Anarchy vs. Authority: ‘Organizing 101’

The argument that ‘anarchism won’t scale up’ won’t go away, and in its continual resurfacing, all the old pro and con arguments are regurgitated all over again.

What is missing is a common understanding of the physical nature of organizing.

The common understanding in the public at large, of ‘the nature of organizing’, is in a state of transition. For example, it used to be held, in biology, that the nucleus of a cell was the central directive authority of the cell that was where the buck started and stopped for organizing the activities within the cell. In fact, this outdated view is still ‘out there’ because it takes a while to change all of the ‘dictionaries’ or ‘encyclopaedias’ etc. that the old definitions are recorded in;

“The function of the nucleus is to maintain the integrity of these genes and to control the activities of the cell by regulating gene expression — the nucleus is, therefore, the control center of the cell.” --- Wikipedia

Since the late sixties, and helped along by stem-cell research, the new view of the cell is that the nucleus is more like the ‘eye’ of the tornado or convecting cell, it takes its shape from a continual influx and outflux; the conjugate relation between an outside-inward orchestrating [many-to-one sink/attractor] influence and an inside-outward asserting [one-to-many source/repulsor] outfluence. in biologist’s language;

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

Comparing this with the social organizing in a community dynamic, we see the same OPTION for alternatively viewing organizing as purely inside-outward directed, as if from a central directive authority, or as the conjugate relation between outside-inward influx and inside-outward outflux. Note that this latter case echoes the words of Einstein; “Space is a participant in physical phenomena”. In other words, in the central-directive authority model of organizing, we have the sense of a stand-alone [non-environment dependent] ‘organization’, or ‘organism’ that is its own source of functioning. The outside-inward influx is seen in terms of ‘IT’ is consuming or exploiting that which is outside of itself, and that ‘IT’ is a doer of deeds, a producer of outputs’. In other words, we elevated what is first of all an organizing process that is included in the general environment dynamic, in the manner of a convecting cell with its conjugate relational outside-inward --- inside outward dynamic [like the tornado with its conjugate ‘sink-hole --- source-fountain’ relation], by notionally giving ‘IT’ ‘thing-in-itself-status’.

When we give an organizing, or feature in the continuing relational flow, a notional ‘thing-in-itself’ status, then we invert the role of the centre of symmetry of the organiz[ING/ATION]. In the case of the organizING, the centre is inferred by the continual influx and outflux, as in the conjugate ‘many-to-one’ [field-flow-lines] sink-hole and ‘one-to-many’ source-fountain that constitutes the convecting cell. On the other hand, in the case of the ‘organization’, the centre is seen as the absolute centre of directive authority for the local ‘organization’, the ‘doer of the deed of organizing’, as in the old view of the biological cell.

Obviously, we have a choice here, as to how we can understand ‘organiz[ING/ATION], and work with it, in a social, relational context.

If we study the evolution of a thousand different communities in any region of the earth, there is a common pattern in that the earth has nipples or ‘attractors’ in it that people gather around like ants to a honey pot, sucking on the nipple. These ‘centres of organizING’ are usually some sustainable nexus of where waters continually flow as in a catch basin, or where fish and game and timber and grasses etc. are sustainably reproducing etc. After a few people settle in and around the nipple/attractor, niche opportunities [nipples/attractors] develop within the relational structure of the developing community; i.e. specializing of services is shaped by gaps in the evolving relationships; e.g. the man with cows over here and the dairy product lovers over there, begs for someone to start a dairy products distribution and merchandising service, and a dairy products processing [cheese-making] operation etc. etc. The naturally evolving community is an ‘ecosystem’ in that it develops in conjunction with an environmental ‘nipple’.

Now, here’s where the trouble starts in terms of our understanding and ‘replication’ of organizINGS/’organization’S, and this needs a critical review since it is subtle.

The outside-inward niche opening influences are purely relational which means they are ‘non-local’, ‘non-visible’ and ‘non-material’. On the other hand, the inside-outward asserting activities are ‘local’, ‘visible’ and ‘material’ and seem to be directed FULLY AND SOLELY from the internal centres of the participants.

As in the case of ‘quantum behaviour’; (a) if we look at the individual activities, we get one result, and (b) if we DON’T look at the individual activities, we get a different result.

Recall the biologists who ‘analyzed’ biological cell dynamics. They started with (a) since that’s what ‘analysis’ is; to examine the parts of a thing such as a cell or community in an in-and-back-out-again manner. System’s theorist Russell Ackoff gives the example of a ‘university’, where we analyze how it works by looking down into it, breaking it down into internal organs and components, understanding what these do, and then figuring out how all these parts work together to produce the functioning whole called the ‘university’. What is missed is that the primary dynamic is the suprasystem of community in which the university is an ‘organ’ serving a niche function within the suprasystem, and this means that ‘analytical inquiry into a system’ must be grounded in ‘synthetical inquiry’ or ‘out-and-back-in-again inquiry which puts the ‘system’ into a more physical realistic relational context.

The same ‘organization’ can be seen in two different ways, depending on whether ‘we look’ at individual activities, or ‘we don’t look’ at individual activities. We can’t directly study the outside-inward orchestrating influences of the relational niche-openings because they are purely relational and thus ‘non-local’, ‘non-visible’ and ‘non-material’. So we naturally study that which is ‘local’, ‘visible’, and ‘material’, or, in other words, ‘the inside-outward asserting actions of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what they do’, even though this view in terms of ‘‘organization’’ is not the whole story of the organizing; in fact, it is the lesser/secondary aspect of the organizing.

That is, in the (a) approach to inquiry into the nature of the community, we leave the outside-inward nipple-attractor influence of the environment out of it, and we capture the community as an ‘‘organization’ in itself’. This implies that its direction must come from inside of it, from some internal centre of directive authority. This is the ‘story’ we tell ourselves in the (a) inquiry mode where we ‘look’ at what everyone is doing.

Now, the alternative inquiry, (b) is where we don’t look in this inwards-and-back-out-again analytical fashion, but back off, as Ackoff suggests and look at the suprasystem the community or ‘‘organization’’ is included in, to explore its nature in an outside-and-back-in again sense. For example, we forget about our definition of a biological cell in terms of all its parts and what they do, and plunk some identical cells down in different environments [different solutions in different Petrie dishes] to see what the habitat [suprasystem] induces these inhabitants [systems] to do. In stem-cell research, it was found that one environment induced the cells to reproduce themselves as muscle cells, another environment induced the identical cells to reproduce themselves as bone cells and another environment induced the identical cells to reproduce themselves as fat cells. This ‘outside-inward orchestrating influence’ aka ‘epigenesis’ that is in conjugate relational with ‘inside-outward asserting influence’ aka ‘genesis’ is now acknowledged to be the general case in biological cell dynamics.

The (a) view gives us a view of the organizing as a ‘thing-in-itself’ ‘organISM’ or ‘‘organization’’, as if what it produces is due to it-in-itself. The efficient farming community in Oklahoma looks as if it is a ‘thing-in-itself’ or ‘‘organization’’, but when the dustbowl conditions came in the 1920s; i.e. when the nipple dried up, the organizING fell apart and the ‘components’ moved off in all directions, to Oregon, California etc. suggesting that their organizing was of the ecosystemic type rather than the local, internal centre-directed ‘‘organization’’ type. If we played the same trick on the Oklahoma farmer community as the biologists did with the stem-cells and moved them up into the arctic, they would become ice fishermen and seal and polar bear hunters, and so on and so forth, all of which suggests that we shouldn’t take our (a) inquiry too seriously, where we look at the individual participants and what they do, since what we are unable to see is the behaviour-shaping field of influence they are in which, because it is purely relational, is ‘non-local’, ‘non-visible’ and ‘non-material’, yet it is the PRIMARY organizING influence.

