an ‘agent of transformation’ that is contributing to the continual transforming of the relational space he is included in. BUT, he is not ‘mutually exclusive’ of the space he is included in, and he cannot ‘mount his mother’ and ‘rape her’ without ouroborically raping himself, his larger self [the ouroborous is most often seen giving the tip of his tail a blow job which seems to signal nurturing self-renewal, but the dysfunction that our European mind driven society is currently perpetrating on itself is better symbolized by the Oedipus complex scenario.

the scenario of the laboratory built into the Titanic is the ‘operative reality’ [reduced to yang pole reality] of Western civilization and its hierarchical institutions. that is, there is nothing above this absolute space boxed reality [no suprasystem enclosing this system]. this is the definition of the ‘sovereign state’ for example. as historians of law note, the sovereign state is a ‘secularized theological concept’. it is headed up by a ‘supreme power’, there is nothing above it, just as there is nothing above the laboratory built into the Titanic so that we can assume that all the dynamics that go on in the laboratory are ‘real world dynamics’, and not just ‘appearances’ based on secondary ‘relational features in a relational space’. the space of this laboratory is deemed to be ‘absolute space’ so that there is no power capable of shaping what goes on in that space outside of, or ‘beyond’ that space.

“ … western political thinking itself is grounded in theological concepts of “Christian nationalism.” The notion of “absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original” is a definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. This “God died around the time of Machiavelli…. Sovereignty was … His earthly replacement.” —Walker, R. B. J. and Mendlovitz, Saul H. “Interrogating State Sovereignty.”

11. the laboratory in the Titanic is considered to be an ‘absolute space operating theatre’ and what the evil scientist does gives the impression that, ... “the environment itself is being shaped by the evil scientist... is ‘Maya’, ‘illusion’, ‘schaumkommen’ (‘appearances’). IT IS NOT PHYSICAL REALITY! the only environment that the evil scientist can shape is the ‘laboratory environment’. What is a laboratory environment’? is it by definition NOT the physically real environment but a ‘controlled environment’. we get the sense of control by framing things in absolute space, by putting things in the space inside a box so that we can reference what goes on inside the box to the fixed reference framing of the box. we thus emasculate or rather defeminize such a space, removing its power of place and altering our consciousness so that we see the dynamics going on in that absolute fixed box-framed space as fully and solely ‘kinetic’ activity, ... activity that is local, visible and material based. with this reduction to the yang pole established, long gone from our consciousness is our sensed experience of inclusion within a continually transforming relational space,... until, all of a sudden, a big split appears in one of the walls of the box, and the ocean starts flooding in through it. then we realize that the absolute space frame we were using for our scientific investigations was only a ‘contrivance’ which helped to reduce the complexity of our mental modeling of ourselves and the world. thanks to the box, it put us into control over the environment in the box.

““Science itself, … may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presenting of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought” —Ernst Mach

finally, you gave me the choice of (a) humility and resignation to concede the validity of the objection you are raising to this ‘relational’ model, or, (b) explaining things more clearly;

“This is the same point I've raised numerous times that to me seems you conclude with resignation and humiliation. Or if not, then you have not explained things clear enough.”

as you can see, my view is that (b) is the appropriate path.

i shall therefore close by offering you the same (a) and (b) choice you offered me.

