07-05-2016 Anarchy Radio

  • Posted on: 6 July 2016
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

Listen Here: http://archive.org/details/AnarchyRadio07052016

Fear of slaves, indigenous evident in Declaration of Independence. Adventures
in podcasting; Hillary-booster Chomsky declines dialog with JZ. "No Going Back" -
really? Rio Olympics "catastrophe". The answer to VR's fake world? More VR! New
ITS interview: same no-hope-ism. Income inequality still growing. Florida Atlantic
coast fouled, global air worsens, dam-building craze continues. Ad of the Week
(afiniti). Fine report on Fireflies gathering. Action news, three calls.

Tags: 
category: 

Comments

No, John, you can't go back. Maybe if you paid attention to your own writing you'd realize that. You may be able to reach a point in which your life is similar to that which occurred 10s of thousands of years ago, but you will never go back to anything. In order for that to happen, the exact processes that created civilization must be directly reversed. But everything is constantly changing (you're not going forward either, that is progressive rhetoric). A river is never the same thing twice and neither are you or any other entity. It does not matter if you somehow manage to live as an IRHG; you will not have gone back because your relations will be completely different.

It's worth noting that I arrived at this seemingly primitivist conclusion through a nihilist filter.

JZ isn't making the claim that we can "go back" in any sort of linear way.

The anarchist desire of total freedom is predicated on having reciprocal relationships with healthy habitats, which means advocating for an end to civilization. I can't see any other way around it. They go hand in hand.

The only reason civilization exists is because of hierarchy and coercion. So if hierarchy and coercion were abolished, then it seems reasonable to assume that mass/industrial/technological ways would not be possible and free people would be left to essentially choose/explore some new variety of primitivist life way.

Press 1 for mass industrial tech civilization
Press 2 for new variety of primitive life ways

2

2

I press 0

(best answer to everything... EVAR!)

Perhaps not, but if not he is either stuck in the mindset subconsciously or not communicating clearly.

"The only reason civilization exists is because of hierarchy and coercion."

Hierarchy and coercion exist outside of civ and can hardly be considered it's cause. "Learn to camouflage your body or get eaten" is one sort of coercion used by some animals. Mild and nonrigid hierarchy exists often, examples that come to mind first are wolves and many primates including some primitive humans.

But it is true that civilization can't exist without hierarchy and coercion so it stands that if hierarchy and coercion were abolished civilization couldn't exist. It isn't a causal relationship, more of a necessary but not sufficient situation.

Yes, hierarchy and coercion existed within some Hunter Gather social groups, apparently primarily/almost exclusively among sedentary, delayed return cultures.

https://egalitarian.wikispaces.com/Immediate-Return+v.+Delayed-Return+Sy...

An anti-politics/anti-economics orientation leads intellectually to the desire for the end of civ, which leads to choosing some sort of primitive set of ways. It doesn't matter what the cause is until we get to choose how we live. But it really does appear that the difference between delayed return and immediate return and between sedentary and nomadic appear to be the closest we are to understanding the actual context in which hierarchy seems to inevitably arise.

No, not exclusively amongst DR societies. Certainly there was usually much more hierarchy and there was non functional hierarchy.

There are almost always forms of mild, loose hierarchy amongst IR societies. As in the Kalahari Bushmen described by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, there is often an elder who decides/suggests where to go. This decision/suggestion can be and often is challenged and they go to another place instead. Regardless of how much the 'leader's' ideas are suggestions vs. decisions, there is still a person looked up to for this sort of thing. Situationally amongst the same people, the hunter who killed the animal has control over the meat and the ability to distribute it as they see fit or not (it is almost always shared but the sharing is a form of social capital).

Also, the act of killing and eating is coercion.

The line is not as clear as you want to make it. Given this, many primate/wolf groups, and others, it is impossible to 'abolish' hierarchy and coercion.

It is important here to see emile's post in this thread. Civilized names 'hierarchy' and 'coercion' may do a decent job of describing what occurs in different situations and can be useful when discussing them. However they are abstract concepts that cannot capture nuance. Belief in them is the reason they exist in such a large scale today. The Kalahari Bushmen have never encountered these concepts which is probably why their belief in relationships these concepts refer to is mild and situationally changing.

Ok I'm a genius, so now listen...

Coercion and hierarchy exist because of the need to enforce a set of pre-established rules or structures so that people don't even have to agree with those, but rather follow in spite, as a compromise or delusion.

