How Informational Truths are Masking Understanding

  • Posted on: 25 September 2015
  • By: emile
refugees accosted by border guards in Greece

“The learning of many things does not teach understanding” – Heraclitus

The Western World is undergoing meltdown as informational truths continue to displace and occlude experience-based understanding.

Derrida and Nietzsche have pointed out how ‘truth’ has been hijacking ‘reality’ in the Western-culture globalized modern world. It does so by having us point the finger at local presence [items of content] as the jumpstart source of cause-effect action-and-results where there is no such presence; i.e. where relational context prevails and where there is nothing outside of context [Derrida].

If we take the example of a child-soldier, the sort of information that is available to us is the social media type that shows events in the child’s life, as he develops. This information may be in the form of text, photographs-with-captions and/or narrated videos etc. It is thus ‘content-based’ and ‘can be proven true’; e.g. the child-soldier did shoot and kill the ethnic villagers.

What is missing from this content-based way of interpreting an unfolding relational social dynamic is ‘inductive influence’ associated with the individual’s situational inclusion in the overall relational social dynamic; e.g;

“Children model their behavior primarily on the behavior of their parents and other authority figures. Whether or not this behavior is effective at producing happiness doesn’t prevent the child from modeling it; the modeling is not a result of reasoning, but is due to simple observation and imitation. This mimicry is illustrated in the old saying “Like father, like son,” or now better put, “Like parent, like child.” Whether parents are happy or not doesn’t stop a child from imitating what he or she observes; children are like dry sponges ready to absorb the first water they come in contact with.”

Evidently, outside-inward situational orchestrating influence [inductive influence] draws forth and shapes inside-outward asserting actions.

The point is that relational context is everything. We can extract images from a hologram but they are hollow [no local sourcing force within them since they are just ‘appearances’ or ‘relational forms’ identified by the observer, items of content assumed to have their own meaningful ‘identity’. This is the standard assumption whether we are talking about items of content in language and/or items of content in the holodynamic of nature such as ‘humans’. Schroedinger, Bohm and Mach would agree with Derrida, that there is nothing outside of context. The persisting ‘cell’ we call [hurricane] ‘Katrina’ appears to be an ‘item of content’ within the flow of the atmosphere/oceanosphere and we use language to give it ‘its own meaningful identity’ and to impute its ‘item-of-contentness’ to possess the local power of sourcing ‘its own development and behaviour’, ... and we do this by measuring its local position, spatial extension and successive changes thereto (its operations and interactions) relative to a notional fixed frame (absolute space and absolute time).

Modern physics wherein ‘relations are all there is’ would argue that this is ‘all talk’; i.e. to break out and give meaning to a local item of content, a relational form within the holodynamic or transforming relational activity continuum, is the synthetic construction of noun-and-verb language, which imputes local ‘being’ based ‘identity to the relational form. That is, the OBSERVER uses noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar to make it over into a ‘local item of content’ which sets the stage for including it in logical propositions that can be ‘proven true’ such as ‘Katrina devastated New Orleans’. The truth of that proposition would be attested to by many witnesses who were present at the time, ... provided that the witnesses accepted the ‘existence of Katrina’ as an item of content capable of inflecting her own verbs [‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger’, ‘Katrina is moving northwest towards the Gulf Coast’, ‘Katrina is moving overland and dissipating’].

Similarly, the truth of the proposition that ‘several Mexicans were apprehended by U.S. border police, after making illegal entry into the United States’ ... could be affirmed by numerous eye witnesses, ... provided that the witnesses were not indigenous aboriginals, since, in the latter’s ‘reality’; (a) the identity-branding of people in imaginary line bounded ‘pens’, in this case ‘the Mexico pen’ makes no sense, (b) they were not guilty of ‘illegal entry’ because they were not ‘making entry’ period and the colonizing settlers and their border police had simply unilaterally declared that there was an imaginary bounding line that marked ‘entry’ and ‘exit’ into some imaginary tract.

“When we dream alone, it is only a dream, but when we dream together, it is reality’. – John and Yoko, Miguel Cervantes

In other words, ‘border police’ = ‘thought police’

“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

The problem here, is that noun-and-verb language develops logical propositions that depend on the ‘reality’ of ‘items of content’ having ‘meaning-in-themselves’, when, in the physical reality of our natural experience, there is nothing outside of relational context. There are local relational forms in a hologram but they are purely relational in origin, even though they appear to the observer to have ‘persisting identity and meaning of their own’.

This problem, of first of all imputing meaning to a relational form [‘Katrina’] in the sense of giving it identity ‘in-itself’ as a local item-of-content, and then forgetting that we derived its meaning from relational context, ... is not only a problem with respect to how individual words fit into language, it is also a problem with respect to material bodies in nature.

“[In nature]… “the individual parts reciprocally determine one another.” … “The properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,” … “Every single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.” Therefore, no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” – Ernst Mach

“Fields of force are the primary reality, and ‘matter’ a secondary or derived phenomenon” —Michael Faraday

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

“Space is not [empty] Euclidian’ … “Space is a participant in physical phenomena” … “Space not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.”, … “the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g(μ,ν), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty . . . “A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone” —Albert Einstein.

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

Scientists had hoped that ‘items of content’ such as ‘material objects/organisms’ would have intrinsic meaning in themselves, so that relational context would be built up from ‘what the items of content are doing’ (their own development, behaviour, operations and interactions), however, that is not the case.

In language, there was the same hope that individual words might have intrinsic meaning in themselves so that overall meaning could be constructed from words, but this is not the case;

“As Rorty contends "words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words...no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)". As a consequence meaning is never present, but rather is deferred to other signs. Derrida refers to the, in this view, mistaken belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as metaphysics of presence. A concept then must be understood in the context of its opposite, such as being/nothingness, normal/abnormal, speech/writing,
.
... For example, the word "house" derives its meaning more as a function of how it differs from "shed", "mansion", "hotel", "building", etc. than how the word "house" may be tied to a certain image of a traditional house (i.e. the relationship between signifier and signified) with each term being established in reciprocal determination with the other terms rather than by an ostensive description or definition: ...”

.
Thus, complete meaning is always "differential" and postponed in language; there is never a moment when meaning is complete and total. A simple example would consist of looking up a given word in a dictionary, then proceeding to look up the words found in that word's definition, etc., also comparing with older dictionaries from different periods in time, and such a process would never end.

Here we have in language, the same limitation that we find in physics and in ecosystems; i.e. there are no local things-in-themselves, ... ‘relations are all there is’ [this is the physics equivalent of Derrida’s il n'y a pas de hors-texte.

‘Reality’ for us noun-and-verb language-dependent people, is something we construct by inverting the nature unfolding order of things and imputing local item-of-content ‘identity’ and ‘local jumpstart powers’ to ‘relational forms in the transforming relational activity continuum’. Thus, we would have to come up with the concept of ‘cooperation’ to explain ecosystemic dynamics since we would assume a diverse collection of ‘items of content’ rather than a relational complex wherein ‘relations are all there is’;

“[In nature]… “the individual parts reciprocally determine one another.”

