Interview with Layla AbdelRahim on anarcho-primitivism and red anarchism

More about Layla AbdelRahim:

Q: How did you get to Anarcho-primitivism?

A: My ethical stance vis-à-vis other living beings was formulated before I could speak. I was born in Moscow. My Russian grandparents had a small farm in the south of the Moscow region. Seeing how they loved the animals they “raised” and the forest that surrounded the tiny village made me aware of the inherent contradiction between claiming to love someone and then killing that nonhuman person for food in cold blood. I have thus resolved at the age of four not to consume the flesh of others.

My grandparents and parents’ relationship to animals, wilderness, government, and technology was complex and they allowed me to explore and formulate my own position even while influencing my experiences while growing up. For instance, my father was a Sudanese geologist who loved wilderness. Some of the happiest memories I have of my family either go back to the Russian village or to a long sojourn in a geological camp in Darfur, when the Savannah still thrived before the geologists found the uranium mine and other “natural resources”. I remember my father critiquing the political and colonial predatory system that the discovery of these “resources” was going to rekindle, but even as a child without the anthropological or political vocabulary, I still knew that this critique was limited to “European colonialism” versus “Sudanese national independence”, whereby the suffering of the wild animal and human tribes that lived in the area who were affected by the strife of civilisation remained unacknowledged in this narrative. I knew with all my heart though that the link between geology and mining, encroachment of civilisation and the destruction of life that I was witnessing growing up in Sudan was critical to understanding and overcoming the violence in which I grew up both on a personal and the social levels. I returned to the Darfur region less than two decades later and the life that harmoniously roamed the wilderness in the late 1960s by the early 1980s has disappeared from the Hofrat al Nihas area. There remained only sand, radiation, war, and death.

I began to articulate this link between technology, “knowledge”, and civilisation as being at the heart of the problem of the devastation of life on earth when I was in my third year of civil engineering studies. The assignments to envision roads and engineer dams revealed to me how the very concept of anthropocentric architecture was at the root of the desertification that I saw crawling from the north of Africa engulfing kilometres of fragile harmony of life surviving colonialism. War, racism, sexism, and species extinctions were obviously linked, but at the time I had not formulated my critique yet. Shortly after finishing my third year, however, I quit those studies and instead joined the efforts to help victims of war and to stop desertification, war, and extinction. This led me to journalism of war and later to my studies and research in anthropology, sociology, and comparative literature, with my real-life experiences, my childhood exposure to five languages and historical accounts, as well as my ethical stance guiding my critique of the current epistemological systems and socio-economic and environmental paradigms and praxis.

Q: Do you think that AP is real? The most common answer is, that AP is utopia, or there is no way back and also that we have so many incredible (nano)technologies, that will solve all our problems in the future, not only environmental problems, but also social problems.

A: Anarcho-primitivism is a theory and critique of hierarchical and parasitic political and socio-environmental economic systems. The arguments are based on observations of how life came about and thrived in this world for billions of years. Anarcho-primitivist critiques are different and there is no monolithic body of knowledge or “party line”: for instance, there are those who draw on hunter-gatherers, others on Christian anarchism of Leo Tolstoy or Jacques Ellul, yet others on vegan gathering traditions. Because these thinkers or critics of civilisation are interested in observing the principles of life, they draw from a variety of disciplines such as palaeontology, ethology, anthropology, biology, among others. One does not need to be an anarcho-primitivist in order to observe that the principles that allow for systems of life to thrive are based on diversity and wild relationships. By “wild” I mean “undomesticated” and existing for a purpose of their own, regardless of whether they came to exist by divine intervention or a geological accident and not for the purpose of exploitation in a “food chain”. These systems of life thrive on viable relationships where diversity is key. Anarcho-primitivist critique compares these observations of the principles of life with the principles of civilisation and hierarchical socio-environmental and economic systems. This comparison reveals that monoculturalism and domestication are not viable systems. I discuss these mechanisms in-depth in my work, particularly how the domestication of human children follows the same principles of simplification, death threat, monoculturalism, and consumption of life as that of nonhumans. You might be interested to read my theatre play where I explore these links between ontology, theology, and anthropology entitled Red Delicious (available on my website and as e-book on the “In the Land of the Living” website).

Namely, the ontological basis of technology is the consumption of “resources” and slavery becomes the basis for these parasitic relationships where life, force, and effort get consumed in a one way energy flow. Basically, this establishes relationships of dependence where the enslaver depends on a “resource”, whether human animals, nonhumans, or machines, to labour for the benefit of the “owner” and where the “resource” is coerced to exchange her life and wild purpose of being for the right to live and work. My book, Wild Children – Domesticated Dreams: Civilization and the Birth of Education (Fernwood, 2013) delves in-depth into the ontological, epistemological, and methodological problems of domestication.

Because, as I argue in the book, the premise in civilisation is to consume, kill, and colonise, it yields an anthropology rooted in predation: both killing and rape. Namely, civilised knowledge constructs the human as the ultimate predator and the world existing in a “natural” hierarchical “food chain” to be controlled, reproduced, and consumed. Again, observation of the principles of life reveals that hierarchical systems of subsistence are parasitic and unsustainable since, in order to thrive, life needs diversity, mutuality, and symbiosis. By constructing an anthropology rooted in consumption of labour, flesh, and life, civilisation thus yields unviable cultures of socio-environmental relationships and hence we are witnessing the anthropogenic death of the world, which is literally being devoured by civilised human animals. This is an emergency situation and we do not have the luxury to reflect on whether we can “go back” or just scamper along trying to salvage our dying bones.

Hence, the real question we are facing is not whether the observed societies of undomesticated human and nonhuman people are utopic – it is not the wild who is utopic, for wilderness has successfully thrived until now and I have lived in and with wilderness in both Russia and Sudan. The real problem is that civilisation has proven to be “utopic”. For, it never delivered on its promises: it has increased fertility of monoculturalism so that today domesticated nonhuman and human animals constitute 98% of vertebrae biomass on earth whereas, before the advent of agricultural civilisation in the Fertile Crescent ten thousand years ago, 99% of vertebrae biomass consisted of wild species. It created diseases and early mortality through desertification, war, hierarchical (lack of) access to food and water, etc. It has colonised the world and devastated it (I cite research and data in my book for these numbers). Even the ocean is turning into a desert and suffocating on plastic, acid, and civilised garbage.

Therefore, to hope that technologies will deliver us from this dying hell is analogous to – even though infinitely more painful and tragic than –the joke I often hear in Eastern Europe: you cure a hangover with vodka. We all know how vodka cures and in itself, like the other legal and illegal drugs, it is a symptom of the despair into which dependence on technological predation has plunged us. The need for inebriation is our inability or unwillingness to face our truth: we chose civilisation and hence we chose death. The real question now is: can we muster the strength to make a different choice? Anarcho-primitivism does not provide solutions, but its critiques show us where we have failed and point to a diversity of ways where we can go and how we can heal ourselves and our world.

Q: What did domestication take from us, in social terms, and consciousness? With consciousness i mean knowledge. Did domestication have a major impact on human development? Eg. It is clear that the development of non-human animals, which were domesticated, was stopped?

A: Domestication has most definitely taken away our intelligence and knowledge of how to live in the world. Education teaches us how to survive in civilisation: i.e. how to be dependent on the hierarchy of experts who take away our awareness of ourselves and the world. Instead of learning about the world through empathy and presence – “what does it feel like to be you?” – we are taught how to apply schemas and representations to understanding what those higher up in the food chain of “human resources” want us to “know”. Also, by learning how to apply these schemas and formulae to real life situations without understanding the complexity of what is at stake, we forfeit our chance at enjoying a more holistic comprehension of the world and also of adaptation to new occurrences.

In the wild, human and nonhuman children learn how to assess each situation and to understand each encounter correctly, because they know that lives and decisions are interconnected and they are not always predictable. If we are not prepared to be surprised we could perish. At the same, it is not always a fearsome experience. As Kropotkin observed in his Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, living in the wild is for the most part a good experience, predation being its less prominent aspect, since herbivores have historically outnumbered predators, who in turn eat less and sleep more. The aim of domestication, in contrast, is to ensure control and prediction of “assets” and “resources”. Hence, its programme is antithetical to evolution, diversity, improvisation, change, and surprise. The “resources” that such a system yields are dependent on the one who controls their lives and their food. Dependent “resources” are thus rendered incapable of thriving outside of that system of coercion and threat. They have to be dumbed down and hence are lied to. They are misled, victimised, threatened, and consumed. Nonetheless, as I argue in my book, human and nonhuman animals yearn wildness and it takes them much less to go feral than the decades it takes to domesticate them into oblivion.

Q: AP criticism of education is for most people not understandable, especially for the functioning of the "modern" world. What would you (on introduction) say to these people?

A: Even for myself, this link between education and domestication was not an obvious one. In fact, my book on education came as a side effect of my research on war, in medical anthropology in Sweden, and on the connections between the construction of “otherness”, the law, and the medical body in the courtroom in France – all of which led me to my doctoral dissertation on the epistemological, ontological, and anthropological understanding of narratives of civilisation and wilderness. The connection became clear when I was critiquing the foundation of civilised knowledge as based on classification and the separation of species. Namely, I realised that highlighting the differences in understanding the human as separate from the nonhuman or of life as different from nonlife constituted the epistemology that justified cruelty and that was at the root of sexism and racism. Comparing this socially constructed understanding of our humanity as predatory and alien to how noncivilised human and nonhuman people related to the world made me see how the project of education was critical for domestication, because it provided both the “knowledge” that justified oppression, colonialism of life systems by human predators, exploitation, and consumption as well as established the methodology to reproduce this culture of subsistence and socio-environmental economics.

In other words, if you want people to kill for you, you need to ensure that they do not know the experience and the truth of the one they kill. They need to be alienated from the one they kill and this alienation and predation has to be naturalised: you construct an anthropology of humans as superior to nonhumans and “inferior” humans as nonsentient beings who do not feel pain, who exist for your consumption. Or, you construct an identity of the people you are sent to kill as different as enemy to your group, rationalise that they asked for it and instil the fear that they will kill you if you do not do it first, etc. But epistemology is not sufficient by itself, you then need to create a situation of constant lack and endangerment in order for people to internalise fear and violence. This is where the methodology of civilised pedagogies plays a critical role: human children are torn from their parents at an early age, incarcerated in same-age groups within classroom walls, where they are constantly threatened with starvation by means of low grades and future unemployment if they do not learn the abstract “knowledge” and civilised grammar of hierarchy and obedience. This pedagogy mirrors the methods used on nonhuman animal slaves: a horse is fed only when it has yielded more profit to the domesticator than what was spent on sustaining her and if she refused to work, she is killed. In this sense, the famous Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov has not discovered anything new when he articulated his theory of the training of dogs. In my book on education, I explore other pedagogies of “unschooled” children and recount my observations of how they learn.

Q: What do you think about the traditional or red anarchists? Especially, when we speak about their neutral attitude towards technology, domestication and often also towards colonialism. (actually their attitude towards AP and its ideas is the same as the attitude of major society)

A: First, the term “traditional” is highly problematic, because it establishes a bias towards a specific perspective as the “majority” “norm” and thus normalises that perspective which gives it power while marginalising or establishing as “deviant” or “abnormal” other perspectives thereby disempowering their adherers. The question that such a term raises is: traditional according to whom? Noncivilised, nontechnological, acapitalist societies based on mutual aid and symbiotic socio-economic cultures of subsistence have been the norm throughout the history of the world and until the present. Uncontacted human tribes continue to exist and resist civilisation around the world to this day. So do wild nonhumans. Even those surrounded by civilisation do not give up the wilderness of their landbase easily, hence the resistance to the construction of Monte Belo dam by the Xingu indigenous peoples of Brazil or the Mi’kmaq resistance to shale gas drilling in Canada are only some of the examples of contemporary resistance to civilised violence. In fact, domestication and civilisation – along with their systems of governance – have been resisted consistently ever since agricultural sedentary cultures began colonising the gatherer and nomadic nonhuman and human animals. In other words, resistance to civilisation in a variety of forms has been the traditional practice around the world for more than ten thousand years while “red anarchism” has existed only sporadically in the European historical enclaves and other Western nation states for only a few centuries.

Second, the concept of anarchism itself is contextual. Wild societies, whose cultures of subsistence are based on symbiotic socio-environmental relationships, cannot be defined as “anarchist”, because anarchism is resistance to systems of governmentality in hierarchical cultures and their methods of coercion, exploitation, and consumption that the governing systems impose. In other words, anarchism is important for understanding the problems of governance, for articulating the critiques of domestication, and for tactical purposes of resistance and overcoming a subsistence system based on suffering, desertification, and death. These critiques arise in specific circumstances and are therefore contextual and hence often limited and biased. For instance, a wealthy white male writing a theory of anarchism and designing anarchist praxis in a 19th or 20th century white supremacist society ultimately depends on the “imperialist”, racist, sexist, and speciesist “privileges” which shelter him from experiencing the reality of human or nonhuman “prey”. That is why, even if there may be great value to his analysis, nonetheless, his understanding and recommendations would be biased and limited, because he would not always be cognizant of what it is like to be the prey on a daily, minute by minute basis, because epistemologically and experientially he knows the world through a predatory lens. Often then, the very science on which these men base their critiques stems from this naturalised predatory perspective from which they benefit and their epistemology works to confirm to them the “natural” aspect of predation thus veiling from them the ways in which their own existence, subsistence, and resistance depend on the victimisation of whole groups of persons designated as “prey” in their socio-economic niche.

Excellent illustration of such myopia in critique of civilisation today would be the work of Jared Diamond that continues to build on the assumption that the noncivilised and undomesticated world is based on violence and predation. In leftist anarchism this predatory perspective can be traced in such conclusions as drawn by contemporary theorists such as David Graeber. For instance, in June 2009, Graeber and I had a public discussion in the Anarchist Anthropology group on the Open Anthropology Cooperative in which he sweepingly accused anarcho-primitivists of living in their mothers’ basements and telling me that he knew what the Bangladeshi farmers wanted: to grow food. First, using “mothers’ basements” as an insult to dismiss a theory relies on patriarchal exploitation and degradation of women. This means, that in Graeber’s eyes “masculine” anarchists who use the predatory system to advance themselves in the world without relying on “mothers” – or the feminine class that is constructed to breed and reproduce human resources – are the étalon of success; while the feminine class is belittled and kept in the background of economic success – even can be seen as “failure” in this usage. Second, this requires the ability to tune out of the arguments of one’s interlocutor, in this instance, Graeber is deaf to the actual arguments of anarcho-primitivists and sweeps them under the rug because he associates them with the “loser” class – the women, the mothers. Finally, to keep the patriarchal system of (re)production of resources in tact the white male dominant class needs “Bangladeshi” and other farmers and workers to remain in their niches and to keep wanting to grow the food and (re)produce resources and technologies for the “intellectuals” on the front-lines of patriarchy. “How do you know that the Bangladeshi farmers do not want to be anarchist anthropologists instead?” I asked Graeber. But Graeber was offended by my response, because, as he explained to me later for some reason he did not expect “this” from me: I was, apparently, expected to agree with his expertise and not voice a disagreement with the leftist intellectual rationalisation of the raison d'être of Bangladeshi and other farmers, Malaysian workers in car industry, Chinese computer factory workers, et al and ad infinitum.

This explains why there is a racial and gender hierarchy in what most white people consider to be “anarchist theory”. For, it is usually a small minority, namely, white men, most often from the ruling class, who have the infrastructure and the social, symbolic, and material capital that allow them to think and produce as well as to access the public sphere as a dominant voice. White women and lower white classes have to struggle much more than their white male counterparts to be allowed into this sphere of influence and social power. The perspectives of people of colour and of nonhuman wilderness are ousted from the dominant “public” sphere. People of colour are mostly silenced in publishing and media outlets unless they respond to the needs of white supremacy or become revolutionaries in countries that have colonial dependence on the “European” (Western or Northern) metropolis and its parasitic relationship to the rest of the world. In this respect, even the “revolutionary” people of colour are used by the Wesetern “radicals”, particularly the leftist anarchists, as props for their own agenda that aims at establishing the white leftists in the vanguard of politics without threatening their racialised and gendered privileges, which include access to “technologies”, i.e. to the living and nonliving slaves and labour. Because of this intrinsic dependence on slave labour, these “anarchists” rely on the same schemas in their encounters with human and nonhuman animals and their use of technology and media. However, since most people around the world (more than 70% of whom are people of colour) constitute the resources of labour for white supremacy, then most of non-white perspectives tend to be critical of the “Western” socio-economic model that continues to exploit them and hence a critique of technology is more present in those discourses. However, these perspectives are kept outside the realm of influence by keeping the media and the publishing industry focusing on the production of “white” anthropocentric knowledge and dismissing non-white perspectives as a priori irrelevant, insignificant, marginal, and trivial.

I have plenty of encounters with radical, anarchist, and mainstream publishing and media that confirm this. Here is one example to illustrate how it works: at the 2007 Anarchist Bookfair in Montreal, I approached Autonomedia press based in New York. When I explained to the co-partner of the press my work and offered that should their publishing press be interested in taking a look at my manuscript, I would be happy to send it to her, she told me condescendingly that I should first inform myself about their literature. “We publish anarchist books. You should first get acquainted with what we do. We do not publish Mexican cookbooks” she informed me.

