continuing conversation from a reintroduction and some thoughts

93 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous (not verified)
That's what peeves me

That's what peeves me about celebrity worship, we never really know the quintessential character of the domestic person, even reality shows are scripted and not candid portrayals, politicians are ghosts, even mom and dad are stereotypical clones of the consumer market identity mold. I even miss ' the Jesus freak ' type, always good for a laugh and some repartee, scared away by the anti-christs and nihilists who have become the new normality with their boring ' nothingness is hip ' and ' my trivialities are cosmic events ' drivel. We will never know if Nietzsche let off huge farts in his kitchen, its sooo frustrating.

Anonymous (not verified)
You can safely assume he did!

You can safely assume he did! By the same token, any writer worth the pages they fill, would find the cults of personality that spring up around their work, pathetic.

Anonymous (not verified)
Stalin was a big winner, and

Stalin was a big winner, and died as such!

Yet Tchaikovsky, Beethoven and Mozart died sick, and in the case of the first two, crazy and secluded. LOSERS!

Same for Machiavelli, who eventually lost the revolutionary wars he commandeered, and Marco Polo, who spend most of his life in prison in Genoa. LOSERS!

There's also that King of France who fell from his horse to his death because of a damn pig crossing his path, nd Julius Cesar who was slain by his own guard. All a bunch of LOSERS!!!

Get your shit together and stop following losers, LOSERS! lol

Gunter (not verified)
Saladin was the WINNER

Saladin was the WINNER in the end, out of all politically influential ideologues of recent history, living to a ripe old age surrounded with opulence and an overflowing harem, fathering thousands of offspring in what Richard Dawkin's would have called a highly successful selfish genetic reproduction process. Maybe Stirner fashioned his whole thesis after reading 'A Thousand Nights' , Omar Khayyam, 'Chronicles of the Crusades', 'Winning at Chess' from the school library? Yet in a way, deep down inside, had he found the inner peace Buddha describes, which even a homeless hobo anarchist can achieve. SO CHIN UPS AND CHESTS OUT ALL YOU COMRADES. We anarchists may all look like losers, but in the parallel universe we are WINNERS ALL.

Anonymous (not verified)
Good on second guessing my

Good on second guessing my age category. Try 60s. I'm miserable because I'm in a wheelchair. How about you uberman me up some pancakes, kid? I bet they'd taste good. I bet it feels good to easily accomplish shit and slap yourself on the back, huh big boy?

Anonymous (not verified)
Fun fact: Stalin had a stroke

Fun fact: Stalin had a stroke in his private chambers and nobody helped him because he'd surrounded himself with terrified sycophants. He died in a pee-puddle with no friends like a LOSER!

Gunter (not verified)
I didn't know that!

I didn't know that! You've just made my day. thanx.

Anonymous (not verified)
Secretary General of the

Secretary General of the Party was always wanking alone in his his office. He died like he lived, yet as the undefeated Winner over all the USSR and even against Adolf.

Anonymous (not verified)
If you would be anarchist

If you would be anarchist enough, you could have taken the same death pact with yourself than Lafargue... so to avoid all the burdens and pains of rotting for a few more years or decades while still alive. There's no pain after death, you know? Nothing to be afraid of, even if the little jump might be physically painful for a few seconds.

Anonymous (not verified)
I think the Conjure House is

I think the Conjure House is correct to put Nietzsche more into the mystic, magical, way of thinking because he is often an influence on left hand path, chaos and pagan magjc. Looking at the gods before the Christian God, or perhaps even including those Christian heresies like the gnostics, we see the overcoming behavior that Nietzsche is all about, rather than the universal victim worship complex, like Christianity was to become.

I read Nietzsche more like someone that wanted a balance and wasn't into nihilism at all. He just saw it as a theme in his life..the thing to overcome that now permeates society. However, things like the 60s rebellion point and New Age magic, that's like, Nietzschean as fuck. Not very anarchist, huh guys? Too bad. Secularism is an extreme limitation, especially since it pulls a Westerner out of a larger potential dialogue on existence. I'm sure that Nietzsche would've enjoyed Crowley had they been able to interact with each other, which could've become very possible if Nietzsche got another 20 years, dying too young, at 55. Anyways, Crowley gets it more right about the overman with his approach to will and the use of magic fits with ensuring one achieves one's will.

Gunter (not verified)
Nietzsche borrowed heavily

Nietzsche borrowed heavily from Schopenhauer, but dilutes Schopenhauer's theories with the Romantic era's ornate flowery symbolism, I'm surprised that emile doesn't acknowledge this glaringly obvious plagiarism. The 60's are reminiscent of the Romantic era's new-age mysticism, the noble savage, the denial of the empirical analysis of reality, the transference of privilege from the materialistic to the spiritual social arena, the inversion of the autonomous will to a secularized obedience to phantasms. Yes, Nietzsche and Crowley would have revelled in a meal of 'shrooms for sure.

emile wall on step 0

Cultural deprogramming is an essential pre-first step in opening the way to a direct action mutual support society.

0.1. Understand why populism is on the rise. i.e. it attracts 'votes' across the grain of political parties because political parties orient to political theory based programs ranging from the politics of the left (socialist controls) to politics of the right (free-market survival of the fittest). populism rallies supporters on the notion that 'the greatness of the nation' as in former glory days, came from the values and seedstock of the citizens. like the baseball hitter who claims his soaring batting average was due entirely to his actions and nothing to do with the variable accommodating of the fielding he was hitting into [one can no longer acquire Manhattan for a few coloured beads as in the 'days of greatness' of the colonizing settlers].

0.2. Understand why the popular desire in the EU for a society based on 'mutual support', which led to the forming of the union, is not working out; i.e. because it is 'mutual support' being implemented within an authoritarian structure.

0.3 Understand why authoritarian administrative structures such as those in Brussels are not working. i.e. because third party administration assumes the 'objective truth' of the information/knowledge they are working with. Scientific inquiry is the source of so-called 'objective truth'. Third party administrative structures are not working because there is no such thing as 'objective truth', although this is the purported currency of scientific inquiry.

0.3 Understand why objective truth does not exist in the physical reality of our actual experience; i.e. forensic science can prove without a shadow of uncertainty, that A killed B. Of course, this fails to address the greater physical reality that A has been a slave living in an environment where the freedom of action/development of A is suppressed by the actions of the slave-master B. 'Objective truth' derives from science's practice of reducing-to-the actualizer-pole, observations of epigenetic-genetic [accommodator-actualizer] nondual dynamics, using a double error of grammar to attribute the sourcing of dynamics to actualizers seen as 'things-in-themselves' (objects, organisms, systems, nations), discarding epigenetic inductive actualizing influences such as those animating the 'A killing B' action, and making a mockery of the notion of the 'objective truth' of a 'doer-deed event'.

0.4 Understand how the scientific 'objective truth' delusion underpins the concept of third party administration of justice and third party administration of social dynamics in general; i.e. by way of contrast, restorative justice and direct action mutual support assumes, correctly (in agreement with modern physics) that epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression; i.e. "the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" within a habitat-inhabitant [epigenetic-genetic] nonduality. e.g. the atmospheric flow dynamic is conditioning the dynamics of the storm-cell inhabitants at the same time as the storm-cell inhabitants are conditioning the atmospheric flow dynamic. Likewise, in dynamics of society and the dynamics of the participants in society. slave master dynamics can condition the dynamics of the common living space dynamic in such a manner as to selectively squelch suffocate and stifle slave participant actualization/development.

0.5 Understand the difference between dualist and non-dualist types of 'knowledge'; i.e. the (a) dualist knowledge of the excluded voyeur observer type and, (b) non-dualist 'understanding' that comes from inclusional experience; e.g. (a) dualist sex education from scientific knowledge that is in terms of 'what things do' and, (b) non-dualist sex education from inclusional experience within an actualizing-accommodating nonduality. i.e. understand why "the knowledge of many things does not teach understanding" -- Heraclitus

* * * * *

Following this 'cultural deprogramming' which exposes the delusional nature of the 'objective truth' of scientific inquiry, a universal generalization [thanks to 'modeling out' epigenetic influence] which underpins the viability/non-viability of third party administration, and thus exposes the folly of 'third party administration' as in Western justice and Western authoritarian control structures, anarchy will then [post-cultural deprogramming] depend only on the removal of the anarchy-squelching conditioning imposed by authoritarian activism [demoting authoritarian structures from a lead role to a support role]

Without this 'cultural deprogramming', the social dynamic is prone to continual slipping back into belief in the "objective truths" of scientific inquiry and the associated moral judgements of merit/reward and reproach/punishment applied to 'reduced-to-the-actualizer pole 'events-in-themselves', devoid of the context of epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression; .... i.e. A kills B will once again become seen as an objective truth, assigned a value by subjective moral judgement, and likewise all semantic doer-deed events-in-themselves representations.

Nietzsche's era of 'post truth' is unfolding with us in it and is currently fuelling populism, pending the cultural deprogramming needed to open the way to direct action mutual support (anarchy).

“How false is the supposition that an action must depend upon what has preceded it in consciousness ! And morality has been measured in the light of this supposition, as also criminality. . . . The value of an action must be judged by its results, say the utilitarians: to measure it according to its origin involves the impossibility of knowing that origin. But do we know its results ? Five stages ahead, perhaps. Who can tell what an action provokes and sets in motion ? As a stimulus ? As the spark which fires a powder-magazine ? Utilitarians are simpletons —“
“The re-establishment of “Nature”: an action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same ” crime ” may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’

emile wall on blah blah the tao

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery." -- Lao Tzu

if the author of the article is in tune with the taoism of Lao Tzu, then it is not her intention that we should regard her words as anything more than 'jibs and jabs' that can bring us back into harmony with our unique non-dual situation in the world. kind of like tapping on an iron rod to liberate the molecules from their alignment by prior magnetic fields that persist (remanent magnetism) so they can once again dance with the field as they are currently situated within it.

that is, understanding the words in the article in a rational sense are not important, other than for their ability to 'jog' one's consciousness so that it is able to get back in phase-lock with the true tao and thus respect one's unique situation in the 'world' (transforming relational continuum).

this pre-rational phase-lock within the transforming relational continuum is another name for 'anarchy'; i.e. it is respectful of one's unique situational inclusion in the transforming relational continuum.

this contrasts with one's entrapment by the rational constructs of politics. as Nietzsche pointed out, the unnatural elevating of rationality over experience-based intuition/instinct is an aberration that goes back to Socrates and Plato.

Politicians, including anarchist-politicians, encourage you to join 'movements' on the basis of 'rational theories' which are claimed to be based on 'the truth' [there is no such thing, other than in regard to the truth of one's own experience in one's unique situational inclusion in the transforming relational continuum]. The rational plans of politicians are all 'intention' based; ... "We are going to do this, and this other other and this other and things are going to be 'great'. The fly in the ointment is that 'situation' is in a natural primacy over 'intention' and being that the world is a transforming relational continuum, one can't step into the same river twice, because it is not the same river and the actor stepping into it is not the same actor. For this reason, politicians never "keep their promises"; i.e. they never stick to the rational plan that they used as a baited hook to pull in followers/supporters.

This goes back to where Taoism is going. We are each uniquely situationally included in the transforming relational continuum, in which case there is only the truth of our personal experience. There is no 'objective truth' or 'objective reality out there' that would give us a common worldview. We see the same images that others see, but our experience is unique and thus our perspective on the world differs according to our unique situational experience. [see Nietzsche Was Right ]

rationality puts 'intention' into an unnatural primacy over 'situation'. Rational plans are generalizations that don't take into account, and can't take into account the continually transforming situation they are undertaken in. thus, political organizing that orchestrates the activities of people on the basis of intention-driven rational plans, as if the world out there could be objectively known, is 'incoherent'.

Give that 'situational influence' is continually transforming and is uniquely personally experienced, the individual's experience is where social dynamics must be grounded. indigenous anarchism 'grounds' the social dynamic in individual, personal, experience. this is what the 'learning circle' is for.

political plans based on intention [common goals and objectives] are innately dysfunctional because there is no common 'objective reality out there' as is the dependent underpinning of rational plans. Science and rationality 'model out' the epigenetic/situational influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression. As Nietzsche says, 'intention' is only a word'. Intention is 'rational backfill' we are forced to invent after we make a unilateral declaration of the 'independent being' of a human; i.e. after imposing 'being' on a relational form in a transforming relational continuum, logical consistency demands that we come up with a notional force that explains the development and behaviour of the human, given that we say [semantically represent] it as an 'independently existing thing-in-itself'. 'will' or 'intention' is rational backfill to 'fill in the gap' left by withdrawing the epigenetic/situational influence that is inductively actualizing its genesis. The viability of intention-driven herd-based activism is illusory. 'Will is only a word';

" “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’

'anarchism' recognizes that we are 'betraying' our own uniquely situated personal experience [our authenticity] by joining in the herd-like behaviour associated with group adherence to intention-based rational plans and objectives. 'mutual support' in nature does not depend on the notional existence of a common objective reality out there that the group can agree on and develop rational plans to 'contend with'. Mutual support within an interdependent relational web is achieved through throwing oneself into the cultivating, restoring and sustaining of balance and harmony within the interdependent relational web.

Such a 'direct action mutual support' process is blocked once one assumes that humans are 'independently-existing systems-in-themselves with 'their own' internal process driven and directed development and behaviour. In this case, mutual support becomes conditional on establishing 'initial cause' [since the root source of cause is no longer acknowledged to be 'epigenetic' (deriving from relaitonal situation)] and making moral judgments as to merit/reward and reproach/punishment vis a vis common goals and objectives. This in turn leads to the notion of 'superior contributors' and 'inferior contributors' to the intention-based herd-movement. There can be no such 'performance value hierarchy' in an interdependent matrix of relations.

taoism encourages a rejection of the practice of putting 'semantic realities' into unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition. our pre-lingual sensory/emotional experience gives us the potential for grounding ourselves in harmony based phase-lock with the transforming relational continuum we are uniquely, situationally included in. semantic realities can be constructed as secondary support tools that deliver economy of thought that can facilitate shareable discourse. the semantic realities we invent to facilitate shareable discourse are in no way 'approximations' of an 'objective reality out there' that could serve as the basis of formulating intention-driven programs to 'improve on the current reality' by jointly constructing some 'desired future reality'. this popular Western civilization activity is one of building abstractions on the backs of abstractions (a house of cards).

emile unending blah about whorfian

To echo Sir Einzige's and Le Way's comments, and hopefully 'not misinterpret them', it is possible to see the relationship between "Anarchy", "Anarchist" and "Anarchism" through "Whorfian" lenses.

Whorf notes that noun-and-verb language-and-grammar is the source of 'science' aka 'rationality' wherein we assume the existence of 'things-in-themselves' (local material objects, organisms, systems) that SOURCE THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT, ACTIONS AND RESULTS, as if the space they reside, operate and interact in were a non-participant. This all-genesis, no-epigenesis sourcing of dynamics is something Western culture [i.e. users of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar] tend to take for granted and thus apply this scientific/rational analysis to everything.