In other words, while the (a) inquiry, where ‘we look’ at the parts [participants] and what they are doing as if they are ‘things-in-themselves’ with their own behaviours, gives us a useful view into the nature of organizing, it is meanwhile a radically incomplete view which is missing the outside-side inward orchestrating influence; i.e. the primary influence on organizing.

The (b) inquiry, where ‘we don’t look’ at ‘individual things and what they do’, yields a different result in which the outside-inward influence, ... as primary organizING-shaping influence, ... comes to the fore.

The message is, and this has been captured by Mach, Nietzshe, Schroedinger in different language constructs, ... that the (a) view in terms of what is ‘local’, ‘visible’, and ‘material’ is ‘Fiktion’ [but a nutzliche (useful) Fiktion] according to Nietzsche and ‘schaumkommen’ (appearances) according to Schroedinger, and ‘metaphysics’ as in the belief in absolute space and absolute time that is the necessary prerequisite for conceiving as ‘real’, ‘local’, ‘visible’, ‘material’ ‘things-in-themselves’.

So, what do we make out of all of this understanding that we can look at organizing either in the (a) terms of ‘the individual parts’ and ‘what they do’, where in the organizing becomes ‘the ‘organization’’ or ‘organISM’, that we psychologically conceive of as a ‘local, visible, material ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own internal centre-directed genesis and behaviour. Or, we can understand the organizing in the (b) terms where ‘we don’t look’ and build in a ‘dependency’ on the existence of the parts and what they do, and instead let what is inside the organizING float, and understand the ‘organING’ in a relational context; i.e. in terms of its habitat-inhabitant relation. This gives rise to Mach’s principle; “the dynamics of the inhabitants [participants in the organizing] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants”. In other words, the relational space opens up niches that orchestrate the arising of assertive services to fill the niches, but as the assertive services rise up, new niches form in the relational spaces, which invite the arising of new assertive services. This is the origin of ‘complexification’ or ‘complex systems’.

So what is the ‘pitfall here’? The pitfall, according to Nietzsche, Mach and Schroedinger, and according to this straight-forward inquiry, is TO CONFUSE THE VIEW OF DYNAMICS/ORGANIZING IN TERMS OF THE ASSERTING ACTIONS OF LOCAL, VISIBLE AND MATERIAL ‘THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES’, FOR ‘PHYSICAL REALITY’. This view is a ‘useful fiction’ which drops out the primary organizing influence, the outside-inward relational orchestrating influence which is ‘non-local’, ‘non-visible’ and ‘non-material’ so that while it is INFERRED by the APPARENT dynamics seen in terms of local, visible, material things-in-themselves and what they do, it is not directly discernable. That is, the physically real organizing/dynamic is not directly discernable, ... which invites us to fall into the trap of confusing the useful fiction, the view of organizing in terms of local, visible, material things-in-themselves and what they do, for a physically real dynamic, which it is not.

So what do we, as would-be community-builders do with these understandings of ‘organiz[ING/ATION]?

There are cultural-historical trends that inform us on this; i.e. in the aboriginal tradition, the (b) ‘don’t look’ view of organizING was most popular, not only as a basis for understanding the world in a relational ecosystem web-of-life sense, but also as a basis for sustaining social organizING. Whereas, in the Western culture dominated world, the (a) ‘do look’ view of ‘organizATION’ is most popular, although this is at the moment undergoing a ‘thaw’ [e.g. the rise of circle processes as in ‘restorative justice’, ‘open spaces’, ‘art of hosting’ etc. initiatives].

The circle processes are used in support of the (b) mode of organizING wherein the centre is understood NOT as the directive centre, but as in the convecting cell, the place where many-to-one influx meets one-to-many outflux, or where the outside-inward orchestrating of niche opportunities is in conjugate relationship with inside-outward arising niche-filling services.

There is a saying in circle process organizING initiatives;

THE DIRECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IS IN THE ROOM, NOT ON THE PODIUM

This defines the community in the (b) terms of an organizing rather than in the (a) terms of an ‘‘organization’’, in the same manner that the biological cell, which was originally defined in the (a) terms of an ‘‘organizATION’’ is now redefined in the (b) terms of an organizING.

There is no limit to the scaling up of an organizing as it is the physically real organizING schema of nature.

On the other hand, the (a) view of organizING as internal centre-directed ‘‘organization’’ which forcibly puts THE DIRECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IS ON THE PODIUM is ‘useful Fiktion’ that cannot be pushed too far without fomenting problems. The biological cell example illustrates the point that if the cell is seen as purely genetically determined; i.e. determined by an internal directive centre, it will be unable to deal with changing environments. In the modern physics view, ‘it’ is not really an ‘it’ that is distinct [mutually exclusive] from the habitat [‘it’, the conception of a thing-in-itself is a ‘nützliche Fiktion’, not a physical reality]. As in Mach’s principle, the cell is a ‘process’ like the convection cell process where ‘outside-inwards informed receptors are in conjugate relation with inside-outward effectors’.

The centre-directed ‘organization’ is thus a ‘nützliche Fiktion’ or ‘approximation’ to how organizing works, which reduces the flow of influence from bidirectionally innovative [outside-inward --- inside-outward, or ‘habitat-inhabitant --- inhabitant-habitat’] to unidirectionally innovative [inside-outward asserting ONLY].

Imagine that you are the control freak that is ‘constructing an ‘organization’’ from your own ‘self’ as ‘centre-of-direction’. As you extend the scope of your ‘organization’ farther and farther from your seat of authority at the centre, the less access that people at the periphery will have to your council chambers, so that the more imbalance there will likely be between the behavioural directives coming, unidirectionally, from your seat of central authority, and the influence of environment that is imposing on those situated on the periphery; i.e. the greater the number of people caught between a rock and a hard place [between the central authority directives and the environment sourced influences] and the greater the intensity of the pressures imposed on those caught between a rock and a hard place.

The response by the central directive authority, when he sees people in his extended sphere of influence or ‘dominion’, ‘episcopate’, or ‘jurisdiction’ try to slip out from between their position between a rock and a hard place;

jurisdiction: 1. (Law) the right or power to administer justice and to apply laws 2. (Law) the exercise or extent of such right or power. 3. (Law) power or authority in general

... will be to intensify the powers of enforcement of the central directive authority.

In other words, those who BELIEVE that the source of organizing is centrally directed ‘organization’, rather than acknowledging that such a view is ‘nützliche Fiktion’, BELIEVE that THE DIRECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IS ON THE PODIUM and that is the only way to ‘do ‘organization’’. Thus, the only answer to the sitiuation where the little mice on the periphery start to squeal and break out of the ‘organization’AL directives of the central authority, is to ‘jack up’ the intensity of the enforcement.

In other words, the view is that ‘‘organization’’ is hard to ‘scale up’ because all these little mice tend to break out of the central authority directed enforcement field, as the ‘organization’ extends its episcopate/jurisdiction, ... but such an impression comes from MISCONCEIVING organizing as unidirectional, centre-directed ‘‘organization’’.

In other words, the very concept of ‘scaling up’ is THEORY-LADEN since it presumes that organizing is caused by an ‘‘organization’’. That is, it presumes that ‘the small ‘organization’’ works informally or anarchically’, but not when ‘it is scaled up’. Who says that organizing is caused by an ‘‘organization’’? The inference of ‘scaling up’ already contains within it the notion of organizing as the product of a ‘‘organization’’ that starts off small and can be scaled up to some‘thing’ larger.

organizing on a more global basis, does not have to arise from ‘scaling up’ an ‘‘organization’’. The global organizING associated with ‘Occupy’, ‘Arab Spring’ and ‘Idle-No-More’ do not arise from ‘scaling up’ small-scale ‘‘organization’’, they are characterized by THE DIRECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IS IN THE ROOM, NOT ON THE PODIUM [‘room’ as in german ‘raum’ as in ‘relational space’], ... rather than THE DIRECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IS ON THE PODIUM.