* * *
“In these final pieces he [Benjamin Whorf] offered a critique of Western science in which he suggested that non-European languages often referred to physical phenomena in ways that more directly reflected aspects of reality than many European languages, and that science ought to pay attention to the effects of linguistic categorization in its efforts to describe the physical world. He particularly criticized the Indo-European languages for promoting a mistaken essentialist world view, which had been disproved by advances in the sciences, whereas he suggested that other languages dedicated more attention to processes and dynamics rather than stable essences. Whorf argued that paying attention to how other physical phenomena are described in the study of linguistics could make valuable contributions to science by pointing out the ways in which certain assumptions about reality are implicit in the structure of language itself, and how language guides the attention of speakers towards certain phenomena in the world which risk becoming overemphasized while leaving other phenomena at risk of being overlooked.” — Wikipedia
“Bohm did note, however, that our (Indo-European) languages tend to be highly noun-oriented and well suited to discussions of concepts and categories. By contrast, quantum theory demands a more process-oriented approach, a verb-based language perhaps that emphasizes flow, movement and constant transformation. (Bohm’s Holomovement – the movement of the whole.) — F. David Peat, ‘Language and Linguistics’
“Finally, our Euclidean geometry is itself only a sort of convention of language; mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a non-Euclidean space which would be a guide less convenient than, but just as legitimate as, our ordinary space ; the enunciation would thus become much more complicated, but it would remain possible. Thus absolute space, absolute time, geometry itself, are not conditions which impose themselves on mechanics ; all these things are no more antecedent to mechanics than the French language is logically antecedent to the verities one expresses in French.” – Henri Poincare, Science and Hypothesis
“As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that nonexistent things cannot “perform” actions. The difficulty is that most languages are arranged so that actions (verbs) have to be set in motion by things (nouns), and we forget that rules of grammar are not necessarily rules, or patterns, of nature. This, which is nothing more than a convention of grammar, is also responsible for (or, better, “goeswith”) absurd puzzles as to how spirit governs matter, or mind moves body. How can a noun, which is by definition not action, lead to action?” —Alan Watts, ‘Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are’
“[Descartes’ ‘I think therefore I am’ reflects] … our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. In short, this is not merely the substantiation of a fact but a logical-metaphysical postulate” … “That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force–in will, in intention–it is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and attribute not a great stupidity?” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’ 484

So it is clear enough to me that we are not completely in disagreement. I think though that my main issue is that your ideas are excessively descriptive, or at best, the knowledge that illuminates a path to a better world is not bright enough to guide humanity out of the environmental disasters (among others) that loom ahead. There has been throughout history and in various cultures one or another millenarian perspectives, often pessimistic and tragic. But I believe environmentalists and besides, there is plenty of suffering in the world. And so the real question I guess I am asking is what the fuck are people supposed to do?

I understand that these perspectives often offer an individual options where prior to seeing these things, none seemed available. However, just like the scientist on the Titanic, the ship eventually wrecks, and few survive. What the fuck are people supposed to do?

As a side note, I think your this perspective also lends itself to analysis of beauty and health standards in Western society. Could you start me off? :)

Maintain eye contact with me, then slowly, very slowly back away from me. Do not make friendly overtures to me! Do not agree with me! DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON ME OR I SHALL DELIVER THE MOTHER OF ALL RAPES UPON YOUR CEREBRAL CORTEX WITH 3,000 WORD DIATRIBES ON FLUFFY IRRELEVENT 19TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHY!!!!!!!!!
By the way everything is beautiful and healthy is when you haven't died from boredom.

there will not be ‘one big shipwreck’ just like there will not be ‘the coming of God’s kingdom’. these views are linear ‘time-based projections’ describing what happens to a 'thing-in-itself' [the reification of a world or of a state] as it moves 'from time past' into 'a future time'. there is no such thing as ‘time’ in physical reality. physical reality is the transforming relational spatial continuum.

that is, you say;

“I understand that these perspectives often offer an individual options where prior to seeing these things, none seemed available. However, just like the scientist on the Titanic, the ship eventually wrecks, and few survive. What the fuck are people supposed to do?”

there is no past and there is no future, there is only the relationally transforming present. that is what our experience informs us since we can only experience in the continuing present. we have to start ‘making things up’ to start believing in ‘the past’ and ‘the future’ as if they are ‘real’. they are the idealizations born of language and grammar. the past and future are grammatical ‘tenses’, they do not ‘really exist’. this is important to your question, so bear with me.

in order to get a ‘view’ of the past or future, we have to escape from the present. we do this by pretending we are an excluded voyeur God and going outside the world so that we can peep in on it. we do this by putting the world in a fixed rectangular frame so that we can measure the things inside it; i.e. we smuggle out a measuring rod and a clock so that we can assess ‘change’ in terms of how the measure of things changes over time.