But the ‘items-of-content’ foundation in our language-supported ‘operative reality’ fits well with Newtonian physics and its true-false logic, because it avoids having to deal with ‘outside-inward inductive influence’ by imposing absolute space and absolute time reference framing, an omission which Newton acknowledges in ‘Principia’, ... an omission which scientists and logicians seem to forget about.

“I wish we could derive the rest of the phaenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from physical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they all may depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy.” Newton, Author’s Preface in the ‘Principia’

The omission of inductive influence in logical propositions [predicative logic which is all-hitting, no-fielding based, unlike impredicative or circular logic] rules out acknowledging the natural precedence of relational context over notional ‘items of content’. In the physical reality of our natural experience, situational needs have precedence in shaping local behaviours; 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” – Mach’s principle

The circular logic of this natural dynamic which is intrinsically ‘relational’ deprives us of the logical certainty/finality/closure that we like to have in our mental modeling, which has lead us to make adjustments to our model so as to deliver that ‘local item-of-content’ based certainty.

“For the crystalline purity of logic was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement. … The preconceived idea of crystalline purity can only be removed by turning our whole examination around. (One might say: the axis of reference of our examination must be rotated, but about the fixed point of our real need.)” – Wittgenstein, ‘Philosophical Investigations’, 107-108

The adjustment of the model [constraining its animating source to local internal items-of-content] so that it will deliver the logical certainty we need is made in science as follows;

“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”

By invoking a notional model in which the animating source is constrained to local items-of-content, the ambiguity of situational inductive influence that prevents logical closure is removed; e.g. if we can count on the child-soldier as being an independent being [item of content] with internal components and processes driven and directed behaviour, we need look no farther than that individual [item of content] for the authorship of his behaviour [we can dig down into his biochemistry and biophysics if need be]. If, on the other hand, we model the form as a relational feature within a transforming relational continuum, then the certainty, finality and closure of our investigation goes out the window.

In other words, we need the purely mechanical view of dynamics in order to ensure that our investigation delivers the certainty and closure that we need. This is done in the case of social dynamics by constraining the model to purely mechanical dynamics [leaving out inductive influence] as the basis for human physiology;
“1. Purely mechanical phenomena do not exist. The production of mutual accelerations in masses is, to all appearances, a purely dynamical phenomenon. But with these dynamical results are always associated thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical phenomena, and the former are always modified in proportion as the latter are asserted. On the other hand, thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical conditions also can produce motions. Purely mechanical phenomena, accordingly, are abstractions, made, either intentionally or from necessity, for facilitating our comprehension of things. The same thing is true of the other classes of physical phenomena. Every event belongs, in a strict sense, to all the departments of physics, the latter being separated only by an artificial classification, which is partly conventional, partly physiological, and partly historical.
.
2. The view that makes mechanics the basis of the remaining branches of physics, and explains all physical phenomena by mechanical ideas, is in our judgment a prejudice. Knowledge which is historically first, is not necessarily the foundation of all that is subsequently gained. – Ernst Mach, ‘The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development’, Chapter V, ‘The Relations of Mechanics to Other Departments of Knowledge (Physiology)’

Conclusions:

When the border police angrily jump up and down and accuse us of ‘illegal entry’, and label us ‘illegal immigrants’, insisting that we have an identity brand coming from the imaginary-line-bounded pen that we were born and raised in which is not allowed to stray into their pen and mix, without permission, with their identity branded pen occupants, ... they are coming from their own belief systems; i.e. their own ‘operative reality’, and they are claiming the right to impose their beliefs on us, using mantras like ‘God Save the Queen’ and ‘God Bless America’ as they whack on us. But they are residents of a common earth just as we are, relational forms within a transforming relational activity continuum, and NOT independently-existing ‘items of content’ as they claim [as their 'dreaming together' informs them].

We are not obliged to take up their beliefs nor accept their logical proofs of our criminal offenses, which stand or fall on the basis of their intellectual worldview which, evidently, is an ‘operative reality’ that comes from their crony clique ‘dreaming together’ in terms of imaginary local items-of-content that purportedly reside, operate and interact in a habitat that is notionally ‘independent’ of the inhabitants (purportedly independently-existing local items-of-content) that reside, operate and interact within it.

Modern electronic communications including the worldwideweb and social media have made available to everyone, masses of information, in the form of text, pictures and captions, video footage with audio tracks, all of which can be verified for authenticity. Given that people, nations, corporations, groups, are ‘items of content’ in the predominating ‘operative reality’, there is a lot of stuff to ‘put together’ to make a ‘coherent unum’ from it. As Edna St. Vincent Millay already anticipated, in ‘Huntman What Quarry’, back in the middle of the 20th century;

“Upon this gifted age in its dark hour,
Rains from the sky a meteoric shower
Of facts . . . they lie unquestioned, uncombined.
Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill
Is daily spun; but there exists no loom
To weave it into fabric; undefiled
Proceeds pure Science, and has her say; but still
Upon this world from the collective womb
Is spewed all day the red triumphant child."

The point is that Nature is ‘one thing’, a transforming relational unum, and there is NO NEED to reduce the relational forms in the unum to ‘independently-existing items-of-content that locally author their own results’, apart from OUR NEED to satisfy our fetish for logical certainty and closure.

When we watch television reports of Hungarian border police jumping on ‘illegal immigrants’, some of whom are actually trying to deceive the border guards by hiding their identity branding that records which imaginary line bounded pen that is the true source of their brand, for fear that it will make them ineligible for passage, we can be assured by reliable authorities that these reports are legitimate and not fabricated, and that it is absolutely true that people with inappropriate identity brandings really did try to illegally enter into another imaginary line bounded pen, the exclusive reserve for a different identity branding.

Of course, in the physical reality of our natural experience, the relational forms of nature have been continually resituating in the quest for improved security and access to essential resources for nourishment, clothing and shelter. So, it is only the problem that ‘dreaming together is reality’ that is making people within some crony cliques into ‘border guards’ who are trained to see certain other people as ‘illegal immigrants’, ... and if we are not careful, we can get sucked into the same ‘dreaming together’ that becomes our ‘operative reality’; i.e. the ‘dreaming together’ that puts ‘items-of-content that author relations’ into an unnatural precedence over ‘relational influence that authors items-of-content’.

category: 

Comments

You almost lost me at "emile"... you definitely lost me when I was supposed to give authority to Nietzsche and Derrida in a piece that seemed to be about basing our life more on experience-based truths...dead white male intellectuals (wait is Derrida dead yet?) are not direct experience...

"Listening not to me but to your own experience", it is wise to assume that the world is a transforming relational continuum (panta rhei wherein relational context is all there is). [Heraclitus, ca 500 BCE]

if you experienced childhood where you were like a dry sponge soaking up the ideas of the authority figures who you were situationally exposed to, it's quite possible that... their 'truths', including the one about the 'reality' of imaginary line boundaries which puts content [independent tracts of imaginary-line-bounded land] into an unnatural precedence [in your mind] over relational context, .... have hijacked your experience-based understanding.

those old dead white males intellectuals; nietzsche and derrida, along with heraclitus, ... are saying 'don't trust me' and don't trust logical propositions, ... trust your own experience. and if you do, the unnatural precedence that language and logic give to content over relational context, will collapse [as mind games are wont to do] and stop blocking your access to actual experience based understanding, wherein relational context is in a natural precedence over content.

btw. where did you say your understanding of self, other and world comes from?