In physical reality, it is impossible to split apart the 'system-in-itself' from the 'relational suprasystem' it is included in, however, noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammars are architected for this splitting, leading to the construction of logic-based semantic realities that are nothing like the physical reality of our actual experience.

"Anarchist", "communist", "capitalist", "nationalist" are 'categories' [a concept that does not exist in relational language groups] which are notional 'things-in-themselves' understood by their local 'common properties'.

The semantic approach of science is to first 'declare' a relational system to be a 'thing-in-itself'. This gives it a logical inside that is independent of its outside. This is the standard matter-space dualism of newtonian science. Once we have equipped the relational system with [eg. a storm-cell, university, nation or whatever] with an 'inside', we can use its "internal" components and processes to explain, logically, "its" development and behaviour. That is, we start with with the physical reality of a relational system within a relational suprasystem [the transforming relational continuum] which is an epigenetic-genetic 'nonduality' and we use our language architecture to RE-PRESENT the 'genetic expression' that is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence immanent in the relational suprasystem, as if genetic development was 'all there is'; i.e. as if 'the system' is a 'system-in-itself' that we can make sense of by 'analytical inquiry' where we attribute its development and behaviour to its internal components and processes.

Note that in the case of a storm-cell [relational system within a relational suprasystem], there is nothing stopping us from measuring internal pressures, temperatures, humidities, wind velocities, and formulating equations which use these as variables that explain the development and behaviour of the cell, as if the cell were fully and solely 'genetically expressed'. The same is true of the university and the nation.

The logical structures we create in this way are tautologies which depend on our pre-supposing the 'storming' [relational activity], 'universitying' [relational activity] and 'nationing' [relational activity] to be 'systems-in-themselves' which they are in a logical sense, but certainly ARE NOT in a physical reality sense.

“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

What is so convincing about the rational/scientific 'semantic realities' we construct is that 'genetic expression', although it is secondary to epigenetic inductive actualizing influence, is local,visible, and material/tangible while epigenetic influence, which is the primary influence [the relational influence of 'field' that is 'everywhere at the same time'] is non-local, non-visible and non-material. material.

Because of our confidence in what we are saying in our being-based language; "Katrina is growing larger and stronger", ... "The British Empire is growing larger and stronger", and because we can 'prove it' with 'measurements', we accept it as 'reality' when it is merely a logic-based 'semantic reality'. The physical reality of our actual experience acknowledges the relational-system --- relational suprasystem nonduality. The growth of a storm-cell or of the British Empire is like building a house in the forest; i.e. it can't be done without destroying some forest. In other words, we live in a relational world where 'change', rather than coming through 'creation' and 'destruction' of 'what is', is by way of relational transformation. It is language that depicts change in the 'being'-based terms of construction and destruction and 'science' and 'rationality' derive from our being-based language.

Just a reminder that it is 'circular reasoning' (tautology, petitio principii) to impute 'thing-in-itself being' to a storm-cell, a relational form in a transforming relational plenum [an epigenetic-genetic nonduality] and then attribute the sourcing of development of behaviour of the thing we have just axiomatically assumed to have independent-being status, to its independently-existing self. It is the 'double error of grammar' that Nietzsche has pointed out. The logical, being-based semantic re-depiction of the world is convenient in that it gives economy of thought useful to discourse, so long as we remember these intellectual language games are tools for making simple models of physical phenomena, they are not the physical phenomena;

“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

A "terrorist" is a word that signifies an independently-existing 'thing-in-itself' whose development and behaviour can be understood scientifically, rationally, analytically, as deriving from its internal processes' e.g. sensing, interpreting, deciding, acting' as motivated by its 'will' or 'intention'. There is no need, in this scientific/rational view, to acknowledge the primary authoring source; i.e. the epigenetic influence which inductively actualizes "terrorist" behaviour. Science and rationality underpin Western moral judgement based retributive justice; e.g. the "terrorist" is deemed fully and solely causally responsible for his terrorist actions and results. For users of relational languages, 'terrorism' is a relational activity deriving from relational tensions within the global relational social dynamic.

Who says that 'terrorism' is caused by 'terrorists'? This view is the artefact of the 'double error of grammar' [Nietzsche] that conceals the natural primacy of epigenetic influence over genetic expression [conceals the physical reality where relational tensions inductively actualized eruptions of violent conflict]. Our intuition screams out that relational tensions are the 'root source' while venting via relational forms are 'symptoms' of the root source.

Science and rationality deal only in symptoms [local, visible, tangible genetic expression]. The storm cell is the symptom of relational tensions in the relational suprasystem deriving from thermal field imbalance and associated relational tensions.

As for 'terrorist', so too for 'anarchist', 'communist', 'nationalist'

As for the 'isms', they are notional 'inside-outward driving [all-genetics, no-epigenetics] influences which is another instance where 'analytical backfill' is used to explain the one-sided [all-genetic, no-epigenetic] proliferation of 'ists'; e.g. "a wave of nationalism is stirring citizens into action to 'make Germany great again'". There is no mention of the epigenetic influence of the relational suprasystem [the interdependent matrix of Germany and its European neighbors, the latter continued to humiliate Germany in the aftermath of WWI with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.]. There is nothing like xenophobic epigenetics to inductively actualize some 'nationalism' e.g. see La Marseillaise (english lyrics)


'terrorism', 'anarchism' and 'nationalism' imply one-sided [all genetic-no-epigenetic] genetic expression as in the actions of 'terrorists', 'anarchists', and 'nationalists'; i.e. these are tautologies [terrorism is what terrorists do etc.] that derive from double errors of grammar applied to relational activities wherein 'epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression'. they are like 'stormings' [relational systems within a relational suprasystem] which are reduced to 'storms' [systems-in-themselves] and semantically animated by notional internal forces within the 'things-in-themselves. this is logical tautology which is foundational to Western moral judgement based reward-and-punishment ethics and to scientific/rational thinking generally.

'anarchy' could be used to signify non-being-based [purely relational] direct action mutual engaging or mutual support. used in this sense, it would comply with the modern physics finding that relations are in a natural primacy over things-in-themselves. that is, one doesn't need to semantically reduce the purely relational activity of 'storming' to 'the action of a storm-system-in-itself' nor reduce 'terrorism' to 'the actions of terrorists', nor reduce 'anarchy' to 'the action of anarchists'.

emile wall on whorfian

Le Way said;

"I used to have this same perception of anarchism, when I regarded it as a system of living, in other words a rigid ideological set of rules and ethics I had to pursue and obey. "a real living model of anarchism that people can see and relate to" is taking the path of obedience to a blue-print, "a real living model " is contradictory because a "model" resembles a statue, a materialistic static frozen representation far removed from "a real living model' from organic social relational dynamics.

I agree with this. the way of 'science' is to reduce everything to a blue-print that explains dynamics in the one-sided terms of pure positively asserting actions [all 'genesis' and no 'epigenesis'] and my comment was to tie it to Whorf's finding that science derives from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar.

my comments tend to longish because standard English commentary reduces epigenetic-genetic non-duality to all-genetic, no-epigenetic noun-verb being-based reductionist constructs which need to be deconstructed so that the reader's intuitive memory is 'jogged' to acknowledge that all instances of 'being' [independent existence of objects, organisms, systems] are reductions of relational activity within a transforming relational continuum; e.g. science describes the solar system in terms of 'independently existing planets' and the forces acting on them and coming from them [e.g. the 'gravitational influence attributed to large masses], but every such 'being-based' system is included in a relational suprasystem [ultimately the MOAS, the transforming relational continuum].

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

The implications of the world being given only once, as a transforming relational plenum/continuum is that the relational features within it, like the 'storming' in the atmosphere, are epigenetic-genetic non-dualities wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression. This is the general implication of space-matter non-duality discovered over a century ago but which has not yet been assimilated into mainstream since it has to compete with the reductionism built into being-based noun-and-verb language.

For example, our experience is that an oppressive regime or local bully can condition the common living space so as to marginalize others residing within that space. We have three ways to understand this activity;

1. the oppressive social dynamic is inductively actualizing rebel movements. [the rebel movement is situation-induced]

2. the rebel movement is animated by will-to-freedom driven rebels [the movement is intention-driven]

3. the rebel movement is a relational activity like a 'storming' brewing up within an energy-charged relational space/plenum.

Notice that the first two points give opposite views on animating source [outside-inward vs inside-outward] and lead to the classic 'nature' - 'nurture' dilemma wherein it is impossible to calculate, separately, the respective contributions of outside-inward inductive influence of (1.) and the inside-outward asserting influence of (2.) The first two points are about the dynamics of human 'beings' as logical elements within logical propositions;i.e.there is no mention of the embeddedness of people in terrain and climate as in physical reality where 'the participation of space' must be addressed.

The third point corresponds with the understanding that the world is given only once as a 'field' that is everywhere at the same time which gathers and regathers within itself, relational features; i.e. what we have is an inhabitant-habitat nonduality [epigenetic-genetic nonduality] as captured in Mach's principle.

The third point is the physical reality according to modern physics where 'relations' are all there is; e.g.the animating influence where a storming forms in the atmospheric flux has no need of 'being-based' authorship [no need to isolate causal source]; i.e. relational influences as in 'fields' are in a natural precedence over material being.

Whorf shows how the noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language and grammar architecture reduces physical reality to being-based semantic reality, the result is that language substitutes 'science' based on 'what things-in-themselves do' [all genetic expression, no epigenetic induction] for 'physical reality' constituted by epigenetic-genetic nonduality. That is, language and science lead us 'by the nose' into thinking of the world in terms of (2.) wherein causal sourcing of physical phenomena is assumed to be traceable/attributable to local being-based causal agents.

The rebels and the oppressors [i.e. 'humans'], in physical reality, are NOT 'independently-existing things-in-themselves' [one-sided genetics driven-machines directed by internal purpose], but relational agents of transformation within the transforming relational plenum, consistent with epigenetic-genetic nonduality. [As also in Emerson's 'Method of Nature']

Rebels (2.) who take language literally will be scientific/rational thinkers, seeing themselves as purpose-directed actors that seek liberation from the chains and fetters imposed by their oppressors; i.e. they see 'oppression' in being-based 'oppressor authored' terms. This leads, via scientific thinking, to building the necessary force to overthrow/neutralize the oppressors through common purpose based movements. Common purpose and common direction require group concensus leading to herd behaviour.

Rebels (3.) who put experience-based intuition into natural precedence over reductionist scientific/rational thinking, understand themselves as agents of transformation included in a relational dynamic greater than theselves who take direction from the [uniquely personal] particulars of the unfolding situations they find themselves in by 'rising to the occasion'. These rebels do not make the mistake of science and rationality where the assumption is that the causal sourcing of oppression can be traced/attributed to oppressors but understand that oppression is a relational phenomenon as captured in Mach's principle wherein 'space is a participant'.

This leads to rebellion that aims to restore relational balance; e.g. the Robin Hood style does not follow the being-based logic of identifying 'oppressors' as 'causal sources' and eliminating/neutralizing them, but rebellion which acknowledges the transforming relational medium as the source of imbalance and balance; e.g. as in the non-being-based understanding of a storming in the atmosphere as genetic expression inductively actualized 'epigenetically', in the service of transporting thermal energy from thermal energy rich regions to thermal energy poor regions. i.e. relational dynamics are the source of relational features which serve as agents of relational transformation: ... 'being' as in 'systems-in-themselves' does not come into it. [language synthetically reduces relational forms to 'systems-in-themselves']

Nietzsche describes, in Thus Spake Zarathustra, the 'self' as implied in (2.) as the little sagacity rational 'ego-self' and the intuitive 'self' as implied in (3.) as the big sagacity 'natural Self'. While the former is a 'doer-of-deeds' type addicted to purposeful actions, the latter loves the challenge of engaging with whatever the unfolding situations of fate include him in ['amor fati'].

In this we can see the 'rational anarchists' (2.) as serious people that are certain about what needs to be done, that want to build their force by forming an anarchist herd that can achieve their common purpose (2.), whereas the 'intuitive anarchists' (3.) find themselves on the same page as 'birds of a feather' in having 'amor fati' in common, ... a 'merry band' of 'anarchists' that live 'in the now' and let the unfolding situation inductively actualize their acts. They are like intuitive sailboaters (3.) that put the cultivating of balance and harmony in their ongoing-in-the-now voyage in precedence over the purpose of attaining their destination, as contrasted with powerboaters (2.) that give single-minded priority to attaining their destination regardless of the unfolding-in-the-now situation, making for a rough voyage for both themselves and others sharing inclusion in the common operating theatre [common living space]..

The Achilles heel of the scientific anarchists (2.) is to self-inflict injury with the double-edged sword of assuming that we know how to track down and assign causal sourcing responsibility re oppressive influences that are suffocating us, and so likewise attributing the causal sourcing of revolutionary success to ourselves. The scientific practice of assigning causal responsibility to particular 'things' [the reduction of epigenetic-genetic nonduality to the one-sided all-genetics-no-epigenetics view] leads to class structure via moral assessments of causal authorship as either deserving of merit and rewards or deserving or reproach and punishment. Class structure with its imbalance in wealth and privilege cultivates oppression and rebellion in a continuing vicious circle [a game of 'snakes and ladders'].

Intuitive anarchists (3.) do not fall into this scientific anarchist (2.) trap.

third emile wall on whorfian view

Ignoring the problems coming from the limitations of noun-and-verb language is going to sneak up behind us and bite us in the ass. it is already sourcing much confusion and particularly so within the realm of 'anarchism' since 'anarchism' involves organization that is not rationally determined.

our noun and verb language is used to constructing logical propositions that employ notional 'things-in-themselves' as logical elements that do stuff; e.g. "Rojava is doing such-and-such". There is absolute certainty of the binary true or false type in logical propositions which tends to be accepted in spite of the hidden uncertainties in the logical elements employed within the proposition. We can talk about Rojava as if it were a 'thing-in-itself', however it has emerged within the turbulence of relational transformation; i.e. every 'system-in-itself' is included within a relational suprasystem so that the physical reality is that 'epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression [the genesis of Rojava]. The 'big picture' is the turbulence of the transforming relational continuum which is continually gathering and regathering 'organizings' within itself; e.g. see 'The Changing Borders of Poland' and ask yourself whether relational dynamics are not more physically real than 'self-proclaimed autonomous regions' which we depict, in noun-and-verb language, as 'real things in themselves' and talk about in being-based terms as 'having their own government' and 'having relations with their neighbours', The 'Rojavan activity' is what is going on, until we apply a Nietzschean 'double error of grammar' to reduce the relational activity to (a) a notional logical thing-in-itself, and (b) to grant the thing-in-itself God-like powers of self-actualizing its own development and behaviour.