visual sensing is good for this. for example, physical fields are ‘everywhere at the same time’ the field influence; i.e. the animating influence of dynamics, is non-local, non-visible and non-material, like ‘gravity’, so we don’t PERCEIVE the basic animating influences DIRECTLY, although we can feel them [e.g. we feel accelerations but can’t perceive them DIRECTLY]. meanwhile, ‘seeing’ gives us a direct view of the ‘manifestations’ of the non-local, non-visible, non-material PRIMARY INFLUENCES of dynamics. if we wanted to understand the transforming atmosphere, we would have to PERCEIVE the entire atmosphere all ‘at once’ since the physical dynamic is a transforming relational spatial unum or ‘plenum’. that is, a spherical space behaves as a unum, not as separate parts.

but a ‘cheap, short cut form of perception’ is ‘visual sensing’ which gives us the opportunity to ‘perceive’ [but not PERCEIVE] local relational features. a noun and verb language allows us to idealize relational features as ‘things-in-themselves’ or ‘independently-existing beings’. visual sensing drops out ‘phase information’ from the wave dynamics constituting the physical reality, and gives us ‘local intensity’. instead of PERCEIVING the holodynamic; i.e. the continually transforming relational spatial plenum, which would require the phase information [the wave curvature information], we imagine we are looking at local things-in-themselves with a kind of beam or ‘raypath’ illumination. imagine you were a bat with echolocation [biosonar]. you could PERCEIVE an owl closing in on you from behind. but with visual sensing like humans have [bats have it as well as echolocation], it is like your eyes can only see in the direction you point them, with a partial halo of ‘peripheral vision’.

this ‘reduced form of perception’ aka ‘visual sensing’ we use in conjunction with language. language has the power to ‘subjectize’ relational features and also to frame them. as Poincaré pointed out, euclidian space is nothing other than a language convention that allows us to talk about dynamics in terms of euclidian geometry with its invariable closed form solids, linear trajectories etc. thus, if we are PERCEIVING the atmosphere in its usual state of flux, we would understand it as a relational unum, ... a kind of spherical soup pot with boils [storm-cells] emerging all over it.

but, when we use our ‘visual sensing’ which drops out all the phase information (the relational connections are in the wavefront curvature aspect which visual sensing reduces to linear raypaths [N.B. non-euclidian space is a relational space where dynamics and/or change are purely relational] but that is a more complex language game, such as the verbal language game of the indigenous aboriginals of turtle island.

so, when we use our visual sensing on one of these ‘boils’, we use our language conventions and we impute ‘thingness’ [categorical such as ‘hurricane’ or particular instance such as ‘Katrina’] to it and speak of its ‘birth’, its development [‘it is growing larger’] its major life events [‘it is ravaging New Orleans’] and its dissipation and death.

this is ridiculous nonsense of course, because the space of the atmosphere is a full unum and not an empty box, and thus in order to create something, something must be at the same time be destroyed [e.g. constructing a new house is at the same time destroying forest and meadow], and in order for something to ‘grow’, something must at the same time ‘shrink’. since the unum of atmospheric space is full, the only dynamics possible are the relational spatial dynamics of transformation. i used the word ‘thing’ in ‘something must shrink at the same time something grows’, but that is just because our language is not very well architected for abandoning nouns/things and keeping the discussion in purely relational spatial terms where ‘organisms’ and ‘objects’ are understood as relational forms in a transforming relational space, which is what you get if you understand space as an energy-charged fullness, as in quantum physics.

ok, you will probably agree with me that it is ridiculous to say ‘the storm is growing larger’ since we both agree that the atmosphere is a ‘full space’, a unum that undergoes continual spatial-relational transformation. therefore, while as Mach says, it is an ‘economy of thought’ to speak of dynamics in terms of ‘independently-existing things that do stuff’, it is not physical reality. it is ‘illusion’ or as Nietzsche says ‘Fiktion’ that can be ‘useful Fiktion’. the dynamic that is physically real here belongs to the atmospheric space [which is included, in an unbounded fashion, in the relational spatial plenum [aka ‘universe’].

however, you may be more reluctant to agree that this could be the general case, in which case there are no ‘independently existing things-in-themselves’ and therefore we cannot describe dynamics in terms of ‘things doing stuff’ like ‘things changing’. the only way we were able to speak about relational features in the relational space as ‘things that are changing’ was to foist on them the abstract idealized reference frames of absolute space and absolute time.