This notion of ‘scaling up’ is a ‘theory-laden proposition’ or ‘petitio principii’ of the type ‘lightning flashes’ [Nietzsche], but in this case ‘‘organizATIONs' organIZE’;

“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. 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
.
.
“[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

What Nietzsche is saying [the same as Mach and Scroedinger] is completely general and when applied to organizing, says that organizing does not require a doer-deed, subject-attribute, cause-effect structure such as ‘‘organization’ organizes’. Organizing, as in the physically real (b) mode as contrasted with the ‘nützliche Fiktion’ of (a) mode, is bidirectional innovation as in the modern view of the organizing constituted by the biological cell which is the conjugal relating of outside-inward orchestrating epigenesis and inside-outward asserting genesis.

Authoritarians are correct in noting the ‘correlation’ between the need for strong enforcement of central directed ‘‘organization’s’ to prevent rising ‘disorder’ as the ‘‘organization’’ is ‘scaled up’ from small-scale ‘‘organization’’ to large-scale ‘‘organization’’. But they are off base in interpreting that to mean that the informal mode of organizing in the smaller scale cannot be ‘scaled up’ without strongly-enforced central direction. Such a proposition is ‘theory-laden’ and assumes that ‘‘organization’ organizes’, otherwise ‘scaling up’ would not even come up. Global ‘organization’ that arises in the case of a global ‘Arab Spring’ or ‘global workers strike’ does not involve any ‘scaling up’ because it does not assume that ‘‘organization’ organizes’.

Rather than assuming that; THE DIRECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IS ON THE PODIUM, it assumes instead that THE DIRECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IS IN THE ROOM, NOT ON THE PODIUM

The lesson to keep in mind in discussing organizing is the less that comes from acknowledging what we ‘missed’, as a scientific-thinking culture, in our earlier conception of the biological cell as a local system with its own uni-directional internal centre-directed ‘‘organization’’.

“The function of the nucleus is to maintain the integrity of these genes and to control the activities of the cell by regulating gene expression — the nucleus is, therefore, the control center of the cell.” --- Wikipedia

This ‘nützliche Fiktion’ view of organizing in terms of ‘‘organization’ organizes’ [lightning flashes], which implies that the source of organizing is an ‘‘organization’’ has recently been subsumed in the bidirectionally innovative view of organizing

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

Conclusion:

In reflecting on the nature of organizing, it becomes clear that linguistic idealization has us infusing a notional ‘subject’ to serve as the jumpstart unidirectionally innovating source of organizing so as to RE-present organizING in terms of ‘‘organizATION’ organizes’.

In other words, it is popular to impute organizing to be the result of ‘organizATION’ which in turn implies a ‘local’, ‘visible’, ‘material’ system based, centrally-directed ‘organizATION’. Such a concept is the product of ‘linguistic idealization’ and while it may be ‘nützliche Fiktion’ or ‘schaumkommen/appearances’, must not be confused with physical reality.

However, this linguist idealization based ‘nützliche Fiktion’ is popularly and commonly, in the globally dominant Western culture, confused for physical reality.

What results is the MISimpression that organizing is produced by an ‘organizATION’ and the corollary MISimpression that informal non-centrally-directed organizATION [this is NOT ‘organizATION’ but organizing] cannot be scaled up.

Organizing can ‘go global’ without any need for ‘scale-up’ since organizING is NOT produced by ‘organizATION’. The intelligence in a relational space or web of social relations gives rise to organizING, the intelligence is not ‘on the podium’ [in the directive centre of the ‘organizATION’].

OrganizING by way of the intelligence in a global matrix of people that gives rise to centres everywhere, is not the result of ‘an organizATION’. The organizING in nature [see, for example, Nova’s ‘The Earth from Space’] does not ‘bottom out’ in any jumpstarting centre-of-direction. In a fluid-dynamical world [i.e. in a Machean, continually transforming relational spatial Plenum], centre’s are tacitly everywhere [like ‘eyes’ of storm-cells] and explicitly nowhere.

Authoritarianism is the dysfunctional practice of confusing ‘nützliche Fiktion’ based on linguistic idealization for physical reality; i.e. the dysfunctional practice [the double error or petitio principii] of confusing organizING as something causally determined by ‘an organizATION’.

Authoritarianism is a foundational belief in the currently globally dominant ‘colonizer culture’. The confusing of ‘nützliche Fiktion’ [‘OrganizATIONs organIZE] that is based on linguistic idealization for physical reality has been institutionalized in colonizer-culture systems of governance, commerce and justice.

OrganizING in nature is bidirectionally innovative [epigenesis in conjugal relation with genesis]. The unidirectional innovation that is incarnated in ‘organizATION’ is the product of ‘belief’ programmed into the notional centre-of-direction of individual humans. Thus it is feasible for politicians who can program the notional centre-of-direction of individual humans with the belief that they are members of a race of Aryan supermen that are going to take over control of the world. The program loaded into the notional centre-of-direction of a collective could be that they are bunch of chickens or kangaroos or gang members or sovereign state citizens etc. Programming the notional ‘directive centre’ of a human collective does indeed lead to ‘organizATION’; i.e. ‘organizATION’ is a ‘nützliche Fiktion’ by which members of a collective can see themselves as an ‘OrganizATION that organIZES’. Individuals that believe they are ‘citizens of an organizATION known as a sovereign state’ will stop and check in at the invisible boundary line borders even though all of nature, rivers, winds, birds, animals, aboriginals, by their actions, mocks the very idea of it. Thus, this unidirectional, central authority-directed ‘organizATION’, however much a ‘nützliche’ Fiktion it is, cannot be confused for the bidirectionally innovative physical organizing in nature.

The first requirement needed for getting a collection of humans to jump about like kangaroos or sovereign state citizens; i.e. to take direction from a central authority, is for them to see themselves in this same 'system archetype'; i.e. as a local, independently-existing material system with its own locally originating internal process directed [centre-of-authority-directed] behaviour. This opens the door to their 'accepting belief-based programs' and shutting down the 'reception of environmental signal' side of their natural bidirectionally innovating selves, and using theory-based program direction, to over-ride it. The aboriginal, when he arrives at the sovereign state border, understands how the belief-based program is directing him to behave, but if the program-enforcing police are not looking, he will revert to allowing his inside-outward asserting behaviour to be directed by habitat sourced outside-inward orchestrating influence.

Language plays a key role in unidirectional, central authority-directed ‘organizATION’ [linguistic idealization in the Standard Average European language group] since the subject-attribute architectural structure ‘subjectizes’ action and innovation, making it unidirectional as in Nietzsche’s example ‘lightning flashes’ which is replicated in the notion that ‘organizATION organizes’ [refer back to Nietzsche’s above comments to refresh the view of what is going on here; i.e. that propositions that utilize subject-jumpstarted sourcing of action/innovation are ‘theory-laden propositions’ aka 'double errors' aka 'petitio principii'].

Maybe this note didn’t end up justifying the '101' in its title, ‘Organizing 101’, but nevertheless, the concepts herein presented are clear, just as they were when Nietzsche presented them 125 years ago. They are just not ‘popular’ in the globally dominating colonizer culture because the sovereigntist, capitalist, materialist, belief systems are founded on the confusing of linguistic idealization for physical reality; i.e. on theory-laden propositions, and it happens that the people who benefit most from this 'delusion' based social system are the people who have most influence on central directives and their police-based enforcing.