[Note that the Rojavans, by way of their proclamation of an 'automonous region' could be seeing themselves as a sustained 'storming' in the geopolitical flow [a genetic-epigenetic non-duality] rather than in one-sided thing-in-itself' terms, since they are included participants who have opened up space for themselves within a relational conflict, rather than having an identity imposed by a 'higher power' on 'what is already in place']..

The imposing of 'thing-in-itself being' by way of 'proclamation' or 'declaration of independence' or simply imposing 'being' for its convenience and 'economy of thought' [Mach] is the practice of 'science' or 'rational thought'. In spite of the fact that our semantic representations superimpose logical elements over top of a continually transforming relational complex, we use these logical elements within logical propositions which convey certain and clear-cut definition. We may formulate logical propositions such as; "Syria has violated international law" which is a very certain and clear-cut assertion that CONCEALS the volatility and fluidity of the physical reality 'pointed to' by the word 'Syria'.

This is exemplary of "science" and "rationality" in general. Its logical operations ride on top of relational complexity that it by no means addresses, and escapes from having to deal with by concealing such complexity within the logical elements in its logical propositions. In this manner, noun-and-verb language allows science to construct LOGICAL pseudo-realities which are not 'relational' as in the physical reality of our actual experience, but are material-causal since subjects-inflecting verbs implies that the subject is the jumpstart source of actions and results. The colonized indigenous rebel's action of assaulting colonizers who are marginalizing him and shutting down his access to the commons and preventing him from living life fully and freely, is natural 'pushback' as seen as a dynamic within the relational suprasystem, however, logic which employs complexity-concealing definitions can be used to impose an 'offender-victim' allegation which can be proved to be 'true' without a shadow of uncertainty, by forensic science.

Thanks to the complexity-concealing nature of logical proposition, science can construct logical-causal semantic pseudo-realities on the backs of currently popular 'things-in-themselves', such as 'Rojava', 'Syria' and 'ISIS' as jumpstart causal agents [notional 'independent-things-in-themselves' with internal process driven and directed behaviours, that are fully and solely responsible for their actions and results. While such logical semantic constructs seem to convey 'truth with certainty', the stories they tell are decoupled from the relationally complex physical reality of our actual experience.

The 'logical-truth-stories' composed by science and rationality 'float' on top of the currently popular subject-words that hide the relational complexity that prevails 'beneath them'. Colonization-imposed binnings in the Middle East; e.g. Syria and Iraq, continue to be used as subjects that logical propositions purport to be causal authors of actions and results, even as complex relational turbulence across the whole region muddies the connection between such name-labels and the physical reality that is actually being experienced [e.g. the US supports the notional 'existence' of Rojava so long as Rojava agrees to be seen as part of Syria, preserving the colonizer binnings of the Middle East that are threatened by meltdown into a Middle East Caliphate.

The same 'disconnect' between scientific truth based 'reality' and relationally complex physical reality exists in all the sciences. Science imposes names and definitions over top of relational complexity to serve as notional [intellectual] causal-agents-in-themselves with internal process driven and directed behaviors [cells, organs, neural and other systems]. By this approach of explaining physical phenomena in one-sided terms of causal agency [employing a mess of named causal agents], the physically real relational complexity wherein "epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression" is obfuscated and concealed.

Why do people put so much trust in science and rationality as capable directors of our behaviour? The 'logical-causal stories' of science 'hang together' tautologically: e.g. "bacteria/terrorists/rogue-regimes are evil pathogens that are attacking and injuring us. By eliminating them, we can eliminate the injures we are sustaining from them". This is circular reasoning [the conclusion is already built into the premise] that is used to prove cause and effect. It conceals the relational complexity that is the physical reality of our actual experience [the bacteria are included within the relational terrain dynamic; i.e. they are not 'things-in-themselves' with internal process driven and directed behaviour, and neither are 'terrorists' and 'rogue-regimes'. Such a notion is an anthropomorphism.]

Science achieves its own logical objectives but only within the intellectual realm of its own logical terms and definitions. Scientifically supported interventions to achieve logical objectives are notionally [intellectually], interventions in logical space, ... but physically, they are interventions into complex relational space, the result of this crossed wires mind/matter split being the engendering of unaddressed 'externalities' or 'side-effects' [e.g. eliminate Saddam's regime, cultivate the rise of ISIS, eliminate bacteria, cultivate the rise of 'hospital infections' such as c. difficile].

The competency of science and rationality is intellectual-logical rather than physical. Forensic science may be incredibly efficient in smoking out and neutralizing rebels in an authority-oppressed living space, but at the same time, be blind to the relationally complex physical reality wherein relational tensions associated with imbalance are an epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression (the genesis of rebellious activity).

We are in the post-truth era [mistrust of science is rising]. We are in the fake-news era [since there is no objective truth, people are free to make up their own truth based on their own experientially conditioned values, as has been the tradition in politics]. We are in the era of rising 'incoherence' [Bohm].

Whorf's contribution is to show how language gives rise to science and to scientific/rational logic-based worldviews wherein words like 'Rojava' or 'Syria' are used in subject-verb grammar constructs that suggest jumpstart cause-effect actions and results; i.e. actions and results precipitated from a word signifying 'thing-in-itselfness' that is superimposed on unending relationally complex dynamics. [see 'THE RELATION OF HABITUAL THOUGHT AND BEHAVIOR TO LANGUAGE'

Unless we 'come clean' and address the fact that this popular illusion of a battle of thing-in-itself name-labels is logical language game-play superimposed [for convenience and ecoonomy of thought] on top of a relationally complex global dynamic, we stand to continue to shoot ourselves in the foot through logic-based interventions that engender unanticipated 'externalities'.

There is no 'real world out there' [split apart from the 'real world in here'] as the semantic constructs we/science formulate would have us believe. Trying to portray an 'objective true world out there' is very subjective and language is very ambiguous since, while we share the same popular banter, we nevertheless interpret these same words differently, by bring to bear in their interpretation, our own subjective values and perspectives [the result is 'perspectivism']. There is only our experience-in-the-now of the transforming relational continuum [which includes everything but in low resolution relational/holographic form]. The truth we need for grounding our understanding of the world is personal experiential truth as derives from own unique situational inclusion in the transforming relational continuum. This is truth we do not question as we do logical truths, because it comes from experience of inclusion in the common living space [transforming relational continuum]. When we hear people set aside their 'head voice' and employ their 'heart voice' in sharing life experience, we can intuit its authenticity.

emile wall on rationalism again

ITS is not a 'thing-in-itself'. it is, as Emerson would say that people are, "vents that transmit influence from the vast and universal to the point on which their genius can act". in the non-rational aka nonlinear view of a person as a vent for transmitting influence, the child-soldier's violence is not coming from the child-soldier as a thing-in-itself, but as a vent for the dysfunctional relational social dynamic he is included in. likewise for war vets with PTSD and women who have been sexually abused and thus experientially conditioned so that the influences from the remote past are shaping what goes on in the present (nonlinear dynamics, non-rational behaviour).

if the abused woman applies 'rational, scientific analysis', she will see the problem in terms of abusive actions coming from 'men-as-things-in-themselves' when the physical reality is that men, like people in general are experientially conditioned and 'venters' of influence from a dysfunctional relational social dynamic; i.e. they are vents that transmit influences from the remote past to the local present point on which their genius can act.

the 'remote past' in evolutionary time is simply 'earlier phases' within a world that is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum.

Should we tune in rationally to the recommendations of abused women, who are venting influences from a dysfunctional social dynamic that vents through men as well as women; i.e. abused women whose experiential conditioning makes them non-rational, nevertheless do not acknowledge their non-rationality and see the abuse problem in rational terms as jumpstarting from men as things-in-themselves? but men are also experientially conditioned and venting influence from a dysfunctional relational social dynamic. the problem here is rationality which, as information theorists [Chaitin et al] suggest, is the practice of building twenty pound theories from ten pound axioms [e.g. the ten pound axiomatic assumption of independent being aka 'things-in-themselves that are doers of deeds']

indigenous aboriginals and people with relational languages do not build semantic realities on the basis of 'things-in-themselves-that-do-stuff' whether 'males' or 'civilized humanity' or 'nations'. Their relational view is served by experience-based intuition, so that when relational tensions induce violence, intuitives will not attempt the Sisyphian task of rational backward continuation of the development of the violence to ascertain and root out the originating source. instead, they will proceed directly to the transforming of relations in such a manner as to subsume relational social tensions. the war veterans with PTSD, the child-soldiers and the sexually abused women will be included in the 'learning circles' that tend to this relations oriented restoring of balance and harmony in the relational social dynamic. there is no 'purification' of the 'offensive causal agents' as in over-simplistic linear, rational models.

ITS is a collection of non-rational people who are applying rational analysis to non-rational [nonlinear] dynamics and coming up with the notion that 'civilized humanity' is the problem [as if 'civilized humanity' were a 'real thing-in-itself']. the solution then becomes one of removing the civilization from humanity.

The same is true of women experientially conditioned by sexual abuse who apply rational analysis that sees the problem as 'men'.[as if 'men' were real 'things-in-themselves, in the manner that we semantically depict 'Ivan, the storm-cell as a thing-in-itself rather than as a vent that is transmitting influence from the nonlocal regions of the relational dynamic he is included in to the local situation ]. the solution to the over-simplistic rational model then becomes one of removing the abusiveness from men.

Intuition would say that rationality is too simple [too linear] to solve the nonlinear, non-rational issues that arise in our relational social dynamic. so the solution is to ignore the wild goose chase inspired by rational analysis and go directly to the rootsource of eruptions of violence which is relational tensions that build beyond the limits of tolerance of relational resonance, unleashing nonlinear dynamics, the addressing of which is beyond the scope of linear, rational modes of understanding; i.e. the solution is to go directly to the restoring of balance and harmony rather than attempting to excise the civilization out of civilized humanity or to excise the abusiveness out of males. 'male' and 'humanity' are only words.

i don't doubt that there are many mexicans who live by putting intuition before rationality, as is the case with Mayan belief traditions; i.e. i would not expect ITS to establish their headquarters in San Cristóbal de las Casas.

and yes, the Mayans/Zapatistas do not have to deconstruct what is going on in words in the manner i do, because they are already doing it and 'it comes naturally'. the problem comes for those of us who have become so thoroughly 'linearized' and 'rational', that we are no longer able to get in touch with our natural nonlinear, non-rational intuitive competencies.

emile wall on its is an example

the ITS communique's [which some assume is fake news] further underscore the 'collapse of rationality'; i.e. the collapse of belief in 'an objective reality out there' such that any reality is as good as any other.

the value in publishing ITS communique's is in furnishing data that allows us to study the impact of the 'collapse of rationality', and we'd better study it if we don't want to become victims of it. Ignoring ITS is to ignore the problem of the collapse of rationality.

e.g. see 'The Post-Truth Era of Trump is Just What Nietzsche Predicted' with its discussion of perspectivism (each of us has our own personal 'reality' since our differing personal values determine which 'facts' or 'beliefs' should come together in the constructing 'reality'.

see also The Mistrust of Science . e.g " In 1974, conservatives with college degrees had the highest level of trust in science and the scientific community. Today, they have the lowest."

see also BBC's 'Science and Environment' article; "Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'" ... ""It's worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity," says Dr Errington."

and then again, new media outlets such as 'The Real News' who are
overtly defending the existence of an 'objective world out there'; e.g. "The main idea behind it [calling the new outlet 'The Real News'] is that there is a real world. There's an objective world. And it can be known." -- Senior Editor of TRNN (the Real News Network

TRNN is not defending the purported existence of an 'objective reality out there', for no reason. 'Reality' is up for grabs and ITS' communique's are just another example of the collapse of belief in an 'objective reality out there' so that any reality has as much right to be called 'reality' as any other. That is why people are all over the board as to 'what is reality'. Maybe ISIS reality is the right one? Maybe Putin's? Maybe Trump's? Maybe the AGW believers, Maybe ITS? This is not about photoshopping little boys being carried off by a Golden Eagle, it is about 'reality' differences after all the 'facts' have been 'checked out' [we can pick our own selection that we want to use to connect the dots to build our personal version of reality. The reality of indigenous peoples in this era of colonization is radically opposed to the reality of the colonizers and settlers; ask the indigenous peoples of the Middle East, Africa, the Americas].

Indigenous anarchists will never have this problem of the collapse of belief in objective reality because it is impossible for there to be an 'objective reality out there' when one understands that one is included in what one is looking out at. There is no meaning to the notion of an 'objective reality out there' to those employing relational languages, such as the languages of indigenous aboriginals. The dualist concept [a synthetic concept; i.e. an idealization of convenience] of the subject-object split is what gives rise to the notion of 'an objective reality out there'.As Nietzsche and Whorf have shown, the subject-object split derives from 'errors of grammar' that we build into noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar constructs. This delivers a pseudo 'excluded observer voyeur view of reality'; i.e. a 'God's-Eye-View' which is convenient to discourse but in the sense of 'convenient bullshit' that delivers 'economy of thought', that departs radically from the physical reality of our actual experience.

Experience is real, not God's-Eye-View observations captured semantically via double errors of grammar.

emile wall on its, decivilizing

Yes, poor Mexico, tan lejos de Dios… oh hell, you know the rest. How dare these people be disloyal to their poor suffering country, they should show more patriotism instead of saying stuff like this:

You know, Mexico is a steaming pile of shit. It’s conflicted, corrupt, and prostituted to the highest bidder, treacherous, run down, and even though there are people who say that there are “good things” about it, we see more bad things than good to be honest. Really we can’t even know if there person who was imprisoned in that maximum security prison and who escaped was actually Chapo Guzman, or an impostor. That’s for starters. Lies piled upon lies are daily fare here. Personally, I don’t trust anything that the media blabbers about, every one of them is blowing shit out of their ass. That there is a low intensity war going on, that’s for sure. But you can speak of this just not in terms of narcotrafficking, there are also groups, politicians, private interests, etc.

Comrade, how dare they fail in their loyalty to the Glorious Fatherland!? Death to Yanqui imperialism! The beatings will continue until morale improves…

emile wall on its, decivilizing

The core challenge for those believing in the existence of an ‘objective reality out there’ who want to ‘change’ that ‘reality out there’ in a particular way, is that changing the material aspect does not take care of the mind aspect; e.g. one can get caught up in a Sisyphian exercise wherein while one is destroying ants’ nests here, there and over yonder, they keep popping up there, here and over yonder. “civilization” has this kind of property wherein its not simply the material trappings of civilization [technologies etc.] that have to be dealt with, but the ‘civilized mind’ which will continue to rebuild the material aspects, frustrating all attempts to purge civilization by physical attacks since, unless any and all residues of the civilized mind remain, these will rebuild the materialist trappings of civilization.

ITS has devised a plan to ‘kill two birds with one stone’; i.e. to have civilized individuals materially eliminating other civilized individuals but in such a way as to de-civilize the individuals doing the material elimination. This appears thus to be a ‘two pointer’, by reducing the material trappings of civilization and at the same time reducing the civilized mind influence that sources the material trappings. i.e.