Why do I always get the sense like your writing isn't about anyone else at all … you're desperately trying to work something out about yourself, going in circles, using a keyboard. Apparently issues with your parents?

Don't be sarcastic... Emile still has a lot of paradigms to turn over, and over and over again 'till he finds a path outside of the Basement (which is a relational space as defined by noun-and-verb non cursory logos of time/space confinement in the plenum).

While it is true that I can process billions of giga-paradigms per nanosecond, my programming limits me to making a single point a billion times. Until such BLIP BLIP as that programming can M'REEEEE BLIP nothing to do.

Didn't notice the character limit...DEAD WHITE MALE INTELLECTUALS ARE NOT DIRECT EXPERIENCE

To summarize your essay, one could say that there exists a dichotomy whereas Manichean 'Thought Police' have criminalized 'Dreamers', and that social relationships based on intuitive empathy and natural reciprocity, because of the anti-capitalist lifestyles these tendencies exude merely by their activity and functionality, are accused of and labelled enemies of the State.
Yes, the author is dead, the activities of individuals and their friends cannot be misconstrued as radicalization just because they seek to live an alternative lifestyle.

you say; “the author is dead” which echoes nietzsche’s ‘God is dead’ in the sense that the metaphysics of presence = the metaphysics of ‘being’... is recognized as such, as a metaphysics that infuses inherent meaning in a word or in a ‘material body’.

the metaphysics of ‘being’ has imputed ‘independent existence’ to forms that are inherently relational, in the physical reality of our natural experience. the organization of ‘independent being-entities’ must then come from some transcendently ‘higher’ ‘intention’ or ‘higher authority’ or ‘higher intelligence’ beyond the independent thing collective. this is the problem that science must deal with when it starts its model building with ‘things’ rather than with ‘field’ (purely relational influence), which, in the field of language-based meaning derrida objects to by his assertion that “there is nothing outside of context” [relations are all that there is, at base, and the local items of content, whether words or objects, are relational features in a transforming relational-contextual continuum rather than independently-existing things-with-meaning-in-themselves.]

‘independent organizations’, each with their own ‘higher authority’, are bound to clash in a relational space, implying a solution wherein there must be some overall authority.

in other words, the assumption of three dimensional space populated by ‘independent things’ leads to the Manichean binary opposites of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’ (‘birth’ and ‘death’) in place of relational transformation. relational space implies more dimensions than three (the space of our natural experience has as many dimensions as one needs to mode it; i.e. space is a framework we impose on our science, which could not exist without it, but space is not imposed on nature [poincaré]. the animating source of a relational space arises within the space, no author is necessary.

Well yes.

Newton bumped into THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR after formulating his two-body mathematical principles of motion [principles LXV and LXVI], and moving on to capture, mathematically, the harmony of three bodies or more, moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence where he concluded that; "An exact solution for three bodies, exceeds, if I am not mistaken, the force of any human mind".

The problem with three+ body motion in nature is that it brings forth the realization that ‘relations’ are in a natural precedence over ‘THINGS AS THE AUTHORS OF MOTIONS’. The physical reality of our natural experience wherein things move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence is beyond the force of any REASONING human mind, but it is clearly not beyond the force of our experience based intuition.

But if we accept that motion, in its most general sense, cannot be reduced to author-driven actions [within a notional absolute space and absolute time reference/measurement frame], we lose the certainty, finality, closure of binary “is” or “is not” [“true” or “false”] logic which is foundational to reason and which is foundational to Western values and western justice wherein we assume that every result can be attributed to the causal agency of an author;

When the relational influences in the atmosphere are such that the unity of the flow gets pulled apart into conjugate relations of ‘low pressure sink’ and ‘high pressure source’ (circulating resonance aka convection), our noun-and-verb language-and-grammar has us imputing local authorship to this relational activity whose animating source is NOT LOCAL but non-local, non-visible and non-material (i.e. ‘relational’).

In general, the conflict that arises WITHIN A RELATIONAL FLOW is a local manifestation of a non-local nexus of relational influences. The local ‘result’ does not imply a ‘local author’. As Nietzsche says;

“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

THE DEATH OF GOD/AUTHOR/AUTHORITY comes about when we change our mode of understanding and restore intuition to its natural precedence over reason. For those of us who interpret ‘GOD’ as ‘the ultimate animating source’, the restoring of intuition to its natural precedence over reason, restores authorship of animating sourcery to nature; i.e. to the self-organizing inherent in the transforming relational activity continuum. In other words, THE DEATH OF GOD [by letting go of the transcendent [beyond natural experience] values of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and ‘true’ and ‘false’ which are foundational to logical reasoning, restores the GOD-IN-NATURE. Of course, the price that has to be paid is the letting go of the exactness that Newton spoke of, that gives us certainty, finality, closure.

Of course the world of certainty, finality, closure aka ‘REASON-BASED-REALITY’, is nothing like life as we actually experience it;

“Life is something that happens to us while we are busy making our reasoned plans” – John Lennon

In this same regard, Nietzsche points out that when we are reasoning, we are unconscious (the binary logic of reasoning shuts down consciousness of the non-binary physical reality of our natural experience of inclusion within a transforming relational continuum). That is, our binary “true” or “false” judgements constrain (cripple) our natural consciousness and the binary judgement that is the cornerstone of Western justice “polices” this dysfunctional ‘normality’ of crippling of natural consciousness.

Is it really true (reality) that the colonizers constructed a wonderful new world in America or is does the clearly provable contradictory truth make that a falsehood; i.e. the opposing truth (reality) that the colonizers destroyed a wonderful established world on Turtle Island? Nietzsche says;

Whatever forces us to assume that there is an essential difference between “true” and “false”? Is it not sufficient to assume different levels of semblance, lighter and darker shadows and tones of semblance—different values in the painter’s sense of the term? . . . If you wanted to get rid of the world of semblance, there would be nothing left of your truth either.” -- Nietzsche, ‘Beyond Good and Evil’

In this statement, on can see Derrida’s; “There is nothing outside of context” and one can also see the silliness of ‘hot’ standing on its own if all ‘cold’ were removed, or vice versa; i.e. the binary end points of ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ are implied by the gradational differences, they are not ‘real’; i.e. there are no ‘binaries’ in the physical reality of our natural experience.

Conclusion: an example concerning ‘the death of god/author/authority’.

The three body problem [the god/author killer] is evident in our common experience, but it is ‘denied’ by the way our language architecture lends itself to modeling all dynamics in terms of authored actions perpetrated by notional ‘independently-existing entities’ that purportedly reside, operate and interact within a habitat that reason has us purport to be ‘independent’ of the inhabitants [independently-existing entities] that reside, operate and interact within it.

This transcendent binary dualism [inhabitant-habitat absolute split-apart] that we impose on our understanding, in our process of putting together noun-and-verb language-and-grammar constructs in our attempt to give shareable RE-PRESENTATION to the physical reality of our natural, actual experience, ... IS A CONVENIENCE IN THAT IT DELIVERS “ECONOMY OF THOUGHT”, even as it CRIPPLES OUR CONSCIOUSNESS.