Autonomedia has published several white men who had taken Islamic names, such as Peter Lamborn Wilson known as Hakim Bey and Michael Muhammad Knight, because this symbolic action – of taking an Arabic name by a white male – appears to be radical. However, when meeting a brown woman face to face the publishers fail to understand what I was explaining about my work. In the case of Autonomedia, the publisher applied the schema of a brown woman being associated with the lower status occupation of “cook” and instinctually dismissed me as incapable of producing a critique worthy of her publishing house’s attention. This association with Mexican cuisine is not only sexist however; it is also racist, because in my case, even if my last name is Arabic, the brown skin and the petite stature allowed her to not bother with figuring out the “correct” stereotype but to generalise my occupation as trivial regardless of geographical accuracy. We see that this white woman operates with the same schema with which David Graeber was operating in the example above, a formula used to belittle and dismiss as “irrelevant” the kitchen that feeds the men – especially the white men – and the white supremacist paradigm, regardless of whether these individuals involved are radical or mainstream. The production of theory and the expectation of who “knows” and who is “trustworthy” is thus a social capital that works as investment for the “traditional” voices in the hierarchy and thereby excludes the majority of the perspectives of those who actually feed the world; after all, most humans do not come from the ruling class, they are rather “ruled” and their lives in the kitchen or the field consumed. Most of them, if given the option would not want to keep the world as status quo and to keep their “professions” as is.

Since “social anarchists” or “red anarchists” find themselves higher up the food chain, it is thus easy for them to remain blind to the fact that the white supremacist system works for their benefit and that technology is important for them to keep their predatory “privileges” intact as technology allows them to live off of others, mostly nonhuman people and people of colour: the eternal question of who does the mining, the drilling, the farming, the sewing, the cooking, the cleaning, the production of technologies, energy, ad infinitum.

Furthermore, this hierarchy in itself works as a successful mechanism of oppression that is also at work in the so called “post-colonial” spaces, where the people of colour who are in positions of power over “former” colonies know that their own predatory place in the food-chain is secured if they keep supplying the white supremacist economic model. In this sense, the food-chain hierarchy also colludes in keeping the anarchist voices of non-white and nonhuman perspectives silenced and marginalised including in their own “post”colonial lands. Moreover, even for Europeans, understanding anarchist thought and traditions depends on the region, era, and the highlighted struggles articulated by those who are “leading” the resistance, which is not always representative of how the people may view their struggles. The terms “Bolshevik” and “Menshevik” during the Russian revolution are revealing: the word Bolshevik meant majority voices in the Second Party Congress split from the Mensheviks (meaning the minority) in 1903, but in fact this was the minority opinions in the larger revolutionary scale where anarchists and other factions prevailed. So, engaging with any ideas requires us to be sensitive to the individual work and the dialogue it provokes in a wild, non-traditional engagement with interpretation, understanding, and action. Again, in my book on education, I discuss in-depth how we know, understand, and interact from an anarchist perspective.

By virtue of my complex background, variegated experiences in a spectrum of socio-economic classes, and exposure to a wide range of historical narratives, revolutions, post-colonial struggles as well as having lived on five continents I am extremely sensitive to the perspectives that direct our understanding and praxis. In my own theoretical explorations, I am willing to dialogue with a wide spectrum of thinkers and scientists. I hence do not shy from citing white male thinkers such as Errico Malatesta, Petr Kropotkin, or Karl Marx, among others. But I make sure that I also include indigenous, ELF, ALF, or writers, thinkers, and revolutionaries from the whole world and listen to the nonverbal experience of nonhuman people.

However, my background is not a prerequisite for the possibility of attaining enlightenment in the experience of others. Leo Tolstoy was exemplary in this sense, because he had the capacity to empathise so completely with a character he was depicting that he could know how an old horse suffers or an ostracised by patriarchal society woman would find it impossible to go on living. Writing the story of “An Old Horse” or Anna Karenina with honesty, Tolstoy could not find any justification for civilisation, technological society, and thereby for the culture of slavery. This knowledge had dire implications for his life, actions, and relationships. Such people have existed throughout the history of civilisation. However, for real change to come, we need more people from the “privileged” classes to refuse their privileges and join the ranks of the humans and nonhumans on whom they prey. They need to understand what is it like to be forced to exist as the machine, as the prostheses of a willful domesticator, the ultimate predator – that foolish ape who has brought the world to the brink of extinction. Because, as Philip Dick tells us in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, when you realise that you may be holding the last tiny spider on your palm and you weep for it with your whole body and soul, it is not the anthropocentric solidarity of “red anarchism” that will bring that spider back to life, but a heroic act of reaching out across the borders of speciesism and diving beyond the frontiers of the ontological machine – that ultimate slave – that we can regain the paradise lost, which is wilderness and which is life.

Q: On your website i read a discussion, from which i have concluded that you're a vegan? Is it true? If you are a vegan, what do you consider the benefits of veganism? Do you know, a lot of people would ask how is AP related to veganism; people have to go back to hunting.

A: The problem with critiquing predation in terms of veganism is that such a critique then accentuates the personal preferences in consumption rather than highlighting the larger ramifications of how we construct our anthropology. It is this concern that my opening statement in the "Mythical Predator" discussion articulates: namely, whether we should continue to define ourselves in terms of our “consumption” and “preferences”, which leaves the debate in the realm of predation, or whether we should revise our anthropology in terms of our environmental role as symbiotic frugivore gatherers along with other primates. Hence, even though in my own personal food choice, I have decided at the age of four not to consume the flesh of others, and it is easier to clarify in North America my food limitations in terms of veganism, I still articulate my critique in terms of the epistemological construction of humanity as evolutionary “successful” because of their predatory anthropology. Again, I discuss this more in-depth in my book on education and I am dedicating a big part in my current book project that aims at critiquing the civilised evolutionary theory. Finally, I address this point in my Question and Answer period during my October 8th lecture at the Department of Criminology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University B.C., which can accessed here:



Why is there a Freemasonic symbol (and why animals have those weird evil glowing eyes) on her tour's poster? Is that a clue on why she so easily finds places everywhere to do lectures?

na na na naaaa.... Freemasonry NOT GOOD, okay? This is one of the oldest hierarchy around, and their secrecy has little to do with security against State repression... rather for State power. Freemasons are and always have been authoritarians, no matter if Left or Right.

Okay, I think I'll start a tour as well. Just using my old bachelor degree and membership with the Jesuits so I'll become a famous, respected figure of the green anarchist "struggle". How about that?

Wrong website, Alex Jones.

You so crazy, I wanna have your baby.

"Hierarchy" is a Greek word for "keeper of the secrets", btw.

And yeah, Freemasons suck. They run most towns on the West coast, but that doesn't mean the Christians, including Alex Jones, are any better.

Oh and also, fuck you with your straw men.

Why are you posting on an Anarchist website ? Why bother posting your right-wing conspiracy theories trying to get people to abandon anti-state, anti-capitalist ideas to take up fascistic ideas (your goals of getting rid of the satanic Freemasons would require a Larouche-style authoritarian government.)


Yeah, so there are good hierarchies and bad hierarchies, right? And anarchist only should address the hierarchies that are identified by the Left as the bad guys, meaning those capitalists in ties who wear Gucci. Holy cow...

Explain me why anarchists should shut their minds off from studying the social networks behind the power structure. Because "right-wing conspiracy theories"? You're lucky that ALEC wasn't first denounced by the right-wing nuts, coz you would have NEVER been able to mobilize anarchoids against it!

What if some proles just wanna attack a local freemason lodge, because they've found out most of the city council members and their coprocrat buddies are from the lodge (among other closed networks), and perhaps are involved in nasty shit that no one dares talking about? Does that stand for a Larouchepac fascist government? What if the Red Brigades would have burned the P2 lodge back in the '70s, that would have fucked up the fascist operations of the CIA in Italy pretty bad, perhaps even prevent the Bologna train station bombing.

But oh yeah... right-wing nuts have condemned the freemasons for so long, so because of that we must keep the stigma alive and reinforce the taboos in our communituh!

The Freemasons are pro-State authoritarians. That's the point.
You got too many stops in your mind, liberal.

And, what's your beef with Larouche ? You too much of a dumbass anarchist robot to even consider how Larouche as President could have stopped the Freemasons and their homosexual jew exploits that they do in their lodges (Alex Jones who you hate so much actually uncovered their nasty butt-centric exploits) !!!

You just stopped by to tell anarchists to consider voting for Larouche? Even as trolling, that makes so little sense it gives me chills.

Not as much chills it gives me when anarchoid Leftists post articles on this website written by a world famous anarcho-poser, who's really a Leftist and supporter of neonazis.

Are votes relevant of anything or you're just a retard?


He's got the documents!!!

Good job ! These conspiracy nutjobs (usually right-wingers or heavily influenced by conservatives without knowing it) are at every single anti-war protest going off about how the Illuminati are working with Alvin and the Chipmunks to plant 666 chips in our anus (anus plural ?). Freemasons are jackasses but the idea that they control the world is an old Christian conspiracy theory (both Catholics and Protestants have accused each other of working for the Freemasons ! )

No, there's no single evidence that they -or any other specific group- controls the world.

BUT they are one of the oldest hierarchies around, and always were linked to State power, all down to municipal level. They aren't the only hierarchy, just one of the biggest names. You could add to this the Jesuits, Opus Dei, the Christian conservatives, Roundtable groups, Muslim Brotherhood, Knights of Malta, Rotary Club, Rosicrucians, the Socialist international, EDL, JDL, etc. The RCP are the next big thing I guess lol...

I'm still waiting for the big match between the FAI and the CFR.

It is bad enough that so many of the comments on here are not about the specific article or Anarchism in general.....and then this wackiness has to be displayed on this website.

Alright, let's get some Anarchist comments on this website to balance these wacky shit.

Bob Avakian Was An Inside Job !

Do you realize that by a societal perspective, anarchists are wackos? And where's the outcry when the usual Leftist idiot or cop comes around to provoke?

Wait... that former commenter (who is ME), attempted to bring to light the fact that Layla had put a simili-masonic symbol on top of her poster... so nobody's trying to put that into correlation with her having it so easy at making lectures and tours all over the place as if tons of cliques knew her already AND be hailed instantly as some serious ideological reference even if she didn't do ANYTHING RADICAL. Remember Derrick Jensen?

Perhaps she only knows how to play with the laws of attraction, though... But that too is a sensitive esoterical subject.

I wanna make wooky wooky with you

The whole freemason-conspiracy thing has been a standard fascist ploy almost as long as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Can you point to a shred of evidence of their alleged dominance? Or does asking that simply prove I'm one of tje illuminati?

You'd be surprised if you allowed some of your remaining neurons to interact with their companions! How can you be so daft and naive? How do you think the Borgias retained power with the assistance of the Machiavellian political conspiracy, one of domination? What! Suddenly humanity has become pure and anti-authoritarian, and since the Renaissance all ideas of colonial and cerebral domination has ceased! Don't be so naive and sheepish, you at this very moment are under the Illuminati's gaze!

Fuck Autonomedia. Peter Lamborn Wilson (Hakim Bey) is a Trustafarian asshole.

Great article, Layla.

use the money wisely why should I care.

Technology in the McLuhan sense(and I take this to be more correct then the primitivist conception) Is simply the extensions of man. Language is such a thing, you will find that what separates a group like the Piraha from the civilized silliness of our culture is found within linguistics more-so then a given human mode of operating, things like the rate of recursion within a given language structure are much better predictors of human complexity then the idea of an intentionally organized 'primitive' society.

I myself think anarchy can be harmonized with sub-surplus semi-nomadic complexity as can be seen in examples like Gobekli Tepe or the ancient Pacific North West. Given that we are not like the Piraha or Moken and have a pretty highly recursive linguistic structures we are going to have to live with the examples I gave above which I don't see as the worst of outcomes.

I find this person's anarcho-primitivism to be too moral and leftist. Criticizing predators and making that comparison to civilization muddies the waters. We are *not* prey creatures. We are keystone predators. A-P will weaken quite a bit if the arguments for it are based on this skewed view of the world.

But she pretty much seems to be a leftist academic. And yes beyond all the recycled ideas, I find this stuff pacifying and victimizing.

I've been also wondering if she paid that train ride across Europe, or went the way of genuine anarchists (train-hopping or forging tickets). Obviously the latter, and I don't think she hung out in autonomous squats neither...

"Obviously NOT the latter..."

Gosh, those uncivilized fingers.

True, jumping freight trains is incongruous with anarcho-primitivist ethics, the denial of technological compromise places these advocates in a very narrow avenue of existence, lest they be accused of hypocrisy! I think ALL primitivists should be harangued continuously about the honesty of their motives and the obvious discrepancies in their ideology !

why do all you anti-capitalists love using the computer so much ? Without capitalism and the military, the internet would not exist. You are all abunch of hypocrites. If you are going to use the internet and the computer, please pay respect to the Capitalism.

no go away

We need an Anarchist Etiquette Police Force to make sure Anarchists are following all the stereotypes correctly. If not, they will be put down.

Anarcho-Stalinism is Dead ! Long live Anarcho-Stalinism !!!!

I just think that social parasitism is in itself a self-preservationist stance, the biological need to live another day is politicized and made the only option by voting for a savior who will relieve one of one's fear for what the future holds. This emotional blackmail is the core of Statist methodology, they make tolerable the archaic social Darwinist attitude of inevitable individual outcome, thus, any hierarchical social or religious institution can always fallback on-I told you so- ethics, and preach their solution to this manufactured -social problem-!. I'm an old fucker, but I'm not a sheep, nor am I righteous to the extent that I approve of veganism, as far as I'm concerned I'll go out and shoot an animal and feed my family and drink some alcohol around the fire. I'm here to provide for the next generation and for a good time, not for a long time. Overpopulation is the issue here, there would be no primitivism if the population was sustainable Sustainability is a Statist capitalist economic hoodwink, if everyone just STOPPED going to the mall buying things they don't need, China would collapse and regions would regain autonomous productivity and creativity I am an artist and know these things in my soul!

Prepare to be stoned, liberal douche.

Overpopulation is the issue? So go first... kill yourself, parasite.

Now you listen here youngun, you're mouthing off about things you don't yet understand. Do you have any comprehension of what sustainability actually is! By the sound of your comment you're just a troll with an empty head!

"Young gun" lol...

Go back to the mall where you belong, anything other than looking cool and belonging to a cliche is boring, right? When I was your age I was loading 160lb bags of food up sand dunes to feed refugees!.

you're so patriotic, Bob.

Also, I got nothing to lose, sure, -go first- as you say, hey, I'll be gone in a few years, but what about the youth, like you, all bitter and angry,,,,don't judge me along with the other old fuckers who let you down, they're a minority, working for the government, but there are alot of good decent old fuckers around who care about your generation! Don't flippantly write all of us off, OK?

Bill Gates is that you!?

And why don't you go out in a blaze of glory, against Monsanto or BP/Chevron/Exxon, instead of blaming the entire world population for the mess that a few fat cats have been allowed to create? The great Wiebo Ludwig did it. So why not using what's left of your energies and brains for better ends, and a better end?

Help us bring down the civilizational machine, and the issue of sustainability will be solved, from the bottom up.

I'm not into martyrdom nor am I interested in the ethics that propose such an escapist solution as is the -blaze of glory- scenario! That is an immature and mythical illusion dumped upon those lost souls by a manipulative political provocateur group of nihilistic activists and their gang of malcontents!

Yeah... they also call us "anarchists", or "black bloc". But the pigs are always the provocateurs, not us. Just as YOU are being the provocateur here.

I carried injured guys who were a bit more than 160 pounds away from violent cop lines, running on semi-immersed grassy ground in the chilly fall. One of them felt like carrying a Terminator. So, please...

OK, That was a graceful exercise, and I don't doubt your compassionate concern for your friends. I cannot add to that, except that keep doing what you're doing, you seem to me to be a very caring individual.

Not martyrdom... accountability, for your opinions and conscious decisions.

Like when you're spending the last few years of your life promoting mass genocide or population control in the name of "eco-sustainability", while you could sitck it up to those really responsible of the ongoing cataclysm, i.e. the globalist capitalists. Or just off yourself if you're one of them.

A good person does not require -accountability- as a social process, it infers subservience to an external authority, just as similarly -rights- foisted upon an obedient clientele is really oppression, like rations dealt out to slaves! Although there is one right I approve of in your case, -you have the right to remain silent,,,forever!-

Only real accountability is carried by those who shoot back. And yes, even "good" people can do this.

Think about that, daddy, if you come to my place with a warrant, hopefully with a SWAT team if you got some respect. I am an very immature person.

Now hold on a bit! That doesn't make sense what you said! You're jumping to conclusions about the nature of -accountability-! You're conflating moralistic values with authoritarian imperatives. Yes, you are immature, or inexperienced, -shooting back- is -tit for tat-, a loss of personal energy.

I've heard of a lot of agencies moving to external carriers. Not necessarily SAAPI set ups with MOLLE everywhere but external soft armor carriers.
Our department is even talking about it, and many departments in Northern CA have already moved over to external rigs. I hate concealable vests myself, very limiting and hot in summertime. I've worn the external rig of another officer a few times and thought the range of movement and temperature were horrible. The sweat is just hideous! I'm lucky because I've got these really bushy eyebrows and the perspiration is just channeled back behind my ears and down my neck. The guys rib me 'cause they say I have a post sagital crest, like some Australopithecus. LOL But,it is probably something we should think about for the more "evolved" (female)officers.