So it goes like:

- A gang of barbarians come up with their grand vision of things, pretending that things are going to be better under their management (they often believe that themselves, honestly).
- They make up a bunch of rules and standards that should be spread in order for their plan to work.
- Some people don't like this silly shit.
- Reactionaries (including the socialist ones) get butthurt about those filthy anarchist who don't comply.
- Duh duh dum! Cops appear out of the blue, to fill in for the role of enforcing BS despotic irrational by-laws, or making it look at least as if they're efficiently enforced.

So... Abolishing coercion and hierarchies are not the most radical thing to do, as they are not the true roots of ciivlization. There is something else laying below or preceding them; their constituent postulate. The projected idea of how things SHOULD be.

We gotta abolish also any sort of abstract and self-contained values and codes that exist beyond the will and commitment of those concerned by these, that are self-reifying...

as law historians note, the concept of 'sovereignty' is secularized theology. in the physical reality of our natural experience, there are no local systems with a hierarchy topped by a fountainhead of deterministic power. and as systems scientists have noted, every system is included in a relational suprasystem [no system is stand-alone]. in other words, "hierarchies and coercion are belief-based concepts, they are not reality-based".

you, too, can conjure up a hierarchy if you have an army or bully group to back you up and 'make believers' out of others. the dividing up of turtle island into a number of notional 'independently-existing hierarchical social structures' aka 'sovereign states' is not physically real, ... it is an imposed belief system. if we reject that belief, we will then be in the same camp as the rest of nature; the animals, birds, insects, rivers, winds, ... but the believers are going to hassle us, and they have standing armies and police forces that will make it very tough on us if we fail to behave in the manner required of a believer.

but the hierarchical structure collapses with the collapse of belief in that structure. hierarchies are not physically real, and the force used to 'make believers out of us' is not really coercion, but extortion. those controlling access to essential resources extort compliant behaviours out of those needing access to essential resources. you can't coerce people to believe in your hierarchy and do your bidding if they have access to all they need to live happily ever after. you have to strip them of access to essential resources and then extort the beliefs and behaviours you want from them, in exchange for limited access to essential resources, as is the general pattern of colonization.

so, there is an important distinction between 'having to do away with hierarchy and coercion' versus 'having to do away with belief in hierarchy and coercion'. the believers in hierarchy and coercion are otherwise described [by Hunter S. Thompson] as 'celebrity-worshipping flag-suckers' [this can be scaled up or down to fit any sized hierarchical structure].

the task of bringing down hierarchical structures is, in its essence, not physical but intellectual [e.g. the number one goal of indigenous anarchism is to undermine the intellectual premises of colonialism]. in fact, hierarchical structures that are physically destroyed will be rebuilt if the belief in them persists. this is not to say that physical actions cannot be used to encourage the suspending of belief in hierarchical structures.

You are over intellectualizing it. Beliefs are 'real' too. Beliefs can cause action in the real world. Hierarchy and authority are every bit as 'real' as any other social or physical relationship. Doing away with the belief in hierarchy and authority is only one way to get rid of them, another way is force. After all, it was mostly force that implanted these beliefs in the first place. It's not an either/or proposition. It's usually takes both.

Verified or is really turning into one of the more dense posters on this website. If you'd read emile's post, you see how force may get rid of hierarchy temporarily, but if belief persists it will continue in a new form. And there is nothing intellectual about that post. Big words are used non traditionally, yes. That doesn't equate to intellectual. emile's writing is an attempt at using english in a way that overcomes some of it's structures that force thoughts into civilized boxes.

Lots of people don't believe in government anymore.
But they still believe in work.
So they still support Production-Consumption-Repeat.

The abolition of domestication (generalized colonialism) requires unlearning and forgetting, forcing your body into a new way of life, or even survival. If you're on the inside, you are affected by Leviathan's inscriptions, marks and net-like catchings. It would seem from that that dropping a belief means nothing if it doesn't change your actions.

Hey fuckwipe anon coward, if you actually read my post you'd see how I wasn't disputing that force alone may not be enough to collapse a belief system. However, history shows that a new invading army or a colonizing population, for example, will use force to impose their beliefs on an extant population. The majority of the extant population will naturally resists at first, and many will die resisting. But gradually, after many generations of constant oppression, the extant population becomes compliant and begins to take on the beliefs of the colonizers. So over time, less force is required. Subjugation is then subsequently performed mostly through education and propaganda, with physical force only used as an omnipresent backup. The belief system of the extant population may not completely collapse or die out (all belief systems tend to persist), but the belief system of the colonizing population has achieved hegemony.