i’m not saying that every kid is taught how to frame things in absolute space and absolute time, ... but i am saying that that’s what our noun and verb language does. how can you have an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself’ unless you have an absolute space for it to live in? if it were ‘connected’ to the space it were in, it would NOT be a ‘thing-in-itself’ and we couldn’t talk about 'IT' 'doing stuff’.

furthermore, once we use the subjective idealizing power of our Indo-European language to endow the relational feature with ‘existential being’, this enables us to impute ‘change’ to it personally/individually. we can say; ‘she is not the same person she was twenty years ago, ... her perky tits are really drooping’. we use ‘things-changing’ to define ‘past’ and ‘future’ [i hear her husband is buying her a boob job for her 40th birthday next year].

but the relational spatial view is all in the present. there is this full space that is continually spatially-relationally transforming, that is continually gathering and regathering relational features. the woman is an agent of transformation whose suckling of her young is helping to regather the world in its continual cyclical renewal. she and her family relations [her cultivation of a nurturing family space] are living proof of Mach’s principle; “the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants”.

space is full, it just keeps on relationally-spatially transforming per Mach’s principle. the lady is offering up her boobs to the continual renewal that transpires in the continuing present. there is no past and present ‘linear time’ that is impacting the universe. the big bang is a joke, ... it is the extrapolation, in time, of independently-existing thing-based mathematical description of the world that employs absolute space and absolute time as reference framing. if we can look into a universe that is expanding [there are relational explanations for the red shift] then we have a God’s eye view, thanks to some mathematical equations. or, as Nietzsche says, thanks to the language games which include mathematics/geometry.

“I am afraid we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

so, language and grammar give us this sense that the ship of society we are on is going down and that its gonna take us down with it.

take egypt for example, ... the millions of people who sustain belief in the myth of the 'existence' of one thing, a sovereign state called 'egypt' are at the same time sustaining belief that egypt is one ship, and that it is going down syria style.

egypt was never ‘one thing’. that was a ploy by the colonizers to take control over all of the various communities and tribes. no-one knew the western boundary of egypt until italy defined it by staking claim to libya. what if it was still all tribes? no-one would believe it was all one ship that they were all passengers on that was going to take them down. of course, the one-ship view has been sustained by colonialism-bred believers but is now enforced by a massive military which is subsidized by the global colonizer alliance. nevertheless, the colonized peoples have also been persuaded that their state is ‘one thing’, ‘one ship’ which is bullshit but after several generations of flag-waving and annual celebrations of its birthday, people are bound to start believing it. we are all like chimps and the red ladder. if all the old tribal chieftains, sheiks and mullahs were still around, they would be saying, ‘this is great’, the ridiculous christian secularized theological notion of the sovereign state of egypt [or syria or iraq] is falling apart, hooray! they found the idea of a centrally controlled space insane. they were not stupid. their relations were with the land, not with a flag-sucking bureaucracy equipped with a killer military that just acted on orders.

oh, but the U.S. and other colonizer powers are saying that the move to social dynamics management via the concept of the sovereign state marks the progress of civilization. we have learned how to concentrate power in a bureaucracy and to keep a standing military to protect ourselves against ourselves.

language and grammar give us the sense of the ‘independent existence of things’ with ‘their own persisting identity’ that have a ‘past’ and a ‘future’.

as nietzsche says, this imputing of doer-deed structure to relational activity is all 'a great stupidity'. that is why people fear they are going down with the ship. the ship of the sovereign state is an illusion but the majority of people have helped to sustain that illusion and to pay for a standing military that will make believers out of anyone who has other ideas, like going back to living in a free space instead of a fixed, centrally controlled space. the former sheikdoms could form alliances and break them the next day if it made sense. they didn’t lock themselves into a titanic structure,... that was the invention of the kings of Europe in concert with the Church of Rome who invented the concept of a fixed, centrally controlled space. as the papal bull inter caetera lays it out to the kings of spain and portugal;

“INTER CAETERA, MAY 3, 1493 -- "Among other works well pleasing to the Divine Majesty and cherished of our heart, this assuredly ranks highest, that in our times especially the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself. ... [O]ur beloved son Christopher Columbus, ... sailing ... toward the Indians, discovered certain very remote islands and even mainlands ... . [W]e, ... by the authority of Almighty God ... do ... give, grant, and assign forever to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castille and Leon, all and singular the aforesaid countries and islands ... "

the world was given as a pie to be carved up by the colonizers. God signed off on it. instead of the sheiks working things out through webs of relations, something new was coming; 'maps' with imaginary line boundaries.