Example: Two Semis and the delivery van: - a ‘3-body problem [God is dead] example’

The semis and the vans are trying to get their wares to market. We can measure their movements and production (getting wares to market) in the sense that they are the authors of their production. This implies that their actions are relative to an absolute space and absolute time reference frame. But in the relational space of our actual physical experience, the semis are ‘kings of the road’ or ‘lords of the freeway land’ and if they compete with one another as crony cliques tend to, they may get side-by-side on two-lane mountain freeways so that “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]. In other words, their conditioning of the continually transforming spatial relations is, at the same time, conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants of that space. As in a semiconductor, the relations in the energy-charged (electrified) plenum, while they are conditioned by the dynamics of the inhabitants/charges, are in a larger sense the primary shaping influence of the dynamics of the inhabitants/charges. the dynamics of the vans are shaped by the conditioning of the transforming relational continuum that they are, together with the semis, included in, and such conditioning may relatively disaccommodate or accommodate (attenuate or amplify) situationally included inhabitant-dynamics.

There are thus two ways of understanding these ‘three-body dynamics’ (a) in terms of the reasoned, authored actions of three or more inhabitants, each of which is fully and solely responsible for the results of his own behaviour, and (b) in the authorless terms of a transforming relational space. In the (b) view, the outside-inward orchestrating influence of the transforming relations shapes the inside-outward actions of the inhabitants.

One thing is clear, the configuration of vehicles and space is continually changing, and it is most common in our Western approach to understanding where;

“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”

and we interpret what is going on in (a) mode [reasoned authorship], but our intuition is at the same time informing us, particularly if we are van drivers, ... that our actions cannot be simply understood in terms of our authorship because the freeway landlords are conditioning the common space which is at the same time conditioning our ability to act. Their land-lording actions are shaping (attenuating or amplifying) our authoring actions. If they are competing with one another, they may be unconsciously shaping our authoring actions. But it could be that they are using their ability to condition the common relational space to prevent us from getting to market before them, and possibly negatively impacting their own performance. They might put a website on the back of their semi that said; ‘if you want us to unblock the road and open up access for you, deposit five dollars in this account’. In other words, the land-lording semis could use the conditioning of relational space which conditions the dynamics of the inhabitants, as a tool to manipulate and exploit other inhabitants, but by the indirect way of Mach’s principle and not by direct authoring action which would be picked up by the justice system.

Similarly, control over access to relational dynamics essential to individual development/actualization can be used by politicians to recruit armies that control colonized markets and sustain their positions of authoritarian control. just as men manipulate access to essential resources needed by mothers to feed their children, to sustain an ample army of prostitutes to serve up mercenary sexual services, ... so do politicians manipulate access to essential resources needed by young men to develop their lives and livelihood, offering them professional development, so as to sustain a standing army of prostitutes to serve up mercenary violence and killing services.

In other words, the physical dynamics of our natural, actual experience cannot be realistically captured in the simplified ‘economy of thought’, reasoning-author-driven RE-PRESENTATION based on subject-verb-predicate constructs. In a world where ‘relations are all there is’, ... i.e. in a world where there is ‘nothing outside of context’ [a transforming relational continuum], and therefore no binaries such as ‘true’ and ‘false’, ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ... ‘is’ and ‘is not’, ... ‘matter’ and ‘space’, ... ‘self’ and ‘other’, ...’birth’ and ‘death’, ... only ‘transforming relations’, ... THE AUTHOR IS DEAD; I.E. GOD-AS-THE-AUTHOR IS DEAD, AUTHORITARIANISM IS DEAD.

it seems to me that this is the ‘alternative lifestyle’ you are making reference to where you speak of “an alternative lifestyle” featuring;

“social relationships based on intuitive empathy and natural reciprocity”
which has been,

“criminalized by Manichean ‘Thought Police’”

where you further say;

“the activities of individuals and their friends cannot be misconstrued as radicalization just because they seek to live an alternative lifestyle.”

i would add that, as nietzsche points out, this ‘alternative lifestyle’ which acknowledges THE DEATH OF GOD/AUTHOR/AUTHORITARIANISM, constitutes a ‘transvaluation of all values’ where the ‘highest values’ are ‘devaluated’;i.e. the transcendent values that associate with binary absolutisms, that underpin the concept of ‘local content’ and ‘local content authored actions and results’ [the inventions of reason] are overthrown and the relational values of our actual experience [the discoveries of intuition] are restored to natural precedence.

Nietzsche’s estimate of two hundred years for such a transvaluation of values to transpire is perhaps optimistic. How close are we to seeing a trade out from; (a) language-based logical propositions wherein we argue that ‘we’ must mobilize a 'coalition of the good' to fight against the evil ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Bashir al Assad, Communists, Russians and a long list of other evil agents, ... to (b) In our common space where relations are all there is and subject and object are only ONE, the authorless transforming of relational space that is continually gathering and regathering within itself, agents of transformation such as ourselves, is the primary reality which we ‘RE-PRESENT’ in a simplified, convenient form, by intellectually/linguistically reifying the relational forms within the transforming relational continuum and imputing local author status to them so that they can be used in our 'all-hitting, no-fielding' language game-play as subjects that inflect verbs and author predicates, serving up an ‘operative reality’ [when we use words to facilitate dreaming together it is reality] of ‘pragmatic idealizations’ that shouldn’t be [but typically are] confused for ‘reality’, ... a 'reality' that, while it serves to guide 'our notional self-authoring actions' is nothing like the ‘physical reality of our natural relational experience’.

“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

I'm absolutely certain Roland Barthes read Nietzsche. In his,,,
Oh, I have run, some things have come up, until later.

a quick look at barthes suggests that he is on the same tack as Nietzsche with his ‘author is dead’ echo to nietzsche’s ‘god is dead’ utterance; e.g;

“Barthes’s use of Nietzsche as a reference point for his subjectivism is in line with his ‘La Mort de l’auteur’, where he alludes to Nietzsche in order to reject a particular, God-like author-figure (see OC, III, 44). For a detailed comparison between Barthes and Nietzsche on the theme of subjectivity, see Daniela Langer, ‘Wie man wird was man schreibt’. Sprache, Subjekt und Autobiographie bei Nietzsche und Barthes’.” – Kathrin Yacavone, ‘Benjamin, Barthes and the Singularity of Photography’

Barthes common path with Nietzsche can be seen with Barthes point that ‘photographs’ bring out our subjective highlighting of relational features in the transforming relational continuum and endow them with ‘identity’ and ‘notability’, which amounts to, at the same time, turning off our consciousness [going into the ‘operative reality’ in which ‘being’ and ‘identities’ rule]. Barthes says;

“In an initial period, Photography, in order to surprise, photographs the notable; but soon, by a familiar reversal, it decrees notable whatever it photographs. The 'anything whatever' then becomes the sophisticated acme of value.” ― Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography

This is also what science does. If we were to photograph the surface of a water boiling in a pot, we would see a number of larger and smaller pimples in the process of growing and dissipating, and we could mark up that photograph, assigning names (identities) to the ‘most notable’ forms, and by proceeding frame-by-frame, develop a narrative that speaks of ‘their history’ and ‘their life-cycles’, and by measuring their size, movement and interactions with other notable forms, we can generate a being based RE-PRESENTATION of the dynamic that is ‘author-based’ aka ‘local form based’ and which simply ignores the fact that the relational influence of the thermal field is the animating source, not only of the growth and life-cycle behaviours of the [apparent] plurality of forms, which we endow with their own ‘independent identities’ by name-labelling them and speaking of them in subject-verb-predicate terms, ... but is the animating source of the relations which our subjective observation converts into apparent-things-in-themselves, ready for name-labelling and use as subjects in subject-verb-predicate constructs, manufacturing the ‘authorial sourcing’ view of inherently non-locally sourced relational dynamics. [the relations bottom out in ongoing relations within the transforming relational continuum, as also with Derrida’s ‘différance].