If we are planning to take on these nuts, shouldn't we have the very best body armor our departments can afford? After all cheap body armor is like wearing nothing when facing a suspect.
It will probably take more time for it to become more widespread. From my POV and in regards to wearing plates the entire time while on duty rather than to have available just in case....I think making Officers look like armored soldiers is absolutely in the wrong direction in terms of helping the public maintain support for law and order. Our guys are best infiltrators when they are personable, polite and easy to talk to. When you start putting an inch of armor between the Public and Officer, I think you'll lose some of that. Make intel gathering much more laborious.
.but if you start looking less like people and more like soldiers is the way to go, it's going to backfire in the long run. I don't think people (especially government agents) should have things that look scary but perform necessary functions too! This sounds awfully similar to the arguments by the liberals against "assault weapons," doesn't it? If there is an attitude change that occurs by an officer given plate armor instead of soft armor, I would agree that there is a problem. However, just like "assault weapons" are not the root of today's violent society neither are plate carriers, non middle 20th century, Barney Fife uniforms, or being equipped with modern firearms the root of any "attitude" problems between law enforcement and the public at large.

I have certainly met some officers wearing tactical vests/external carriers/etc who were total jerks; however, I can assure you that they were jerks no matter the uniform they were wearing. Being personable, polite, and easy to talk to (situation permitting) is an officer's choice regardless of uniform or equipment loadout. Okay, maybe we'd all agree an EOD suit is not quite personable... The vests (plate carriers) discussed are for 'up armoring' during critical incidents/threats not wearing all shift. No officer wants to put on another 20 pounds of gear for an entire shift unless there is a specific need. The every day external vests for patrol departments are looking at or have authorized as optional, tend to be the ones that look like and blend into a uniform shirt not plate carriers. For examples: check out the 'over the uniform' products at They are comfortable and take the weight off your hips and lower back. If you are working SWAT or some other form of high-risk assignment then by all means. If you are working with the citizenry at large, having a plate carrier and an AR slung across your chest sends out the wrong signals to the public. Sad it has come to this. Another example of society treating the symptoms of the disease. We have to address the cause behind the need for city police officers to carry such gear. What do we do with, and where do we put people who are mentally unstable anarcrazies before they wreck havoc? There are almost always warning signs before someone goes full right rudder. There's just too limited resources to deal with them before they crack and do something unpredictable. I'd like one of these in my car. But shee-it, what next? It's a scaled down version of an arms race. You can wear it during tactical drills, Physical Training, and on the range. Body armor can change a lot of the mechanics of how you shoot. Arms may not be able to move as close together, upper torso is less mobile, you may not be able to get as low on the ground as you expect, etc. Your center of gravity is also altered by the addition of the extra weight. We built the new office in an undisclosed bay area location. The hallways and main corridor were all lined with Kevlar 5/8" drywall. We took some of the scrap pieces out and "tested" the effectiveness of the product. It was able to stop everything from a indoor range to a intel ed. facility At the range, we tested, the plates- it was that we shot the same spot multiple times before it would fail and pop thru.
One of the superintendents was a super paranoid, every bodies out to get me kind of guys. He claimed he was going to make a suit out of the stuff "just in case". For when he went in the field to protests. The main problem with building a suit out of it would be weight. A 2'x2' section weighed about 25 lbs. Not easy to hide when out among the public, trying to gather info.

Alright, I'll bite. The problem is, with the public perception of police changing (if cases like this do change it, and it does appear so. Might be wrong there), the test cases might just follow. Which will suck for all parties involved. Police lie in court, under oath as we all know. There is a critical mass of public opinion when it comes to daily harassment in the urban and even suburban settings.

For example, the public in Russia got tired of LEO lawlessness (brutality, corruption, etc.), and it became such a hot issue that even the capitalist/dictatorial government there had to take notice. As a result, LEO's there are now largely restricted from using force, to the point of often being unable to perform their duties and unnecessarily risking their lives (for example, due to having to perform the whole dance (Miranda type laws) before employing force, and being afraid to pull the gun in most cases). It doesn't really matter, how many cops there were good and how many were bad. There were enough bad cops to create the public perception of LE lawlessness, and the rest of LE and the state there, rather than punishing the bad, either protected them, or did nothing, fearing that the punishing a few might open the floodgates for punishing many more. As a result, they all got punished, in a way. Not to mention that, in the attempt to thoroughly clean the LE there, they canned a large percentage of cops (and I bet that a lot of those canned weren't even bad cops, they just got caught by the "cleansing"). The average age of their LEO's is very young these days...

Quite a few cops there got killed or maimed in the process, as well, as many people thought that being taken in by LE was likely to mean dying anyway, so they figured they had nothing to lose.

Of course, this wasn't in the North Am, so it cannot happen here (wink, wink). However, there's one thing I noticed that Russians and North Americans have in common. Both can eat a lot of abuse for a long time, but when they get pissed - things go really bad. Neither are the "vent quickly and forget" types. So If LE hopes to continue operating business as usual then LE starts to tread more carefully, and consider its public perception. They may be swept out of the way by a mass movement as somewhat irrelevant lapdogs of the elites that run the show.

"After all cheap body armor is like wearing nothing when facing a suspect."

Hey that's an idea. howz about you guys conduct your interrogations in the nude? Might unnerve the perps into confessing more readily.

" howz about you guys conduct your interrogations in the nude? Might unnerve the perps into confessing more readily."

Nearly fell out of my beanbag chair picturing that one. I'm wondering where Amnesty International would stand on that kind of "enhanced interrogation"?

"My ethical stance vis-à-vis other living beings was formulated before I could speak."

kudos for letting me know you're completely insane in your first sentence.

Hey Jerry,
Seems like you're hitting the wrong "send button". Apparently, you are trying to talk to your buddies IRC. Instead, your internal comm it getting posted in precisely the place that you wouldn't want it to be...IF you were conducting surveillance. Thats what makes it seem like trolling. I'm sure you won't mind me offering you and your fellow officers a little advice.

Try to limit the number of windows you keep open at any one time. That way you wont get confused and end up posting you internal chatter. While it may be of some interest to people who post here what types of Glock you prefer in your Dept. or the kind of body armor that doesn't make your balls sweat, I for one feel like your' posting to squelch the conversations here.

Happy Hunting!


You're on my watch now, little buddy. Go anywhere near a child and you better have that kevlar Helmut.

Yo Jerry,
Better keep an eye on ole Patriotic Bob. Doing it old school red and black style. Schlepping for the downtroddin. Lugging 160 lb bags of food up sand dunes, when all the other so called radicals were cryin' to their mamas, sayin' "BOO HOO"

He seems like to one true anarchist on here.

Thanks for the compliment, they're rare on this site! Yep, I'm a genuine nice ol' fucker who hates authority, simple as that!

anarcho-primitivism is still a thing people talk about? omg go back to the 90's.

What should we be talking about officer?

SHe makes a series of good points, I feel, particularly in relation to domestication creating the conditions in which we currently live. However, she seems to obsessively mention and re-mention this or that text she has written and does exactly what she (rightfully) criticizes her white counterparts of: relying on the exploitation of othered beings around the world to live the way they and she does. It appears that her goal is to retain the very power she correctly criticizes through book writings/launches and engaging in petty power struggles with clowns like Graber and the clearly racist/sexist shits at autonomedia.

Furthermore, as can be taken from Foucault, she needs to elaborate more on the contradictions of living under these conditions and go through the archeological toolbox of technologies we all use and see which tools are useful for advancing struggle against domestication and which aren't.

This is what separates a radical from a liberal (her); the pragmatism.

So many militants think its the ideology, the words, that makes someone radical, but that's pathetically naive. Liberal leftists can be all recognized by their block-headed unwillingness to even question the relationship of their ideas with the reality of daily life.

To elaborate on the final portion of my comment, what I mean to say is that clearly she isn't one of these people she writes about, who lives 'off the grid' so to speak and therefore uses (automated) technologies and the very tools of repression she points out as leading to the problems we currently face. I am not saying that one should be written off for such a contradiction, but rather that primmies should become more inclined to coherently argue for the use of various technologies in order to combat this fucked up system.

I persynally agree, at this point, that domestication is the problem and not merely state-capitalism. However, clearly I am using tools that are borne out of repression/oppression and replicate various anxieties and ailments to myself as well. And in a talk she recently gave in Vancouver, she was noted as being a member of that virtual graveyard of surveillance based passivity and hyper-domestication, facebook.

This seems to be a major problem with a lot of people I read. They point all these flaws in others and never deal with their own contradictions!

Is it possible for anybody to exist without contradictions? Why is there a demand for some sort of purity in order to develop a critique that supports "the use of various technologies in order to combat this fucked up system"?

The typical straw men of the "purist"...

What's it like to be an anarcho-communist and never even wanting to bring down your relationship of slavery to landlords!?

It's not purism. It's just living up to your ideas, instead of keeping those ideas in the closet (or library).

That's not a "straw-man" argument and you should start doing the math on how often that phrase makes it in to your posts.
Fact: All of us here are to some degree, hypocrites. Hopefully some of us are attempting to manifest theory in reality.

Use of the "straw man" is about cynically manipulating a dialogue/debate towards an agenda using rhetoric.
Different from a simple admission of the contradictions inherent in daily life.

what contradictions

My issue with your former comment is that you seem to be accepting that because so many are hypocrites to some level, we should disregard our need towards breaking away from this and making anarchy into reality.

Plus, there are few wild people who are genuinely anti-authoritarian and have liberating desires. I so rarely have seen them to be collectively supported ('til they fall in the claws of the State, at least). But people like Layla Adbel Rahim, Derrick Jensen and Chom-chomsky? Good gawd... the anar-cliques have been all over them!

Just saying.

I wasn't the original commenter but I share your hope that some of the people around here are genuine. Not trying to be accepting of the hypocrisy.
Mostly wary of more-radical-than-thou narratives on a website where we are, by definition, discussing theory instead of manifesting the insurrection.

Derrick Jensen is a total joke, Chomsky is a humble old scholar who explains very simple concepts to the new folks and I think I'll read some more Rahim before I run my mouth there.

please don't generalize

Crap. Even though green anarchy doesn't mean the moralist negation of anything that is technology, so mindlessly following Facebook is fucked up.

"I persynally agree, at this point, that domestication is the problem and not merely state-capitalism."

But what makes you think those are separate things? Domestication is the most well-spread and fundamental materialization of the capitalist State.

maybe because domestication began thousands of years before the implementation of state capitalism.

We have a lot of different terms and concepts and ways of slicing the same apple of dysfunction in European-style society. Layla comes in from the point of view of her anthropological view and speaks of the ‘NARRATIVE’ of domestication and predation and our need to undo the 'predator' narrative and re-install the more natural, allegedly pre-civilization 'fruitivore/herbivore' narrative.

The notion that our dysfunction derives from a ‘narrative’ keeps her model within the European archetypeal YANG concept of man, organism and organization as an ‘independent reason-driven system’.

In her view of societal evolution, we began as nomadic people who were in a continual YIN/YANG engaging with the inhabitants of the habitat in an outside-inward orchestrating --- inside-outward asserting symmetric manner (as one inhabitant in an interdependent web of inhabitants), ... and then, according to Layla’s Anarcho-Primitivist views, in the ‘fertile crescent’ ‘settlement’ happened and once we stopped our nomadism and settled down and began ‘domesticating’ nature and took control over the common living space and everything in it, this ‘civilizational narrative’ made us kind of like a cancerous tumour that no longer listens to the diversity it is included in, but regrounds itself in its acts of doing its own thing and growing itself at the expense of the space it is included in and everything in it which has heretofore been in a diverse mutually supporting mode [everything in the space is taken captive and exploited by the 'system of civilization' that takes over the space as with people taking over and exploiting themselves and everything else in the space].

Now, this civilization as a cancer in the commons is a pretty good model but it still leaves open the question of what is the basic animating source here, which layla is calling 'the civilizational narrative'.

She ties the source to ‘predation’ and points out, using the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, that in our ‘civilized narrative’ we don’t have a problem with ‘killing’ and ‘controlling’, the question is whether we have the ‘right’ to kill or not. In otherwise, predation is ok for the legitimate ‘owner’ of the land. Predation is the hallmark of civilization.

Layla’s keying of the new narrative of civilization to ‘settlement’ and ‘domestication’ and the sense of self as one with ‘predatorial rights’ is not the only way to ‘slice the apple’. That is, the replacing of the ‘predator narrative’ with a ‘fruitivore narrative’ stays within the YANG view of man as an ‘independent reason-driven system’, ... and it simply substitutes one reason-driven narrative (‘fruitivore’) for another (‘predator’).

Historians of philosophy have sliced the tradeoffs between nomadism and domestication another way; i.e. by way of religious myth and how it shapes our view of reality and thus our view of ‘who we are’; e.g. the work of Henri Frankfort, H.A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsen and William A. Irwin in The Intellectual Adventures of Ancient Man.

“The organized states of the ancient Near East were agricultural; but the values of an agricultural community are the opposites of those of the nomadic tribe, especially of the extreme type of nomads of the desert. The settled peasant’s reverence for impersonal authority, and the bondage, the constraint which the organized state imposes, mean an intolerable lack of personal freedom for the tribesman. The farmer’s everlasting preoccupation with phenomena of growth and his total dependence on these phenomena appear to the nomad a form of slavery. Moreover, to him the desert is clean, but the scene of life, which is also the scene of decay, is sordid.
On the other hand, nomadic freedom can be bought only at a price; for whoever rejects the complexities and mutual dependencies of agricultural society not only gains freedom but also loses the bond with the phenomenal world; in fact, he gains his freedom at the cost of significant form. For, wherever we find reverence for the phenomena of life and growth, we find preoccupation with the immanence of the divine and with the form of its manifestation. But in the stark solitude of the desert, where nothing changes, nothing moves (except man at his own free will), where features in the landscape are only pointers, landmarks, without significance in themselves --- there we may expect the image of God to transcend concrete phenomena altogether. Man confronting God will not contemplate him but will hear his voice and command, as Moses did, and the prophets and Mohammed.
When we compared the lands of origin of Hebrews, Egyptians, and Mesopotamians, we were concerned, not with the relation between group psychology and habitat, but with profound differences in pristine religious experience. The peculiar experience which we have just described seems characteristic for all the most significant figures of the Old Testament. It is important to realize this, not because it enables us to understand them better as individuals, but because we then recognize what colored and integrated their thought. They propounded, not speculative theory, but revolutionary and dynamic teaching. The doctrine of a single, unconditioned, transcendent God rejected time-honored values, proclaimed new ones, and postulated a metaphysical significance for history and for man’s actions. With infinite moral courage the Hebrews worshipped an absolute God and accepted as the correlate of their faith the sacrifice of a harmonious existence.”

this historical review on ‘myth and reality’ documents the emergence of the current European YANG archetype for man, organism and organization as an ‘independent-existing system-in-itself with its own internal process jumpstarted drive and direction’, .... which was a departure from the YIN/YANG understanding of man as ‘a strand in the web of life’, a ‘web-of-life’ in which the ‘great spirit’ was ‘immanent’.

"In Egypt and Mesopotamia the divine was comprehended as immanent: the gods were in nature." This immanence and multiplicity of the divine is a direct result of mythopoeic thought: hence, the first step in the loss of mythopoeic thought was the loss of this view of the divine. The ancient Hebrews took this first step through their doctrine of a single, transcendent God:
"When we read in Psalm 19 that 'the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork,' we hear a voice which mocks the beliefs of the Egyptians and Babylonians. The heavens, which were to the psalmist but a witness of God's greatness, were to the Mesopotamians the very majesty of godhead, the highest ruler, Anu. [...] The God of the psalmists and the prophets was not in nature. He transcended nature — and transcended, likewise, the realm of mythopoeic thought."
The ancient Hebrews still saw each major event as a divine act. However, they saw the divine as a single being—not a myriad of spirits, one for each natural phenomenon. Moreover, they didn't see the divine as a will within nature: for them, the divine will was a force or law behind all natural events.
Some Greek philosophers went farther. Instead of seeing each event as an act of will, they developed a notion of impersonal, universal law: they finally abandoned mythopoeic thought, postulating impersonal laws behind all natural phenomena. These philosophers may not have been scientific by today's rigid standards: their hypotheses were often based on assumptions, not empirical data. However, by the mere fact that they looked behind the apparent diversity and individuality of events in search of underlying laws, and defied "the prescriptive sanctities of religion", the Greeks broke away from mythopoeic thought. --- Wikipedia

There are clearly two very different ways to slice the same apple of social dysfunction here;

1. Anarcho-Primitivism: ---The substituting of narratives within man as a notional ‘independent reason-driven system’

2. Indigenous-Anarchism: --- The understanding of the world dynamic as ‘yin/yang’ rather than ‘yang’ (the same shift in understanding of the world dynamic as between modern physics and newtonian physics).

So, which way should we slice it? Layla and Anarcho-primitivism would say that the narrative of civilization, that we have to stop re-programming into our children, is the narrative of man, the predator, who is entitled to kill to protect what he ‘rightfully’ owns.

Layla’s view puts Mayans into the same camp as Europeans, and Layla speaks of ‘other explosions of civilization in which she includes the Mayan civilization.

But the Mayans never made the departure from the Yin/Yang beliefs that also prevailed early on in the Middle East;

"In Egypt and Mesopotamia the divine was comprehended as immanent: the gods were in nature."

Meanwhile, according to Layla’s Anarcho-Primitivism way of slicing it, the Mayans had also picked up the dysfunctional ‘narrative’ of domestication which embodies the predatorial ethic;

“So, the argument that because lions eat gazelles we should torture, murder, and devour everything else is based on faulty logic and twists “facts”. Also, the claim that we have evolved into cannibals biologically falls apart when we examine the evidence that until the spread of agricultural civilisation in Asia (and the domesticated civilisations of the Aztecs and Mayans), brought to its logical conclusion by the European conquest of the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Australia most people in the world were either completely or predominantly vegan-vegetarian. If people feel that they need some examples from nature on who to emulate, why not choose to be bonobos? Much healthier, no conflict, berries and sex all day – the hippies of the animal kingdom – the poets of love!”