"The skillfully drawn borders that cartographers have provided for us are ... spiritual and philosophical abstractions representative of a form of quasi-belief. They are ... not detached maps of reality as proponents would have us believe. These geographies reflect an ardent desire to make (or impose) sovereignty a physical reality as natural as the mountains, rivers and lakes...." --- Mark Owen Lombardi, "Third-World Problem-Solving and the 'Religion' of Sovereignty"

something non-sovereigntist has to form to subsume the belief in sovereign states which keeps us in the ersatz reality of things that have a past and future. but anarchists are still talking about ‘national associations’. of course there is something to be done differently, but let’s face it, our European ‘language and grammar’ still have a hold on our mind and are keeping it a ‘European mind’ which sees the world dynamic in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ as we move out of the past and into the future.

there are global movements that would like to shift back into relational transformation in the continually unfolding present, but still the majority of people in the world believe they are passengers on their own sovereign state ship and that their destiny is tied up with the 'future' of the sovereign state and sustaining the glory of its 'past'. its this belief in the sovereign state as a thing-in-itself that produces civil wars. what are they fighting over but the helm of an imaginary ship?

you say;

“I understand that these perspectives often offer an individual options where prior to seeing these things, none seemed available. However, just like the scientist on the Titanic, the ship eventually wrecks, and few survive. What the fuck are people supposed to do?”

i would say, for starters, stop thinking this way; i.e. stop believing in the ship. that is not ‘anti-statist’, it is a-statist, like the zapatista. who wants to live in centrally controlled spaces? after all, that was a device that colonizers invented to control the hard-to control savage masses, ... to put them into a management architecture that would make them far easier to be controlled by an ‘authority’. of course the strategy tapped into the spirituality of the people and that devious device has made colonialism a great success;

as peter d’errico [professor of law emeritus at university of massachussetts] notes;

“Why should indigenous peoples choose a model of thinking, organization, and development that was used to destroy non-state societies?
Ilyas Ahmad, in his discussion of the conception of sovereignty in Islam, suggested that a "realistic analysis" of sovereignty would discover
... “[T]hat the ultimate moving force which inspires and controls political action is a spiritual force -- a common conviction that makes for righteousness, a common conscience ....” --- Ilyas Ahmad, ‘Sovereignty, Islamic and Modern’...
This suggestion is startling because we are used to the western notion of separation of church and state. Western discussion can speak of "common will," but gets nervous with the thought that this phrase only acquires meaning in spiritual terms. As we have seen, however, western political thinking itself is grounded in theological concepts of "Christian nationalism." The notion of "absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original" is a definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. This "God died around the time of Machiavelli.... Sovereignty was ... His earthly replacement." --- Walker, R. B. J. and Mendlovitz, Saul H. "Interrogating State Sovereignty."

here we all are, trapped inside of the colonial ships that, because we believe in their existence, make us into passengers on them and thus exposing ourselves [in our screwed up mentality] to going down with the ship because of the feeling of security we get by believing in the existence of the ship. of course, some passengers are jettisoned first just for ‘rocking the boat’.

as the syrians go down, their neighbours watch them going down, saying; ‘isn’t this amazing. here we are right beside them and they are sinking en masse! ... even while we are still floating along very nicely. what a difference an imaginary line boundary makes! it wouldn’t have been like this in the old days before everybody started believing in all these centrally controlled spaces. the stateless communities and tribes were continually readjusting and the webs of political relations were transforming in the continuing present. this imaginary line boundaries stuff that the colonizers brought in is proving a lot less flexible than the web of relations that used to determine a windblown dune-like shifting from one political realm to another. oh well, let’s get on the radio and say how deeply saddened we feel about what is happening to our neighbours, the whole imaginary boundary line trapped block full of them, and tell them that we have sent messages to the colonizing powers to please do something about this. by the way, who is paying for all of these shock and awe fireworks? is it russia this time or britain, france and the U.S?’