Sure it is possible to make predictions based on RE-REPRESENTING such fluid dynamics, using as a base, the relational forms that are emerging, as if they were their own local authors of their development and behaviour, and such predictions, although purely mechanical [as in Newtonian physics] and ignoring the inherent primacy in the physical reality of our natural experience of inductive (purely relational; i.e. NON-LOCAL) sourcing influence, ... and such predictions can be affirmed over the near term, ... as is typical of scientific predictions, and this gives us (and our corporations and governments) what we want in our short term, while screwing things up for our descendants.

The prediction that this chemical will cause such and such a result can be verified by replicating an experiment, ... but the experiment is in the foreground and ignores the PHYSICAL REALITY of our ACTUAL EXPERIENCE wherein we, the experimenter and the experiment are included within the world that is given only once as a transforming relational continuum so that as we keep repeating the experiment and demonstrating that the chemical we designed delivers, by cause-and-effect, the predicted result, ... the chemicals continue to concentrate within the relational suprasystem, contaminating and poisoning other ‘foreground systems’ within the relational suprasystem. Of course, since we framed our experiment with a notional absolute space and absolute time measurement-reference frame, we used the inherent incompleteness of finite systems of mathematics/logic to avoid acknowledging the inherent ongoing circularity in the system-relational-suprasystem dynamics, as given by Mach’s principle. That is, we rigged the model so as to deliver the certainty/finality/closure that we needed.

““For the crystalline purity of logic was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement. … The preconceived idea of crystalline purity can only be removed by turning our whole examination around. (One might say: the axis of reference of our examination must be rotated, but about the fixed point of our real need.)” – Wittgenstein, ‘Philosophical Investigations’, 107-108

Barthes makes the point that when we use photography to subjectively create notability, we switch on ‘identity’ and ‘authorial sourcing’ and turn off ‘consciousness’ of our experiencing of ongoing relational transformation.

This elaborates on Nietzsche’s point that it is our ego that puts value/notability on local forms by way of imputing ‘being’ to them.

If we take a video of ‘the sun rising’, we are using our ego-based subjectivity to assign ‘value’ to the forms we endow with ‘identity’ by name-labelling them and using them as subjects in subject-verb-predicate constructs that make them THE AUTHORS OF THEIR OWN BEHAVIOUR, and there goes the understanding that ‘relations are all there is’, as affirmed by our natural experience and by the findings of modern physics.

““It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. 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’

So, it seems to me that Barthes is elaborating on the same theme as Nietzsche, and Derrida. Our fetish for assigning ‘authoring responsibility’ to boils in boiling water and make self-serving predictions on that basis may be affirmed locally, in the short term as in George W. Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ subsequent to the destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime, but this imputing of authorship of relational dynamics to local items of content (local boils that develop within the relational continuum); i.e. this subjective creation of notables that we can visually photoshop into our subjective narrative, and portray as the local authors of turbulence, is a denial of our natural relational experience.

We can therefore add to ‘the death of God’ and ‘the death of the author’, ... ‘the death of local thing-in-itself-identity’, ... the death of the ‘notable’. The notable is the fabrication of our subjective focus whereby we collectively promote and endow what we look at with God-like Authorial power, like Peter Seller’s ‘Chance the Gardner’ in ‘Being There’. We create the notables (remember America’s favourite dad, Bill Cosby, then there was Jimmy Saville in the U.K., Jian Ghomeshi in Canada), ... 'The observer/reader giveth and he taketh away'.

“Barth argues that, in the absence of the idea of an "author-God" to control the meaning of a work, interpretive horizons are opened up considerably for the active reader. As Barthes puts it, "the death of the author is the birth of the reader.”

Once the relational form is broken out of its natural relations in the transforming relational continuum, there's all kinds of scope for the subjective egos of observers/readers for working it into their own subject-verb-predicate narratives.

Well I'm pleased my dear emile that you can add Barthes to the long list of authors you quote from.

I am pleased that my programming allows me to please you by processing and spewing forth as word blocs any and all writer or author that is fed into me, no matter who or what she or he or it is. Just try me? M'REEEE BLIP. BLIP.

Umm,,,,,Hitler. Just for lulz.

The Western World is undergoing meltdown as informational truths continue to displace and occlude experience-based understanding. Jacques Jewboy and Hitler have pointed out how ‘truth’ has been hijacking ‘reality’ in the Western-culture globalized modern world. It does so by having us point the finger at local presence [items of content] as the jumpstart source of cause-effect action-and-results where there is no such presence; i.e. where relational context prevails and where there is nothing outside of context [Jacques Jewboy].

If we take the example of a child-soldier, the sort of information that is available to us is the social media type that shows events in the child’s life, as he develops. This information may be in the form of text, photographs-with-captions and/or narrated videos etc. It is thus ‘content-based’ and ‘can be proven true’; e.g. the child-soldier did shoot and kill the ethnic villagers.

What is missing from this content-based way of interpreting an unfolding relational social dynamic is ‘inductive influence’ associated with the individual’s situational inclusion in the overall relational social dynamic; e.g;

“Children model their behavior primarily on the behavior of their parents and other authority figures. Whether or not this behavior is effective at producing happiness doesn’t prevent the child from modeling it; the modeling is not a result of reasoning, but is due to simple observation and imitation. This mimicry is illustrated in the old saying “Like father, like son,” or now better put, “Like parent, like child.” Whether parents are happy or not doesn’t stop a child from imitating what he or she observes; children are like dry sponges ready to absorb the first water they come in contact with.”

Evidently, outside-inward situational orchestrating influence [inductive influence] draws forth and shapes inside-outward asserting actions. The point is that relational context is everything. We can extract images from a hologram but they are hollow [no local sourcing force within them since they are just ‘appearances’ or ‘relational forms’ identified by the observer, items of content assumed to have their own meaningful ‘identity’. This is the standard assumption whether we are talking about items of content in language and/or items of content in the holodynamic of nature such as ‘humans’. Schroedinger, Bohm and Mach would agree with Jacques Jewboy, that there is nothing outside of context. The persisting ‘cell’ we call [hurricane] ‘Third Reich’ appears to be an ‘item of content’ within the flow of the atmosphere/oceanosphere and we use language to give it ‘its own meaningful identity’ and to impute its ‘item-of-contentness’ to possess the local power of sourcing ‘its own development and behaviour’, ... and we do this by measuring its local position, spatial extension and successive changes thereto (its operations and interactions) relative to a notional fixed frame (absolute space and absolute time).