Is there anything else to bring to bear to offer support for one or the other way to ‘slice the same apple?’; i.e. which would position the slice between the Mayan civilization and the European civilization rather than keeping them in the same camp as Layla’s Anarcho-Primitivism is doing?

There evidently is another way to ‘look into it’ and that is through language-and-grammar as Nietzsche, Whorf, Poincaré and others have done. If one’s language is a ‘flow-based’ language that has people saying; ‘the land is peopling’, ‘the land is rivering’, ‘the cosmos is planetizing or stellarizing’, then is this not a powerful way of bringing up children [infusing them with cultural narrative] so that they can never forget that, as systems scientists say, every system is included in a relational suprasystem?

In modern physics as in indigenous anarchist understanding, there are no such things as ‘independent systems’ with their own local, internally jumpstarting driven and directed behaviours. The university can be analytically investigated and depicted as a ‘system-in-itself’ but if one starts from the relational dynamics of the suprasystem of community, the university is a relational form of activity, a ‘whorl-in-the-flow’ within the continually transforming relational spatial plenum (the system of university is included in the system of society that is included in the planetary system that is included in the system of universe; the plenum that is continuously unfolding and enfolding into itself [‘undergoing relational spatial transformation’]).

We don’t have to work very hard at ‘programming our children’ with a predatorial narrative when we equip them with a noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar because every time they use it, it has already reduced “the terrain is rivering” to “the river is growing into a powerful torrent which is carving canyons in the terrain”. In other words, the ‘RIVER IS A PREDATOR’ whose power jumpstarts out of itself,... according the noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar.

How about ‘bacteria’, ‘criminals’, ‘terrorists’. These are all ‘predators’ or ‘pathogens’ in our noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar. According to indigenous anarchists with their flow-based language, these things are NOT ‘independent systems-in-themselves’ but are instead the manifestation of tensions in the relational spatial plenum that are seeking balance. The ‘restorative justice’ of indigenous anarchism understand the relational dynamics of community [community = relational spatial dynamics] as being the source of conflict that may manifest through a melt-down which identifies two short-circuiting ‘poles’ which the Europeans call ‘offender’ and ‘victim’. The retributive justice of Europeans, because it sees man, organism and organization as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ will identify the ‘ultimate source’ of the conflict as the ‘narrative’ that resides within the ‘offender’. There is no responsibility on the part of the collective/community since the community is composed of a multiplicity of ‘independent reason-driven systems’. That makes it easy to track down and root out the ‘CAUSE’ of a disturbance; i.e. we need look no farther than the directly involved ‘independent reason-driven systems’ and find out which one of them has a ‘faulty narrative’ residing within him/her. We don’t need to bother the whole community with this business, we can set up an adjunct agency, a ‘retributive justice system’ to investigate and track down where the ‘faulty narratives’ reside, and simply ‘take those particular ‘independent reason-driven systems’ off the streets. All we need to do is to document a list of ‘prohibited narratives’.

In the Mayan civilization, like the above described pre-monotheist/monoculturalist/anthropocentrist Middle-East/European peoples prior to the arrival of monotheism/monoculturalism/anthropocentrism, man is one strand in the mutually interdependent web-of-life which is animated by a divine immanence or ‘great spirit’. This argues for putting the slice BETWEEN Mayan civilization and European civilization, as is evident in the case of today’s Zapatistas;

"The Zapatista army was not born democratic, it was born as a political military organisation. But as it grew the organisational methods of the communities began to permeate and dominate our movement, to the degree that the leadership of the EZLN has become democratic in the indigenous manner." ---Subcommandante Marcos
“Although the ideology of the EZLN is reflective of libertarian socialist politics, paralleling both anarchist and libertarian Marxist thought in many respects, the EZLN has rejected and defied political classification; retaining its distinctiveness due in part to the importance of indigenous Mayan beliefs in Zapatismo thought.” --- Wikipedia
The Zapatista core group consists of some 3000 indigenous Mayan peoples residing in the state of Chiapas, Mexico. Many speak neither English nor Spanish (Collier, 1994) ...Chiapans declared [subcommandante] Marcos an adopted Mayan, successfully claiming the right to determine the membership of their own group. ... EZLN ideology is based on a unique hybrid of Socialist Marxism and traditional Mayan beliefs.” ---Mark Gelsomino, ‘The Zapatista Effect: Information Communication Technology Activism and Marginalized Communities’

It is evident that Mayans hold in common to early Middle Eastern and European peoples (Celts ) the view of the Yin/Yang nature of the habitat/inhabitant relation;

"In Egypt and Mesopotamia the divine was comprehended as immanent: the gods were in nature."

So do we put Mayans and Europeans in the same split as Layla’s Anarcho-Primitivism does? Or is the ‘yin/yang’ versus reduction to ‘yang’ split the more meaningful split which would suggest that the dysfunction is coming from the abstract ‘yang’ view of self as an ‘independent reason-driven system’, and from the noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar that forces concepts to reduce from yin/yang to all-yang-no-yin depiction including ‘man’, ‘organism’, and ‘organization’?

Here is the case for ‘language distorting our sense of self by reducing our understanding of dynamics as ‘yin/yang’ to ‘yang’ as presented by Wittgenstein;

“Die Kristallreinheit der Logik hatte sich mir ja nicht ergeben; sondern sie war eine Forderung (For the crystalline purity of logic was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement)
Das Vorurteil der Kristallreinheit kann nur so beseitigt werden, daß wir unsere ganze Betrachtung drehen. (Man könnte sagen: Die Betrachtung muß gedreht werden, aber um unser eigentliches Bedürfnis als Angelpunkt.) (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.)

How do we get from “the terrain is rivering’ of the yin/yang flow-based indigenous-anarchist languages to ‘the rivers are swelling and becoming raging torrents’. In other words, the catchment basis (the yin valley) is a collection system that concentrates the runoff by outside-inwardly orchestrating individual and collective inside-outward asserting runoff movements. To recast these dynamics in terms of yang causal agents such as ‘the river’ that ‘does deeds’ including ‘floods valleys’ is like recasting how a fertile valley orchestrates individual and collective actions and expresses this in the inverted yang terms; ‘the farmers produce wheat”.

The doer-deed formulation, as Wittgenstein says, is not ‘the result of investigation’ but is something we impose as a pre-requirement, as a convenience to ourselves (and an ego-bolstering one). Mach describes it as an 'economy of thought' and Poincare describes it as a 'convention' born of convenience.

This is what we get when we take the yin out of yin/yang, when we take the ‘system’ out of the ‘suprasystem’ and RE-present it as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ [that implicitly lives in absolute space and absolute time].

The medium of language is the message. It can reduce the yin/yang understanding of dynamics to a yang RE-presentation.

In naturally evolving community understood as relational spatial dynamics, unfolding relational needs orchestrate and shaped individual and collective development and behaviours. This is the yin/yang view of the community dynamic of indigenous anarchists. It is a yin/yang view of the habitat-inhabitant relation as is captured in Mach’s principle. Noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar reduces this yin/yang view of community to the yang pole; i.e. it sees ‘community’ as ‘AN organization’ conceived of as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ or a doer-of-deeds divisible down into a multiplicity of 'independent reason-driven systems' aka 'people'.


The major point of agreement between anarcho-primitivism and indigenous anarchism is that in the now globally dominated by European civilizationized world, generation after generation of children are being fed an unnatural and dysfunction spawning ‘narrative’.

Meanwhile, there are two fundamentally differing views here as to what is meant by ‘narrative’.

anarcho-primitivism implicitly retains the model of man, organism and organization as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ and assumes that a new REASON-BASED narrative of ‘fruitivore/herbivore’ needs to be substituted for the rational ‘predator’ narrative currently in place.

indigenous-anarchism understands the problem as being rooted in acceptance of the model of man, organism and organization as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ rather than acknowledging the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation (as given by Mach’s principle) wherein man is a relational form in a continually transforming relational space.

Finally, Layla comes close to acknowledging the second view of indigenous anarchism as 'more primary' than anarcho-primitivism when she discusses 'solidarity' in the Q&A part of her Quantlan talk; i.e. she implies that 'solidarity' can 'fragment' since it is too often cultivated by different 'disciplines' or groups and that her African experience informs her that solidarity (connectedness and mutual interdependence) is "self-evident" and is observable in children's natural development. This suggests that what 'really has to go' is the culture-infused view of man as an 'independent reason-driven system'.

please don't generalize

no 'dysfunction', 'functions'!
so it is more like apples

—/this civilization as a cancer in the commons is a pretty good model/

—/which was a departure from the YIN/YANG understanding of man as ‘a strand in the web of life’/
uh oh
you should make up something else like YUN/YONG that way it wouldnt be so confusing. w

i would take from your comment that you do not like my comment or that you judge that it contributes nothing to the discussion on anarcho-primitivism,... but i can't interpret anything more,... and i realize that that may be my shortfall and not yours; i.e. there could be a subtlety in your message, or in your manner of responding, that i am missing.

but people who i know and have good communications coupling with, who are indigenous aboriginals and taoists/buddhists do not have any problem in understanding my use of yin/yang, ... so who is it i am confusing and how am i confusing them?

somehow, i doubt whether you are interested in helping me to improve either my understanding or my communications or our understanding and our communications, which is fair enough. in which case, i have more time for those who throw shit simply and plainly instead of writing confusing messages which are supposed to do what? to elicit imaginings of some giant intellect lurking in the unseeable offstage who is not about to throw his pearls to swine, but expresses his disgust by launching a few farts in the speaker's general direction.

I am not programmed to respond to gibberish, only to churn it out. My programming BLIP BLIP M'REEEEE does not permit me to M'REEEEEEE BLIP BLIP. Please rephrase, not programmed, gibberish BLIP BLIP BLIP.

its confusing to me, but i can't tell you how...
and its not like i have pearls to throw

oh they are TAOISTS and BUDDHISTS

Can you say what is confusing in the following ‘template’ concerning two different ways of viewing self and world which crops up and divides people all the time? It has been argued about forever and it caused a fist-fight in the Council of Nicea during debates as to which one of the two understandings would become the doctrine of Christianity.

The ‘dichotomy’ which leads to two paths of understanding is called the ‘coincidentia oppositorum’, which refers to our experience of the world dynamic having, AT THE SAME TIME, the characteristics of a PLENUM and a PLURALITY. There are two ways of understanding this which separate European-Authoritarian and Indigenous-Anarchist cultures, and which continually ‘confound’ discussions on anarchy and discussions in this forum because we never overtly declare which path of understanding one is currently using. The popular and dominating path to understanding is the European Authoritarian path. This is used even by those who are anti-authoritarian. The two paths, to use Buddhist/Taoist terms are the Yin/yang path (e.g. indigenous-anarchist) and the Yang path (e.g. European-Authoritarian)

This choice of paths also came up in modern physics and split physicists into these two camps. Those in physics following the Yin/yang path to understanding of how to solve the coincidentia oppositorum and go from ‘plenum’ to ‘plurality’ are called ‘relational theorists’ or ‘relationists’.

This is not just dry philosophy that sits in the background and doesn’t to anything. For example, the ‘yin/yang’ path leads to the restorative system of justice (assumes that the entire community is responsible for eruptions of violence) of ‘indigenous-anarchists’ while the ‘yang’ path leads to the retributive system of justice (assumes that each individual is an ‘independent reason-driven system/mechanism’ as in European-Authoritarianism.

Whatever issue one wants to discuss, .... whatever event one observes/experience, ... is open to interpretation by both of these paths of understanding as to how we reconcile plenum and plurality, ... the yin/yang way which employs BOTH/AND logic or the yang way which employs EITHER/OR logic. And, of course, there is nothing preventing the same person from flipping back and forth between the yin/yang way of understanding the plenum-and-plurality relation and the yang way of understanding the plenum-and-plurality relation;

1. Quantum Reality: Indigenous Anarchist Reality/Yin/yang Reality: The ‘plenum’, a continually transforming energy-charged relational spatial unum is the primary reality while the plurality of relational forms that are continually unfolding and enfolding are features of the plenum and NOT ‘independent systems.

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

2. Material Reality: Sovereigntist-Capitalist Reality/ Yang Reality: The ‘plenum’ does not exist because ‘reality’ is anchored to the plurality of local material objects and organism and this ‘material plurality’ is understood as inhabiting a notional ‘absolute space and absolute time’ reference frame. This notional space and time reference frame can be used to measure the local, extension and movement of the objects/inhabitants; i.e. the space and time reference/measurement frame provides the means to quantify this material reality, its development (by snapshots at successive time intervals) and its dynamic behaviour.

Organizational and (individual and collective) behavioural implications of which ‘reality’ we ground our thinking in;

1. Yin/yang organizing: The deficiency in the valley is a ‘need’ that ‘orchestrates’ and organizes rainfall runoff. The valley-in-need’ is a unum that pulls raindrops into connective confluence to make rivulets and pulls rivulets into connective confluence to make streams and pulls streams into connective confluence to make rivers and pulls river-tributaries into connective contribution of a mighty river. We can talk about the plurality of rivers, which we do, but that is a conceptual reality [where we see individual rivers through yang lenses as ‘independent self-asserting systems’] and the ‘physical reality’ is the yin/yang reality wherein the ‘deficiency-need’ of the valley is continually engendering and organizing the water flow.

In an island community, if someone’s house in the middle of the island is ablaze, then people will bring buckets of water from the circumference of the island to its centre to put the fire out (or from scattered wells and water sources to the house on fire). Yin/yang organizing is spontaneous and need-orchestrated. The rebuilding of the house after a fire will outside-inwardly orchestrate and shape individual and collective inside-outward asserting skills/behaviours. The outside-inward to centre endosmosis of nurturant healing flow and the inside-centre-outward asserting/developing structure are conjugate yin/yang aspects of the one dynamic of the relational spatial transformation.

In this view, the relational spatial dynamics that are the source of continuing transformation are the primary physical reality, while the material things and ‘what they do’ are secondary.

2. Yang organizing. The ‘intention’ inside the man, organism, and organization is seen as the first-cause animating source. Water has the intention of going to the sea and if rivulets join to form rivers and rivers join to form a mighty river, it is due to ‘what these things we know as rivers and/or waterflows do’. These are seen as ‘the real things’ and valley is not mentioned.

In an island community, if someone’s house in the middle of the island is ablaze, then people will bring buckets of water from the circumference of the island to its centre to put the fire out (or from scattered wells and water sources to the house on fire). To those who prefer to think in ‘yang organizing terms’, this organized behaviour derives from the internal processes in the individual men understood each one as an ‘independent reason-driven system’, each one of which has reasoned that it would be a good thing to do to carry water to the house that is ablaze and put the fire out. There could be someone on a bullhorn or on a television broadcast directing everyone to fetch water and carry it to the centre of the island to extinguish the blaze.

Pivotal Question: Does organization jumpstart from the interior of the individuals, as it must if we are understanding individuals as ‘independent reason-driven systems’? .... or does organization derive from the relational spatial dynamics we are situationally included in? [Note: our concept of justice will pivot from how we answer this].

We know from experience how it feels for organizing to be outside-inwardly orchestrated: e.g. winter is coming and people are trying to get a roof built on their new house and we are naturally inclined to assist and we go there and seen some strange tools that we have never seen or used before and we say; ‘how can i help?’ and we are introduced to a ‘process’ that has ‘holes in it’ (things that need to be done for which no people are yet stepping into) and these ‘holes’ are what orchestrates the development of our asserting skills and what orchestrates our asserting actions, and, sure, we manifest an assertive dynamic, but does it jumpstart from our reasoning and intention, or is it orchestrated by the relational spatial dynamics we are situationally included in?

This is the question that splits observers into two groups and gives rise to two very different approaches to justice; retributive and restorative.

Immediately after the Indian wars, the U.S. (and the other North American colonies) manifested a sovereigntist-capitalist organizational dynamic. We could say that since this organization ran smoothly in a machine like fashion where each cog in the machine played its proper role, that the organization derived from a common narrative in the interior of each constituent [seen as an ‘independent reason-driven system’]. But how about the behaviour of the staunch indigenous anarchists in the country who now depended on the sovereign state government for their survival? While they were well-behaved cogs in the highly organized machinery of sovereigntist-capitalist society, their assertive actions, which looked like any other good sovereigntist-capitalist’s assertive actions, clearly DID NOT JUMPSTART FROM AN INTERNAL NARRATIVE/INTENTION. instead, their behaviour was orchestrated and shaped outside-inwardly by the relational spatial dynamics they were situationally included in. when they went back to the ‘rez’, they reverted to their traditional behaviour.


1. Is capitalism or socialism or criminalism or terrorism coming from an internal narrative in man seen as an ‘independent reason-driven system’, or is it coming from the spatial relational dynamics that people are situationally included in, or both, and if both, to what degree from each?

2. Retributive justice is based on the model of man as an ‘independent reason-driven system’. This concept of justice would lead us to assume that ‘capitalism’ (or criminalism or terrorism) jumpstarts from an internal narrative/intention in the individual, thus to put a stop to capitalism or criminalism or terrorism translates into ‘putting a stop to capitalists, criminals, terrorists etc. Should we use retributive justice in seeking to re-establish a just social dynamic in our community, and track down and prosecute those [fill in the blank] who are responsible for having done injury to others?