And if you'd take your head out of emile's anus long enough to re-read his comment then you'd notice he wrote: "but the hierarchical structure collapses with the collapse of belief in that structure." This is a mere truism (duh, of course no longer believing in something means the collapse in the structures produced by that belief), but it also implies that belief apostasy alone is sufficient to end physically coercive relationships. This is not necessarily true. As an analogy: most people don't like their jobs, they don't believe in what they are doing at work, but they do it anyway, because they are coerced into earning money in some fashion. You don't have to believe in the system--the system doesn't care whether you believe in it or not--as long as you obey the system, and there are enough people who do believe in the system to keep it going.

Emile has not provided a single example of where a belief in hierarchy and authority has collapsed on its own, due simply to a change in belief. So yes, it's just intellectualism.

As is this nostrum: " "hierarchies and coercion are belief-based concepts, they are not reality-based". I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, or why the distinction makes any substantive difference. Hierarchy can be realized and become reality, as can most belief-based concepts. So what? Making some kind of abstract distinction between reality-based and belief-based concepts is just more intellectual masturbation.

"so, there is an important distinction between 'having to do away with hierarchy and coercion' versus 'having to do away with belief in hierarchy and coercion'."

Again, this is unnecessarily intellectual. If hierarchy and coercion are themselves beliefs (as emile already states), then this is tantamount to saying there is 'an important distinction between doing away with beliefs [hierarchy and coercion] and doing away with the beliefs in those beliefs'. huh? Look, you either already believe in hierarchy and coercion or you don't. (Or you perhaps have some degree of belief in them). But if you want to do away with hierarchy and coercion, it obviously implies you already don't believe in them. Which means you don't need to 'do away with the belief in them' first.

Do you see the silliness of this now?

Emile and any others holding similar viewpoints

Forgive the not quite tight logic here, I am thinking out loud mostly...

What I am wondering here specifically is if hierarchy and coercion are according to your take, strictly the result of beliefs, why is it that these relationships arise primarily within sedentary and delayed return systems of subsistence? Regardless of the exceptions and grey areas, there is clearly a correlation between certain social structures and the rise of coercive social relationships.

If it is true that certain life way structures tend to give birth to coercive relationships, then wouldn't it be best to avoid them, in favor of the ones within which it is much easier to alter/avoid/challenge these beliefs?

Or the other way to phrase/ask this is if it is true that there is no influential relationship between life ways and belief-system, then you'd have to believe that humans could potentially live within any society, our present dystopia for instance, even though hierarchy didn't exist, which I find a quite unreasonable opinion. When there is hierarchy there are challengers and dissidents and free thinkers and opposition. Without hierarchy, as far as we know based on observation of immediate return nomadic hunter gatherers, then there is general harmony.

I don't think you can say that folks held a belief which led to the hierarchy. Where would this belief come from? I think the historical record indicates that for whatever reason some people decided to/had to settle down and preserve food for long periods of time, politics and economics arose.

So while changing our belief systems is definitely part of moving toward anarchy, it also involves dismantling or at least abandoning certain social structures, because the belief-systems will just arise again.

What sayest thou?

Please, could more anonymouses use some sort of name tag to make responding easier?

So wake up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and some eggs, hmmm what to do now, option A go out and challenge some beliefs in the community around you while asserting other ones, or option B go dismantle a social structure

I press B.

This leads me to page 57... Stuck with the Emile troll in the dungeon, now what do I dooo!?

read better books

Choose your own adventure books are the best. None better.

i am not saying that 'a belief led to hierarchy', as you phrased it, i am saying that hierarchy does not exist other than as a belief [the believers act as if it were real, so it is like a game of charades'].

in our continuing relational dynamics [= the physical reality of our experience], if someone comes along with some serious weaponry and gang of bully backers and says; 'i am king alfred and this here land, y'all have parked your fat asses on is the kingdom of alfred', ... we might find it practical to parry for time and say, 'yes, your majesty', and if, after three generations, no-one had found a way to disarm or overpower 'alfred' or his dynastic successors, the new generation might not only be saying, 'yes, your majesty', but snitching on resistors disloyal to the king [e.g. as happened within four years in nazi-occupied france].

your comment speaks of hierarchy as if it were a real structure which can be present or not; i.e. you say;