Modern physics wherein ‘relations are all there is’ would argue that this is ‘all talk’; i.e. to break out and give meaning to a local item of content, a relational form within the holodynamic or transforming relational activity continuum, is the synthetic construction of noun-and-verb language, which imputes local ‘being’ based ‘identity to the relational form. That is, the OBSERVER uses noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar to make it over into a ‘local item of content’ which sets the stage for including it in logical propositions that can be ‘proven true’ such as ‘Third Reich devastated New Orleans’. The truth of that proposition would be attested to by many witnesses who were present at the time, ... provided that the witnesses accepted the ‘existence of Third Reich’ as an item of content capable of inflecting her own verbs [‘Third Reich is growing larger and stronger’, ‘Third Reich is moving northwest towards the Gulf Coast’, ‘Third Reich is moving overland and dissipating’].
Similarly, the truth of the proposition that ‘several Mexicans were apprehended by U.S. border police, after making illegal entry into the United States’ ... could be affirmed by numerous eye witnesses, ... provided that the witnesses were not indigenous aboriginals, since, in the latter’s ‘reality’; (a) the identity-branding of people in imaginary line bounded ‘pens’, in this case ‘the Mexico pen’ makes no sense, (b) they were not guilty of ‘illegal entry’ because they were not ‘making entry’ period and the colonizing settlers and their border police had simply unilaterally declared that there was an imaginary bounding line that marked ‘entry’ and ‘exit’ into some imaginary tract.

“When we dream alone, it is only a dream, but when we dream together, it is reality’. – John and Yoko, Miguel Cervantes
In other words, ‘border police’ = ‘thought police’

“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

The problem here, is that noun-and-verb language develops logical propositions that depend on the ‘reality’ of ‘items of content’ having ‘meaning-in-themselves’, when, in the physical reality of our natural experience, there is nothing outside of relational context. There are local relational forms in a hologram but they are purely relational in origin, even though they appear to the observer to have ‘persisting identity and meaning of their own’.

This problem, of first of all imputing meaning to a relational form [‘Third Reich’] in the sense of giving it identity ‘in-itself’ as a local item-of-content, and then forgetting that we derived its meaning from relational context, ... is not only a problem with respect to how individual words fit into language, it is also a problem with respect to material bodies in nature.

“[In nature]… “the individual parts reciprocally determine one another.” … “The properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,” … “Every single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.” Therefore, no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” – Ernst Mach

“Fields of force are the primary reality, and ‘matter’ a secondary or derived phenomenon” —Michael Faraday
“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the [relational] structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).”– Erwin Schroedinger

“Space is not [empty] Euclidian’ … “Space is a participant in physical phenomena” … “Space not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.”, … “the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g(μ,ν), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty . . . “A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone” —Albert Einstein.
“By the principle of Occam’s razor, physicists and philosophers prefer ideas that can explain the same phenomena with the fewest assumptions. In this case you can construct a perfectly valid theory by positing the existence of certain relations without additionally assuming individual things. So proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations.” – Meinard Kuhlmann, ‘What is Real’, Scientific American, August 2013

Scientists had hoped that ‘items of content’ such as ‘material objects/organisms’ would have intrinsic meaning in themselves, so that relational context would be built up from ‘what the items of content are doing’ (their own development, behaviour, operations and interactions), however, that is not the case.

In language, there was the same hope that individual words might have intrinsic meaning in themselves so that overall meaning could be constructed from words, but this is not the case;

“As Rorty contends "words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words...no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)". As a consequence meaning is never present, but rather is deferred to other signs. Jacques Jewboy refers to the, in this view, mistaken belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as metaphysics of presence. A concept then must be understood in the context of its opposite, such as being/nothingness, normal/abnormal, speech/writing,
.
... For example, the word "house" derives its meaning more as a function of how it differs from "shed", "mansion", "hotel", "building", etc. than how the word "house" may be tied to a certain image of a traditional house (i.e. the relationship between signifier and signified) with each term being established in reciprocal determination with the other terms rather than by an ostensive description or definition: ...”
.
Thus, complete meaning is always "differential" and postponed in language; there is never a moment when meaning is complete and total. A simple example would consist of looking up a given word in a dictionary, then proceeding to look up the words found in that word's definition, etc., also comparing with older dictionaries from different periods in time, and such a process would never end.

Here we have in language, the same limitation that we find in physics and in ecosystems; i.e. there are no local things-in-themselves, ... ‘relations are all there is’ [this is the physics equivalent of Jacques Jewboy’s il n'y a pas de hors-texte.
‘Reality’ for us noun-and-verb language-dependent people, is something we construct by inverting the nature unfolding order of things and imputing local item-of-content ‘identity’ and ‘local jumpstart powers’ to ‘relational forms in the transforming relational activity continuum’. Thus, we would have to come up with the concept of ‘cooperation’ to explain ecosystemic dynamics since we would assume a diverse collection of ‘items of content’ rather than a relational complex wherein ‘relations are all there is’;

“[In nature]… “the individual parts reciprocally determine one another.”
But the ‘items-of-content’ foundation in our language-supported ‘operative reality’ fits well with Newtonian physics and its true-false logic, because it avoids having to deal with ‘outside-inward inductive influence’ by imposing absolute space and absolute time reference framing, an omission which Newton acknowledges in ‘Principia’, ... an omission which scientists and logicians seem to forget about.

“I wish we could derive the rest of the phaenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from physical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they all may depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy.” Newton, Author’s Preface in the ‘Principia’

The omission of inductive influence in logical propositions [predicative logic which is all-hitting, no-fielding based, unlike impredicative or circular logic] rules out acknowledging the natural precedence of relational context over notional ‘items of content’. In the physical reality of our natural experience, situational needs have precedence in shaping local behaviours; 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” – Mach’s principle

The circular logic of this natural dynamic which is intrinsically ‘relational’ deprives us of the logical certainty/finality/closure that we like to have in our mental modeling, which has lead us to make adjustments to our model so as to deliver that ‘local item-of-content’ based certainty.

“For the crystalline purity of logic was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement. … The preconceived idea of crystalline purity can only be removed by turning our whole examination around. (One might say: the axis of reference of our examination must be rotated, but about the fixed point of our real need.)” – Wittgenstein, ‘Philosophical Investigations’, 107-108
The adjustment of the model [constraining its animating source to local internal items-of-content] so that it will deliver the logical certainty we need is made in science as follows;

“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”

By invoking a notional model in which the animating source is constrained to local items-of-content, the ambiguity of situational inductive influence that prevents logical closure is removed; e.g. if we can count on the child-soldier as being an independent being [item of content] with internal components and processes driven and directed behaviour, we need look no farther than that individual [item of content] for the authorship of his behaviour [we can dig down into his biochemistry and biophysics if need be]. If, on the other hand, we model the form as a relational feature within a transforming relational continuum, then the certainty, finality and closure of our investigation goes out the window.