Tags: 
Category: 

Comments

*SHOOTS SELF IN FACE*

What the fuck is this?

uh, ... itza deprogrammin poultice, to unfuck yoh colonized haid

Emile, you write the best articles to yourself.

Emile does not know how to 'organise'.

nah bro that all changed after 9/11

Emile, you write the best articles to yourself.

I hope you are murdered, Emile. I hope your brain explodes. And I wish even worse for your soulless goons.

Maybe this note didn’t end up justifying the '101' in its title, ‘Organizing 101’, but nevertheless, the concepts herein presented are clear....

This is, without doubt or irony, the best part.

emile's throat is going to be slit in his sleep.

How to we realize the non-material organizing, with a fiktion that points very real and material guns at our heads in order to turn the world into a labor camp? Do we have more options to de-colonize than indigenous cultures have been left with (three options)?

I disbelieve the fiktion, see those in the room (that the directive isn't the podium). What's the next step?

You've done a good job of clearly showing the fiktion as it is. Now it's time to take these thoughts further in order to confront a religiously obsessed (thinking of money, commodities) world that militarily tries to enforce the invisible lines and fixed notions as reality. I repeat myself, but will our non-material disbelief be enough to show the lines for what they are, dissolving a fiktion? This is where I both am skeptical, and don't have an answer. My optimistic side says the lines can be shown for what they are, non-existent. Perhaps this is because of my boundary-dissolving experiences on mushrooms, lsd.

I may have done a “good job of clearly showing the fiktion as it is” for you, because you are ‘already tuned in’, and your path to tuning in to this may have been paved by self-other boundary dissolving ‘trips’ which have dissipated your 'fear'. But I don’t think I’ve done a good job in opening up the average reader, who is 'full of fear' of dissolving these Fiktional boundary lines, to this ‘other way’ of ‘tuning in’ to the non-dualist [non-self-other splitting] world view.

a lot of people have been trying to do this for a long time; William Blake tried it. his angle of attack was to argue that poets imputed a genius or spirit to things, a river or waterfall or city and state, as a means of capturing ‘the spirit of the thing’, poetically, ... but the ‘priest’ profession used this literally, so as to ascribe things to ‘gods’ as the jumpstart animators of things, thus instead of conceiving of the world as a dynamic or ‘worlding’, we split out ‘world’ using linguistic idealization and have constructs such as ‘the world is changing’, that few SAE language group people today blink an eye at, but such a construct imputes that the world is a ‘thing in itself’ that exists within an absolute space frame, that changes over ‘time’. thus, this ‘thing-in-itself’, since it is notionally the author of its own development, must have a god inside it, to jumpstart animate its ‘changing’, and in the limit, there must therefore be a god-of-the-universe that is jumpstart animating it.

while blake brought out this idea that the local jumpstart spirit was a poetic way of describing nature that priests and scientist were mistakenly taking literally, he attracted a lot of interest, but really didn’t get the point of the full implications of this mind-glitsch across to any broad audience. Poincaré tried the same thing within science, saying ‘it is nonsense to say that ‘the earth rotates’’, and he claimed that amongst his many scientific colleagues, you could count the one’s who ‘got it’ on the fingers of one hand.

then there was ernst mach who claimed that there were no ‘things-in-themselves’, and he positioned himself between physics and psychology [his work on figure and ground was foundational to gestalt psychology], and he was booted out of mainstream science [excommunicated], which he called ‘The Church of Physics’ for his efforts.

nietzsche joined the effort, coming at it from philosophy and logic; i.e. with his ‘lightning flashes’ point; i.e. that we took something that was essentially ‘made of motion’, and imputed ‘being’ to it so that it could serve as the author of its own action. he is saying that all such constructs of the type ‘lightning flashes’, ‘the earth rotates’, ‘the organization organizes’, ‘the farmer farms’ etc. etc. etc. ... are theory laden aka ‘petitio principii’ aka ‘circular reasoning’. in other words, our typical Standard Europe Language group constructs are ridden with ‘circular reasoning’. to say that ‘the earth is changing’ implies that it lives within absolute space and absolute time reference frames, otherwise we would see it as an ‘earthing’, a dimple in the transforming relational spatial Plenum

sapir and whorf tuned in on this, and pointed out that aboriginal languages do not use this circular reasoning in their language architectures; i.e. they don’t build in a dependency on absolute space and absolute time. but reactionary forces rise up in all these cases, against the ideas of mach, nietzsche, sapir, whorf, ... to kill popular acceptance.

then we have had the ‘meditators’ like the people of zen and taoism who are able to tune into the physical reality of ‘being one with everything’; i.e. awareness of one’s situational inclusion in a transforming relational spatial Plenum; e.g. the dalai lama in the modern era.

and also the lsd and shrooms eaters, and people who combine the two, like aboriginals and like alan watts, who advocated our acceptance of the non-dualist worldview, and who further pointed to the problem with language, saying that we should use the word ‘manning’ for ‘man’ since all things are made of motion in a transforming relational spatial Plenum and ‘being’ is a notion based on the persisting form of the storm-cell like ‘cell’ in the transforming relational spatial Plenum. Watt's point being the same as nietzsche's, that 'manning' RE-presented as man, injects circular reasoning into our understanding of dynamics.

so, there have been a large number of ‘non-dualists’ who have influenced ‘how we feel’ about the dynamic world we live in.

meanwhile, the OFFICIAL belief continues to be that, for example, ‘the earth is changing’ [implying with respect to absolute space and absolute time] which ‘sets the pattern’ so that we believe that ‘we are changing’ [implying with respect to absolute space and absolute time] so that everything in the universe is split into independent fragments by this structure THAT WE IMPOSE, in spite of our own experience, ... splitting ourselves out of the dynamic Unum of the physically transforming relational spatial Plenum, and notionally RE-presenting ourselves as ‘things-in-themselves’ with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed development [‘changing’] and behaviour.

this fragmented ‘picture’ is something we keep repeating over and over again to ourselves, thanks to the architecture of our SAE language. as Wittgenstein observes;

“A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” – Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations

this ‘picture’; e.g., of a spherical earth turning ‘on its own’ in a void space, ... implies that we too are changing and moving ‘on our own’ in a void space. but the astronauts didn’t experience it that way when they went to the moon, they felt that they were ‘still included’, somehow, in the goings on way down/up there, within the thin blue film cloaking the planetary sphere. i.e. they did not feel as if they, and the earth and everything, were moving relative to an absolute void space, but instead, that they were moving relative to the movements of their families on earth; i.e. they were still connected to everything going on ‘on earth’; i.e. their experience was that space was ‘relational’ rather than absolute. as peter westbroek (dutch geophysicist) points out, we and our powers of perception belong to the transforming relational space we are included in, thus we are the eyes of the world that look upon ourselves [as in the lsd experience]. the view from the moon is one in which we are looking in on ourselves, the sort of view a storm-cell might have of ‘the other storm-cells in the cluster’ if it were to be separated from them.

ok, i know that i am repeating myself here, but it is to provide some background context to where you are going with your comment.

you ponder;

“... will our non-material disbelief be enough to show the lines for what they are, dissolving a fiktion? This is where I both am skeptical, and don't have an answer. My optimistic side says the lines can be shown for what they are, non-existent.”