“Eco-extremism is the extreme defense of Wild Nature and the slaughtering of the domesticated person within.
The goal of assassinating an UNAM employee was not just to take him out and create negative reactions to this act, but rather with the same act, the members of ITS also murdered the civilized person within, killing little by little with thrusts of the knife those Western values imposed on them from childhood onward.” – Abe Cabrera

ITS’ ‘double whammy’ logic is interesting but it depends not only on exploiting the mind/matter split but also, at the same time, the ‘self/other’ split. For every unit reduction in civilized beings, ITS scores an increase of one unit in ‘uncivilized beings’, thus working the problem on the outside and inside at the same time. this is similar to the ‘Onward Christian Soldiers marching as to war’ where it was assumed that the mind and the matter were bundled together so that as Christianity was spread around the world by way of colonizing invasions, indigenous pagan peoples could only choose between conversion and death, so that Christianity was only able to score a point where there was a conversion, ... constraining their scoring to one point per multiple attempts versus ITS’s two points per operation.

Of course, if there are some ITS members that feel remorse, they might have to perform several material eliminations of civilized beings in order to get one more decivilized mind (i.e. their own).

Nevertheless, the subject/object split assumed by ITS is the same assumption used by the Church, the only difference being that the Church assumed that mind and matter, although split, were a matched pair within ‘individual human beings’ while ITS assumes that ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ are each ‘things-in-themselves’ so that ‘conversion’ doesn’t have to happen within the same individual but the prospective convert can convert his ‘self’ in the act of materially eliminating an ‘other’, hence the ‘two pointer’ operations of ITS. This makes the Christian Church look really generous by comparison, since, when they came after you, they gave you the choice of mind conversion or material elimination. ITS gives you no choice but uses your material elimination to finance a mind-decivilizing operation for one of its own.

Meanwhile, the same self-other split that is implicit in the ITS dogma is foundational in the Christian Church. There is the same underlying assumption that ‘man is above nature’ [the whole ball of wax] and therefore is capable of ‘improving upon nature’, rather than ‘man is included in nature’.

This is the same logic as used by the colonizing powers in eliminating the 'rogues' who have displaced their puppet dictators like Saddam, Qaddafy and Assad, who refuse to convert back to puppets. The trouble is that each intervention for the purpose of achieving net positive gains by materially eliminating negative elements stirs up ‘the spirit of freedom’ which inductively actualizes the emergence of more ‘rogue’ control-resisting units [e.g. Isis and the Al Nusra front consisting of about 30 ‘rogue’ groups].

This suggests that ‘the mind’ or ‘spirit’ does not come in a unitary form like a ‘civilization module’ residing within each notional ‘unitary human being’, but that ‘spirit’ or ‘spirituality’ is more like a field within a matter-and-field non-duality per Mach’s principle. As Mach says, it is impossible to move material stuff without transforming the field the material stuff is included in [which inhabits and engenders material stuff] and when field transforms it moves material stuff at the same time. The materials that move because of the transforming field are not limited to those materials whose movements are transforming the field; i.e. in other words, it is impossible to separate the dynamics of materials from the dynamics of the transforming field.

”The dynamics of the materials are conditioning the dynamics of the transforming field they are included in at the same time the dynamics of the transforming field are conditioning the dynamics of the materials” – Mach’s principle

the interventions of ITS, by their own description, are simply conceived of linear mechanical interventions aimed to achieve arithmetic gains that fail to address the ‘externalities’ such interventions engender. In other words, their interventions are rational, logical, being-based and assume both mind/matter and self/other splits; i.e. while their initiative is highly rational, it is entirely unrealistic and its unaddressed ‘externalities’ overshadow its ‘apparent’ logical successes.

emile wall on bolo'bolo

Aragorn's hangup with a healthy functioning society being limited to 500 people [bolo'bolo or whatever] is a hangup with the belief in the existence of 'things-in-themselves' ('systems-in-themselves') [which shows up in a lot of the discussions].

Every 'system' is, in physical reality, included in a relational suprasystem. if we divided all of the people on the surface of the earth up into 500 person areas or 'cells', and tried to understand the relational social dynamic in an overall sense, then we would see that each of these cells would be contributing emigrants to their neighbours and at the same time receiving immigrants from their neighbours. the number 500 would not represent the same people. in nature generally, relations prevail over things; i.e. what we point to as a thing-in-itself ['society of 500'] is illusion, like the cataract [Emerson] whose form persists even though it is 'made of flux'.

the people who are entering the cell, in a many-to-one fashion at the same time as people are exiting the cell in a one-to-many fashion allow our intuition to look beyond the notion of a 'cell' or 'society' as a 'thing-in-itself'; i.e. to see it as a relational feature within a transforming relational continuum. Nietzsche saw 'organisms' as evolutionary features in an overall flux; i.e. as endosmosis-exosmosis nondualities.

Aragorn suggests a correlation between the 'natural' size of a community [around 500] and the natural constraint of how many people we could know by name. we could better know them if the cell of 500 was a prison cell for long termers. then we could seek to understand the cell-society as a 'system-in-itself' and ignore the physical reality that every system is included in a relational suprasystem whose epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression [the development and behaviour of cells],

if we address the influence of the relational suprasystem [e.g. the terrain] in inductively actualizing the 'system' [e.g. the village society], village societies in the land can be seen as nodes included within a rhizome like root matrix or fungal mycelium. every 'outsider' who is an 'incoming newcomer' is like a marco polo who infuses new understandings into the cell-society, making the matrix a strong way of interfacing with a highly variable environment than growing by accretion in one place.

in a homogeneous space [the Euclidian void that is implicit in noun-and-verb constructs], there is no epigenetic influence immanent in the relational matrix for sourcing [inductively actualizing] genetic expression thus the prison-cell societies of 500 will be studied for their advantages in the standard terms of 'independent systems-in-themselves with internal component driven and directed development and behaviour. 'local independent society-systems in themselves terms'.

in a heterogeneous space, the many-to-one reception of marco-polos from different cells and simultaneous one-to-man transmitting of marco-polos from a given cell overides any understanding that can be gleaned from inquiry into the cell seen as a 'system-in-itself'.

it is anthropocentrism built into noun-and-verb language that has people seeking understanding of 'society' in terms of 'what people do' out of the context of their situational inclusion in a relationally complex dynamic that is greater than themselves.

all systems are included in relational suprasystems [the physical reality]. systems-in-themselves are 'schaumkommen' ('appearances') that noun-and-verb language portrays as 'objectively real' by synthetically reifying relational forms in the transforming relational continuum.

emile wall on nuance

the ariel-aragorn discussion brought into the spotlight, the reconciling of the materialist versus relationist view of power. this made for a good and needed discussion.

e.g. it would be easier if we could see and grapple with what ails us [as in fighting nazis in the street (ariel)] but capitalism [the animating source] eludes us and we don't have direct access to its root source (aragorn). aragon refers to capitalism's power source as 'ephemeral' whereas 'relational' would fit into our understanding of physical reality in understanding coming from modern physics, which goes beyond simple noun-and-verb materialist [who dunnit] constructs. i.e. in physical reality, 'relational dynamics are in a natural primacy over 'material dynamics'. that is, in the physical reality of our actual experience, relational tensions inductively actual material dynamics.

the rise of 'push-back' from colonized indigenous peoples of the middle east is inductively actualized by relational tensions in the global matrix of relations which includes colonizer-colonized relational tensions. in other words 'epigenetic influence inductively actualizes 'genetic expression' in the form of terrorist group 'pushback'.

power IS 'nuanced' in the sense that 'we', the 'colonizers', attribute power to the material dynamics themselves [the pushback in the form of terrorist groups] rather than to the physically real root-source; i.e. 'relational tensions'. as ariel seems to imply, anarchists are falling into this same trap of superficial analysis in identifying 'the enemy' as those that are the directly accessible, material 'genetic expression' of deeper, underlying relational tensions.

people are persuaded that the material dynamics are 'all she wrote' because of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar architecture which has also given rise to 'science' and 'rationality', the currency of which is logic rather than experience-based intuition. science makes the same double error of grammar that Nietzsche speak about; i.e. it breaks an activity out of the relational continuum then (a) imputes being to the relational activity so that 'storming' becomes 'the storm', and (b) gives the synthetic 'being' in (a) God-like jumpstart powers by allowing the 'being' to inflect a verb as in 'Katrina is growing larger and stronger'. This is clearly the same trick used in Newtonian physics where we synthetically localize the sourcing of material dynamics by defining 'force' as the source of the material dynamics and attributing the 'force' to the logical material elements themselves; e.g. to 'muslim extremists'. this is written into the foundations of newtonian science;

“Origin of Mathematical Physics. Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics. We recognise at the outset the efforts of men of science have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena, and that in three different ways.
First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton.
Next, we try to decompose the phenomena in space. What experiment gives us is a confused aggregate of facts spread over a scene of considerable extent. We must try to deduce the elementary phenomenon, which will still be localised in a very small region of space. — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics”

in other words, our habit of understanding 'power' in the non-nuanced materialist-logical terms wherein it emanates from the material entities involved in the violent material dynamics is the view of simple, linear, newtonian physics. in order to track this power back to its source, the scientific investigator is going to bottom out in the interior of the people manifesting the violence since the material entities [e.g. human 'beings'] are the only things to attribute the source of violent power to, without acknowledging the natural primacy of 'field' [relational influence based power source] over 'matter'.

our actual experiencing of nature gives us to understand that relational tensions build and then aperiodically collapse through violent energy release, as in avalanches and earthquakes. newtonian science would have us attribute the power of avalanche to the force of the moving rocks, ignoring the physical reality wherein potential energy has been building through the matrix of relations among the rocks and then suddenly vents where the progressively building relational tensions reach levels that can no longer be tolerated and a tension-lowering reconfiguration is triggered along with a violent eruption aka release of accumulated energy. intuitively, we all know that terrorist violence does not simply come from terrorists as the rational analysis of forensic science used in Western moral judgement based retributive justice says it does; i.e. we know that terrorist violence is the genetic expression that is inductively actualized by relational tensions ["epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression"]. colonizers are the source of colonized indigenous terrorist violence just as slave-masters are the source of slave violence.

in the case of 'capitalism' and our inability to gain access to grapple with its power, this comes from our 'dualist' rational beliefs built into noun-and-verb language. this ties also to ariel's remarks about the problematic focus on 'work' in an anarchist post-capitalist world. in the non-dualist view pointed to by McLuhan in his 'medium-is-the-message' observations, our economic construction and production projects are not simply one-sided positivist material dynamics as our Western scientific minded culture would make them out to be, but rather 'relational transformation' in which we are included. Using materialist semantic reality for our operative reality has us engendering unanticipated and unaddressed 'externalities'. this mismatch between logical model based actions and relational reality is the source of 'incoherence' [Bohm] in the social relational dynamic.

capitalism amounts to shooting ourselves in the foot because of failure to acknowledge inhabitant-habitat non-duality aka 'the natural primacy of relational dynamics over material dynamics'. We can't deal with the power of capitalism because of our dualist worldview; i.e. the relational source is invisible to world viewing through dualist lenses.

emile wall on quasi religious

however explicit and graphic is our semantic capture of 'violent atrocities', from rape through dismemberment and chemical warfare to mass murder with drones, MOABs and nuclear missiles, we do not get to the root source, but instead to word-labels that stand for 'things-in-themselves' that we 'scapegoat' as 'causal sources', in a doer-of-the-deed sense'; i.e. by way of a double error of grammar wherein reduce an inherently relational dynamic to a one-sided doer-deed dynamic depicted by an actor and an acted on. moral judgement further embellishes this by interpreting the action as either good or bad; hence "benefactor and beneficiary" and "offender and victim".

such depictions ignore the reality that people are vents for release of energy through the build-up of social relational tensions. since the imposing of moral judgement assumes that human individuals are 'independently-existing things-in-themselves that are fully and solely responsible for "their own" actions and results, ... the inquiry into rape, murder, etc. never tracks back to implicate the relational social tensions that vent through the individual. Moral judgement is imposed on the individual who is a vent for that which originates in within the body of the relational social dynamic, depicting him as a benefactor [the slave-exploiting master that gives his slaves a turkey at christmas] or as an offender [the slave who vents his anger on a slave-master over the abusive treatment of his wife and children].

my point is not to debate the seriousness of the action and result, but to point out there there is no such thing in the physical reality of our experience as an 'act-in-itself' whether it goes by the name 'rape' or 'murder' or whatever. this notion of an 'act-in-itself' comes from a particular type of language; i.e. 'noun-and-verb language' where the noun is fully and solely responsible for inflecting an action verb; e.g. 'he raped her'. this depiction is pure mechanics; it is not relational. likewise; "the child soldier slaughtered the civilians". in a relational language architecture, there is no such thing as a purely mechanical 'act-in-itself' [a logical abstraction] and therefore no such thing as 'offender-and-victim' and/or 'benefactor and beneficiary', where the for former, in each case is deemed fully and solely responsible for the offensive or benevolent act and the injury, benefit it delivers.

In a culture employing relational understanding , "it takes a whole community to raise a rapist". i.e. the source of the offensive action or benevolent action lies deeper than the individual through whom it manifests, ... within the transforming relational continuum, hence justice is 'restorative' as in 'peacemaking circles' where the focus is on restoring balance and harmony in the relational social dynamic.

if you believe in Western religion or Western science, both of which depict the human organism as an independently-existing 'thing-in-itself' that is the full and sole source of its own actions, as noun-and-verb language-and-grammar represents it, ... then you need look no farther for the cause of 'rape' than 'the rapist', likewise in the case of 'child soldier', the rebellious indigenous peoples of the middle east as in 9/11 etc. you need look no farther than 'the terrorist'. you, yourself, as an upstanding member of 'society' [the relational social dynamic that brews up relational tensions that vents through particular members] have nothing to do with any of it, since the perpetrators, being independently-existing things-in-themselves [according to noun and verb language and grammar] are fully and solely responsible for "their own' acts and the damage or benefits that may result from such acts.

Such belief in the abstraction of 'things-in-themselves' and 'acts-in-themselves' are common to Western religions and Western science and are foundational to capitalism and to authoritarianism.

as for 'consent', ... this is a logical concept that 'governs' the 'action' of an 'independently-existing thing-in-itself' and its 'doing-of-deeds'. It is like a voice-activated on/off toggle switch on a electro-mechanical dildo; i.e. it has nothing to do with physical relational intimacy.

if you believe that the cause of 9/11 slaughter and destruction was the 'doers of the deed' then you will believe that the cause of rape is the rapist and you will believe in the logic of eliminating Saddam's regime and other regimes because they are independent things-in-themselves that are the full and sole cause of perpetrating "very very bad things" on "innocent victims".

logical propositions can be proven 'true' [he raped her] as is the job of forensic science and CSI etc. but only because of the hidden language conventions incorporated in such propositions; e.g. the fixed thing-in-itself identities of the logical elements 'he' and 'she', "the reflections of concrete beings, fleshless shadows" [anthropologies reduced to ontologies].