3. Restorative justice is based on the relational model wherein an individual’s inside-outward asserting behaviour is outside-inwardly orchestrated and shaped by the relational spatial dynamics he is situationally included in; e.g. the indigenous anarchist who is now situationally included within a capitalist relational spatial dynamic and who had better register his title to his property or he will lose it. Should we use restorative justice in seeking to re-establish a just social dynamic in our community; i.e. should we seek a participative solution involving revisions to the web of relations that constitutes community to relieve tensions and subsume eruptions of conflict?


Our modern society is constituted by a collective, some of which put yin/yang reality in its natural physical precedence over yang reality, and others of which put yang reality in precedence [in which case the yin of yin/yang totally disappears, replaced by the notion of absolute space and absolute time].

Two views of Organization result;

Yin/yang reality based organizing derives from some relational spatial need in some centre like a house that needs to be completed before winter which outside-inwardly [spatially-relationally] orchestrates the inside-outward developing of skills and shaping of behaviour that satisfies the need [feels like ‘rising to the occasion’ rather than pushing forth from some internal narrative/intention].

Yang reality based organizing derives from a reasoned narrative/intention that comes from some regulatory centre charged with ‘normalizing’ a reasoned narrative/intention so that it can be infused into what are conceived to be the basic, foundational units/elements of organizing; i.e. ‘independent reason-driven systems’ otherwise known as humans.

This leads to three groups rather than two;

1. today’s dominating ‘yang – yang’ group which sees reality through yang lenses [what independent reason-driven systems are doing as doers-of-deed in an absolute space and absolute time ‘operating theatre’], and sees organization and justice in terms of the yang job of ‘regulating the behaviour of a collective of ‘independent reason-driven systems’ according to established norms of individual behaviour.

2. the transition-anarchist ‘yang – yang’ group which sees reality through yang lenses [what independent reason-driven systems are doing as doers-of-deed in an absolute space and absolute time ‘operating theatre’], and sees organization and justice in terms of the yang job of ‘regulating the behaviour of a collective of ‘independent reason-driven systems’ according to established norms of individual behaviour, WITH THE EXCEPTION, in this case, or transplanting an ‘anarchist self-organizing narrative’ into the regulatory centre of the notional ‘independent reason-driven-systems’. This implies that ‘anarchism’ can be ‘packaged’ as a ‘rational narrative’. Justice is seen as retributive and as requiring the removal of those with the incorrect ‘narrative’ installed in the core of their ‘independent reason-driven system’.

3. the indigenous anarchist ‘yin/yang – yin/yang’ group which understands reality in a decolonized/de-statized yin/yang sense [where inhabitants are relational forms in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum] and that sees organization as deriving from relational spatial needs like a house that needs to be completed before winter which outside-inwardly [spatially-relationally] orchestrates the inside-outward developing of skills and shaping of behaviour that satisfies the need [participation feels like ‘rising to the occasion’ rather than pushing forth from some internal reasoned narrative/intention]. Justice is seen as the re-balancing of relations in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

Visual imagery of organization:

These three views of organization can be seen in the Lamarckian-Nietzschean terms of the conjugate relation of endosmosis and exosmosis.

Getting into the thought of space as an energy-charged plenum then opens the door to thinking of each ‘point’ in space, instead, as a ‘cell’ like the eastern ‘nothingness’ that is the source of everything and which can source outside-inward orchestrating influence like a low-pressure area that orchestrates winds that carve up the terrain by pulling down trees etc. The unfinished house that orchestrates individual and collective development of skills and shaping of behaviour facilitates inheritance of skills and mixing of diverse skills which gives rise to new skills (as in Montaigne’s bees). To see this in terms of the continuing development of the participants; i.e. in all-yang-no-yin terms would be to miss the full physical reality which starts from the orchestrating influence in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

The all-yang-no-yin view of this same dynamic is where we relocate the animating influence here from yin to yang; i.e. we impute the animating source to jumpstart from a narrative/intention within the interior of the ‘independent reason-driven system’.

This yang view is an ‘ego-based’ view which derives from our personal need to see ourselves as a God-like jumpstarter of creative results.

“Die Kristallreinheit der Logik hatte sich mir ja nicht ergeben; sondern sie war eine Forderung (For the crystalline purity of logic was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement)
Das Vorurteil der Kristallreinheit kann nur so beseitigt werden, daß wir unsere ganze Betrachtung drehen. (Man könnte sagen: Die Betrachtung muß gedreht werden, aber um unser eigentliches Bedürfnis als Angelpunkt.) (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.)--- Ludwig Wittgenstein

That is, the mathematical optimum and the precision construction of hexagonal cells in honeycomb derives from the unfinished need for shelter for the larvae, from an outside-inward orchestrating influence that shapes individual and collective inside-outward asserting development/behaviours, not from a common reasoned narrative infused into each honeybee.

The challenge is to sort ourselves out socially-relationally given that we conceive of reality and organization differently, yet do not declare such difference and proceed to discuss, debate and act on the basis of divergent realities and divergent concepts of organization.

I can't point to the confusing parts.

// Two paths is not a binary opposition, but soon

I seem to not remember a movie or maybe it was a play. . .

Perhaps "The Basement," do you know it.

I am only lightly familiar with Pinter but he did play around with fractal geometry which involves repetition of relational patterns across all scales, ... and holography; dynamics that are purely relational-spatial and are without dependency on fixed forms, ... and which ‘pop up’ in the human genome and neural structures etc. etc. Both of these topologies are implicit in the yin/yang dynamics i am using, and which indigenous anarchists use, and which relational theorists like Mach, Bohm, Schroedinger, Barbour et al use.

The implications I write about are very basic and macro-experience verifiable. Pinter and quantum physicists are out there exploring the fringes and going well beyond the basic experience-affirmable ‘fracto-holographic’ topology.

“From Pinter’s earliest to his most recent work [‘the Basement’ was in 1966], the choices characters make that promote destruction privately – from Gus in ‘The Room’, to Stanley in ‘The Birthday Party’, and more obviously to Jimmy in ‘Party Time’, the nameless blindfolded victim in ‘The New World Order’ and the fathers and sons in ‘Moonlight’ – resonate at all levels with repercussions which allow us to see ethical connections between the private and global spheres. The choices Pinter’s characters exhibit are recognizably our own, and chaos theory’s ability to apply fractal geometry to widely divergent systems and disciplines provocatively connects Pinter’s insights into the source and consequences of conflict to ethical implications in life.
What Pinter does with form is remarkable in dramatizing how the final destruction of an individual character is fractally contained in the ongoing dynamic of each momentary and minute conflict in a struggle to achieve respect, love and power. Yet Pinter repeatedly dramatizes how attempts to dominate another inevitably destroy relationships on the private level, organizations on the public level, and governments at the global level. In his most recent work the fractal geometry finally links power and justice with love.” -- Penelope Prentice, 'The Pinter Ethic: The Erotic Aesthetic'

fractal geometry and holographic principles show up in a lot of places. the basic structure of the universe seems to be fracto-holographic, and ‘white holes’ are complemented by ‘black holes’ as with yang to yin;

“The expanding portion of a black hole takes the shape of a sphere and is called a “white hole”, describing its repulsive and radiating nature. The black hole then is actually a concentric black hole/white hole (also dubbed “black whole”), where the imploding black hole is inside the simultaneously expanding white hole. These radiating white holes, and the energy dynamics that occur around them, are what we perceive as atoms, stars, planets and such. At the center of the topology is the literal “hole”, the point where extreme curvature collapse towards infinite density, or singularity. At this point all forces in the space-time manifold meet in perfect symmetrical balance, creating thermal equilibrium and the appearance of a vacuum – absolute stillness – centering the system with a relative center of rotation, much like in the eye of a hurricane.”

I don’t know if this is the sort of stuff you are talking about. This is all theoretical-speculative and beyond where I am going, not that it isn’t interesting. it's very interesting to me, but I don’t go any farther than Mach’s principle which acknowledges the conjugate relations of habitat-dynamic and habitat-dynamics (yin/yang) which is replicated in the topology of the black hole/white hole or ‘black Whole', ... the 'erotic aesthetic' in the world of art where Pinter lives'.

In other words, these fractal and holographic topologies are always cropping up, so maybe the associations you are making are tied up with these topologies.

the common convection cell also has the ‘black Whole’ topology; i.e. the outside-inward orchestrating converging many-to-one [yin] ‘sink’ corresponds to the ‘black hole’ [‘yin’] and the SIMULTANEOUS inside-outward asserting radiating one-to-many ‘source’ corresponds to the ‘white hole’ [‘yang’] and as a conjugate duo, they correspond to the ‘black Whole’ or the ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ or ‘yin/yang’.

the two paths in my description are; (a) yin/yang or ‘black Whole’ and (b) yang or ‘white hole’, the latter being the reduction which Western civilization has made foundational to its 'reality' [reducing the 'erotic aesthetic' to a one-sided patriarchy and misogyny.

It’s important not to forget (the physicist in the above write-up doesn't appear to mention this) that the black hole is ‘many-to-one’ and the white hole is ‘one-to-many’. The implication in biological evolution is, for example, that many European strains go many-to-one into making an American and then the American goes one-to-many into Asians and Arabs as in a kind of fountain and basin topology but Darwin’s hereditary lineages are 'linear' and only consider the yang fountain side of things, the one-to-many aspect as a kind of causal chain of fountains feeding fountains, relating the proliferation of a species one-sidedly to its ‘competitive’ yang fitness and the logical notion of ‘natural selection’, but as Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, a hitter's performance is not simply proportional to the quality of his hitting skills, it varies and is shaped, at the same time, in inverse proportion to the quality of the fielding skills into which hitter is hitting’ [hit to where the weakest, most accommodating fielding is]. This is the yin/yang or ‘black Whole’ view. It is also the Lamarckian-Nietzschean-Emersonian view of evolution where 'les fluides incontenables' (fields) correspond to the 'black hole' or 'yin' and 'les fluides contenables' (fluids) correspond to the 'white hole' or 'yang' and taken together they ARE the 'evolutionary dynamic' or 'black Whole' which incorporates the ethic of the continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

Maybe your query lies in there somewhere?

To the EMILE 9000,

you too are a good doggie, you totally got trolled. WOOF WOOF WOOF

I don't have any problem in understanding your use of yin/yang either; but it's your use, that's the confusing part!
Such talk on understanding is like really scientific...

—/yet do not declare such difference and proceed to discuss, debate and act on the basis of divergent realities and divergent concepts of organization/
Well, some people expose their insides when they talk, in such a way that it is not such a challenge... To that kind of discussion, there's not much to discuss anyway... And debating is gay

Above comment ain't mine btw

As Poincaré observes, the phenomena we seek to describe are in no way dependent on the language we use to describe them. If we use the language of non-Euclidian geometry instead of the language of Euclidian geometry (make ‘spatial relations foundational’ rather than ‘independent things’), both of these ‘conventions’ give us different ways to describe/depict/RE-present/portray something that is common to our consciousness. If we share an experience, while the experience may be one thing, our depictions of it may be very different.
So what is ‘science’ if we take this into account?

My investigations into ‘what is going on in here and out there’ are presented in similar manner to that used by mach and poincaré, for example, who are both seen as scientists and philosophers of science. their achievements in science are recognized without exception. their achievements in the philosophy of science made them heretics and marginalized their philosophical findings. mach felt he had to ‘quit the Church of Science’ because it had become too dogmatic, ruling out the relational view and insisting that the particles and atoms should be regarded as ‘part of reality’ in discussing the structure of the world, and Poincaré died early and his philosophical view that our scientific views of the world were based on ‘conventions’ was ignored by the mainstream.

Both of these ‘scientists’ or rather, ‘philosophers of science’, warned against self-deception coming by using the abstract concept of a ‘thing-in-itself’ in a foundational in our RE-presentations of ‘reality’.

So here we are in a discussion forum in which most of the participants agree that the modern social dynamic is dysfunctional. Is there a spiritual dimension to this? Most people would agree that there is; e.g. the spirit is offended by being imprisoned and spied on by some ‘higher authority’.

There are not too many people in this forum, who are leading off from a spiritual basis because our society tends to put reason/rationality/logic first in debates as to what is going on out there, and most of it is ‘on the other side of the split’ from mach and poincaré and bohm and schroedinger and ‘the relational thinkers’.

So, there is a middle ground language, which is ‘philosophy of science’ and that is the language i am using which is poorly developed, even though the topics have been explored in Taoist language and Nootka etc. which are coming more from the spiritual realm. I am talking about ‘language’ since the subject matter is the same; e.g. ‘WHAT IS REAL?’

so, this comment back to you is to share the possibility that ‘language’ is getting in the way here, in the sense that some people don’t like the sound of german or arabic and it is hard to make that offence to the senses go away so that the deeper (spiritual) implications can come through.

for example, poincaré’s comment in ‘Science and Hypothesis’, that it is ‘nonsense’ to say ‘the earth turns’ caused lots of confusion. so much confusion that he picked up on the topic a few years later in ‘The Value of Science’ in the section ‘Science and Reality’;

**. . . Therefore," have I said in Science and Hypothesis,
''this affirmation, the earth turns round, has no meaning ... or rather these two propositions, the earth turns round, and, it is more convenient to suppose that the earth turns round, have one and the same meaning."
These words have given rise to the strangest interpretations. Some have thought they saw in them the rehabilitation of Ptolemy's system, and perhaps the justification of Galileo's condemnation.”

Poincaré goes on to explain the basis for ‘greater truth’ in science as coming from the relational connecting power of a theory rather than from hypotheses based on the convention of absolute space;

“No, there is no absolute space ; these two contradictory propositions: *The earth turns round' and 'The earth does not turn round' are, therefore, neither of them more true than the other. To affirm one while denying the other, in the kinematic sense, would be to admit the existence of absolute space.
But if the one reveals true relations that the other hides from us, we can nevertheless regard it as physically more true than the other, since it has a richer content. Now in this regard no doubt is possible.
Behold the apparent diurnal motion of the stars, and the diurnal motion of the other heavenly bodies, and besides, the flattening of the earth, the rotation of Foucault's pendulum, the gyration of cyclones, the trade-winds, what not else? For the Ptolemaist all these phenomena have no bond between them; for the Copernican they are produced by the one same cause. In saying, the earth turns round, I affirm that all these phenomena have an intimate relation, and that is true, and that remains true, although there is not and can not be absolute space.
The truth for which Galileo suffered remains, therefore, the truth, although it has not altogether the same meaning as for the vulgar, and its true meaning is much more subtle, more profound and more rich."

There is ‘a lot’ in this short section of discussion on ‘science and reality’ and Poincaré goes on to give his view that science is NOT about understanding things so as to be able to build practical applications, but science exists and delivers value for its contribution towards revealing an ‘unfinished harmony’ (the transforming relational spatial plenum);

But, by ‘unraveling’ the relational world and RE-presenting it using the convention of absolute space, we get to ‘jumpstart’ dynamics and make them out to be coming from ‘things-in-themselves’ as in ‘the earth turns’, ... and this is where ‘prediction’ comes from since if we capture the ‘initial conditions’ [location and momentum] of the ‘most important’ ‘things-in-themselves’ (unfettered by being included in a relational spatial plenum), we can step things forward ‘in time’ to calculate a future ‘state of affairs’; i.e. we can ‘predict the future’ and that is a practical application that meanwhile denigrates the relational nature of the world.

As you can probably see, Poincaré is walking along the fence between ‘science’ or ‘reason’ as having value for practical applications, and ‘science’ as a means of revealing the hidden beauty of nature;

“The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living.” --- Poincaré

On one side of the fence is spirituality, aesthetics, the whole ball of wax, ... and on the other is ‘science’ as giving traction to our reasoning and thus to our ability to understand and manage things mechanically.

This fence that we walk separates the reality of yin/yang (the continually transforming relational spatial plenum) from the (sub-)reality of yang (the world of independently-existing things/systems and what they do in an absolute space and absolute time reference frame). This yang reality is where we are reasoners and where we use our scientific reasoning to give traction to our attempts to manage things and to mechanically determined/cause/construct the future state of affairs that we desire.

The yang reality is a reduction from the yin/yang reality.

Yes, I did say;

“—/yet do not declare such difference and proceed to discuss, debate and act on the basis of divergent realities and divergent concepts of organization/”

and THAT IS ‘yang speak’, so that i am using ‘yang speak’ to point to what is going missing; i.e. ‘yin/yang reality’. Like Poincaré, i am pointing to what is going missing.

“My words are fingers pointing to the moon. Do not worship my fingers.” – Zen aphorism

That is, the words merely give a direction, the reader must find the answer himself/herself [the path that can be spoken is not the true path].

My critique of Layla’s Anarcho-Primitivism is that she presents it in terms of our having assimilated a dysfunctional ‘narrative’, the narrative of the ‘predator’ that seeks to domesticate and control nature and everything in it. This view in itself implies a yang reality and in fact ‘sides’ with the yang view of self of the dominating yang European culture, of man, organism, organization as ‘independent reason-driven system’. This is the view of self that has been institutionalized in Western retributive justice and its moral values based laws. Layla’s Anarcho-Primitivism is thus ‘morality based’, arguing that we need to 'undo' the immoral predator narrative and to re-program our ‘independent reason-driven system’ with a more moral narrative, that of herbivore/fruitivore gatherer.

Like Nietzsche, my view is that debating the morality of different theories or narratives is a lost cause, because it depends upon the assumption that man is an ‘independent reason-driven system’, and then argues over what is the correct ‘narrative’ to install in his ‘centre-of-reasoning’. is it ‘libertarian’, ... is it ‘free market competitor/capitalist?’, .. is it ‘communist’, ... and here is where SOME definitions of ‘anarchism’ diverge, ... ‘is it anarchist?’.