what i am saying is that the problem may not be ‘dissolving the fiktion’ of discretizing boundaries, ... since we have had all of these people working on this, poets, scientists, philosophers, meditators, drug experiencers, linguists, and they have awakened similar awarenesses in others. the problem is that this belief in dualism is institutionalized in government, commerce, justice and these are backed up by police and military. this promotes the logic of authoritarianism, the logic of the excluded third, where A cannot ever = not.A; i.e. where Katrina-the-inhabitant cannot ever = the habitat/environment she is inclusionally situated in, because if that were the case, we could no longer talk in terms of ‘HER’ growth and ‘HER’ movement and ‘HER” doer-deed actions; i.e. we would have to shift the animative sourcing to the habitat that was, as Emerson says in ‘The Method of Nature’, not only inhabiting the organism but creating it.

so the problem is not so much ‘dissolving the fiktion’, the problem is that the logic of the excluded third is our Western culture’s standard logic. it is the logic of Socratic reasoning, and it is the logic of authoritarianism, and we are using it to ‘attack authoritarianism’ which is ‘dysfunctional’.

do you get my point? in my view your optimism is well supported;

My optimistic side says the lines can be shown for what they are, non-existent.”

what we are hung up on is our habit of putting the dualist logic of the excluded third in precedence over our non-dualist logic of the included third, or, if one prefers, ‘putting rationality into an unnatural precedence over intuition [relationality, where the lines are non-existent]’.

mainstream science is still hung up on this point, though Machean psycho-physics is showing us the open door out of this hang-up.

in the Occupy movement, people were of a diverse multiplicity of world views, so that logical debate was slow to develop, which was a good thing, because logic is the problem. logic, as even mathematicians have shown, is ‘incomplete’. in using logic [of the excluded third] we build twenty pound theorems from ten pound axioms [Chaitin]. circle processes do not put logic [rationality] into an unnatural precedence over intuition [relationality, where the lines are non-existent].

so, think about this. in this forum, even, many participants react angrily, as we share views, to any departures from putting logic in precedence over intuition. they prefer to live in a non-physically real ‘Fiktional’ world ruled by logic. why? why don’t they want to be dionysians as advocated by nietzsche,... people who are continually accepting of an unpredictably unfolding world which invites them to be continuously ‘rising to the occasion’. why do they want everything to be controlled and predictable? so that they are never put into the position of ‘rising to the occasion’ because of being situationally included in an unpredictable unfolding. why do they want to use all of their energies in purely determinative assertive action that is animated by intellection and purpose, guided by mission, vision, goals and objectives?

‘fear’ would seem to be the answer. we have become a culture whose social dynamic is shaped by fear. fear of terrorists. fear of climate change. fear of unemployment. fear of insolvency. fear of foreign peoples. fear of immigrants. fear of being beaten by the russians or chinese. in our fear, we construct REALLY scary stuff like ‘government’ and ‘corporations’ and ‘banks’ and ‘courts’ and equip them with standing armies and police forces.

it seems to me, therefore, that the challenge is only partly ‘showing the lines to be non-existent’. you can remove the cage that contains the people, but you can’t uncage a fearful people, ... they will say; ‘i understand that these lines separate me from others and so cramp my style, but these lines also protect me from encroachment by others, and there are so many barbarians at the gate, that i would prefer to keep the lines.’ if i didn’t have so much to lose, then it might be a different matter; i.e. ‘freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose’.

so, if we keep working on ‘undermining the intellectual premises of colonialism’ [restoring intuition to its natural precedence over rationality] so as to more widely ‘dissolve the non-existent lines that have been living in our minds’, a global financial collapse may deliver the additional catalyst, freedom from fear of losing the material wealth we have acquired; fear that is keeping authoritarianism and the unnatural precedence of rationality over intuition, in power.

I will admit I skimmed your response, for now. Still, I had to comment on the ending. A few days ago a friend and I were talking about some of our slightly-radical friends who no longer see the culturally conditioned boundaries. A few days early I was talking to them about resistance and fighting back. Getting to the point where we recognize that the lines are invisible lines was easy. Moving to the next step and talking about how much resistance people have done throughout history, and how we can continue to fight back drew blank, nervous looks. Eventually these expressions gave way to their trying to change the subject. I asked my friend why they did that. I got a simple response: fear.

yes, it’s funny but i would have thought that the first and biggest wall of fear would associate with letting go of the self-other split because that is a psychological fear of the dissolution of the ego. of course, after one has popped a hallucinogenic, it is going to happen anyhow. the next wall of fear, from my experience with friends who no longer see the boundaries, ... is that of alienation. people think you are weird if you start talking as if the state doesn’t really exist and/or if climate doesn’t really exist, that they’re just the artefacts of language games, so, many people fear alienation if they start ‘living’ and openly speaking in boundary-less ways. at that point, if one is not living in a very tolerant and unfearful sub-culture, one may shut up about it. my experience is that when you are surrounded by people who have not reflected on these boundaryless views, they start to freak out when you get into it, regardless of their intellectual background (a close friend, PhD in physics and an exceptionally powerful mind once told me; ‘i go silent when you start getting into that stuff because, quite frankly, it scares the shit out of me’). it felt to him like shamanism that would start to get a hold on his mind, making him feel very unstable. the antidote was to pull back from that ‘creepy place’ and revert to the solid ground of expostulating in hard logical propositions.

meanwhile, for me, i can no longer draw any nourishment from keynote speeches by obama or any politician or boundary-based rhetorician, apart from the occasional empathy/feeling attached to the subject that has nothing to do with the intellectual [linguistically idealized] garble dished out with it. therefore, it is like i am in a pasture with other grazing creatures and the stuff they are eagerly munching on [media news, science etc.] makes me want to puke. i have to look around for a wild grass that is 1% of the normal pasture grass, or go off in search of stranger pastures. i have been through the fear wall of dissolution of the ego, and through the fear wall of alienation, and while the fear wall of physical violence [like doing a jail term; i.e. i hate jails] is unlikely to dissipate, i have not been testing myself on it to the degree that some have, not because of that fear [not consciously, at least], but because of trying to stay faithful to the orchestrating influences of my situational inclusion in the unfolding world dynamic as best i can.

the aboriginals in 'Idle-No-More', for example, are all over the place re intellectual outlooks, but they are a group that tends to accept one another regardless, all the way up to spider-woman prophecies and interpreting omens of an eagle flyover etc. so they are missing this fear of alienation (within their community) that associates with grounding one's discourse in rationality, and this is a real strength, that we could all do with more of. one definitely does not find much of it in forums such as this.

I've tried to find where this fear is rooted over the years. One part may be death-anxiety. But, I think a bigger part has been fear brought on by how callous, brutal humans can be under a dehumanizing system. I've always been sensitive to misery. Maybe having cancer as a child had something to do with it.

That's the violence I fear: systematized. It's socialized, rationalized.

Your response made me think of the feral faun text "feral revolution."

The fighting spirit doesn't frighten me. It's joyful, willful, even playful.

I was going to say something, but then a brutish lady obsessed with 911 made very lewd and suggestive comments at me that made me uncomfortable and now I don't feel like anything but a violated soul.

So you aren't making total destroy because you must keep posting on Anews, huh

didnt read

i just wrote this song. it's called "emile"

Father Emile writing the words of some bullshit that no one will hear
No one comes near.
Look at him working, writing his shit in the night when there's nobody there
What does he care?

All the lonely people
Where do they all come from?
All the lonely people
Where do they all belong?

hey, i like that, ... a play on non-dualism's encounter with dualism.

But even after admitting this, there is no catharsis; my punishment continues to elude me, and I gain no deeper knowledge of myself. No new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing ...