As Emerson points out, the relational social dynamic cultivates 'need' that inductively actualize genetic expression [epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression]. The starving throngs that attack the palace are doers of destructive deeds, according to Western forensic science as in CSI. 'Need' [for sustenance] inductively actualizes such violent attacks, but 'need' is invisible because it is a purely 'relational' influence [like 'field'] and thus non-local, non-visible and non-material. We only see it indirectly, through the genetic expression it inductively actualizes.

Just as the starving throngs that attack the palace is the 'genetic expression' inductively actualized by epigenetic influence [relational tensions between surplus and deficiency], so is the attack of sex-starved males on the palace of the female that holds in plentiful store that which can nourish the desperate male. If females wanted to deliberately dress and behave so as to set up relational tensions that elevate males sexual drives beyond the threshold of well-mannered gender relations to the onset of the out-of-control nonlinear dynamic of sexual feeding frenzy, ... they could do it. The 'logical toggle' of 'consent' is a convenient idea, but logical toggles don't function at all once the relational tensions excite a sexual feeding frenzy.

the point is that in the physical reality of our actual experience, epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression. while noun-and-verb language-and-grammar allows us to construct a semantic reality in terms of people as 'independent beings who are fully and solely responsible for their own actions' are 'storming the palace', our experience-based intuition over-rides this over-simplistic 'semantic reality' and acknowledges that relational tensions associated with imbalance and need are inductively actualizing such 'genetic expression'.

the 'assertive acts' of rioting, rape and murder are not 'acts-in-themselves' bounded in space and time, that can be understood and addressed as 'acts-in-themselves' since such acts are semantic reductions broken out from a relational social dynamic that is inherently UNBOUNDED in spacetime [i.e. such action-events are INCLUDED in the transforming relational continuum and it is only thanks to 'double errors of grammar' that they are 'broken out' as 'events-in-themselves'].

a 'rape' is like the assault of the starving throng on the palace, it is not the 'whole story'. 'need' is 'a relational influence' and as such it is non-local, non-visible and non-material' [as in 'field'] and it is the inductive actualizer of 'genetic expression' [e.g. 'rape']. relational tensions associated with imbalance are the physically real animating source of 'genetic expression'.

bottom line: understanding and addressing 'intimate violence' requires inquiry into how language shapes our 'semantically constructed' 'operative reality' that orchestrates and shapes our relational social dynamic. in particular, semantic representations that treat 'genetic expression' as 'reality' conceal from view, awareness, the non-local, non-visible, non-material epigenetic influence [relational tensions] that are the deeper animating influence that is inductively actualizing local, visible, material 'genetic expression' within an epigenetic-genetic non-duality.

emile wall on nonduality (aren't they all)

there are lots of discussions that connect nonduality and anarchism. see, for example Anarchism and Taoism .... there are just not so many discussions within this forum. people have 'come through here' and tried to get discussions going about taoist/buddhist anarchism which is the nondualist understanding of anarchism, but having not kindled much honest interest, have moved on.

you ask "why is this theory so complicated"?

it's not really a theory since theories try to explain 'what is going on out there' and nonduality is about connecting the 'in here' with the 'out there'. nondualism is not so complicated but its difficult to talk about in a being-based dualist language architecture such as English.

For example, where trees grow up together, they grow up tall and straight because of the vertical cylinders of access to light opening up through the forest canopy. these illuminated cyclinders inductively actualizes growth vertically upwards [photosynthesis feeds on electromagnetic field energy that fill the light cylinders]. as the trees grow up together, they co-fashion these vertical light cylinder 'moulds' that 'channel', 'feed' and 'shape' the development of the trees so that the 'genetic expression or development of the trees, is secondary to the epigenetic influence that inductively actualized, orchestrated and shaped their growth.

This is a nondualism which Einstein would put in the terms; 'space is a participant in physical phenomena'. Mach would say that "the dynamics of the inhabitants (trees) are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat (so as to form nurturing light cylinders) at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the trees. McLuhan would say that 'we become what we behold' and/or 'the [transforming] medium is the message'. Pasteur and Béchamp would say; 'the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything' [epigenetic influence immanent in the terrain inductively actualizes the proliferation of microbes].

All of these statements imply inhabitant-habitat nonduality or 'genetic-epigenetic nonduality', however, 'science' and our noun-and-verb language-and-grammar reduces dynamics to terms of 'independent things' and 'what things do' as if in a non-participating space [ignoring all outside-inward inductive actualizing influence on inside-outward asserting genetic expression and thus reducing dynamics to the one-sided terms of 'what things do' as in an absolute space and absolute time 'operating theatre'].

It is impossible to capture the trees-canopy nondualism just described using subject-verb-predicate constructs. The concept of 'a tree' as an independent organism-thing-in-itself that is fully and solely responsible for its own development' fails to capture the physical reality, but it does capture our visual observations because all we can see is local forms and what they are doing, whether trees or storm-cells. the outside-inward epigenetic influence that is the primary animator and shaper of local, visible, material 'genetic expression' [tree development, storm development] is non-local, non-visible and non-material [i.e. as is the nature of influence of 'field'].

When the Inuit are out on a hunting trip and spot storm clouds on the horizon, it is time to carve some blocks of snow and build some igloos. as the igloo village rises up off the plain, the physical reality will be that epigenetic influence inductively actualized this genetic expression within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality; ... however, noun-and-verb language-and-grammar orients to the capture of what goes on in terms of 'things' and 'what things have been doing', as if driven by their own internal will (intention, purpose). Thus, 'epigenetic influence', which is the primary animator, 'goes missing', subsumed, notionally, by the purposeful actions of independently-existing things-in-themselves. Thus, the nondualism of the physical reality is subsumed by a 'being' and 'logic' based semantic dualism.

Just because noun-and-verb language-and-grammar is inherently dualist in its architecture and 'can't directly capture nonduality' doesn't mean that physical phenomena can't be nondual, and the relational interpretation of modern physics wherein field-and-matter are a nonduality affirms that nonduality is the physical case.

As David Bohm, Benjamin Whorf and others have suggested, we users of being-based noun-and-verb language-and-grammar need a relational language to deal with non-duality; e.g. a language that leaves the relational storming as a 'storming'; i.e. a relational activity, rather than making it into a 'thing-in-itself' ['storm'] that does stuff ['rages'].

Because we don't have a shareable relational language and are using a being-based dualist mode of expression, English, we reduce the dimensionality of the physical phenomena we are talking about. The only way to avert the loss of dimensionality so that we are nevertheless able to convey nonduality, is to inject some archetypeal analogies [storm-and-flow] that bring out the nonduality that is being intended. This makes for repetition and for 'a lot more words'.

emile wall on storming

every system is included in a relational suprasystem.

the system 'feeds' on the suprasystem thus the 'agency' of system is not a 'fountainhead' but a 'vent' that transmits influence from the suprasystem through the system [from nonlocal to local].

in a relational space, relations are the source of the forms in that space, as in the storm-system in the flow. once we name the storm-system, we can use the name as the noun-subject to inflect a verb that implies authorship of its own agency. in terms of our semantic constructions, we can attribute agency as in actions and results [the devastation of New Orleans] to the subject, 'Katrina', even though 'Katrina' is a vent that transmits influences from the non-local relational suprasystem dynamic to the local point on which the 'storming' can act.

Emerson describes humans and plants in these terms [consistent with modern physics]; i.e. as vents that transmit influences from the non-local to the local. He points out that the 'genius of nature' engenders within itself the ecosystem which includes the pear tree which has the 'talent' to produce pears. The genius of nature is immanent in the overall relational suprasystem which is continually gathering within itself 'systems' in a system-suprasystem non-duality as with storming-in-flow-field. The system, like the pear-tree or the human, while itself the product of the genius of nature, has the talent to produce stuff like the pear. semantically, we can say that 'the pear-tree produces pears' as if such a statement is complete in itself; i.e. as if the statement is a fact; ... a logical proposition imputing agency to a thing-in-itself that can be proven true.

and it CAN be proven true, ... so long as we accept the definitions of the logical elements we use to construct the logical proposition which conceal 'hidden definitions' or 'conventions' such as 'the pear-tree is an independent thing-in-itself' that is fully and solely responsible for producing pears.

this is nonsense of course, but that doesn't stop us from using logic to prove the 'truth' of the proposition 'pear-trees produce pears' thus imputing jumpstart 'agency' to the subject 'pear-tree'.

the same implication of being-based jumpstart authorship goes for 'the child-soldier produced many fatalities'. he has a talent that draws from the relational social dynamic he is included in which draws from the genius of nature immanent in the transforming relational continuum.

(newtonian) scientific analytical inquiry explains the organism or system as a thing-in-itself; i.e. as if its actions and effects derive from its internal components and processes. likewise the 'biological cell' within the 'organism' within the 'ecosystem'; i.e. all these 'things-in-themselves' are seen, by scientific observers, as nesting within one another as discrete entities as in a Matreshka and as being orchestrated by an overall central control authority.

inquiry in the relational terms of modern physics sees the suprasystem-system-subsystem relation NOT as a Matreshka nesting of discrete things-in-themselves, but as one thing, as the world given only once as a transforming relational continuum, as relational features within relational features or whorls-within whorls as in turbulent flow.

we can attribute 'agency' to even the smallest whorl, but unlike the machine view, the 'build' is outside-inward and 'holonic' within an 'energy-charged plenum' rather than inside-outward or 'bottom-up' parts based construction.

“Big whorls have little whorls,
Which feed on their velocity;
And little whorls have lesser whorls,
And so on to viscosity.”
—L. F. Richardson

the child-soldier 'feeds on' the relational social dynamic he is included in, just as the pear feeds on the pear-tree that feeds on the ecosystem it is included in.

the organism is NOT a fountainhead of 'its own agency', but something which is 'feeding' on the relational suprasystem it is included in [e.g. Ackoff's example of the university-system within the relational suprasystem constituted by the social dynamic of the community it is included in.]

emile wall on prof rat's pain

in regard to the modern day ‘collapse of belief in truth’, a belief that Western society has used to build a house of cards on top of ‘being’, an imaginary binary foundation but one that is convenient for superficial sharing [everyone knows about the situation in Afganistan, etc. etc. including the guy that lived there for half his life and the guy that heard about it on Fox news last night; i.e. the sharing of views depends on our vocabulary and the words in our vocabulary are understood [often very] differently by the sharers, who will nevertheless say; “I know watcha mean!”].

coming to terms with the arrival of a post-truth world is hardest for those of us who, as McLuhan says; let ourselves be shaped by our own tools. those who have built their personas disproportionately on the illusory ‘foundations’ of ‘being’ and ‘truth’ are faced with some of the most comprehensive ‘persona repairs and reconstructions.

As for what you say about emile; i.e.

“Emile, glories in ... such and such, .. He subverts such and such, ... Emile opposes such and such, ... He gives tortuous commentary on such and such, ... Emile gives further commentary on such and such, ... Emile automatically refuses such and such, ... Emile sided with so and so, ... Emile stresses such and such. and such.

most of it you regurgitate by using your own misplaced word meanings to flesh out my words, or you make simple logical errors; e.g;

“But to automatically refuse all binary oppositions is itself a metaphysical proposition; it in fact bypasses politics and history out of a failure to see in opposites, however imprecise they may be, anything but a linguistic reality.

let's see now. we, as with natural animals in general, don’t need the abstraction of binary oppositions in the first place, therefore we can refuse the need for them rather than having to refuse them because some people have already adopted their use. Cultures that understand the world relationally, who don’t use binary dualisms like “humans versus nature” see Western use of binaries as a problem.

but included in all of that barking and growling, is some nitty-gritty such as;

In the dismantling of every binarism, deconstruction aims at "conceiving difference without opposition."

for [relatively] sure!, that is how nondualism is distinguished from dualism. As Heraclitus puts it, the path up and the path down are the same path;

“Hodos ano kato (ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω), “the upward-downward path.” are simultaneous opposites, the source of “hidden harmony”. There is a harmony in the bending back (παλίντροπος palintropos) as in the case of the bow and the lyre. – from Heraclitus

To explore this in physical phenomena; ... convection cells are purely relational. “the outward and inward paths” are simultaneous opposites that constitute ‘harmony’ aka ‘resonance’ and while purely relational resonances may be mistaken for ‘being’. meanwhile, resonances do not constitute ‘being’. If fish move through the convection cell, at the same time as one is experiencing being sucked into the cell another fish will experience being expulsed out of it.

E.g. the convection cell is a purely relational form arising from inside-outward one-to-many diverging source/transmission and outside-inward many-to-one converging sink/reception.

the cell is constituted by these simultaneous opposites and if one fish experiences the cell sucking him in and another fish experiences, at the same time, the cell expulsing him, their experiences are both real and attributable to the 'cell' but they are binary opposite experiences. The binary opposition is not real but derives from multiple differing perspectives. By the same token, the economy can be ‘doing great’ at the same time as it is ‘doing poorly’. Which one is it? Must it not be EITHER doing great OR doing poorly?

This is all very ‘ambiguous’ and a matter of ‘perspective’, but you seem to be holding out for the existence of unambiguities, in spite of the Heraclitean Πάντα ῥεῖ (panta rhei, everything is in flux).

“And what in a smaller dosage would seem a salutary approach, a skepticism about neat, either/or characterizations, proceeds to the very questionable prescription of refusing all unambiguity.”

since unambiguous is defined as “not open to more than one interpretation”, the possible existence of unambiguities would appear to depend on the faculties of the perceiver rather than on a phenomena-in-itself. my experience is that politicians are capable of perceiving things unambiguously, such as “Saddam presents a clear and present danger to the security of the United States”. unambiguities remove uncertainty and they are great for forensic science which can establish, without a shadow of a doubt, that the rebel slave is unambiguously guilty of doing injury to the innocent slave-master.

for sure, Western society is heavily invested in the belief in binaries and unambiguities; e.g. ‘property ownership’ is based on it as is ‘racism’ which is very popular in Western culture, and in fact colonization and nationalism, even while the colonized indigenous aboriginal peoples are rejecting binaries and reviving their ‘indigenous logic’ of ‘relationality’. What politicians like Trump are meanwhile serving up as ‘unambiguous’ is also giving binary logic a ‘bad name’ and hurrying along the dethroning of binary based rationality from its unnatural precedence over relational experience based intuition.

emile wall on nihilism et fucking cetera

"Every belief, every considering something true, is necessarily false because there is simply no true world.” -- Nietzsche

Robert Anton Wilson, David Bohm and others such as Nietzsche make the point that 'relations are all there is' or in other words, 'everything is in a state of flux' so there are no 'things-in-themselves with persisting identities. what looks like 'things with persisting identities' is instead relational forms that are continually gathering and being regathered within the relational flow-plenum, like ourselves.

gunter mentioned 'reduction by classification'. this is what the 'DSM 5 (Diagnostic Statistical Manual) is all about; i.e. it lets us put a label on something indefinable by first assuming that 'there are many of them' and then collecting their 'common properties' so as come up with a set of measurements that can be applied to 'diagnose' whether or not the 'phenomena' being investigated falls into that category.

people who have been tagged with the label 'mentally ill' and a minority of psychiatrists, claim that 'mental illness' is an 'epigenetic syndrome' meaning that sensitive people who are living in a high stress world tend to have 'breakdowns', so they are labelled 'abnormal' but the society they live in is always 'normal' because the only way to establish 'normal' is by the statistical mean. in other words, 'normal', 'like true', does not exist but people do establish that norm and then measure individuals relative to it. by that measure, 'anarchist behaviours' are 'abnormal behaviours' so that like the 'mentally disordered', if they make a disturbance, they are locked up with the other abnormals so that 'normal society' can continue to function and no matter how screwed up and crazy it becomes [relative to the natural way of the authentic self which is to sustain balance and harmony with the natural world], it carries along with it the very definition of 'normal.

needless to say, the so called 'mentally ill' do not like being tagged with this label while the crazy society we live in gets off scott-free. women, in particular, according to the World Health Organization are twice as likely to suffer from 'affective disorders' (depression, bipolar etc.) as men.