"When there is hierarchy there are challengers and dissidents and free thinkers and opposition."

why not, instead; "When those people with God-complexes come around trying to foist their abstract organizing on us, there are many like us who will never agree to buy in to their religious charade, though we may make a few half-hearted dance steps whenever the believers are looking at us, to stay viable as we continue to try to undermine belief in it."; e.g;

"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." -- R.B.J. Walker and Saul H. Mendlovitz, "Interrogating State Sovereignty."

the belief in the existence of hierarchy is secularized theological belief.

even when emile says things that makes sense and are comprehensible to those outside the academy, there is an ideological element. the above is a binary view of something that could not possibly be more complex and non-binary.

hierarchy is not PURELY belief. there are VERY real, physical elements of the civilized world that will not go away simply by "stop believing". i agree that eliminating hierarchy (etc) by force will not prevent it from being recreated. nor will lack of belief in it cause its very REAL manifestations to somehow wither away. it would take both of those things - changes in beliefs as well as changes in physical reality - and probably many others.

you can't think your way out of the maze, what we're talking about is a millennium's worth of not just 'stop believing' but 'not needing to believe', maybe two millennia. you're a pathetic weak little puke like me, right? but come on then, let's give it a go.

For fucks sake, maybe you're not all that smart is the problem.

"emile's language is not academic"
Hahahahahahahaahahahaaaa! Thanks for the laugh.

“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.)
.
To this end Bohm developed the notion of a particular language form, the Rheomode, adapted to the discussion of quantum theory and, indeed, to consciousness. – F. David Peat

“What are these academics so afraid of that they can’t face and contemplate and answer student’s questions about Whorf’s actual text? Why the smoke and mirrors? I suspect that they fear, and rightly so, that the entire Western worldview — logic, reason, science, philosophy, categories — the entire ‘civilization’ enterprise of which academia is a part, in fact, is at stake; or at least the superior attitude that often accompanies it. It may be a fear that what we’re culturally heir to is ‘just another worldview and its langscapes’ rather than exemplifying, as we tend to want to believe, eternal and universal human logic, which we’re simply ‘better at’ than people who speak other languages outside of the Indo-European language family. As John Lucy says, relativity “challenges assumptions which lie at the heart of much modern social and behavior research — namely its claim to be discovering general laws and to be truly scientific.” – Dan (Moonhawk) Alford

“As regards the academies, they are established in order to regulate the studies of the pupils and are concerned not to have the program of teaching change very often: in such places, because it is a question of the progress of the students, it frequently happens that the things which have to be chosen are not those which are most true but those which are most easy. And by that division in things which makes different people form different judgements, it so happens that certain people are in error contrary to their own opinion.” – Johannes Kepler, ‘Harmonies of the World’

"“Science itself, … may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presenting of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought”
.
“We … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach

And just trying to box people into categories.

If you could stop calling things academic for a moment and do an internet search for non-duality... Or: why not ask some questions instead of judging? Be more open to anarchy and the anarchic, homie.

Sorry, was responding to 'verified' 12:35

in the non-dualist understanding of the world dynamic, there is no mind and body split, there is only the relational form in the transforming relational continuum.

in the dualist view, the body is semantically modeled as a 'material thing in itself', ... and 'mind' is the answer to the predicament that that first assumption puts us in; i.e. 'what directs the behaviour of an independently-existing material body thing-in-itself', ... why, toto, ... it must have a 'mind', ... that must be it, ... there must be a mind inside the body that is the directive source of its behaviour. just like scientists say that plants in an ecosystem are so very smart, they know how to cooperate within very sophisticated relationships, so since they are independently-existing things, they must also have a mind. toto, ... scientists just haven't found out exactly where the mind of a plant or cell resides, but their logic informs them with certainty that there is a mind in there somewhere, so 'the check is in the mail', so-to-speak;

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

of course, nietzsche, schroedinger and others argue that our behaviours are situationally induced, in the manner of the tornado in the flow of the atmosphere [there is no central authority directing its behaviour]. the imputing of 'intention-driven and directed behaviour' is abstraction enabled by language and born of convenience in that it delivers 'economy of thought' [avoids dealing with relational complexity]. in the physical reality of our actual experience, 'situation' is in a natural precedence over intention (epigenetic inductive influence is actualizing the genetic expression of behavioural potentials). 'intention' as a fountainhead of behavioural direction is pure abstraction; i.e. a 'hierarchy' is pure abstraction, ... it is a notional independent system with its own inbuilt 'will' or purpose. it does not exist in the physical reality of our actual experience. it is an artefact of language, a 'semantic reality';

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

a hierarchical structure is a metaphor for the splitting of mind and body; i.e. the limbs of the independent structure all obey the directives of the central authority that is the fountainhead of behavioural directives. it does not live in the physical reality of our experience wherein situational influence is in a natural precedence over behavioural expression.