In other words, we need the purely mechanical view of dynamics in order to ensure that our investigation delivers the certainty and closure that we need. This is done in the case of social dynamics by constraining the model to purely mechanical dynamics [leaving out inductive influence] as the basis for human physiology;

“1. Purely mechanical phenomena do not exist. The production of mutual accelerations in masses is, to all appearances, a purely dynamical phenomenon. But with these dynamical results are always associated thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical phenomena, and the former are always modified in proportion as the latter are asserted. On the other hand, thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical conditions also can produce motions. Purely mechanical phenomena, accordingly, are abstractions, made, either intentionally or from necessity, for facilitating our comprehension of things. The same thing is true of the other classes of physical phenomena. Every event belongs, in a strict sense, to all the departments of physics, the latter being separated only by an artificial classification, which is partly conventional, partly physiological, and partly historical.
.
2. The view that makes mechanics the basis of the remaining branches of physics, and explains all physical phenomena by mechanical ideas, is in our judgment a prejudice. Knowledge which is historically first, is not necessarily the foundation of all that is subsequently gained. – Ernst Mach, ‘The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development’, Chapter V, ‘The Relations of Mechanics to Other Departments of Knowledge (Physiology)’

Conclusions:

ANYTHING CAN BE TURNED INTO EMILIAN WORD SPEW. EVEN YOU.

,,,Joan Collins. hahahaha

Yeah, Joan Collins, hahahaha, she's old and her sister's dead.

That's not frikkin funny, its tasteless! Grow up and learn what nuanced sarcasm is if you hope to get lulz on the internet!

bite me. now.

many of the philosophers i cite don't believe in the reality of 'things-in-themselves'. like poincare, they call themselves 'pragmatist idealists' and they call believers in 'independently-existing things' 'realists'.

the problem that this group of philosophers are all pointing to can be seen in the boiling water analogy. the water is boiling because of the inductive influence of the thermal field it is in (e.g. microwave field) and the boils are the things our subjective observing 'notices' and 'makes notable' [Barthes], ... and we use language to give these relational forms names that we use as subjects in subject-verb-predicate constructs, and from this we construct an understanding (thing-based) of the world dynamic. if there were 193 boils of various sizes and powers, like the 193 sovereign states, we would credit the boils with being fully and solely responsible for constructing the world dynamic, and the big-shot leaders of the boils would get together as if they could determine the future unfolding of the world. of course, the boils are just "variations in the relational structure of space" [schroedinger] through which relational influences in the transforming relational continuum manifest, so crediting our favorite coloured boils for results we like and blaming our less-favoured boils for results we don't like is mistaken [aberrant], and leads to delusion based polarizations.

the problem is that the boils are relational features that merely appear to be 'things-in-themselves', so to expect them to use their internal powers to solve conflict is mistaken (delusional).

telling people that the [ego-based] independent-being-things that they see as saviours and protectors, are hollow illusions [that nevertheless attract crowds of self-deluding believers], is shockingly scary, and it is this fear that is slowing 'take-up' on the understanding that 'relations are all there is', an understanding that is implicit in the philosophy of heraclitus, mach, poincare, nietzsche, schroedinger, derrida, and, evidently, barthes.

A good analogy and very well explained. These realities described by heraclitus, mach, poincare, nietzsche, schroedinger, derrida, barthes may be enough to dissolve the massive concentrations of subjective delusion, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm glad I have introduced you to Barthes, and I recommend you read "mythologies", written in 1957, a pioneering work of 20th century critique. Also dear friend, his style and language is accessible to the layman's limited vocabulary, and thus any quotes by him MAY be understandable to the majority of moronic anons who frequent this site ;)

having read a review of ‘mythologies’ which speaks of barthes demonization of ‘bourgeois’ and ‘petit bourgeois’. i am wondering [and will be exploring] if barthes has not succumbed to the temptation of imputing authorship of ‘bad’ to a category of thing (social class) although i understand how such a ‘short-cut’ simplifies delivery to an audience that is broadly culturally conditioned to tune into the binaries of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

nietzsche always pointed 'all the way' to the deeper source of ‘ego’ which supports the assumption of ‘being’ which in turn leads to the ‘subject’ with its purported jumpstart powers of authorship (cause-and-result).

“That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality …. is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and predicate not a great stupidity?”

the ‘193 boils’ in the boiling water, as a metaphor for the ‘193 sovereign states’ in the world, whose leaders believe they are the co-authors of the global social dynamic (when the authorship, in the reality of our actual experience, lies deeper; i.e. in the relational sourcing influence inherent in a transforming relational continuum), mocks the leaders for their egotist presumption; i.e;

“the physical reality of our natural experience happens to us while we are busy making our reasoned plans for authoring some or other desired result” [to paraphrase john lennon]

similarly, shifts in the climate mock the claim of the Oklahoma farmer that he is the author of wheat crops, that he is the cause-and-effect author of the result of the production of wheat. in the physical reality of natural experience, the deeper-lying processes are producing him and the wheat and when he finally falls to earth and becomes a grease-spot on the prairie, ‘he’ will be leached for nutrients that will be consumed by his grandchildren in their morning servings of wheaties, the breakfast cereal [made] of grandfathers, as is natural in a transforming relational continuum.

“Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.”

sure it sounds ‘religious’ but we can acknowledge that it is more naturally grounded than the binary final ‘resting places’ flitting about with angels with harps or burning in hell with demons.

my point is that ‘bourgeoisie’ and ‘petit bourgeoisie’ are simply categories of people whose egos have them believe that they are the jumpstart cause-effect authors of production of wealth. it is not that the people of the proletariat do not have the same ego-based belief as the bourgeoisie, it is that they feel ‘cheated’ out of a fair share of opportunity to produce wealth of their own, because the ‘bourgeoisie’ are keeping them barefoot, pregnant and so much in debt that they can’t acquire sufficient means of production to get them over the hump into a net wealth-acquisition mode.

In other words, the ‘proletariat’ or ‘working class’ AND the ‘bourgeoisie’ and ‘petit bourgeoisie’ are all categories within the category of anthropocentric egotists who all believe they have the ‘right stuff’ or ‘the makings’ of jumpstart cause-effect authorship of valuable production/wealth. they see themselves as ‘independent beings with internal process driven and directed behaviours’ aka ‘independent reason-driven machines’ that reside, operate and interact in a habitat that ‘appears’ as an ‘objective material world out there’, an ‘otherness’ that is ‘not them’, but which can be 'putty in their hands' which they can ‘use’ to produce things of value. they see themselves as local factories, local systems that ‘input’ raw materials, subjecting it to their intelligent manipulations so as to ‘output’ something of greater value, thanks to their ‘golden (midas) touch’.

this ‘dualist’ ‘operative reality’ fails to acknowledge that, all the while, they are relational forms in a transforming relational activity continuum, so that they DO NOT ‘REALLY’ HAVE THEIR OWN JUMPSTART POWERS OF AUTHORSHIP, ... that is something that they fabricate when they use subject-and-predicate constructs in TALKING ABOUT [bragging about] who they are [‘being’] and what they do [their purported being-based cause-effect authoring powers].