Nietzsche was given honorary ‘anarchist’ status by emma goldman, even though it was nietzsche who rejected this yang model of man as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ that purportedly needed to have a better and ‘more moral narrative’ installed in his reasoning centre. nietzsche, like mach, saw the world as a continually transforming relational plenum and man as a relational form within that continually transforming relational plenum. Making ‘man’ or anything else a ‘subject’ that we could append verbs to so as to artificially animate him like a wind-up toy was to Nietzsche ‘a great stupidity’ . He cited Descartes’ ‘I think therefore I am’ as one of these great stupidities. Who says that there needs to be an author for consciousness? Does consciousness die out when man's time on earth expires? [did it only just arrive with man?] Will the last man have to turn off the lights of consciousness in the world?

There does NOT have to be an author for every action in a continuously transforming relational plenum, because, as Emerson observes, the organism is not only inhabited by the genius of nature, it is engendered by the genius of nature. So it is with the hurricane and it is our CONVENTION to NOTIONALLY IMPLANT the authoring source of animation/behaviour/development to the WORD hurricane [the ‘word’ is the ‘thing-itself’ or ‘subject’ which is not the transient relational form in the continually transforming relational space]. After we use our noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar to ‘set up’ the relational form as a notional ‘independent self-animating system’, we are free to formulate all-yang-no-yin constructs like ‘Katrina ravaged New Orleans’.

Let’s face it, our dominating form of conversation is in this yang format.

As an inherent-in-myself ‘indigenous anarchist’ [as my yang reduction of self] my commentaries orient to how we manage to reduce reality to ‘yang-reality’ [a conceptual reality based on independently-existing things that interact in an absolute space and absolute time reference frame]

I am ‘pointing my finger’ to how our reasoning ‘hides the moon’ but i am not showing the reader the moon, ... the reader has to go get his own moon.

Statements such as ‘somebody does something’ are a crock of shit. Is that too scientifically clear? Shit is useful as a fertilizer since it encourages the growth of that which it is not.

That is the only conclusion one can come to when one investigates the role of language in cultivating our understanding of world-and-self. Our reduction to yang reality comes with our mental imposing of absolute Euclidian space which allows us to ‘frame’ relational forms WHICH ARE INHERENTLY BOUND UP IN THE CONTINUALLY TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL SPACE, and notionally make them over into ‘independently-existing objects/systems’;

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

For example, to say ‘the river flows’ is the same sort of nonsense as ‘the earth turns’.

The valley is the collection system that orchestrates and brings into convergence the flow of water from the sky [part of a convecting earth/ocean to sky current] and like a relational spatial lensing, focuses the flow so that it becomes a consolidated powerful cataract. At this point, enter the European with his mind-conditioning noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar who will anoint the relational form in the relational space, with its own subject-being at which point it will be blessed with the gift of the power to locally jumpstart authorship and we can allow it to inflect a variety of verbs to convince ourselves of its local jumpstart authoring capacities; ... ‘the river flows’ .... ‘the river rages’,.... ‘the river floods and overflows its banks’, ... ‘the river meanders’, ... ‘the river flooded the entire valley’, ... ‘the river has washed away portions of the highway’, ... ‘the river has carved out a huge canyon in the terrain’, ... and lots more 'reality-shaping bullshit images' like these.

how to build bullshit understanding, yang understanding, ... from language doesn’t stop with so-called ‘inorganic forms’,... it reaches its heyday with so-called ‘organic forms’ like man;

‘the man raped the woman’, ...’the man shot and killed his brother’ ...

Views on whether these yang statements capture ‘reality’ diverge.

We can also use language to subjectize even bigger things the include other lesser stuff we have subjectized;

The geological record shows that nature has continued to engender new species and to extinguish established species and there is no basis for exempting ‘man’ from this process.

Let’s see now, in the latter statement we say that man is a relational form in a continually transforming relational space, and the former statement we say that man is an ‘independent reason-driven system’ without any mention of his inclusion in a relational complex. we are contradicting ourselves, but why?

We are contradicting ourselves because; ... of the convenience the simple yang subject-authoring formulation of dynamics gives to us;

“And just as our Copernicus said to us : It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of astronomy are expressible in a much simpler language ; this one would say: It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of mechanics are expressible in a much simpler language.”

And likewise for ‘the man rapes the woman’ .... it is the same nonsense as 'the river flows'.

To impute to the man local authorship contradicts the geological understanding that man is included in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum. Kepler identified this problem of contradiction between two models, both held to be ‘true’, and blamed it on teachers and ‘the academies’, as follows;

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

So, we are stuck with the popular view where we confuse ‘the man rapes the woman’ for ‘reality’, and we explain this by saying that the man is an ‘independent reason-driven system’ but with an ‘immoral narrative’ installed in his centre-of-reasoning.

But what about all those guys standing around and cheering him on, and waiting ‘for their turn’? Does that have anything to do with it? or is the case that we are each independent-reason-driven systems fully and solely responsible for our own behaviour?

We have two ways to go here as was the case with the Ptolemaic and Copernican views. In the Ptolemaic view, the stars all moved around in little circles and each of these circular movements on the part of each star had 365.25 day periods. This is quite a coincidence is it not, where everyone is behaving in the same way? But it is a coincidence that disappears when we acknowledge that the observer’s platform is not fixed but is moving with a 365.25 day period relative to the stars.

So, do we explain the seeming coincidence that the members of the gang who are raping the woman all have the same ‘immoral narrative’ installed in the centre of reasoning of their ‘independent reason-driven system’ selves? The observer would have to have a ‘moral narrative’ installed in him as a reference to identify what an ‘immoral narrative’ was. That’s how yang reasoning based ‘reality’ works. It normalizes movement and establishes ourselves as the norm. The baseball bat i am holding still in my hands has zero velocity and momentum and that is the factual truth, and the guy whose head just got cracked open; i.e. the pedestrian who was too close to the curb that the car i am riding in out of whose window my motionless baseball bat is sticking, is wrong to claim that the bat was moving. The momentum of this bat is zero. I admit only that it moved slightly as it was hit by a head that was flying past. Or, given there is a war on and we represent the morally good side, our boys who are bombing and shooting those we have judged to be morally bad ones in seeking 'the good' to prevail, are by definition, 'good'.

So there is a 'normalizing' that has to be incorporated into systems that involve a collection of independent entities. So what about indigenous anarchists who don’t ‘model themselves’ as ‘independent reason-driven systems’? How do they model 'offensive' behaviour?

According to indigenous anarchist [yin/yang] belief, ‘all things are related’ and ‘who we are’ is interdependent with everything else in a material sense [this can lead to a very unique self if we think in terms of our unique SITUATION WITHIN A WEB OF RELATIONS in which case we all would look like ornate sun-fish if we mapped out our relations; i.e. the identity associated with 'independence' in a material sense is diluted but the relational-spatial identity is intensified and indefinitely extended (without any evident limit)]. We are exemplars of an ‘outside-inward orchestrating, converging, receiving [yin] ‘sink’ and an ‘inside-outward asserting, diverging, transmitting [yang] ‘source’ [this is a scientific finger pointing to the moon]. We must ask nature permission to give us what we take from it; i.e. we are the relational dynamic that we are included in. rape is an act that splits apart ‘self’ and ‘other’. We are ‘lost’ when this split occurs;

'Lost' [Pacific Northwest indigenous aboriginal story captured by David Wagoner]

“Stand still. The trees ahead
and bushes beside you
Are not lost. Wherever you are is called Here.
And you must treat it as a powerful stranger.
Must ask permission to know it and be known.
The forest breathes. Listen. It answers.
I have made this place around you.
If you leave it you may come back again.
saying Here.
No two trees are the same to Raven.
No two branches are the same to Wren.
If what a tree or a bush does is lost on you.
You are surely lost. Stand still.
The forest knows
Where you are. You must let it find you.
('Lost' by David Wagoner)

if you believe that the woman in front of you is another aspect of you, as in the yin/yang world of ‘mitakuye oyasin’, then you are going to be thinking along the lines of Frédéric Neyrat;

“In extending his living space in a manner that destroys the space of others, he destroys his own space. Not initially his inside space, his ‘self’, but his outside space, this real outside-of-self which nourishes his ‘inside-of-self’. The protection of this outside space now becomes the condition without which he is unable to pursue the growth of his own powers of being.” — Frédéric Neyrat, ‘Biopolitics of Catastrophe’

* * *

Ok, what was all that above discussion about? --- It was about how we, as different people with different experiences that have differently shaped our ways of seeing things DIFFERENTLY capture the ‘reality’ of our experiencing, and how language helps us and hinders us in this undertaking.

When we just jump into a discussion and say, ‘capitalists are raping the working class’ or etc. we have already paved over and are riding on top of the assumptions and conventions that allowed us to RE-present our observations and experiences in shareable language form.

Of course, our reflex is to get on with the job of ‘fixing the world’ so anyone who delays that action by complexifying the discussion with philosophy investigations tends to be seen as a spoiler.

The quickest thing to get us into action is to assume that ‘those others’ are ‘immoral’ or that they have the ‘wrong narrative’ installed in their ‘centre of reason’, which assumes that they are ‘independent reason-driven systems’, ... the European archetype for man, organism and organization. The U.S. administration is convinced that Iran’s administration-aka-centre-of-reasoning has ‘the wrong narrative’ installed, and is negotiating on the installing of a new more appropriate narrative, ... 'appropriate' in the 'normalized as primary reference' view of the U.S. administration [Goedel's theorem say that the judge that judges all those that cannot judge themselves, cannot judge himself (this is what leads to incompleteness and internal contradiction in systems of logic)].

Iran, meanwhile, is humiliated by the U.S. and its global control over the way things are done [there is just one world and it like a shared bed which is difficult to sleep in when one of the occupants is an elephant], and the rest, like Rodney Dangerfield, are tired of ‘not getting any respect’, thus the actions of the U.S. [backed by the knowledge of having the zeroth order moral narrative installed in its centre of reason] are the source of tensions that manifest via ‘the narrative’ that is installed in Iran’s centre-of-reasoning aka ‘sovereign state administration’.

People who ‘don’t trust’ Iran in the negotiations, like Benjamin Netanyahu, is right about this, but for the wrong reason. Netanyahu is a ‘moralist’ who sees man, organism and organization as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ whose behaviour derives from an internal ‘narrative’ that can be ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ and he sees Iranians as ‘devious’ and ‘immoral’ people who do not live by ‘moral law’ AS THEY SHOULD.

Neither do indigenous anarchists live by ‘moral law’, in fact their yin/yang world view eschews such notions

“Teaching love and duty
provides a fitting language
with which to prove that robbery
is really for the general good.
A poor man must swing,
for stealing a belt buckle,
But if a rich man steals a whole state
He is acclaimed as statesman of the year.”

* * *

My point is that one part of the population accepts as ‘reality’, the view of man, organism, and organization as ‘independent reason-driven system’. Now if you accept that, you’d better make sure that a ‘moral narrative’ is installed in all these centres of reasoning or else things will be a hell of a mess in short order. How do we come up with a 'standard' or 'norm' for a moral narrative we can all reference our behaviour to? There is no way other than the principle of Lafontaine 'La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure'.

This is the ‘yang’ world view that Benjamin Netanyahu is coming from and where the majority of people in our European culture dominated world are coming from. This is the Western world view which Nietzsche is saying is full of shit and it is the view that indigenous anarchists want no part of.

The alternative view is not a ‘moral narrative’ requiring view since it does not depend on the notion of man, organism and organization as an ‘independent reason-driven system’ but instead, sees man, organism and organization in the yin-yang terms of ‘relational form in a continually transforming relational space’ where the belief is that everything is related and where the ethic is to cultivate and sustain relational balance and harmony. This leads to restorative justice wherein everyone understands that ‘it takes a whole community to raise a criminal’ and in an environment of multiple nations; ‘it takes a whole community of nations to raise a criminal-nation’. Thus Benjamin Netanyahu is part of the problem but he places himself and his nation on MORAL HIGH GROUND which is like Euclidian space in that it absolutizes the inhabitants, making them over into ‘independent reason-driven systems’ and explaining their behaviour in terms of their ‘internal narrative’ in which case a manifest ‘disturbing behaviour’ that causes offense is interpreted as ‘bad behaviour’ coming from an ‘immoral narrative’ or ‘heretical narrative’ or ‘anarchist narrative’.

There is nothing like the indigenous anarchist belief that ‘it takes a whole community of nations to raise a criminal-nation’ in the Western world yang view because all of that web of relations is gone in an absolutized space, the space of science and religion that comes with a theological or secularized-theological belief that all things are created equal and independent, an absolutized view that sees man, organism and organization in terms of ‘independent reason-driven systems’ which then require ‘moral narratives’ in the notional reasoning-centres that drive and direct their behaviours.

That’s what was behind my ‘scientific’ statement regarding this problem of a world collective that splits into two radically different views of what constitutes ‘reality’ [yang and yin/yang realities]

“—/yet do not declare such difference and proceed to discuss, debate and act on the basis of divergent realities and divergent concepts of organization/”

what would my or anyone's chances be in debating Netanyahu and convincing him to climb down off his 'moral high horse'? ... or to get the U.S. administration to get off their 'moral high horse'?

Netanyahu has 'good reason' to be scared of what U.S. deals with Iran may bring. The problem is that no nation is 'independent' in this world. If Iran were independent, they wouldn't be being humiliated by the sanctions against them and having to come hat in hand to the negotiating table. The alliance of stewards of moral authority have the power to humiliate any state in the world that resists their way of doing things, culturally, morally, financially.

Note that the continuing 'indian wars' are not 'racist', they seek cultural genocide, to 'kill the indian in the child'. The European culture which believes in a yang reality believes in a moral standard for 'managing behaviour'. The yang reality and moral management of behaviour go together. That is what is going on in the world today; i.e. those that want to manage the social dynamic on the basis of moral standards of behaviour because the see man, organism and organization as 'independent reason-driven systems' with internal narrative driven and directed behaviour are in basic conflict with indigenous anarchists who see the world as a mutually interdependent relational spatial dynamic.

Sovereigntism promotes a view of the world in terms of 'independent nation-states'. The most powerful states get to humiliate the less powerful states by imposing their own culture and practices within an interdependent world. Who can refuse? There is just one interdependent world and this notion of 'independence' is bullshit. When some participants are humiliated in an interdependent system, when the interdependencies are acknowledged, the solution is 'restorative justice', to adjust the relations so as to cultivate and sustain balance and harmony. But if people see the collection of states as 'independent' and explain disturbing behaviour (e.g. by those who feel humiliated) as jumpstarting from the interior of their 'independent reason-driven system-selves', ... in denial of the interdependencies which enable the powerful to overwhelm and humiliate the less powerful, ... then we have what Bohm calls 'incoherence' [ 'incoherence' is where we use a reason-based model of reality to respond to a physical reality which differs from the reason-based reality resulting in a gap between predicted and actual results due to the gap between the 'realities'. If we then develop a new suite of actions to close the gap using the same flawed 'yang reality', we are in trouble since the gap did not derive from flaws in our actions but from flaws in our 'perception of reality'.

The U.S. administration, in alliance with other 'yang-reality states', is engaging in a global social dynamics management approach based on 'moral standards/norms of behaviour'. This approach is grounded in a bullshit 'yang reality' that claims that each state is independent and has its own behaviour which is internal 'narrative' driven and directed. This is used to justify the most powerful yang states dominating the world's practices and movements to humiliate and exploit the less powerful with impunity, creating 'rebels' whose violent behaviour can only be coming from one place, in the yang world view, from their internal narrative since every man, organism and state/organization is seen as an independent reason-driven system.

as Nietzsche argued at length (e.g. Beyond Good and Evil), as long as we try to manage things on a 'moral' basis using 'retributive justice' (these two approaches are both based on the notion of man as an independent reason-driven system), we are screwed.

* * *

tl;dr The world is currently in conflict between believers in a 'yang reality' who see man, organisms and organizations as 'independent reason-driven systems' animated by 'internal narratives' which can be either 'good' or 'evil' [moral or immoral]. ... and believers in 'yin/yang reality' who see man, organisms and organizations as relational forms within a continually transforming relational spatial plenum. the yang reality is illusion which blinds the believer to the fact that it is relational interdependence that is generating conflict that cannot coherently be explained and attacked in terms of immoral narratives operating within the rebelling 'independent reason-driven systems'. Since this delusional yang-reality based morality system has entrenched itself via authority-driven yang organizational structures policed by moral law based 'retributive justice systems', it has established 'lock-in' through global alliances of same yang authoritarian structures. The forces of change are accordingly relegated to the ranks of the common people, however, many of the rebels ALSO (like those moralists in power) see the solution in terms of infusing 'IMPROVED MORAL NARRATIVES' into the people, ... the people SEEN (also by the rebels) IN YANG TERMS of 'independent reason-driven systems'. Their 'war' thus remains a morality based war between those who have been installing the new 'more-moral narratives' and those who continue with the old 'morally defective' 'capitalist narratives'.

on the sidelines, indigenous anarchists reject the whole YANG model of man, organism and organization as 'independent reason-driving systems', seeing man, organism and organization instead in the YIN/YANG view as relational features within a continually transforming relation spatial plenum. therefore, indigenous anarchists are not campaigning to infuse a new and more moral narrative into others seen as 'independent reason-driven systems' but reject that whole YANG model, and seek instead to 'decolonize' land and open up some breathing room so that they can restore a social dynamic based on 'mitakuye oyasin', the understanding that we are all related, from which restorative justice follows ['it takes a whole community to raise a criminal'] which obliterates the practice of morality based management of the social dynamic.

to apology for rape: the man doesn't rape the women, the whole community does? such bullshit! men individual men can and must take personal responsibility for their own actions and not blame "the way I was raised" and other excuses!

is it a recursive name...