The going back theme seems to turn on some kind of conflation. If X says
1"We can't go back"
because
1.1 "we now have plastic and nuclear waste, and so, with these human introductions into Nature, there is no way to go back to a pristine, once upon a time wilderness",

it seems we can start on the way to reaching a sensible understanding of what is meant. If one intends to object to the very idea of tradition, as in
1.2 "we can't go back (we're moving forward!)"

It is obvious here that the hidden reason in 1.2 is the problem. I would hope that jz has read Langdon Winner (the whale and the reactor) and would agree that 1.1 is obviously true.

Evidently jz takes issue with the modality at 1; it's not impossible that we cannot move away from civilization; "we could" . Of course, people want technology, so it seems unlikely, etc.

Instead, its not that we can or can't go back--and the health analogy he uses is precisely to the point. To be healthy is relative. For body X to return to health is not a universal state, but rather simply functioning according to some kind of harmony. A healthy animal is only harmonious and healthy relative to the environment it exists within. Therefore, a raccoon can be healthy in a city; a rat can be healthy in a sewer; a virus in a giving environment. Adaptability and survival are the two keys to defining health in a non-pristine, once upon a time universe.

To end capitalism, press 1
For industrial collapse, press 2
To completely destroy all of civilization, press 3
To abolish prisons, press 4
If you know the badge number of the cop you want killed, please enter it now
For social war, press 5
To place your order for riot gear, press 6
For insurrection, press 7
If you would like to join a hunter-gatherer band, press 8
For all other inquiries, or to speak to an ITS representative, press 0
To repeat this menu, press star

0
so...how've you been?

the semantic realities or belief-based structures we build and use by common agreement as ‘operative realities’ may or may not be grounded in the physical reality of our actual, natural experience. hierarchies are exemplary of semantic realities that are not grounded in the physical reality of our actual, natural experience, ... but they serve as a way of shaping the behaviours of those who believe in them, and those believers may use violent force to make non-believers conform. sovereigntist hierarchies are belief-based semantic realities termed “the necessary instrument of colonial expansion” [Joseph Camilleri, "Rethinking Sovereignty in a Shrinking, Fragmented World."]

in the physical reality of our actual experience, the physical situation we are included in is in a natural precedence in actualizing our creative potentials and shaping our individual and collective behaviour. in a belief-based semantic reality, intellectual beliefs are put into an unnatural precedence over the unique, physical, situational reality we find ourselves included in.

people who are colonized [colonization was physical and mental], once they become habituated to belief in the imposed semantic reality [i.e. as they move from ‘resistors’ to ‘collaborators’], start their own policing of one another [collaborators snitch on resistors]. It is this new collaborationist-belief-based ‘policing’ or forcing one another to conform that sustains the physical implementation of the synthetic ‘semantic reality’;

“… 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 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 as to sustain the ban on climbing on it. Learning ‘politically correct’ (good/normal) behaviour’ was by way of revelation of what the group held to be ‘politically correct’ behaviour’, having that ride roughshod over the physical, situational reality.”

Whether it comes about by gestures or spoken language, ‘semantic realities’ can be put into an unnatural precedence over physical situational reality, as has occurred in the imposing of colonial hierarchies.

Those being physically pushed around by believers-in-hierarchies are understandably eager to physically push back and overthrow "the hierarchies"; i.e. to see the problem in a purely physical context and therefore assume that; Making some kind of abstract distinction between reality-based and belief-based concepts is just more intellectual masturbation.