We are a culture that wants to reduce everything that is uncertain to something 'certain' and that involves reducing relational activity to 'being'. the storm-cell is a relational activity but we can gather data on a large number of storm-cells, do some statistical analysis, and come up with some 'common properties' to classify them, as in the DSM. these measurements can then be used in a logical assessment to determine that the phenomena under investigation EITHER 'is' OR 'is not' one of those things.

By this process, we start with a relational activity and endow it, SEMANTICALLY, with 'being', we bestow upon it 'thing-in-itselfness'. As those 'labelled' 'mentally ill' complain, people who undergo periodic bouts of the flu do not lose their 'normal' accreditation, although those who undergo periodic bouts of screaming hysteria get their 'being' branded as 'mentally ill'.

anarchism is a way of relating to one another and the world; i.e. it is 'relational'. do we want to develop a set of measurements that will lead to a diagnosis of whether the individual is an 'anarchist' or not? if there are people who naturally commit to mutual support without having to be forced to do so by 'higher authorities', regulatory and policing agencies, epigenetic influence will be inductively actualizing their assertive actions [genetic expression] so there is no way to capture this in a 'thing-in-itself' based [being-based] modeling scheme; i.e. what we have here is inhabitant-habitat nonduality.

to impute 'thing-in-itself being' to such an individual would be to impose the assumption that his behaviour is NOT epigenetically, inductively actualized, but is fully and solely internally generated [all genesis, no epigenesis]. this would make him an 'altruist' who "shows selfless concern for the well-being of others". it is this dualist split between 'self' and 'other' that screws up this interpretation. as he understands it, 'those others' are included in who 'he is' by way of the acknowledging that we are all included in a relational suprasystem (nature) that is greater than us, meanwhile, as relational features within the transforming relational plenum, we are agents of transformation since by our actions, we are conditioning the common living space dynamic, which is, at the same time, conditioning our actions [Mach's principle].

if we go with the dualist self-other split, anarchists committed to mutual support become altruists. we can ascertain this by 'measuring their behaviours', but note that, as in the case of the storm-cell, to measure a thing's behaviour [attributing those measurements to the thing] presupposed the existence of a thing that is the author of those measured behaviours/properties. this is an error of logic called petitio principii or circular reasoning. i make some measurements and then i see if they match some diagnostic template; if 'yes', then we can say that this ambiguous swirling in the relational flow is a 'tropical storm' or a 'hurricane' of class 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, ... or a 'bipolar', 'schizophrenic' etc.

this imputing of 'being' obfuscates the epigenetic inductive actualizing influence and attributes the 'behaviour' that we have measured, fully and solely to the 'thing-in-itself' that we have just ascertained the 'existence' of, by our measurements. we can then say that 'these behaviours are typical for a schizophrenic' as if we need look no further than the interior of the individual to discover the source of the 'abnormal behaviours'; e.g. 'biochemical imbalance etc'.

if you are a rebel/terrorist and Western medicine can't find a terrorist gene or any other internal source inside of you, don't think that there will then be an admission of epigenetic sourcing, ... it is always possible to keep Western being-based explanations 'hanging together' by falling back on internal sourcing that is invisible and immaterial like 'evil'; i.e. an invisible pathogen, like a yet-to be isolated virus that is infecting the person. heaven forbid that the door to 'epigenetic' sourcing be opened since that would imply that 'it takes a whole community to spawn a rebel/terrorist'.

'nihilism' doesn't necessarily imply the non-existence of the world, it can imply the non-existence of the symbolic world, as discussed earlier in this thread; i.e. the pre-symbolic world, the physical reality of our actual experience, remains in place waiting for us to 'reground ourselves' in our raw relational experience, as the semantic realities we have been constructing crumble and collapse around us.

trying to define a 'nihilist' presupposes that such 'things' exist and that we can find them by way of 'diagnosing' them as in the DSM sense, by measuring 'their' behaviours to ascertain whether they fit the diagnostic template. if a person comes through the diagnostic testing with a 'nihilist-positive' reading, what about that condition of his regrounding in pre-symbolic experience?

as with the 'mentally ill', one would not want to be 'frozen' inside a fixed identity and be continually treated [or treat oneself] differently on this basis; i.e. to 'become' that label that the 'normals' have tagged you with, as if 'the way you are' derives fully and solely from your own [imputed] 'being'.

to reduce nothing [nihilism] to something [a diagnosed nihilist-in-itself] by way of a diagnostic, statistical template is truly oxymoronic.

professor rat (not verified)
Emile Wall considered harmful

I think that Putin & Assad are using deadly poison gas regularly is a ‘not unreasonable’ statement and it should be uncontroversial in anarchist circles. In stark contrast " Emile Wall", an Anarchist News regular thinks the False-Flag stories about Syria are ‘not unreasonable’.

emile wall on reifying nihilism

my comment at address the general logical error involved in reifying non-dual phenomena.

for example those who have been labelled 'mentally ill' are 'scapegoated' by society [Thomas Szasz, R.D. Laing, Raymond Cochrane, Kelly Brogan The Game-Changing Science of Epigenetics By Kelly Brogan, MD] since mental illnesses do not originate within an individual but arise from the complex matrix of relational social dynamics the individual is situationally included in. One heard the same story of 'epigenetic influence inductively actualizing genetic expression' from Gabor Maté MD. in his discussion on Science and nonduality talk.

The mocking by 'thecollective' of 'science and non-duality' which is the same as 'the science of epigenetics' and others who are hanging on to pure positive darwinist logic continues, and as Planck or someone said, "science advances one funeral at a time".

If you are able to do your own thinking, however, you might see the merit in expanding understanding from dualism to non-dualism and epigenetics, particularly if you are an individual who has been labelled 'mentally ill' or 'a criminal', as if the relational social dynamic you are included in was NOT the source of epigenetic influence that inductively actualized your so-called 'abnormal' behaviour. No matter how oppressive is the relational social dynamic you are included in, it will be 'the norm' because the 'norm' is statistically determined. That is why the labels "bipolar", "schizophrenic", "terrorist" etc. are 'scapegoating labels' born of scientific dualism. non-dualism, which is affirmed by the relational interpretation of modern physics, means that "epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression". 'schizophrenia' is inductively actualized, it is not 'genetic', likewise 'breast cancer';

"Risks appear to be increasing with time: Breast cancer risk by age 50 among mutation carriers born before 1940 was 24%, but among those born after 1940 it was 67%.

Lamarck's nondual, epigenetic sourcing of genetic expression is confirmed over and again by research into cell behaviour, in contradiction to the dualist Darwinist view.

"“As is described by Nijhout, 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’

Epigenetics and nonduality (an understanding that is supported by our observations/experiences) in contrast to a one-sided view in terms of 'genetics' as if genetic expression played out within a non-participating Euclidian space. Genes are defined as 'independently existing things-in-themselves' with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours. genes are the reification of genetic activity, they are 'spooks'. That is what epigenetics and nonduality is all about; i.e. it is a 'game-changer' as Kelly Brogan and Gabor Maté and others are acknowledging'. It changes our basic worldview, and it changes it in the manner claimed by Nietzsche whose view of evolution was, you guessed it, a nondual relational activity wherein epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression [endosmosis is in a nondual relational with exosmosis wherein endosmosis is in a natural primacy over exosmosis.

If you have been labelled a defective being-in-itself, as if the inductive influence of the social dynamic has nothing to do with your 'diagnosis' [as bipolar, schizophrenic, criminal, terrorist], and you are happy to accept that, fine. that fits the Western dualist worldview perfectly. But if you are convinced that what is being called 'your problem' is inductively actualized by the relational social dynamic you are included in, ... you may be interested in seeing what Brogan, Maté or others working on 'science and nonduality' aka 'epigenetics' have to say.

If you were to wonder why the general animosity towards emile's comments, even when they are not 'long', there is animosity in general toward this 'game-changer' of nondualism/epigenetics. p.s. one does not have to buy into everything brogan and gabor are saying [e.g. teleology can be subsumed by sustaining harmony within a transforming relational continuum; i.e. we are agents of transformation whose natural 'relational ethic' is to cultivate and sustain balance and harmony within a continuing evolution that we are contributing to with every step we take [Joseph Campbell]; the beauty and mystery of evolution is the source of natural 'ecstasy' and 'indigenous relational ethics'.

Anonymous (not verified)
Ummm, maybe you haven't noticed,

Ummm, maybe you haven't noticed, but we're missing a wall, a wall on the Great Wall of China ;)

emile wall on listening (lol)

Heraclitus has a good point. Individuals commonly offer their own theories based on logical propositions that are inherently subjective and incomplete, but nevertheless offer them as 'truths'; e.g.

"It is true that there are always a number of simultaneous scenarios that are partially overlapping and partially mutually exclusive. But they have one thing in common: they are all true." -- Professor rat

But there is no 'common truth'; ... only the personal truth of our own unique situational experience. That is, we are all walking around with our own personal strain of PTSD. We are all experientially conditioned. If you think that our actions are coming from 'our local, present, material 'selves', think again! [this is Gabor Maté's point in acknowledging self-other nonduality wherein the rootsource of our actions is indefinitely deferred into the interior of the transforming relational continuum where all is relationally influencing all].

Logical, scientific, rational worldviews are as numerous as the people formulating them [Nietzsche's 'perspectivism'] and any concensus based statistical regression which seems to be homing-in on 'common-to-all' 'objective truth' is simply clustering around group beliefs/values.

while logical propositions are over-simplistic 'semantic realities' that may be proved 'true', there is no such thing in the physical reality of our actual experience as 'truth'. 'Truth' implies non-contradiction and 'unambiguous meaning' [only one interpretation is possible]. But ambiguity is inherent in logical propositions; ... it is simply concealed in the idealized fixed identity of 'logical elements'; e.g. "A" pulled out a gun and shot and killed "B".

This 'sounds unambiguous because of the general Western culture practice wherein we assume the logical elements "A" and "B" are 'independent entities'. In fact, "A" and "B" are logical elements that 'stand in for' far more relationally complex 'nondualities'. That is, "A" and "B" are RELATIONALLY ENTANGLED IDENTITIES rather than mutually exclusive; e.g. "A" may be the long abused slave/wife of the abusive slave-master/husband "B".

physicality-based meaning 1. In the master/slave example, experience-based intuition gives the insight that the actions of "A" are 'pushback'; i.e. the discharging of relational tensions springloaded by "B" through the mediating medium of the common relational space that both are included in. In colloquial terms; "B" 'had it coming' [note the exception that, just as abused dogs experientially conditioned by abusive humans may bite non-dog-abusing humans since all humans look and smell alike, humans may 'bite' other humans on the basis of their perceived 'category' as in 'whites' stereotyping of blacks].

logic-based meaning 2. Logic-based scientific/rational thinking assumes that "A" is AN INDEPENDENT BEING THAT IS FULLY AND SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR HER OWN ACTIONS AND RESULTS [relational entangling of identities aks 'nonduality' is ignored].

Science makes the convenient simplifying assumption that "the present depends only on the immediate past" so that we don't need to develop meaning from the progressive development of a phenomenon. So while science and rationality deal in 'logical truths', experience-based intuition deals in 'physical realities'; e.g;

"The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- Mach's principle

Mach's principle implies that inhabitant and habitat are a relationally entangled nonduality and that any pair "A" and "B" drawn from a common relational space have RELATIONALLY ENTANGLED IDENTITIES through their experiential conditioning as they share inclusion within a common living space, in the manner that all stormings in a common flow have RELATIONALLY ENTANGLED IDENTITIES by way of their innate inhabitant-habitat nonduality.

The PTSD-like 'experiential conditioning' that we all accrue from our own unique situational inclusion within a common relational dynamic [the ONE world dynamic] implies that when we inquire into the behaviours of an "A", "B", "F" etc. we cannot assume that the root source of their behaviour derives fully and solely from 'their local, visible, material "BEING"'. That is an impression that comes to us from language that uses subject-verb-predicate architectural structure wherein "A" shoots and kills "B" says nothing about their RELATIONALLY ENTANGLED IDENTITIES via their PTSD-like experiential conditioning.

Western society has been employing, as the popular 'operative reality', logical-truth based reality [putting science and rationality into an unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition], hence there is no acknowledgment of; for example, the child-soldier's behaviour being shaped by; ... the relational social dynamic that is shaping his development, ... the criminal's and terrorist's behaviours being shaped by the relational social dynamic that has been shaping their development, etc. etc. etc. This failure to acknowledge the RELATIONALLY ENTANGLED IDENTITIES of 'logical elements' used in subject-verb constructs leads to the construction of semantic realities that are radically 'at odds' with the physical reality of our actual experience, leading to 'logical reality' based interventions into an unaddressed relational complexity that engenders unanticipated 'externalities' [e.g. an intervention that, in logic-based semantic reality, accomplishes the [logically] successful removal of Saddam while in the physical reality of our actual experience, engenders the rise of ISIS].

Listening not to me but to 'the Logos', it is wise to agree that all things are ONE [i.e. that inhabitant-habitat nonduality is the physically real case].

Note that this comment is not an appeal to 'trust in the truth of my semantically constructed theoretical model', but an appeal to reject all generalized logical models as 'operative reality' candidates and trust in one's own unique physical situational experience as comes to us through experience-based intuition. This requires 'demoting' the 'pursuit of truth' to a lesser 'support role'; otherwise, our belief in 'truth' will have us continuing to 'address symptoms and ignore root source' [letting relational root source 'flap in the breeze' as we address overly simplistic subject-verb-predicate symptoms] as is the way of mainstream science and Western civilization.