you say; “What the fuck are people supposed to do?”

this may seem stupid, but indigenous anarchists put as number one priority; “undermine the intellectual premises of colonialism”. if we stop believing in the ship, and in its ‘glorious past history’ and its ‘glorious future’ and committing to bear arms and to give our lives if necessary to sustain belief in it, and wake up to the fact that we live in the continuing present of a continually transforming relational spatial plenum, that could help, no?

that is, the indigenous anarchists could be on to something. they say that these imaginary-line bounded entities don’t really exist, that the colonizers have ‘stolen our souls’, or at least that they have corralled our spiritual force in this secularized theological concept called ‘the sovereign state’.

this may seem stupid, but indigenous anarchists put as number one priority; “undermine the intellectual premises of colonialism”. if we stop believing in the ship, and in its ‘glorious past history’ and its ‘glorious future’ and committing to bear arms and to give our lives if necessary to sustain belief in it, and wake up to the fact that we live in the continuing present of a continually transforming relational spatial plenum, that could help, no?

Ever seen that comedy skit we did in which a crazy guy allegedly builds a tower block, but it only exists if the people who live there BELIEVE that the tower block exists? Well, in that skit, when some residents begin to doubt the building, it begins to rumble and shake like it going to fall down! NOW THAT'S COMEDY GOLD.

And you, poor thing, are just as funny when you think that "the ship" will somehow be affected -- it will somehow help those "indigenous anarchists" you are so fond of speaking about and speaking for -- if "we" stop believing in it! HILARIOUS.

European man who rearranged some rocks, claims to have created three independently-existing rock structures called 'houses'. tests are now underway to validate that there is a mutually exclusive inside and outside of each house so as to confirm their 'independent existence' and to test his further claim of having produced a bona fide 'plurality'. also in the news, a topology researcher who has admitted to ejaculating in the belly-folds of obese, consenting fifteen year olds claims that 'no actual penetration' was involved.

The new dianetics. Write a book, start a church. Have a mass suicide.
Are we spreading rumors the subject has stds? Really? Is this what we've been doing?if my ex husband got drunk and ducked some who're, once again, these things have no connection to me. I used protection with this person the entire last year we were together. Sorry if you weren't as smart ariana. You see, these things are not my problem, brain damaged gossip fossils. It cool how much you can learn if you communicate and don't take life drug addicts, people who have previouslybeen arrested for stalking, and mentally I'll assists too seriously.

We at AAC are very angry with you Emile9000 and your clones. You've been a naughty perverse boy! I sent a bouquet of roses, chocolates and muffins to Doc Pedersen and I've been told he'll be back online when the sutures are removed tomorrow. We're holding a raffle at the weekend the profits of which shall be used to print a booklet about organic methods of preventing infection from you.

Big UPS to the editors at wired! Our body less puritan cyber utopia is upon us! Woot luvin it!

My guess is he was not a hermaphrodite. Adrian lamo, I mean. I hate to be the near ideas news, but that Dick is fake. Which brings me another none of contention, a hermaphrodite with a fake Dick who hates women and dreads human bodies foundations for years saying IM bad in bed and gay whatever that means. Seriously did this actually occur yes omg I can't wait to have sex with someone I acreate is Bout to murder later found his his blog pre__meditating how he was Gingrich dispose of me after this encounter. No my imagination. No it was much much worse. Here's a good one, IM feeling a little crepes out at a hotel with him, so I text my trusted make friend. Guess who my make friend actually is.

Critiquing my reading comprehension is surely the lol of the century, by the way.

I mean, it's at freakish genius level. Unfortunate!

Like critiquing billboards, lulz of the capitalist century.

Yeah, I did always think that one book about serial killers was a but of an oddity. It's almost on par with an arranged marriage with a millionaires wife. Ah, but now IM just showing off. I always was a but of a punk. Lol. If we were on fb I wld post the song punk girl by thee headcoatees for a complete multimedia experience.

_m hamburger in paradise

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.
Subscribe to Comments for "Anarchism as Institution"