When the resistor being hunted down by the believers-in-hierarchy comes to your house seeking refuge, extending your hand is like the chimp reaching out to grasp the red ladder while everyone is screaming ‘don’t do it’, not that the physical situational doesn’t demand it, but because of the belief-based semantic reality that the hierarchy-believer-collective has put into an unnatural precedence over situational realities.

one might then ask; ... Is the task of bringing down colonial hierarchical structures; (a) mostly a matter of melting down deeply instilled 'red-ladder flagged' beliefs [hint: of fucking course], (b) mostly a matter of rising up and overthrowing physical hierarchical structures as in the classical abstraction of binary good-and-evil conflict?

the belief in hierarchy [local mechanical systems] comes from taking noun-and-verb language LITERALLY as in 'realism', as contrasted with 'pragmatic idealism'. this is discussed at length by nietzsche, poincare, whorf, bohm and ackoff. however, to speak at length in a comments section is a red-ladder behaviour in this KISS-policed forum.

If only we all read enough of the exact right combinations of books!!!!
Then we will figure out the secret to changing this nightmare....... Yeah right.
Keep distracting yourselves!

I agree entirely with the first part of your comment.

JZ’s view that ‘timelessness’ is ‘gobbledegook’ and ‘debilitating post-modernism’ pinpoints the shortfall in his ‘going back’ ‘fix’ for a dissonant civilization. JZ says;

“This is a piece by Rat which is (otherwise) very informative -- “The Unique Adaptability of California Desert Life” ... the offending sentence is ... "The deserts are a good reminder that there is no going back to an imagined pristine state of nature, only moving outside of this timeline altogether to form a new way of being that is outside of the enforced spaces of capitalism". --- Sorry, Rat, that is just gobbledegook ... I haven’t any notion at all, of what you’re saying.... There IS going back.

JZ is stuck in Newtonian space and time wherein ‘change’ is seen as the successive ‘states’ of a materially existing system ['time' is the intellectual byproduct of inventing 'being' since relational transformation is then superseded by independent-things-that-change (as 'time advances')]. This is the Western ‘mechanistic view’ of the world wherein one might say, that earlier vintages of the machinery were better than the current one, so let’s dig out those vintage blueprints and restore [go back to] a prior version.

This differs radically from the relational view of modern physics wherein we live in a transforming relational continuum [the world is given only once; ... no 'past' or 'future' worlds]

Of course, ‘time’ can be a useful IDEALIZATION for organizing our observations and activities, just as the closed forms of geometry are, but the tornado seen in dualist terms of ‘an elongate, rotating vertical cylinder whose location is changing in time’ is not in a NATURAL precedence over our sensory experiencing of the tornado as a non-dualist relational feature in a transforming relational continuum; i.e. semantic reality does not 'actually' prevail over the physical reality of our experience, but Western civilization, by operating as if it did, is the source of the incoherence/dysfunction we are experiencing.

Rat’s remarks are grounded in the reality of a timeless transforming relational continuum [the ‘relations are all there is’ view of modern physics]. There is no 'real' ‘back’ or ‘forward’ [no 'real' past and future] in a relationally transforming medium. The ‘enforced spaces of capitalism’ that Rat refers to are based on putting mechanistic logic into an unnatural precedence over relational experience. Logical reality [semantic reality] is radically limited by subjectivity and innate incompleteness and when used by a collective as their ‘operative reality’, it crushes and suffocates those that are vulnerably situated within the transforming relational matrix.

As comments in this @news forum commonly illustrate, idealizations such as ‘hierarchy’ are popularly confused for ‘reality’ though hierarchy is not something that is given to all in common through direct sensory experience; it is idealization born of intellectual definition (common belief in intellectual idealizations). There are no old blueprints to go back to because there are no blueprints period in the relational world of our actual, natural experience; ... or, rather, every politician has his own personal set of intellectual blueprints that he tries to rally his followers around [based on fear of indian/slave revolts, muslims, blacks, eco-catastrophes etc.], so that the growing herd that employs a popularized political semantic reality as their operative reality, with the bit of logical abstraction in their teeth, ride roughshod over their own sensory perceptions, ignoring the screams of those in vulnerable situations who become the externalities or collateral damage associated with the herd’s successful accomplishing of their inherently subjective and incomplete logical blueprint based mission.

JZ is coming from the right place, he just needs to upgrade his modeling tools.

tear the bit of logical abstraction from the teeth of the growing herd at your own peril emile

Who would want to do such a thing?

A woman named Katina Stuckey Smith was sentenced to prison in 2000 and came out last year when she was one of a handful of people that Obama commuted the sentences of.
She said: "so much has changed. People don't hardly come out of their houses anymore. Everybody is so consumed with their phones or their computers."
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/wp/2016/07/08/one-year-out/

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
8
N
g
k
V
T
R
Enter the code without spaces.