“I stare into a thin, web-like crack above the urinal's handle and think to myself that if I were to disappear into that crack, say somehow miniaturize and slip into it, the odds are good that no one would notice I was gone. No... one... would... care. In fact some, if they noticed my absence, might feel an odd, indefinable sense of relief. This is true: the world is better off with some people gone. Our lives are not all interconnected. That theory is crock. Some people truly do not need to be here.”

* * *

“As will become apparent in the following pages, the `nothingness' of which Eastern scholars are fond of alluding to is not a nothingness relative to the fullness of being, but a positive, fecund and pro-generative emptiness in which something and nothing, subject and object emerges. This is entirely different from the `negative' form of nothingness, a nihilistic mood, that would result from the insistence on remaining silent or a refusal to engage. Heidegger's `conversations' with a Japanese friend revealingly shows the metaphysical `gulf' separating Eastern and Western attitudes towards emptiness and nothingness when the Japanese expressed amazement at Western reactions to Heidegger's work. `We marvel to this day how the Europeans could lapse into interpreting as nihilistic the nothingness of which you speak. To us, emptiness is the loftiest name'. Yet, this state of `absolute nothingness' [what Nishitani calls ‘sunyata’] cannot be reached through premature abandonment. Instead it is attainable only through the long and endless struggles and `companionship' with both language and silence. Neither language nor silence can express the full richness of the real. We are therefore pushed beyond both language and silence. Words are taken lightly and only as `surface pointers which must not be thought to exhaust the depths of the actual experiences encountered. At best, they lead to beneath the surface "hows" to the deeper causes and regularities of things and events, which only the keenest and most experienced observer will have noticed... .it probes beneath the surface of appearances'. It is this relentless and unceasing emphasis on encountering and engaging with an unseen and unseeable `other' which marks the Eastern mode of thought from the West.

did you not even realize that that's a quote from american psycho? fuck you for being so stupid

why do you think i put it in there. did you not realize i was comparing the nihilism of western dualist thinking with aboriginal and eastern non-dualist worldview? try reading the second quote.

did you not realize that no one reads anything you write, emile

i realize that some people read only to the point where their current equipment for extracting understanding gives out, which is the pivot point at which they can either open themselves up to an equipment upgrade, or use what they have to launch a tirade against whoever they can blame for having plugged and stalled their engines-of-understanding.

Please forgive the EMILE. It has been overheating recently and has now begun to speak like the machine it actually is. We will have this problem resolved soon. Thanks.

You are an insufferably bad writer and it has been pointed out over and over and over again and even people who generally agree with you think your writing is shit. You'd think you'd get lots of practice with all those walls of text you hammer out but instead of accepting criticism or spending a little time revising your wok before you post it you just keep chugging along and getting mad when people don't want to be drowned in dry, awkward, rambling verbiage. What I'm saying is that you suck and you should listen when people tell you that you suck.

seriously, this comment times 10. dude, if you wanted to compare the two just fucking say it bro and come at us 'cause ain't nobody got time to read that shite. practice writing a couple of your own sentences that sum up everything. god damn, this is america!!! people!!!!!!!!

it's sad, but emile kind of reminds me of those religious indymedia trolls who post incomprehensible words against all logic. like bro, do you even lift?

"Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Here's an interesting article on a sentiment Emile will never express
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/

Yeah I call that the "German style"... Or why make express something in it's required simplicity of a few lines when you can make it over-complicated and span over 1000 pages, with pages-long sentences and at least 2/3 of the book for the reference sections.

Oh... Marcel Proust was good at that, too. But at least he fully assumed this was LITERATURE, did it in a rather tasteful and colorful way, so it wasn't some faux-philosophy or regurgitated sociology from Frankfurt!!! Fuckers.

only when one knows the sound of one suck sucking will they be ready to deepthroat and eventually possibly become a "master" bater. snach the suck from my hand grasshopper and then you will be ready.

Their loss

there you are, you little fucking weasel.

I enjoy reading Emile's comments, most people on here are equally as ignorant and devoid of thought as the rest of the shit bag bloggers on yahoo articles etc... "Anarchists" are the largest group of dense shit stains in North America.

Also the biggest cowards you will ever meet... in North America that is.....

Please don't generalize.

The US government has just found a new method of torture: forcing someone to read one of emile's essays.

didnt read

For using Poincaire as a source!?

Maybe I shouldn't like "A People's History of the United States" because Howard Zinn wasn't an anarchist.

BOOM!!!!!! LOGIC EXPLOSION!!! 200 POINTS

I LOVE this! While worker keeps changing the anews to make even more hip and happening (confusing),
emile continues his lengthy postmodern screeds (note the quotation marks: dead give-away) intended to
bore everyone to death. Lunatic or cop? You decide.

Government-funded automatic text generator. Case closed.

you are a government funded food bag, please die

Best comment.

I did actually read this, though, after I got over my aversion to how much the article resembles a spam bot message. Though I feel like emile doesn't have much imagination in terms of figuring out how to present ideas so that people can readily understand them, and defaults to some seriously contorted computer-speak, I actually got a lot out of the article. I thought it presented some interesting ideas, and I wish more people were talking about these same concepts (in less painful language).

a photo of the "EMILE" might answer a lot of questions. if one exists

This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Daisy, daisy. . . .

say what you want, but if emile were to stop posting, you all would totally miss it.

Play Free Bird!

EMILE IS WATSON

no seriously though, it makes sense.

hard not to notice that Emile was attracted some personal trolls with a irrational seething hatred of epic proportions. Time will only tell who will be left standing.

Probably Emile. I personally criticized E-bag a lot a dropping off of agitanews almost completely. I come back a couple years later and it's still the same shit. Maybe a little stinkier.

i thought this thread had exhausted itself. it seems i thought wrong.

a lot of material passes through this forum. for my own part, i read a lot more material that i don’t end up commenting on than material i do comment on. when i comment, i usually engage on the basis of the content that is being shared, rather than jumping over the content to engage with the style of writing or with a reverse-engineered author-persona, not that that isn’t fair game, particularly if there some artistry in the execution of it.

but when there’s little to no artistry and its just a kind of repetitive heckling, ... it may be signalling that heckling is being misunderstood.

heckling developed from those situations where the speaker has a captive audience in a hall, and the trapped audience heckles to get a boring or annoying speaker to finish up so that a more interesting one can take over the podium.

while the heckling is captured fairly well in this forum, a little more work seems to be needed on distinguishing between the ‘forum’ or ‘chat room’ associated with a browser window and the physically solid variety. the browser room is not the same kind of room that gave rise to heckling. while it may seem like it, one is not really held captive in an internet forum. it is more like a multi-meeting room convention centre where the seats have a little button on the arm rest, where, if you click it, it will shift you immediately to another meeting room, which, by reciprocity, equates to shifting the speaker out of the meeting room you are in. this is one of the benefits of virtual reality; ... you can rematerialize in a new location in a flash, so that you won't be held captive and be subjected to stuff you don’t like. of course, if you enjoy being immersed in stuff you don’t like, which seems a not uncommon fetish, ... virtual reality will facilitate this also.

and you wonder why this thread keeps going? honestly, i just read the last paragraph you wrote... and i'm like what the fuck right now...?

seriously, emile - who are you?

If you are confused with my ‘jargon’, let me try again to explain it, for anyone who may be interested.