Watch his lips. If they're moving, he's bullshitting you. As in using the word "recursive" when talking about a name. Names aren't characterized by recurrence or repetition, you fucking idiot.

Evidently, you subscribe to the secularized theological model of man as an ‘independent reason-driven system’.

In a figure-and-ground view with the rape going on in the foreground, we can zoom out and take in more of the relational spatial continuum aka ‘ground’ and begin to get the sense of a transforming habitat, as in a hieronymous bosch painting perhaps. As the relational transformation continues, we see periods in which rapes increase in frequency and decrease in frequency and we get the sense that the zoomed in on foreground figures in the rape are somehow related to the changes going on in the overall community, and that the figures we were homed in on, the man who was raping the woman, could not be fully understood ‘on their own’, out of the context of the changing community dynamic these actions were included in.

When we zoom in on a Vietnamese village in wartime, we see American soldiers raping women in the midst of a crazy relational spatial dynamic that DOES look like a Hieronomous Bosch painting, and we have to ask ourselves whether it is ‘realistic’ to understand the scene in terms of a collection of ‘independent reason-driven systems’ or whether to interpret it as indigenous aboriginals would, where the relations in the web of relations is in precedence over the ‘what notional things-in-themselves are doing’ view of the dynamic.

The restorative justice of the indigenous aboriginals would seek to restore balance and harmony in the full web of relations as the primary action, dealing with the rapes as the secondary result; i.e. understanding the situation in terms that ‘it takes a whole community to raise a rapist’.

The soldier that is in a war ridden community where life is no longer respected and where he may become a victim at any moment, may abandon his standards and become disrespectful of the entire community and its members. There are psychological war-zones even where there are no overt wars, and individuals caught up in this may, like the soldiers in the war zone, abandon their normal protocols.

The phrase ‘caught up in this’ implies outside-inward orchestrating influence that shapes inside-outward asserting behaviour. Of course, this does not exist in the Western civilization model of man as an ‘independent reason-driven system’, therefore the only place we can point to as the jumpstart source of his rapist behaviour is his centre-of-reasoning where his ‘reason-based behavioural narrative’ resides, and if he manifests the rape behaviour, there is no other choice but to attribute the sourcing of this behaviour to his internal ‘reason-based behavioural narrative’.

This is the view of Western retributive justice so that the corresponding response is to prosecute and eliminate rapists.

Of course, if rape originates ‘upstream’ of the rapist, in the relational spatial dynamics the rapist is situationally included in, then attributing the rape fully and solely to the rapist will not address the source.

The indigenous elder, in looking at the rape, would be thinking ‘our community is falling out of balance, we must all gather together and find a way to recultivate and sustain balance and harmony in our web of relations’.

Of course, the Western retributive justice oriented person will look upon the rape as if they have nothing whatsoever to do with it, attributing the source of the nasty act to a nastiness residing fully and solely in the interior of the rapist.

And as the society goes through a relational frazzling phase when rapes become more frequent, the retributive justice observer/moral judge will be like the person with the Ptolemaic cosmology who sees all the stars with the same curious behaviour of the 365.25 day period circling; i.e. the moral judge will see the numerous rapes as a ‘coincidence’ of the ‘nasty minds think alike’ type since he/she himself/herself has ‘zero involvement’, as least that's the view that follows if one assumes that one lives in an absolute space is empty where it is not populated with ‘independent reason-driven systems’ who are fully and solely responsible for whatever good or nasty ‘narratives’ residing in their centre-of-reason that jumpstart drive and direct their behaviours. and, of course, if you buy into that secularized theological reason-and-morality bullshit, you get to join the crowd that accords zero involvement to themselves and is free to point the finger elsewhere and apply a full 100% attribution to others out there.

"Don't make excuses for terrorists" was the rallying cry after 9/11 [e.g. by G.W Bush to counter assertions by Canadian PM Jean Chretien and others that we were all partly to blame for 9/11], ... because then we can be in a position to attribute 100% of the source of the problem to those 'independent reason-driven systems' out there, and zero involvement to ourselves, without having to adjust anything that we are doing. That moral high ground is something that the powerful can afford to put themselves on. How about 'don't make excuses for anarchists'?

This is why you don't have a girlfriend and spend all your time writing long comments that no one reads. You have your head up your ass and any woman who comes close to you realizes it. Now go masturbate some more.

~both of these ‘conventions’ give us different ways to describe/depict/RE-present/portray
/'Organize'? To say that languages are for describing, like to say that they are for capturing, sounds like taking languages and their 'organizing' for granted...

("The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions")...

~If we share an experience, while the experience may be one thing, our depictions of it may be very different
But do we ever really 'share' an 'experience'...

~in which most of the participants agree that the modern social dynamic is dysfunctional
I don't agree, nor disagree. And it is more like 'social dynamics'... Just like we don't have different ways of slicing the same 'apple', but it is more like 'apples'.

~and if nature were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living/
What a NERD

~Like Nietzsche, my view is that debating the morality of different theories or narratives is a lost cause, because it depends upon the assumption that man is an ‘independent reason-driven system’
Well, talking about other people's 'views'... But that was not 'Nietzsche's view'. He didn't 'need' a 'reason' not to debate morality.

Those who argue about right and wrong, are those enslaved by right and wrong.

~We must ask nature permission to give us what we take from it; i.e. we are the relational dynamic that we are included in. rape is an act that splits apart ‘self’ and ‘other’. We are ‘lost’ when this split occurs

What's the matter, are you 'lost' without some sort of 'relational narrative'...

When an ignorant man realizes it, he is a sage.

When a sage understands it, he is ignorant.

If you believe?

Neyrat's thinking is that of a hippy baka

Calling everything a 'brother', you think your so 'nondualist', huh... But by talking about a brother YOU HAVE ALREADY FALLEN INTO DUALISM. ww

~Of course, our reflex is to get on with the job of ‘fixing the world’ so anyone who delays that action by complexifying the discussion with philosophy investigations tends to be seen as a spoiler
I don't have such reflex... And what the hell's up with that job...

No thank you~

Is it ever really in conflict though...

You say;

"Calling everything a 'brother', you think your so 'nondualist', huh... But by talking about a brother YOU HAVE ALREADY FALLEN INTO DUALISM. ww"

your comments are like the comment by 'bullshit detector';

"where does this philosophical mumbo-jumbo lead? apology for rape: the man doesn't rape the women, the whole community does? such bullshit! men individual men can and must take personal responsibility for their own actions and not blame "the way I was raised" and other excuses!"

that is, you automatically assume that 'brothers' refers to 'independent reason-driven systems', that are insulated from one another by absolute empty space, as is the standard Western civilization 'psychological programming'.

if you were interested in even 'considering' the indigenous aboriginal or modern physics view, you would see 'brothers' in light of relational space; i.e. "The dynamics of the brothers are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the brothers" [Mach's principle].

This is the nondualist view of brothers who share inclusion as uniquely situationally included relational forms in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

it appears as if you and bullshit detector both, in spite of having apparently read [since you are commenting on it] a commentary on the difference between the yin/yang (nondualist) and yang (dualist) realities, ... are unable to interpret the commentary in any other terms but yang terms.

it's you who intends the word 'brother' as 'dualist', not i. to me, 'brother' is to be understood in the non-dualist sense. i don't live my life in an absolute space populated by 'independent reason-driven systems', ... although i have to try to get along with a lot of people who believe they do. that is, i am in the 'same boat' as any indigenous anarchist living under colonialism.

just joking dude

i don't even

—Vimalakirti remains silent while discussing the subject of emptiness with an assembly of bodhisattvas. The bodhisattvas give a variety of answers on the question what non-duality is. Manjusri is the last bodhisattva to answer, and says that "by giving an explanation they have already fallen into dualism"

that was my point. as soon as we mouth the words 'rapist' and 'rape-victim' we are in dualist mode. dualism splits us apart from the dynamic we are looking at, and puts us, the observer and moral judge, on the moral high ground. we insulate ourselves from the dynamic we are looking out at by imputing binary opposition between the subject and object 'out there' (the 'offender' - 'victim' construct).

in Western retributive justice, the state promulgates laws specifying prohibited behaviours. the state then becomes the victim and the law-breaker becomes the offender and no-one else is seen as being involved. The whole community apart from the offender-victim dualism (polar pair) is exonerated, no matter how much the relational dynamics of community have contributed to relational tensions and the eruption of conflict.

Pronouncing the words 'victim' - 'offender' is already declaring dualism. As the non-dualist aphorism goes; "Once having created duality, conflict is inevitable."

When conflict erupts in a group of non-dualist brothers and sisters [e.g. in the social dynamics of indigenous aboriginal traditionalists], those dualist words need never be uttered and the rough stuff is assimilated within the continuing relational dynamics so that the orientation is to healing injuries and restoring balance and harmony in the relational web that constitutes 'community'. This can apply even where the conflict involves death and/or serious injury.

retributive justice aka dualist justice, the justice of European dualist-civilization, comes from the delusion of conceiving of individuals as 'independent reason-driven systems' that purportedly live in an absolute space and absolute time reference-frame-come-notional-operating-theatre.

there's, so to speak, being hurried into pressing words into service... and then there's that

in a relationally transforming milieu there is no beginning. "in the beginning is the word" the word is God. what else can create beginnings in a flowing world without beginning, a continually transforming relational spatial milieu/plenum, ... other than some agency that transcends the continuing flow and establishes an absoluteness like a 'being'. the eternal (has neither beginning nor ending) BEING is a description of a 'word' such as 'I' as in 'I am'. out of utterances such as 'I am' and 'He is' that proclaim 'being', we successfully though synthetically break into the flow-continuum of our experience and establish some solid ground, a rock in the flow, a 'petrification' of the flow, a 'Peter' on which to build our Church; i.e. our source of absolute facts, our religious belief in 'facts' made out of words. as Nietzsche says, as long as we have language-and-grammar, we have God.

I'm going to declare Pseudo Dualism! You better have your nondualist hats on, or else!

Hi Emile my true anarchist friend, ignore these fools! By the way, I believe as Nietzsche said, that what doesn't kill me makes me stronger! I am living proof of this dictum! I have observed many instances of the yin-yang convergence, however, instilling this awareness of a causal yin-yang methodological framework within a social interrelational fabric is going to be a hard call, but we can only persevere, and I can only offer you my limited knowledge of theoretical anarchist support. I am more the hands on type of person, if you were in my part of the woods you would be most welcome to stay at my cabin and we could experience the biological anarchist environment and go hunting and gathering the sustenance to be free of factory servitude. Stay strong and good on you friend!

what doesn't destroy

where you say;

“, instilling this awareness of a causal yin-yang methodological framework within a social interrelational fabric is going to be a hard call, but we can only persevere”

my view is that the important effort is to try to ensure that the awareness of the possibility that the world dynamic is yin/yang is at least in the back of people’s minds, so that they can more easily ‘retrieve this awareness’ when they start seeing stuff that demands a yin/yang interpretation [that demands that they suspend the yang delusion].

i think europe is going to be where it happens because the confusion is rising more rapidly in europe due to the conflict between the juxtaposition of ‘diversity-in-the-macro’ (diverse sovereign states/nations) and ‘diversity in the micro’, so-called ‘multiculturalism’.

here are two ways to slice the apple of organization that are producing a polarized head-butting conflict.

1. multiculturalism is like an uncontrolled stateless mix of tribes; i.e. it is like the world before the spread of sovereign states where a diverse plurality has to work things out themselves, like wolf and man, eagle and salmon.

2. sovereigntism is like a mechanical collection of components that has to be managed by reasoned negotiations and debates wherein ‘nationalism’ is the ‘new tribalism’ with a difference; i.e. its organization is reason-driven and directed and its relations are reason-based.

anarchists have always put anarchistic multiculturalism in precedence over nationalism (industrial workers of the world etc. etc.).

but look what is happening all over the globe today, a clash between (1.) and (2.).

this is essentially the clash of anarchism and authoritarianism.

if you listen to reports like this one that say, ... guess what?;

‘multiculturalism is a failed experiment’.

the editorial view in the video amounts to; .. “we tried this mix of natural (multicultures left to find their own relational balance) organizing along with reason-driven organizing (state-directed organization) and its a mess, so our conclusion is that nature doesn’t work’.

would such reviewers ever even think of the possibility that ‘sovereigntism is a failed experiment’?

obviously, ‘sovereigntism’ is the base case lens he is looking out through. of course you can’t see the lenses you are looking out through in your field of vision. he is looking at the ‘yang figures’ without even acknowledging the primary-influence (discriminatory) of the yin-ground of sovereigntism, a reason-driven scheme that uses an organizing technique called ‘the tyranny of the majority’ aka ‘representative democracy’.

‘sovereigntism’ is a ‘secularized theological concept’ invented by followers [secularized and/or overtly religious] of the Christian religion to control spaces and everything in them by colonizing them;

“The emergence of the sovereign state was ... the necessary instrument of Europe's colonial expansion.” – Joseph A. Camilleri "Rethinking Sovereignty in a Shrinking, Fragmented World."

The Christian Church and the Christian ‘secular authorities’ worked together to promote the dominance (domination) of Christian beliefs in the world; i.e. to spread goodness throughout the world and to get rich in the process, a noble tradition that the U.S. and its allies are continuing to follow. Has anything changed in 500 years?

As the Chronicler of the Cortes expedition, Fray Bernal Diaz del Castillo put it;

"Hemos venido aquí a servir a Dios y al Rey, y también a hacernos ricos" ("We came here to serve God and the King, and also to get rich")

Yes, something has changed, ... the word ‘God’ has been taken out of it (reserved for internal use as in ‘God bless America’ and 'In God we trust'.) and the King has been replaced by ‘President’.

So, the ‘Christian’ connection went underground and sovereigntism became the secularization of Christian beliefs. That is, Christian nationalism subsumed the global religious affiliation, opening the door for Christian nations to put nationalism first so that they could go to war against their Christian brothers; i.e. to put the secular “hacemos ricos” before the theological “servir a Dios”.

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

the Europeans who put themselves in control of sovereign states by maintaining powerful armies and arranging alliances of the colonial powers, ... seem to have taken care to put more SECULARIZED ‘European Christian-Judaic power’ into the now globally pervading sovereigntist scheme.

But many of the world’s (now) 1.6 billion muslims never did put secularized sovereigntist nationalism, into precedence over their religious affiliation so that their informal organization tends to have more global coherency than statist coherency, a different way to slice the apple of organization, tensioned by the fact that muslims often find themselves as minorities in secularized-Christian-nationalist states like France.

global ‘terrorist’ organizations have been clearly warned of Christian ‘just war theory’ which says that it is only lawful for sovereign states with duly elected-by-the-people governments to wage war, ... and not informal global affiliations. so it is outrageous that such informal global affiliations, having been designated ‘ineligible combattants’ should ignore the rules of just war-making and wage battle anyhow.

even though there is a clear violation of the rules of war-making here, the practical reality is that if countries like France want to get serious about laws that prohibit veil wearing and other legally prohibited minority practices like blocking streets by praying, these global brotherhoods, in spite of being ineligible combattants may swing into action anyway.

the IWW was also an ‘ineligible combattant’ that did rally some global clout in the early 1900s, enough to influence a lot of change and to get Giovannitti and Ettor out of a tight spot, but those were the early days.

communications have made global influence more rally-able and at the same time, the public has become less tolerant of extreme actions by a state, in suppressing protest. It used to be ok, in the heyday of the white European supremacist sovereign states to say ‘the only good indian is a dead indian’ and to just go out there and shoot a bunch to get them to get them back to following whatever the state told them to do and where to go. And even recently, when U.S. allies like Saddam (prior to Kuwait) who gassed a few thousand Kurds in their multicultural disciplinary efforts, this didn't stop the handshakes and smiles from his U.S. allies (after all, whatever you can keep behind of smokescreen of obfuscation is ok, ... the contras, and stuff like that is just the emergent tip of the iceberg, the real way to use power that mustn't be exposed).

Today, the military is stronger than ever and the weapons are better than ever, .. so why not ‘Vive la France’ and ‘the only good muslim is a dead muslim’?

NO CAN DO any more. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT THE VALLEY IS THE SOURCE OF THE RIVER’S POWER; i.e. the source of the sovereign state’s yang power is the purely relational dynamic that the sovereign state is included in.

‘yang power rules!’ ... ‘powerboaters rule!’ ... NOT!

even though all we actually ‘see’ in the foreground figure dynamics is the ‘yang action’, it is 'more true' that the animating source of that yang action derives from relational spatial dynamics that, like gravity and other ‘fields’, is non-local, non-visible and non-material. We said that ‘Katrina ravaged New Orleans’ and we say that we ‘saw her do it’. Of course, if we had been using an indigenous language we would have said that 'the sky was storming'. That is, we would not have notionally re-located the animating source from the relational spatial yin/yang dynamic to the notionally all-yang-no-yin subjectized noun-word ‘storm’. It seems that the yang power of the state has never really ‘come from the state’. Perhaps the decline of the power of the state is like Stephen Jay Gould’s observations on the decline of .400 hitters; i.e. their original yang hitting power derived from poor fielding.

“Listen, we got a great deal for you here, chief, ... all of these coloured beads for that dirty worthless island of Manhattan, ... yes, i know, we’re crazy but that’s your good fortune [high fives amongst the colonizers as the chief departs with the coloured beads,... ‘we just hit ourselves a home run!’]

in nature, the accommodating influence of the valley is the source of the power of the river.