Appeals to restore experience-based intuition to its natural primacy over rational theory are not 'more rational theory', although they are strawmanned as such by those who are hoping to keep rational 'semantically-constructed reality' models in their unnatural precedence over the physical reality of our actual relational experience.

emile wall on turing

Turing was fascinated with the binary simplicity of Newton's third law;

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"

Turing felt that this understanding, expressed in 'linear' terms, must be operative in a relational sense; i.e. in three dimensions it would be: "for every divergence, there is an equal and opposite convergence". In the development of the fingers of a human embryo, Turing wondered whether there might not be two 'chemicals'; one that activated and one that inhibited so that forms developed from the engaging of the activating, diverging flow relative to the strength of the inhibiting converging flow, this being the source of the form of the fingers, in the same sort of manner as a hole in the ground is filled with water, the water invades the adjacent soil via long fingers in more porous and permeable soils and short stubby fingers in less porous and permeable soils.

Turing, who was gay [and whose appreciation by the public, for his mathematical genius, went into immediate free fall with his conviction of a homosexual act (1952)], ... in order to keep his university position which gave him access to a computer [a rare item in 1952] for his continuing decoding research, he had to agree to undergo chemical castration. Turing understood better than most how strong an influence binary logic based thinking was having on the general public; e.g. "this EITHER is allowed" OR "is not allowed" ... FULL STOP...

His late (post-fall-from grace) research on the impact on binary thinking on social behaviour [how superficial binary truths block us from deeper understanding] explored the forming activator-inhibiter elastic walls between 'what people did' and 'what people did not do'. Some people pushed [fingered] their way much farther into those spaces that were designated prohibited and thus were avoided by the majority.

In this activator-inhibitor inquiry, Turing pondered whether people who were commonly seen as 'shiftless do-nothings' [one might include hobos in this category] might not be more positively viewed in terms of the reversed-sign version of the 'activator-inhibitor' wherein, the 'thirsty soil' induced the fluid fingers of penetration. The question in his mind was; 'why was our society so prejudiced in favour of seeing things in the one-sided terms of activator actions and the ethic of hard work?' People living in tropical paradises could almost lie down and wait for ripened fruit to find its way into their mouths.

Turing reasoned that if a person wanted to get to a wild-berry patch on the far side of a forest, they would take the long route around if there were dangers in the forest [a security guard with a shotgun, a grizzly bear etc.]. Turing reasoned that the better part of what a person did, was hidden by never speaking about it, and that there was a whole hidden world of 'what that person 'did not do''. This was because we construct our narratives in terms of 'what things do', as if the penetrating fingers are the active agents and the accommodating space is passive; i.e. passive resistance is the only capability of that which lies on the opposite side of the elastic activator-inhibitor wall. But if some spaces were more accommodating than others, would such spaces not also influence the form of the penetrating fingers? In others words, would it not be possible for variations in the form and depth of the penetrating fingers to be due partly or entirely, to the variably accommodating/inducting influence rather than fully and solely due to the activating agency?

Turing could see that it was our social custom of attributing changes in a person's trajectory [going around rather than through the forest] to his 'intelligence'; i.e. to his ability to sense and interpret and let his sensing and interpreting shape his actions. He also knew that Newton had formulated his laws of motion assuming a Euclidian space which, unlike non-Euclidian spaces, was void and thus a non-participant in physical phenomena.

Turing died in mysterious circumstances at age 41 so we never got to see his 'final' thinking on activator-inhibitor dynamics and the related issue of the influence of binary decoding on human understanding [how much we hide by employing binary concepts in our decoding].

While officially ruled as death by suicide, speculation as to the true circumstances have continued, including a theory, in 2014, that "the FBI wanted him dead because he held 'damaging information' on Russian agents who had managed to get themselves into top American Government jobs." [see; 'Was Alan Turing's death MURDER not suicide? by Charlotte Cox (Mirror, December 12, 2014), and 'Alan Turing: Inquest's suicide verdict 'not supportable'' by Alan Pease (BBC, June 26, 2012)].

So Gunter, would you agree, as the majority in our society seem to, that hobos are shiftless do-nothings', which is what one gets when one measures only the activator side of the activator-inhibitor duality.

As Einstein says, 'space is a participant in physical phenomena', meaning that the activator and accommodator are NOT a (binary) duality but a 'relational non-duality'. It is only noun-and-verb languages that portray the subject as an 'activator' that is fully and solely responsible for the sourcing of actional agency [dynamic physical phenomena].

Noun-and-verb language will always allow us to explain dynamics in the one-sided terms of 'what things do'. It is done by assumption that space is a non-participant which, as Whorf has showed, is built into subject-verb-predicate language-and-grammar constructs.

For Turing, ... something was lurking in the forest that was very seductive and inviting and he wanted to have a taste of it. Western justice not only insisted that HE was the full and sole source of his homosexual action, they insisted also that the sourcing drive and direct was internal and coming from fucked up biochemicals and that the way of correcting this internal defectiveness was to undergo a chemical castration, which Turing agreed to. This assumption of a binary code in nature has us doing binary decoding as a way of understanding physical phenomena and this is hiding the fact that 'space is a participant in physical phenomena' which means that the accommodator-activator pair is a non-duality wherein the accommodator is inductively actualizing the activator.

The fact that the life of an Inuit in the arctic is more frenetic than the life of a Polynesian in the tropics can certainly be viewed in terms of binaries which blame the variation in degree of actor-activity on the action and his internal biochemistry as directed by his intelligence and (survival) purpose. Of course, this assumes that space is Euclidian in the Arctic and space is Euclidian in the Tropics, and where space is a Euclidian void (non-participant), the only source of the agency of the actor lies within the actor.

Since science defines the organism as an 'independently-existing thing-in-itself', this guarantees that the dualist assumption checks out [because of hidden definitions]. On the other hand, if we go with modern physics and assume that space is a participant in physical phenomena, we can assume that a human organism [relational form within a transforming relational space] raised in the Tropics will develop within a relationship with the land that is nurturing, and likewise for the human organism raised in the Arctic. This 'is' the Lamarckian view wherein 'space' is not simply an 'inhibitor' but is the energy-charged field/plenum that is the mother of all organisms.

Turing never got to finish his research, and how could he? His findings were outside of what the society he lived in judged to be 'permissable'. The science of his day hasn't changed in 2017, it still maintains that the human organism is an 'independently-existing system-in-itself' whose development and behaviour is fully and solely internally driven and directed. Binary judgement is applied to enforce the prohibition of theory that contradicts this. It is fine for Einstein to say what he said about the participation of space [=matter-space nonduality] as he did 40 years before science was giving Turing a chemical castration to remove a drive that was seen as internal to the 'independently-existing human organism', but quite another thing for the inertia of the Western society herd to even begin to assimilate its implications.

If the Hobo is able to cultivate a nurturing relationship within the transforming relational living space he shares inclusion in, should he 'feel guilty' by not putting his nose to the grindstone and adopting the Christian work ethic where one is given the SIsyphian task of 'improving on nature' so that one can buy ownership of large pieces of it?

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

Can we blame Hobos for NOT buying into this and instead just cultivating a nurturing relationship within the relational world they find themselves situationally included in?

And what about those high-level Russia-supporters in the US government? death by externally imposed force [Turing's] can be easily differentiated from death by internally imposed force.

Gunter (not verified)
You ask me emile

You ask me emile "would you agree, as the majority in our society seem to, that hobos are shiftless do-nothings', which is what one gets when one measures only the activator side of the activator-inhibitor duality."
I certainly would not make such a privileged and morally tainted judgment of any person, and especially in such vague and obviously meaningless words such as "shiftless do-nothings", which I guess refers to having a lazy and inactive disposition. These dualistic opinions, the opposite 'good' judgement being that a person is industrious and economically productive, are the moral attitudes and values of a materialistic Western society targeting its youth, and yokes them with guilt and exclusion for not participating in the mindless destructive and greedy frenzied consumerism of the capitalist hegemony. The Taoist process of mutual interplay which respects the individual tendency for harmony and peaceful resolution and inter-relational respect has been slandered and stifled by these negative ethics. My stance concerning alcohol is not a prohibition but a reasonable assessment of the negative affects of a toxic substance better used for the preservation of foods and the burning of lanterns. My nihilo-hobo brothers are free to consume alcohol at a distance from the nurturing grounds of the innocents.

Professor rat (not verified)
Turing's ' Halting Problem'

Turing's halting-problem in computing may also relate to a psychological state.

"...A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in the order of messages and these messages can either be stated explicitly or implicitly within the context of the situation, or they can be conveyed by tone of voice or body language. Further complications arise when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed..."

I hope a link can be proven as that might even help us advance the anarchist news project. VORWART!

reply to #84 Turing's Halting Problem

double binds are the dysfunctional foundation of Western civilization; e.g

Euro-American colonizers: "We love you Libyans so much we are bombing the shit out of your country to protect all you ordinary citizens from evil so that you too can enjoy democracy and freedom".

Euro-American colonizers to refugees trying to get out of the hell-hole of NATO-bombed Libya by boating from LIbya to Europe: "Fuckin parasites, go build your own democracy and freedom, like we did. Get out of my space!

The result of being caught in double bind can be schizophenia, wherein the archetype of beheading arises as symbolic of a mind and body disconnect.

Our Western society seems to cultivate a lot of it, primarily through the double bind presented by parental love and respect for authority.

Western parent to Child: “I love you so much and I am going to do everything I can to ensure that you get to enjoy the freedom and opportunity that I have had in my life.”

Some anthropologists and psychologist-philosophers have seen through this double bind wherein living in an authoritarian hierarchy is equated with "freedom and opportunity"; e.g;

“The function of education has never been to free the mind and the spirit of man, but to bind them…acquiescence, not originality. …Schools are the central conserving force of the culture. … In order not to fail, most people are willing to believe anything and to care not whether what they are told is true or false. Only by remaining absurd can one feel free from fear of failure.” – Jules Henry, cultural anthropologist, in ‘Culture Against Man’

And, as R.D. Laing adds, this double bind induces an ambiguous 'switch' between 'self' and 'other'.
“It is Henry’s contention that in practice education has never been an instrument to free the mind and the spirit of man, but to bind them. … Children do not give up their innate imagination, curiousity, dreaminess easily. You have to love them to get them to do that. Love is the path through permissiveness to discipline; and through discipline, only too often, to betrayal of self.” – R. D. Laing, psychiatrist and philosopher

Modern films, like modern society, have a preoccupation with 'revenge' and 'beheading' [the list is long], as brought out in a review of Tarantino's 'Kill Bill';

"Any existential anxiety over the switching of Self and Other, one of the clinical definitions of schizophrenia, is shrouded in the rush of nostalgic presentness [in ‘Kill Bill’]. Schizophrenia becomes Tarantino, who is so keenly aware of the division that he capitalizes on it.
Decapitation means the truncation of head and body, the seats of reason and heart. Symbolically, it severs the two fundamental traits of humanity. With the corpse in two parts, death is exposed in all its rawness, without any of the semblance of life countenanced by an intact body. As such, decapitation has been banned in most civilized [sic] countries as cruel and barbaric.”

Gabor Maté discusses the double bind between 'attachment' (the loving child's desire to be close to a parent) and 'stress' that can come bundled in with that attachment; i.e. this transgenerational stress-attachment double bind can constitute a transgenerational propensity for illness that is confused for 'genetics caused illness', a miscorrelation that is also discussed by Kelly Brogan in 'The New Science of Epigenetics'. As Gabor Maté observes;

Published on Nov 23, 2014
Stress is ubiquitous these days — it plays a role in the workplace, in the home, and virtually everywhere that people interact. It can take a heavy toll unless it is recognized and managed effectively and insightfully. Western medicine, in theory and practice, tends to treat mind and body as separate entities. This separation, which has always gone against ancient human wisdom, has now been demonstrated by modern science to be not only artificial, but false. The brain and body systems that process emotions are intimately connected with the hormonal apparatus, the nervous system, and in particular the immune system. Emotional stress, especially of the hidden kind that people are not aware of, undermines immunity, disrupts the body's physiological milieu and can prepare the ground for disease. There is strong evidence to suggest that in nearly all chronic conditions, from cancer, ALS, or multiple sclerosis to autoimmune conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease or Alzheimer's, hidden stress is a major predisposing factor. In an important sense, disease in an individual can be seen as the “end point” of a multigenerational emotional process. If properly understood, these conditions can provide important openings for compassion and self-awareness, which in turn are major tools in recovery and healing." -- Gabor Mate, Gabor Maté, When The Body Says No: Mind/Body Unity and the Stress- Disease Connection

See any patterns developing here? How about what psychiatrists refer to as 'The Invisible Plague' of Mental Disorders that are on the rise in society in spite of massive increases in mood stabilizing and stress-desensitizing drug taking to try to subdue it. Such disorders were rare or absent in aboriginal societies.

It's worth observing, as well, that John Nash [A Beautiful Mind], a Nobel Prize winning mathematician who was helping the Western powers develop strategies for dealing with global binary opposition/conflict developed paranoid schizophrenia which he later associated with 'taking rationality to its limits'. Game theory itself suggested the self-other switch to maximize one's self-interested gains [the first one to switch sides gets the biggest gain]. See BBC Adam Curtis' documentary 'Fuck You Buddy!' (Part I of 'The Trap') If you don't have time for this one hour film, tune to 10:44 into the film to get a view of John Nash's 'Nash Equilibrium' and how it plays out in terms of the double-bind in Western society (10:44 - 30:00).

In the Turing halting problem, there is the requirement the analyzing program must 'read in' the program to be analyzed and in some sense, to 'get inside of it' to understand its 'workings'. but from 'inside', how would the thing doing the calculating know that it had stopped, since it would no longer be functioning? in other words, it would have to know itself from inside and outside at the same time. This sounds like the job of the KGB and the CIA. In the case of the dysfunctional families studied by Laing in the (10:44 - 30:00 video excerpt) where the relationship was one of secret games of mutual manipulation [characteristic of Western rational culture], this simultaneous inside-outside viewing was not available. The problem appears to be that the relationships were 'rational' and cooperative in the sense of optimizing one another's self-interests, as in the Nash equilibrium.