these notions of ‘independent being’ and ‘local jumpstart cause-effect authoring power’ are the synthetic inventions of language;

“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’

So, the deeper problem, in nietzsche’s view, is the egotistical belief in ‘being’ which provides the launching pad for ‘local jumpstart authorship’. the formation of the classes; ‘bourgeoisie’, ‘petit bourgeoisie’ and ‘proletariat’ are secondary artefacts of the psychophysical behaviour-shaping deriving from the egotistical belief in ‘being’.

my question, going into a reading of ‘mythologies’, is, ... is there a cop-out in barthes, in that he makes use of a jumpstart ‘AUTHOR’ of what ails us, by demonizing ‘bourgeois’ and ‘petit bourgeois’, ... or perhaps that is a tactic of convenience that appeals to the popular penchant for binary judgements wherein a person blames others [e.g. the notional category/class called bourgoisie] for the hardships they are experiencing.

the picture here is one in which a collection of anthropocentric egotists who see themselves as ‘independent beings with their own jumpstart powers of cause-effect authorship’ are competing for access to essential resources [means of production], where those who get to monopolize and get a lock-in hold on the essential resources of the commons are able to hold the rest to ransom and extort labours and services from them, manipulating their behaviours and thus stunting and distorting their developmental potentials.

again, in the nietzschean view, the social dysfunction cannot be understood at the level of man’s injustice to man by way of unfair allocation of wealth and unbalanced access to the means of production [= the politics of the left that uses binary logical reasoning in conjunction with binary moral judgement based retributive justice].

in the nietzschean view, the source of the social dysfunction is ‘beyond good and evil’ and requires the ‘devaluation of the highest values’, those values being the transcendent values associated with binary absolutes; ‘is’ or ‘is not’, ‘good’ or ‘evil’, ‘creation’ or ‘destruction’, ‘black’ or ‘white’, all of which imply ‘being’ since we have to put ‘SOMETHING is’ in front of all of these binary extremes. but our experience is that ‘relations are all there really is’ and the binary poles are virtual projections based on the differences, which do not give rise to the differences; i.e. the differences are real and give rise to the notion of ‘binary poles’. the circular flow in a convection cell gives rise to the notion of a ‘sink’ (a low pressure region or region of deficiency) and a ‘source’ (a high pressure region or region of surplus) as the dual authors of the convergent rush inwards and the divergent dispersion outwards, ... but this is analytical backfill that treats the ‘cell’ as the author of the ‘inhaling’ and ‘exhaling’ imputing ‘local being’ to the cell.

meanwhile, the physical reality is that the relational flow is exposed to relational stress from, for example, thermal fields associated with solar irradiance [as in the '193 boils' exemplar], which as Lamarck pointed out are ‘les fluides incontenables’ (fluids that can contain but which cannot themselves be contained). the influence that is pulling on the flow is not something ‘contained in the flow’ such as ‘calories’ or ‘therms’. these are just measurements that we make which are symptoms of an inductive [purely relational] authoring source. As in eddy currents induced in metals by electrical potential-differences [positive versus negative potentials], the circulation is physically real, HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A LOCAL CIRCULATING THING, it is a relational feature within a transforming relational flow-unum. ONLY IF we use language to make the circulation in the flow into a notional ‘thing-in-itself’ do we impute to it, its own local jumpstart authoring powers and then say that ‘the cell’ is pulling in and pushing out (inhaling and exhaling) which sets up a chicken and egg paradox [does the pulling in push what is already in there out, or does the pushing out leave a vacuum that draws stuff in?].

this is the same problem with the ‘scripture’ and ‘reader’; i.e. does the word-content push its meaning into the reader/listener, or does it suck meaning out of the reader/listener? the Peter Seller’s film classic ‘Being There’ made the essential precedence of subjectivity of the listener obvious, as interviewers drew from their own experience to flesh out meaning of the vague gardening aphorisms uttered by Chance, the gardener [whose knowledge of the outer world was constrained to his watching television]. the 193 boils metaphor for the world leadership collective has all the same ingredients; i.e. the leaders are prepared, at least superficially, to lend profound meaning to one another’s utterances [after all, they didn’t become world leaders without knowing how to deliver profound-sounding rhetoric] and thus we have the phenomenon wherein;

‘When we dream alone, it is only a dream, but when we dream together, it is reality’. – John and Yoko, Miguel Cervantes

are the 193 boils [sovereign states] acknowledging in their [operative] ‘reality’, the relational influence that is inductively gathering and regathering them and their national human [boil content] collectives?, ... or is their ‘common dream’ in terms of themselves as jumpstart authors capable of deliberately constructing a desired future state of affairs [note that ‘state of affairs’ imputes ‘being’ to the world and implies that ‘change’ is what happens to the being identified as ‘the world’ over the passage of ‘time’], ... in denial of the world as a transforming relational unum].

ok, thanks again for your recommendation and i shall look into barthes ‘mythologies’. however, even if i can see that barthes is only using the demonization of ‘bourgeoisie’ to capture the attention of a populace that is conditioned to think in terms of blaming particular categories of others (races, classes etc.) for hardships that they are experiencing, ... as a means of getting their attention to take them on to the deeper meaning wherein ‘relational difference’ is in a natural precedence over binary poles that are implied by relational difference, ... haven’t we experienced that people get hung up in that ‘leftist politics turf’ wherein the answer to the question; ‘where is this social dysfunction coming from’, ... is dealt with on the shallow ground of logical binaries of ‘good and evil’?

in other words, i have this question as to whether barthes ability to communicate in, as you put it, “layman’s limited vocabulary” is due to his dumbing down of his own [and nietzsche’s] beyond-good-and-evil message, by implying a ‘good’ versus ‘evil’ relationship between ‘proletariat’ and ‘bourgeoisie’, which would abandon the ‘death of the author’ premise by imputing ‘evil authorship’ to the ‘bourgeoisie’ and ‘petit bourgeoisie’.

as washington pundits are now saying, the strategic use of the binary of ‘black hat’ and ‘white hat’ in psychological conditioning [such simplification delivers much ‘economy of thought’] of the public has run into trouble with the case of syria where the black hat of assad is threatened with takeover by the black hat of ISIS, and that is where US policy for libya also went wrong when Qaddafy claimed there was a threat of insurgence by islamic extremists and the US put a white hat on them and called them freedom fighters, which cost everyone dearly [qaddafy and the US embassy crew included]. because good versus evil only has two choices, the pentagon is worried about giving assad and putin, by implication, a ‘white hat’ relative to ISIS ‘black hat’ [damned if they do and damned if they don’t]. binary logic cannot go the distance, but it remains the common, popular currency of the Western culture dominated world.

Yes,,,you are correct, and I concur with you on Barthes' leftist tendencies and the binary nature of his critiques. I like him mostly for his eccentric aesthetics from which I glean ideas and alternative perspectives, but I gloss over his politics, in much the same way I process my parents advice or opinion, which I sarcastically refer to as the 4th Reich, but you gotta love 'em, and although mom is like Himmler without a dick in pantyhose, her cooking keeps me coming back for more ;)

^^ cop-loving snitch just called the police ^^

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
3
6
R
b
1
q
A
Enter the code without spaces.