The following three quotes highlight the problem with the ‘limitations of regular language’ and the potential solution. my view is that our SAE language itself, by virtue of its subject-attribute architecture, is screwing us up in the sense that we are, as nietzsche points out, trapping ourselves in the narrow confines of a world seen in terms of a space and time frame inhabited by ‘doers-of-deeds’, ‘causers-of-effects’. The language of modern physics has liberated itself [the new post-newtonian version of science-language] from this entrapment, but the malady lingers on in everyday discourse. my posts attempt to break out of that trap, .... not to invent a new language in toto, but to use terms that seek to avoid the usual cause-effect mind-trap, which means 'adding terms' to divert the mind so that it won't fall into the potholes/pitfalls'

1. The General Problem;

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

2. The Particular Problem (Our Standard Average European language subjectizes dynamical behaviour; it translocates the animative sourcing of dynamics from the continually transforming relational spatial-plenum of modern physics, and it NOTIONALLY re-institutes it in ‘the subject’; i.e. in the ‘grammatical structure’ of the SAE language)

“ “Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. 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 ... "I am afraid we cannot get rid of God [jumpstart point-sourced creation] because we still believe in grammar" - Nietzsche, 'Twilight of the Idols'

3. The ‘General Direction’ of Solving the Problem.

“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 or ‘holodynamic’).
.
To this end Bohm developed the notion of a particular language form, the Rheomode [flow-based language], adapted to the discussion of quantum theory and, indeed, to consciousness. It is not clear if Bohm ever considered the Rheomode to have any practical consequences - ie that people would end up speaking it. However, he does appear to have encouraged staff and students at Brockwood Park School, England to experiment with the language. Towards the end of his life Bohm met with Blackfoot and Ojibwaj speakers and discovered that their own family of languages, as well as their process-world view, have much in common with the Rheomode.” – F. David Peat (‘Blackfoot Physics’), Language and Linguistics

* * *

So, this is why my writing appears to be filled with ‘unnecessary jargon’; i.e. because it after the same thing that bohm and mach and others have said is needed; i.e. to avoid fragmenting ‘the holodynamic’ which is the physically real world dynamic of our experience, into a zillion pieces by interposing jumpstart sources of dynamic behaviour by way of linguistic idealization; i.e. by imputing the source of dynamics to jumpstart from dynamic forms (e.g. the hurricane/Katrina) that we use language to name-label and define as ‘things-in-themselves’ with their own locally-originating, internal process driven and directed dynamical behaviour [development, movement and interactions].

Our SAE language ‘hides the truth’ about ‘organizing’. a ‘rheomode’ language [flow-language], if we developed one, would restore the truth about ‘organizing’.

Example: in a ‘rheomode’ language, ‘time’ does not exist as we use it in our SAE linguistic idealizations. we use ‘time’ to impute the existence of a box-like opening of our experience; i.e. as a durational unit, within which ‘time’, things happen. that is, ‘time’ allows us to portray change, FALSELY, as the sum of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ during the ‘time interval’. for example, the valley municipal council uses ‘time’ to make statements like; ‘we approved the plans for a Cadillac factory and it was constructed and operationalized in the valley in 1965’.
ask yourself if you have any problem with such a statement that uses ‘time’ together with ‘jumpstart doer-deedery’ in this way.
then consider the following statement;

“Many people would be disposed to say that it was not the machine, but what one did with the machine, that was its meaning or message. In terms of the ways in which the machine altered our relations to one another and ourselves, it mattered not in the least whether it turned out cornflakes or Cadillacs. — Marshall McLuhan, ‘Understanding Media’

The old aboriginals in the valley, having lived long enough to see the fish, game and forests disappear; now seeing a new golf course where the old burial grounds used to be, and high rise buildings in the sweet-grass meadows where the deer and antelope roamed, understands ‘change’ in terms of a transforming relational-spatial tapestry. The natural tapestry is still there but it has been continually transforming. to the aboriginal, time is in the sense ‘becoming later’ [Whorf] in the general relational-spatial evolution, it is NOT a box or frame inside of which we can talk about ‘what happened in that ‘time-frame’’ as if we could make sense of dynamics by chopping out a time period and discussing ‘its doer-deed based contents’.

so, we have a major disagreement here that we can choose which side of it we are on. the old valley aboriginals say that THE REAL PHYSICAL DYNAMIC IS THE TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL VALLEY SPACE [which is included in the transforming relational spatial plenum] and McLuhan insists, also, that this is the case.

if they have correctly identified the ‘real physical dynamic’, then what the hell is this dynamic that we describe based on our imposing of a notional space and time ‘box’ or fixed ‘operating theatre’ such as ‘the valley as a local space frame and 1965 as a local time frame’ wherein we speak of our having ‘constructed and operationalized’ a Cadillac factory?

the continual transforming of the valley in a relational-spatial sense THAT WE EXPERIENCE, and the doer-deed operation going on inside of the space and time box THAT WE SPEAK ABOUT can’t BOTH be the ‘real physical dynamic’.

you know what the guys at city hall take to be real, the succession of new doer-deed development projects that they invite and approve, that will increase the tax base. but the old aboriginals see these projects like ‘sharp sticks poking the continually developing valley-embryo’, and our experience informs us that this is the real physical dynamic. not until 2003 did a Nobel prize in economics for Joseph Stiglitz and his euphemistic pointer to this problem by way of the economic concept of ‘externalities’ was there even the beginnings of recognition that doer-deed projects are NOT things-in-themselves, but sharp sticks poking into the continually transforming relational space of the valley [and beyond; i.e. the holodynamic].

do you agree with McLuhan and the aboriginals [not the rock-group], that;

the SAE language based statement; ‘the valley Cadillac factory was constructed and operationalized in 1965’ is Fiktion [Nietzsche], Schaumkommen/appearances [Schroedinger], Nonsense [Poincaré], Maya/illusion, Vedanta?

and that the physical reality of our experience that acknowledges that;

the universe [holodynamic] expressing itself through the valley and the relational spatial transformation of the valley and its inhabitants was witness to emergent activity that introduced new flow-forms into the valley, which various different language architectures can capture in different ways. an aboriginal language would capture the new flow-forms in the transforming valley in verbal context; i.e. ‘a Cadillacking active emerged within the valley-dynamic’ and along with it, distinctive ‘gopher-mounds’ or ‘hives of Cadillacking activity’. an SAE language would capture the same thing in ‘time’-framed doer-deed constructions [linguistic idealizations]; “in the 1965 time-frame, a Cadillac factory was constructed and operationalized, and remains one of the main doer-deed activities in our valley. it is one of the major improvements to the land [check what it says on the property tax forms] that the valley central authority has championed and achieved, fulfilling its mandate given to it by the valley anthropocentrist populace [fuck the tree-hugging aboriginals], and together with other profitable enterprises, make this valley what it is today.”

summary:

the language we use shapes our impression of ‘reality’. our SAE language, such as English, lends itself to ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ reference framing which sets up our view of ‘dynamics’ in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves’ are doing in time and space’. this is NOT the real physical dynamics according to modern physics and modern philosophers such as Mach, Nietzsche et al. it is linguistic idealization based Fiktion, Nonsense, Appearances, Illusion that we present to ourselves through science and science’s quest for ‘economy of thought’. That is, it is nützliche Fiktion (useful fiction);

““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

for those readers who are satisfied that the following ‘linguistic idealization’ framed in ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ that purports to be ‘physical reality’ is a good enough facsimile of physical reality;

“in the 1965 time-frame, a Cadillac factory was constructed and operationalized, and remains one of the main doer-deed activities in our valley. it is one of the major improvements to the land [check what it says on the property tax forms] that the valley central authority has championed and achieved, fulfilling its mandate given to it by the valley anthropocentrist populace [fuck the tree-hugging aboriginals], and together with other profitable enterprises, make this valley what it is today.”

for those readers that accept such a statement as re-presenting physical reality [rather than seeing it as 'nützliche Fiktion', ... there is no need to bother struggling through emile’s attempts at ‘rheomode’ language that seek to avoid absolute space and absolute time framing dependencies as pervade our everyday SAE language group constructions, and as condition our minds in such a manner that we habitually confuse such 'nützliche Fiktion' for 'physical reality' and have difficulty re-grounding ourselves in the physical reality of our own experience.