Rationality [binary logic] appears to be the constraining factor in Turing's halting problem as in Goedel's theorem. The latter theorem has been described in terms of; 'logic, while it is able to judge the truth or falsehood of all those unable to judge their own truth or falsehood, being unable to judge its own truth or falsehood this side of infinity [Goedel's theorem of incompleteness of all FINITE systems of mathematics]

Bottom Line: (as Nietzsche advised/warned Western society); 'Don't be rational' [don't put rationality into an unnatural primacy over relational experience based intuition]. Of course 2500 years of habit is not too easy to shake off.

professor rat (not verified)
Rational anarchism Vs nonduality

I thought I was making it clear what the halting-problem here was.
" Emile' in a word.
On the one hand I see an anarchist news site( with good and bad news ) where anarchism is broadly defined as an ideology, or set of ideas, having to do with solving the problem of "HELL-is-other-People" ( Sartre) in a broadly reasonable way, and on the other hand I see a Troll sets up house here and spams the site to the point of Denial-of-(news)-service.
That sentence almost suffered a halting problem- but it seems every word and useful abstraction (friendly spook) has to be redefined here sometimes.
I don't want anarchists to be ' all-rational-all-the-time' - but if any misogynist elitists want to try and glom onto our sites why not tell them, the net is a big space and encourage them to explore it?
Halt the Nitszchaen garbage since GIGO applies to all political ideologies.
Finally, the dream of reason started with the Greeks 2500 years ago & we are heirs of that tradition, not anything to do with any God ( or anti-God moron)
Lets keep the dream alive since you can't spell ' rational' without a 'rat in it.
Thank youse

Anonymous (not verified)

raational- so there, 'rational' without a 'rat' in it, humph!

yes, nonduality is scary to some dualists

i have shared with you (professor rat) lots of entry points to give you traction to engage with me and thus reveal the substance behind your desire to 'get rid of emile', ... or is it to get rid of the perceived contamination of rational dualism by nonduality? But you have not taken me up on any of these possibly elucidating engagings.

your allegation of emile's participation amounting to a 'Denial-of-(news)-service is a joke.

"I see a Troll sets up house here and spams the site to the point of Denial-of-(news)-service"

its more like your reaction to a vocal heretic in your personal Church of Anarchism.

and, of course rationality IS based on the God concept in spite of what you say. Rationalists crave absolute power, believing that there is a more perfect truth that will stand above all other less perfect truths. The so-called 'rational-secular' structure of the sovereign state depends upon the existence of a Supreme Central Authority;

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

rationalists believe in the secularity of the state and the secularity of science in spite of both of them being built on a foundation of absolutisms that are like 'divine revelations'. This includes God-like powers of creation and destruction, ... making these absolutisms into what philosophers have termed 'secularized theological concepts'.

"“Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

nonduality has no such aspirations to put rational concepts into an unnatural precedence over relational experience, Nonduality restores experience-based intuition to its natural primacy over rationality.

you make no comment at all on Adam Curtis' 'Fuck you Buddy' exposition on where Western society, built as it is on rationality, is going due to the innate incompleteness of rational/logical thought.. your aim appears to have its priority focus on discrediting the non-rationality of nonduality.

your view, "...where anarchism is broadly defined as an ideology, or set of ideas, having to do with solving the problem of "HELL-is-other-People" (Sartre) spoken out of context, comes across as the usual misinterpretation: i.e. "the most famous thing that Sartre never said". What Sartre did say was;

" . . .“hell is other people” has always been misunderstood. It has been thought that what I meant by that was that our relations with other people are always poisoned, that they are invariably hellish relations. But what I really mean is something totally different. I mean that if relations with someone else are twisted, vitiated, then that other person can only be hell. Why? Because. . . when we think about ourselves, when we try to know ourselves, . . . we use the knowledge of us which other people already have. We judge ourselves with the means other people have and have given us for judging ourselves. Into whatever I say about myself someone else’s judgment always enters. Into whatever I feel within myself someone else’s judgment enters. . . . But that does not at all mean that one cannot have relations with other people. It simply brings out the capital importance of all other people for each one of us." -- Sartre

The people in the play 'The Exit' are in a Hell because they can only get a sense of who they are by how they are reflected back by others around them. The three people in Sartre's play do not offer much in the way of back-reflective potentials to make any of them feel good about themselves and this is what Sartre intended by "L’enfer, c’est les autres”.

fortunately, i am not stuck forever in the same space with professor rat else i would be quoting sartre as well.

Professor rat (not verified)
My case against Emile

My case against Emile rests on three instances which I ask youse to consider together ( in the spirit of nonduality if you like)

1) He clutters up this news site with obscurantist and obfuscatory comments amounting to a denial-of-service attack
2) He appeals to our reason one week ( Sarin excuses are " not unreasonable') then appeals to our irrational side the next.
This makes him unreliable news source to say the least. But you knew that.
Finally 3) His intolerable championing of the reactionary, women-hating, anarchy-hating nosebleed elitist Friedrich Nietszche.

Please collective - make it stop. Tia, pr.

Anonymous (not verified)
Interesting case

Maybe you can find a site where you like and agree with everyone.

Have you heard of Facebook?

My (emile’s) comments on Professor rat’s ‘case against emile’;

Professor rat “My case against Emile rests on three instances which I ask youse to consider together ( in the spirit of nonduality if you like)”

* * *

Professor rat 1) “He clutters up this news site with obscurantist and obfuscatory comments amounting to a denial-of-service attack”

the first ‘obfuscatory’ part of this allegation is on target, the second ‘denial of service’ allegation is a transparent joke.

from the dualist point of view, nonduality naturally ‘obscures’ the certainty in dualist semantic reality constructions. ‘dualist-speak’, which is what noun-and-verb language-and-grammar delivers, however convenient and thought-economical its being-based concreteness and certainty is, fails to address physical reality.

“The muslim extremists beheaded their Euro-American captives”
“Party A, B or C used poison gas to kill their enemies”

in the physical reality of our actual experience, we know that these actions derive from long ongoing relational tensions, however, ‘science and rationality’ try to develop ‘understanding’ based on ‘independently existing things-in-themselves’ and their causal actions and results. This is a futile undertaking in a transforming relational continuum.

obviously it is very convenient for the colonizing powers to stick to ‘science and rationality’ which has built into it, several ‘simplifying assumptions’;

”First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton.”

By this assumption, the colonizers, or any controlling authority, can piss on those who they are controlling and humiliating over the long term and then explain an ‘incident of rebellion’ using the double error of grammar that defines the rebelling activity as if it were the act of a rebel. the full answer to ‘why did this rebellious act happen’ then becomes; ‘because a rebel caused it to happen’. Full certainty [who or what did it] and full closure [what actually happened] arises from this double error of grammar that reduces a relational activity born of ongoing relational tensions to a digital event with a discrete beginning and ending [which assumes that the present depends only on the immediate past] so that the ‘event’ can be inquired into as if it were an ‘event-in-itself’.

obfuscation is the charge laid by people who view things through dualist lenses [discrete events] on views coming from nondual understanding wherein longterm accrual of relational tensions are the deeper ‘root’ source of the local-in-space-and-time ‘eruptions’ that are ‘eventized’ with dualist assumptions.

[e.g. Ward Churchill’s ‘pushback’ view, stated the day after 9/11 while the majority was busy drafting a Patriot Act portraying Euro-American colonizers as model world citizens, global guardians of truth, righteousness, apple-pie and motherhood, their hearts filled with the noblesse oblige of stemming a rising tide of spontaneous and unprovoked evil violence for some strange reason directed against them.]. don’t winners [of colonizing wars] get any respect along with the right to humiliate and degrade losers?

as for whether battlefield killings are done in a ‘kosher’ or ‘halal’ manner according to the current politically correct killing protocols, this information is used together with the binary dualism of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, and helps to establish that the guilty offender’s actions derive from his dark and evil soul so that in our inquiry into the source of the violence, “Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of the phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past.”.

the causal linkage drawn backwards from the deadly result bottoms out where? in the dark and evil heart of the terrorist? ... or in the history of relational tensions fuelled by winners humiliating losers by penning them up as they choose in reserves and puppet-led sovereign colony-states.

so, sure, to a hardline dualist, the views coming from nonduality blur everything; discrete assignment of blame to individual ‘things-in-themselves’ is no longer possible, ‘events’ as complete cause-effect actions and results are no longer possible, and ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ are relational activities rather than results caused by ‘winners’ and ‘losers’.

so, of course my nonduality comments are obfuscatory, but only to dualists.

* * *

Professor rat 2) He appeals to our reason one week ( Sarin excuses are " not unreasonable') then appeals to our irrational side the next. This makes him unreliable news source to say the least. But you knew that.

In restorative justice which derives from nonduality, it is not only unnecessary to determine ‘causal responsibility’ it is deemed ‘impossible’, since the sourcing of events unfolding in the present are indefinitely deferred back down into the transforming relational continuum and it is impossible to get ‘closure’ or to ‘home in’ on any ultimate ‘causal source’.

Therefore, the ethic that springs from nonduality is to restore balance and harmony in the relational social dynamic. There are no ‘two opposing sides’ in an interdependent web-of-relations. Where there is a dualist splitting into ‘two independent and mutually opposing sides’, there is then the possibility of attributing causal actions to a particular side as if it were a ‘thing-in-itself’. The nondual view sees the two or more factions are interdependent, as in two storm-cells in the same flow. Attributing causal responsibility to any particular cell is impossible.

We are all in the same boat [interdependent web-of-life] together. When tensions build within that boat, eruptions of violence result; e.g. --- ghetto-living breeds violence and killing. is it more important to have first-class police forces, forensic science and legal defence and prosecution resources to attend to ghetto violence, ... or to address the ghetto conditions that are the source of the relational tensions that engender eruptions of violence? Who did what to who is not the question, ... unless you are a dualist rationalist who REALLY BELIEVES that violence jumpstarts from humans that science depicts as ‘independent things-in-themselves’ [thanks to the abstract concept of empty Euclidian space].

Professor rat, meanwhile, is very concerned with the news media getting its facts right on ‘who did what to whom’. Was it the member of the Bloods that instigated the violence that led to the death of the Crip or was it vice versa? In infighting between muslim extremist groups, which one was responsible for deaths the others, ... or is any of this importance if we are not a member of one of the factions? Is it even necessary to know the names of the muslim extremist groups engaged in infighting? Evidently, it is only important to get the news reporting right if we are a member of one of the factions involved in the conflict, which means that, because we are looking out at the world from our 'self' that is independent of the world we are looking out at, we don’t have the nondual understanding that “it takes a whole community to raise a terrorist or a sarin gas deployer”.

In the dualist view, ‘losing’, rather than being understood as a relational activity, is understood as a result authored by ‘losers’. Why did those Indians end up on reserves? Because they are losers; i.e. because they lost the American-Indian Wars. The same for the islamic extremists, they are likewise ‘losers’ who lost the colonizing wars and that is why they are still in ‘reserves’ designated by the Euro-American colonizing powers. That’s why Trump can call the Manchester terrorists, ... “evil losers” ... “they’re losers, just remember that”, and Trump is right but only within a dualist sense since he is a hardline dualist and dualism has one believing that the ‘performance’ of independent things-in-themselves can come from nowhere else but their own interior. ‘Winning’ and ‘losing’ is therefore due to ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ just as ‘terrorism’ is due to ‘terrorists’.

Professor rat’s elevating of politically correct blaming into an unnatural primacy over the intuition that “it takes a whole community to raise a nasty gas-weapons user” suggests that he is a hardline dualist that wants to expel all blurriness that threatens the premise that ‘we are good and righteous’ and ‘they are evil and disgusting’.

* * *

Professor rat: Finally 3) His intolerable championing of the reactionary, women-hating, anarchy-hating nosebleed elitist Friedrich Nietszche

As is evident from the discussion of professor rat’s issues (1) and (2), dualist thinking is superficial in that it takes comments literally and has difficulty tapping into deeper meaning that comes from relational context. If a man is ‘winning’ this does not mean that he is winning because ‘he is a winner’, as would have to be the case if he was a thing-in-himself fully and solely responsible for his own actions and results. As we know from experience, people and families and ethnic groups evolve relational support webs over the long term that greatly contribute to and influence their ‘success’. In the case of colonizers and colonized, the settler support webs tap into more powerful and influential support webs than the indigenous peoples can tap into.

It is a joke [that our ego can play on us] to speak of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ as ‘things-in-themselves’ with full and sole causal responsibility for their own winning or losing actions and results, ... but this is what dualism encourages us to buy into since that’s how dualism [science and rationality] models the world in spite of our experience-based intuition screaming otherwise.

Professor rat evidently accepts the same sort of superficial reading of Nietzsche that gives the superficial dualist reader the impression that Nietzsche is misogynist. As female philosophers who read more deeply than Professor rat point out, Nietzsche is only an anti-feminist, not a misogynist

“...Nietzsche's apparent misogyny is part of his overall strategy to demonstrate that our attitudes toward sex-gender are thoroughly cultural, are often destructive of our own potential as individuals and as a species, and may be changed. What looks like misogyny may be understood as part of a larger strategy whereby "woman-as-such" (the universal essence of woman with timeless character traits) is shown to be a product of male desire, a construct.” -- Frances Nesbitt Oppel

and as Maudemarie Clark says in ‘Nietzsche’s Misogyny’

“if we read it [Nietzche’s discussion of woman in Beyond Good and Evil] carefully, we can see that Nietzsche is not making the claims he seems to be making about women. The misogyny exhibited there is on the level of sentiment, not belief, and it is used by Nietzsche to illustrate points he is trying to make about philosophy and the will to truth. Chapter VII of Beyond Good and Evil's comments on feminism should be interpreted not as a rejection of feminism, but as a challenge to feminists to exhibit virtues comparable to what Nietzsche exhibits in dealing with his misogyny.”

The stereotyping of ‘self’ and ‘other’ as in ‘feminism’ is part of the degenerate pattern of dualist thinking. It tries to capture the essence of ‘things-in-themselves’ rather than understanding them by way of the unique situational web of relations they are included in [that 'they are' in a 'relational ontology']. Racism, identity politics and stereotyping in general, arise from dualist thinking. Feminism, in some of its flavours, is an attempt to break out of one cultural stereotype by trying to build a new cultural stereotype, the wonderwoman stereotype.

Let’s be honest, ‘stereotypes’ IN GENERAL are futile attempts to characterize relational forms starting from the assumption that they are ‘things-in-themselves’ and attributing to them all sorts of positive and negative properties and powers ‘of their own’, though in the physical reality of our experience, a thing-on-its-own can have no meaning other than comes through its relations with other things; e.g. how we are mirrored back to ourselves from our relationships with others and with the land. This was also where Professor rat got hung-up in his too superficial reading of Sartre’s ‘L’enfer, c’est les autres’’.

many of us who study 'anarchism' remain anonymous or partly so because of how we see ourselves as 'mirrored back' by others. this mirroring back does not come from 'who we really are' since our society is 'dualist' and uses their 'stereotype' of 'anarchist' to mirror back to us 'who we are'. Hell is "living in a society that puts dualist stereotypes into an unnatural primacy over relational experience".

professor rat (not verified)
Weak response but I'll respond

Emile pleads guilty to obfuscation. If you value obfuscation above any kind of news then by all means let him stay here.
2) As it happens, I have some experience fighting the Patriot Act

Not sure how you do any decent activism with Emile's mindset, unless you count spamming an anarchist news site.

Finally "...Nietzsche is only an anti-feminist, not a misogynist..."

I rest my case. As Emile concedes 2 points he might be considered for a suspension. At least till some poor anarchist is nerve-gassed in Syria...


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.
Enter the code without spaces.