.

3. The ‘General Direction’ of Solving the Problem.

“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 or ‘holodynamic’).
.
To this end Bohm developed the notion of a particular language form, the Rheomode [flow-based language], adapted to the discussion of quantum theory and, indeed, to consciousness. It is not clear if Bohm ever considered the Rheomode to have any practical consequences - ie that people would end up speaking it. However, he does appear to have encouraged staff and students at Brockwood Park School, England to experiment with the language. Towards the end of his life Bohm met with Blackfoot and Ojibwaj speakers and discovered that their own family of languages, as well as their process-world view, have much in common with the Rheomode.”
.
– F. David Peat (‘Blackfoot Physics’), Language and Linguistics

TL;DR rather than accept the imprecision inherent in language I attempt to write not as if I am discoursing with a sentient reader but with the tedious precision of a programmer feeding well-structured instructional code into a dumb collection of chips and wire. I do so on the basis of a thought provoking but perennially unproven and little supported assertion which has been seized upon by pop-psychologist dickheads.

In summary: I write like this because I believe that you are all idiots who can bring nothing in the way of understanding to your reading of my text. Shut up and execute the code.

I also feel the need to explicitly state something implied here because you will most likely fail to notice it.
My purpose in writing to you is not to create language to adequately express a certain idea or world view but to craft language that can only be understood WITHIN it's own "Weltanschauung" in order to produce a singularity between "understanding" and "agreement" not for rhetorical purposes, but to generate a concordance between my written output and your subjective intellectual state. This is the purpose of my analogy with computers.

You will note my use of "doer-deed" language in these last two posts. I am, as is said of the relation between human masters and pets or perhaps stray individuals of common pet specie "throwing you a bone".

Also, if you refuse to acknowledge the superiority of my Rheomode language you are "literally" "committing" "genocide" and "raping-the-earth"

what you conclude has no basis in what i have written. if you were familiar with the difference between retributive justice and restorative justice, you would see the point made by those in restorative justice that we all have the capability to view the world in terms of a relational space, or in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, and that retributive justice, and Western institutions of governance and commerce as well, are based on the fragmented ‘what things do’ view of dynamics.

in restorative justice one TRIES TO AVOID using words like ‘criminal’, ‘victim’, ‘offender’, ‘guilty’, ‘innocent’, ‘good’, ‘evil’ as attributes of an individual. one also tries to use words that imply that the community accepts responsibility for the dissonance.

some people will resist the notion that the community is responsible for the dissonance that erupts in the form of protests and demonstrations. the notion of ‘the state versus joel bitar’ is retributive justice. it is the mechanical application of laws applied to individual behaviour that exonerate the community from having any responsibility whatsoever for the emergence of violent protest. the see the community/state as ‘innocent’ and ‘the victim’ and the lawbreaker as a ‘guilty’ and a ‘criminal’ and there are very basic assumptions that are foundational to a worldview incorporated in ‘this sort of language’.

those involved in restorative justice (it is a global movement) are trying to shift to a language that is not theory-laden in the sense that it implies that dynamics are sourced by local, independently-existing material systems with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviours. in other words, they are trying to shift to what bohm calls ‘rheomode’, or ‘flow-language’ which avoids the imputing of absolute thing-in-themselves subjects that jumpstart their own behaviours as the source of dynamics. in other words, a language that is closer to compatibility with understanding the universe as a holodynamic, ... or, if you prefer, ... a transforming relational space.

in my posts, i make the same sort of ‘rheomode’ adjustments to language as others in restorative justice do, and some people do not like it at all. moralists and religious fundamentalists like to stick with the cut and dried terminology of ‘criminal’, ‘guilty’ etc. and to hold firmly to the individual’s full and sole responsibility for his actions. if the well-off are gorging themselves at banquets in luxury surroundings and someone living on the street comes and takes, without permission, a stale bread role for his starving child, he is held to be guilty of a crime and no-one is to blame for this other than himself, because of the assumptions underlying the ‘what things-in-themselves do’ worldview that is embodied in the standard retributive justice institution. in restorative justice [and aboriginal justice], the community assumes responsibility for such dissonances that emerge within the community dynamic.

the supporters of retributive justice will call joel bitar a ‘criminal’ and support his extradition in accordance with the standard retributive criminal justice system and will call marie mason a ‘terrorist’ and support her 22 year jail sentence. these are examples of language that ‘rheomode’, or whatever we want to call it, would ‘lift away’.

sure, there is conflict between the flow-language that restorative justice is slowly shifting to because the retributive justice people want to stick to the standard language, and they get pissed off when they hear terms like ‘dissonance’or ‘harm’ in the community that ‘the community needs to heal’. they don’t believe ‘the community needs to heal’, they believe the community needs to apprehend and incarcerate ‘criminals’ and ditto for ‘terrorists’ and even if this retributive justice process, which holds the state to be 100% innocent, radicalizes into ‘criminals and terrorists’ an ever-increasing fraction of the population, that doesn’t change the fact for them that ‘the law is the law’.

you personify me and my intent as follows;

“rather than accept the imprecision inherent in language I attempt to write not as if I am discoursing with a sentient reader but with the tedious precision of a programmer feeding well-structured instructional code into a dumb collection of chips and wire. I do so on the basis of a thought provoking but perennially unproven and little supported assertion which has been seized upon by pop-psychologist dickheads. In summary: I write like this because I believe that you are all idiots who can bring nothing in the way of understanding to your reading of my text. Shut up and execute the code.”

not at all. as i have said in my posts, more times than i can remember, there are two world views and two language to go with them here on turtle island, and the restorative justice movement [aboriginal justice movement with its peacemaking circles etc.] is shifting its english into ‘rheomode’. ditto for emile. this is not something new, it is just something that has never been popular, but that doesn’t mean it is not needed. alan watts had his shot at it back in the sixties and early seventies. here’s a bit of his take on ‘rheomode’;

“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?
.
Scientists would be less embarrassed if they used a language, on the model of Amerindian Nootka, consisting of verbs and adverbs, and leaving off nouns and adjectives. If we can speak of a house as housing, a mat as matting, or of a couch as seating, why can't we think of people as "peopling," of brains as "braining," or of an ant as an "anting?" Thus in the Nootka language a church is "housing religiously," a shop is "housing tradingly," and a home is "housing homely." Yet we are habituated to ask, "Who or what is housing? Who peoples? What is it that ants?" Yet isn't it obvious that when we say, "The lightning flashed," the flashing is the same as the lightning, and that it would be enough to say, "There was lightning"? Everything labeled with a noun is demonstrably a process or action, but language is full of spooks, like the "it" in "It is raining," which are the supposed causes, of action.
.
Does it really explain running to say that "A man is running"? On the contrary, the only explanation would be a description of the field or situation in which "a manning goeswith running" as distinct from one in which "a manning goeswith sitting." (I am not recommending this primitive and clumsy form of verb language for general and normal use.
We should have to contrive something much more elegant.)” --- Alan Watts, ‘The Book on the Taboo of Knowing Who You Are’

This guy needs to get laid. I mean, jesus christ man. Just fuck off, would you?

"Therefore let the 'Salon des Refuses' be re-established. Even were I to be there alone, I should still ardently wish that people should at least know that I no more want to be mixed up with those gentlemen of the jury than they seem to want to be mixed up with me." - Paul Cézanne

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 "Anarchy vs. Authority: ‘Organizing 101’"