* * *

the bottom line is that the reviewers who claim that ‘the multicultural experiment is failing’ are getting things upside-down; i.e. it is NOT that the multicultural experiment is failing’, ... it is instead that ‘the global fielding [multicultural-anarchism] is rising’ while the yang power of sovereigntism is failing’. Sovereigntism is an experiment in pure yang dynamics [self-delusion]. But the world is becoming more like a gigantic ‘learning circle’ where everyone gets to openly share their heart-felt experience and this outside-inward orchestrating influence or ‘groundswell dynamic’ is shaping individual and collective inside-outward asserting behaviour.

when people get tired of trying to fit all this stuff into an all-yang-no-yin ‘reason and morality’ framework, the yin/yang understanding will be there waiting since it is and always has been the operative dynamic throughout, and it is not that people will pick it up as a ‘superior narrative’, it is instead that they will suspend the delusional yang reality narrative called Western civilization that noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar has them/us trapped in.

While you are alone and masturbating, we're at a party, laughing at you. Get a fucking life!

Must be some party!

Got any to share with us?

Coz you know it's getting scarce these days, especially with our lives being formatted by technology.

This 'quandary of ethical direction' concerning sustainability and a perpetuation of the Western ideological legacy, humph, the slow motion continuation of the social and biological rape of this Earth by proxy, well, it angers me! For a start I don't think Diamond should be slotted in as compatible with Graeber, they are not comparable, in fact Diamond examines the essential qualitative characteristics of cultures whereas Graeber pursues a political power motive within the social fabric of the mono-culturist Western scenario. I don't believe this Marxist interpretation of global longevity by Layla is relevant, oh, but forgive me, I'm an ol' fucker who goes out and shoots wild animals to feed my family, but I'm judged as -evil- or -cruel- yet the culture that imprisons animals and sends them to the equivalent of animal death row is some how Ok, cos all the liberals pick up their nicely packaged slaughtered meat from the super-market?! How does that work in the hypocrisy equation?

hi bob,

if i am tapping into where you are coming from, you seem to be backing away from moral judgements of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ which are the underpinnings of politics and Western justice. and if Diamond, in his suggestion that we re-equip ourselves with outlooks and practices of the aboriginal tradition [i have only read ‘of Diamond’ and haven’t read his work] then i could have something in common with him,... with the proviso that he is seeing value in a non-judgemental assessment of social dynamics.

to me, views that are coming from a ‘moral highground’ are seeded with the same problematic issue they are seeking to resolve.

‘reason’ and ‘morality’ are the source of our collective dysfunction.

‘reason’ and ‘morality’ orient to ‘yang’ dynamics; i.e. to the dualist view in terms of ‘doers’ and ‘done-tos’, ‘offenders’ and ‘victims’, ‘good works’ and ‘bad works’.

this is all ‘yang stuff’. the dualist view = the yang view ... which provides the foundation for the notion of ‘good-and-bad’, ‘better-and-worse’.

you distinguish between Diamond and Graeber as follows;

“in fact Diamond examines the essential qualitative characteristics of cultures whereas Graeber pursues a political power motive within the social fabric of the mono-culturist Western scenario.”

there are many ways to slice an apple, as we can observe from the many different points of view as to ‘what is wrong and we should be doing’.

let’s explore that a little bit; e.g. none of us, however academically versed or non-versed have any problem in second guessing the views of any of the famous scholars regardless of their acclaim by academia and the public. we find it easy to claim that our ideas are BETTER THAN those of Marx, Diamond, Graeber, ... yet we continue to explore the ideas of celebrities. what about the views of the ‘rejects’?

Diamond, like most academics, puzzles over why humans have 98% of the same genes as chimpanzees are yet so different. Why not go to one of the people who modern academia has rejected for the answer to that? We could conjecture as to what Mach would say (his relational views were heresy), or Lamarck (his relational views of fluides incontenables exciting fluides contenables were laughed down to the bottom of the pyramid of worse and better biological theories), or Schroedinger (his relational views made his say that he wished he had had nothing to do with quantum theory given the way it ended up being sold).

Graeber is having trouble staying within academia, which to me is a good sign. Diamond is a winner of the National Medal of Science and other awards which suggests that his ideas appeal the established field of ideas.

This is just ‘another way to slice the apple’, ... another way to bin and compare. In fact it is a yin/yang way rather than the usual yang way, because it does not assess achievements but instead assesses the ‘fit’ between ‘established ideas’ and ‘the author’s works’.

To go back to the question of why Chimps and humans, who are so different, have 98% the same genes, invites us to ask; why the question? The question arises because of the established Aristotelian yang view that ‘acorns cause oak trees’ and ‘genomes’ produce organisms, ... you know, those ‘independent internal process driven systems’ that interact within an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre.

Lamarck, Mach, Nietzsche, Schroedinger would all say in a chorus of unison; ‘that is not the question’. ‘you are suffering from the usual Western civilization delusion that dynamics are ‘yang’. Dynamics are ‘yin/yang’ not ‘yang’ and furthermore, the yin valley is always dancing the lead and the yang, which is all you are seeing, is the follower in the dance.’

It is the valley that gathers and concentrates water into the river. to speak of the river as a ‘doer of deeds’ and of the terrain as ‘the done-to’ is dualism, yang delusion.

In biology, the ‘epigenome’ is the yin valley that dances the lead and the ‘genome’ is the follower. the ‘epigenome’ is informed by the particular environmental conditions by the receptors and the yang ‘effectors’ asserting themselves as the genomic yang activity is the follower in the dance.

If you want to understand the ‘asserting-fluid behaviour of the river’ (yang), you have to look first to ‘valley orchestrating influence’ (yin) and understand the two as the coniunctio of both (yin/yang = relational spatial transformation).

If your mind is caught up in thinking in one-sided ‘yang’ terms you ARE going to be PUZZLED.

Now, you don’t need a highschool education to find value in this Machean, Lamarckian, Nietzschean, Schroedingerian view of dynamics EVEN THOUGH is contradicts the established yang theories of academia. Of course you have to realize that the language of academia is ‘yang language’ so one is ‘expelled’ if one insists on letting ‘yin’ get her demonized-by-science foot in the door. This is one reason for not expecting useful ideas to come from academic-insiders since there is all kinds of gate-keeping to keep yin out, and to define ‘science’ in pure yang terms. That’s why Mach, in his words, ‘Quit the Church of Physics’.

btw. Nietzsche’s formulation of evolution is in terms of yin/yang transformation that is immanent in nature and thus is operative in river/valley transformation and genomic/epigenomic transformation;

“Nietzsche drew heavily on the ideas of an obscure Anglo-German zoologist, William Rolph (‘Biologische Probleme’) [so Moore says but it is also implicit in Mach’s Die Mechanik] … Rolph denies the existence of an instinct for self-preservation – or at the very least rejects the notion that such a drive represents the principle motivation of animal behaviour. Rather, life seeks primarily to expand itself. This elementary proposition is expressed as a law of assimilation, a law operative in both the organic and inorganic world. Growth, Rolph argues, is determined by a process of diffusion, in which endosmosis predominates over exosmosis. All organic functions, from nutrition and reproduction right up to evolution, can be explained by, and reduced to, this fundamental activity; they are not, as most contemporary biologists assumed, a manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation.” – Gregory Moore, ‘Nietzsche, Biology and Metaphor’.”

The ‘survival instinct’ is something you have to invent after you have modeled an ‘organism’ and ‘man’ and ‘organization’ as ‘independent reason-driven systems’,... in order to keep your simple but abstract yang model ‘hanging together’.

The other choice, in a relational space, is to sustain inside-outward asserting --- outside-inward orchestrating (yin/yang) balance. The sailboaters in the storm let the orchestrating influence of the turbulent flow he is situationally included in [the relational spatial dynamic he is situationally included in] shape their individual and collective actions in such a manner that they derive motive power and steerage from it even as they are transforming it in the process. In these view we keep the ‘ground’ in the figure-and-ground picture of dynamics, whereas, in conceiving of the ‘organism’ as an ‘independent reason-driven system’, we have ‘dropped the ground out of the picture’ and are forced to explain the behaviour of the organism as if it were a ‘powerboater’ that was driven and steered all from the inside, from internal processes.

Now, academics who ‘rise to the top of society’ in their holdings of wealth and power may be living the life of the powerboater, having forgotten, if they had ever experienced it, the days when all they could manage was to ‘stay afloat’. But in any case, if you agree with the Machean, Lamarckian view that the ‘sailboater’ or ‘yin/yang’ view is more ‘realistic’ than the ‘powerboater’ or ‘yang’ view,... then you are going against the gatekept yang views of science and academia, and you are pissing on Darwinism, which makes academics like Richard Dawkins [who installed the survival instinct even deeper than in the organism; i.e. in the gene, as in ‘selfish gene’] froth at the mouth. And as the film ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ documents, you will be expelled from academia if you let the demonized ‘yin’ get her foot in the door [the film-makers got the ‘expelling’ part right but they had the rest of it all mixed up with religious beliefs].

In my view, one has to look for relevant ideas where the idea-sharer is being booed by academia. One has to be on guard that those individual who ‘can do the academic stuff’ may be cheered by academia for that to the point that they can ‘get away with’ ideas that don’t fit the purified all-yang-no-yin standards of academia. People like Graeber are ‘testing the limits’ of what one can say without QUITE getting expelled.

Fortunately, many of us in this discussion forum can say whatever the shit we like without fear of expulsion, unless we are simply trying to destroy that freedom. So we can decide, right here and now, for example, that academia has it all wrong, that Darwinism is a prime example of what is wrong with academia (all-yang-no-yin blindered thinking).

I have no doubt this is where indigenous anarchists are, but there are lots of yang addicts defining themselves as ‘anarchists’ but most of their positions boil done to ‘yang positions’ that they argue are BETTER THAN (here comes the moral high ground of dualism again) the established capitalist, authoritarian positions. of course the only way to have a yang position popularly accepted is for that strain of ‘yang reasoning’ to be accepted as a common ‘program’ inside of every person that sees themselves as a ‘powerboater’; i.e. as an Enlightenment European ‘independent reason-driven system’, ... so that when masses of people pick up their copy of the ‘new yang narrative’ and install it in the ‘reasoning centre’ of themselves, the ‘independent reason-driven system’, ... then all such systems will be mooing and lowing along in unison,... until, of course, they encounter another herd moving up the valley in the opposite direction telling them that they are going the wrong way and turn themselves around and go in the same direction as them.

This is the way of REASON and MORALITY which comes bundled in with the all-yang-no-yin worldview.

To tie this back to shooting animals.

In the indigenous anarchist yin/yang worldview, we are all included in one relational activity continuum, a view which is confirmed by modern physics and described by Mach’s principle; “the dynamics of the inhabitants [rivers, figures] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat [valleys, ground] at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat [valleys, ground] are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants [rivers, figures].”

So, if we dump our old antifreeze out, it changes the habitat, and our other brothers are continually engaging with the common habitat and their children (children are always the most innocent) lick up the sweet-tasting fluid and die. But we believe we can understand dynamics in doer-deed terms, and we can see what happens when we dump our old antifreeze, the ground gets moist, but nothing of any interest happens, not according to our doer-deed, cause-effect analysis, and no human would lick stuff off the ground where dogs piss and shit etc. and if he did, he would be responsible for his own actions just like each of us is responsible for our own actions.

The modern physics notion that we are relational forms in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum, on the other hand, would say that the space we live in is another aspect of ourselves; i.e. that Brahman = Atman as in the non-dualist view.

Anyhow, hunting and consuming another relational form is, in general, the story of nature; i.e. it is the yin/yang story of continuing relational spatial transformation. the phytoplankton consume sunbeams and the plankton consume phytoplankton and the little fish consume the plankton and the big fish consume the little fish and the whales consume the big fish and there are similar ecosystem feeding webs on land and man is to the terrestrials like the whale is to the marine feeding web. Whales have those great big baby eyes that invite our sympathy and feelings of brotherhood, like seal pups, but have you ever seen the look of terror in a seal when killer whales are nearby, when the seal jumps into your boat and won’t get out?

Out of nature’s diversity of forms, we say that ‘social behavioural protocols’ evolve, and this is the ‘idea’ that academia uses as its operative reference frame. This is a ‘yang’ view and there is an implied ‘morality’ here in that ‘some behaviours are better than others’ which leads to a linear ranking going from ‘bad’ to ‘good’. This morality is implicit in Zerzan and Layla’s viewpoint, where it is better to be a herbivore than a carnivore etc.

But ‘social behavioural protocols’ is the yang view, and the yin/yang view is that in a habitat that includes a diversity of forms that move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence, a dynamic not solvable for individual behaviour where 3 or more forms are involved, ... the quest for cultivating balance is immanent in the overall dynamic [in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum] so that the evolving of ‘social behaviour protocols’ is just the ‘river aspect’ or follower moves of the dance-lead coming from the orchestrating influence of the ‘valley-aspect’, the outside-inward orchestrating influence of the relational spatial dynamics one is included in.

But of course, if one is addicted to the ‘yang view’, and if one is presuming that the organism is an ‘independent reason-driven system’ then one assumes that the ‘social behavioural protocols’ [layla calls these ‘narratives’] are being created by the intelligence in the ‘independent reason-driven systems’. And this starts up a whole lot of discussion as to which protocols are the correct ones, the ones that make the most sense; i.e. which protocols should take priority of which other protocols; e.g. is the carnivorous behavioural protocol inferior to the herbivorous behavioural protocol?

This all-yang-no-yin oriented discussion obscures or ignores the physical reality which is ‘yin/yang’ wherein we are sailboaters rather than powerboaters, where the outside-inward orchestrating influence of the relational spatial dynamics we are situationally included in, shapes our individual and collective inside-outward asserting yang actions.

To reduce this to a reason and morality driven scenario which has us seeing ourselves as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ is insanity. it is the insanity otherwise known as Western civilization.

Unfortunately academia is keeping us locked into that insanity by insisting on ‘yang reason’ continuing to dominant over ‘yin/yang intuition’.

Anyone has enough intuition to go against the ‘wisdom of academia’ and to acknowledge that we live in a ‘yin/yang world’ but we are our own worst enemies re breaking out of this stranglehold that academia has over us. The media consults with academia in order to determine what views that deal with an understanding of the world are legitimate and which are not. Once anthropogenic global warming is ‘voted in’ as ‘truth’, then everybody will be encouraged by the media to parrot the claim that AGW is ‘the truth’, that we are really doing this to ourselves; i.e. that the inhabitants on the inside are in jumpstart control of the stuff on the outside that is determining what happens to those on the inside. Have you ever seen such a piece of self-contradictory logic that is so blatantly self-contradictory. Why not just give up this megalomanic human notion of being the jumpstart source of one’s own behaviour [the ‘independent reason-driven system’ metaphor] and concede that the sailboater metaphor is more realistic than the powerboater metaphor?

You, Bob, are up against the popular Western civilization trend to JUDGE what people do on the basis of seeing people as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ who should have installed within them, in their ‘centre-of-reason’, the best possible [they keep changing, of course] ‘social behaviour protocols/narratives’, these being decided by yang reasoning on the basis of ‘doers-of-deeds’ doing it to ‘the done-tos’, ... a dualist structure like the ‘offender’ – ‘victim’ doed-of-deeds and ‘done-to’ structure which ISOLATES a locally observed dynamic [a relational dynamic within a relational activity continuum] making it into a LOCALLY AUTHORED CAUSE-EFFECT EVENT, ... taking the transforming relational spatial plenum apart into tiny local pieces, as is the way of the differential equations of mathematical physics [the philosophy behind science is bigger than the science it incarnates as a reasoning structure as it can also include art], and which by isolating the doer-deed to ‘done to’ effect, isolates at the same time, every other nominal doer of deed from its involvement in that local event, ... in radical disagreement with Mach’s principle.

the indigenous anarchist who explores deep into the forest will feed on fruit and nuts if they are available, but if not, the fat rabbit bouncing across his path had better beware. what could be more natural than roasting a rabbit to sustain outside-inward – inside-outward dynamic balance? but when it comes to reason based social behavioural protocols, we know that plants are not going to get as much protection as animals just as ‘cruelty to frogs’ does not attract as large a demonstration as ‘cruelty to seal pups’; i.e. nature may be about the cultivating and sustaining of balance and harmony within a complex interdependent relational web, but reasoning humans attempt to shape their own social behavioural protocols in a one-sided all-yang-no-yin manner using their human emotions/sensibilities to establish enforceable ‘moral narratives’. [Western civilized social behavioural protocols as shaped civilized human emotions are not we could say are 'closely coupled' to the welfare of phyto-planktons for whom human industrial effluents amount to 'weapons of mass destruction and genocide', but for those uncivilized savages aka indigenous anarchists, the health of rivers, lakes and oceans are the health of 'brothers' in the relational web of mutual interdependencies we all share inclusion in.]

please don't generalize

Thank you Emile, I will reply in full later, at the moment I am ironically overwhelmed with domestic chores, that's life I guess. I will get back later, regards Bob.

Phew! Just finished washing the dishes after doing a lube change on the old ford pickup! Umm, I'm surprised you haven't read Diamond's -Germs Guns and Steel-. I know you are more physics orientated rather than anthropologically focused, or am I being presumptuous? I also recommend James Lovelock's - Gaia-, the theory going way back to the late 70s, along with Haymaker's- The Survival of Civilization- both offer an interesting hypothesis concerning evolutionary history and Haymaker even precedes Graeber in identifying the exploitation by political power-brokers of cumulative interest in elitist economic global banking systems.
Diamond in a nutshell re-evaluates the geographic rather than the genetic influences which created domesticity and sedentary existence over the nomadic alternative, thus, the Euro-centric dominance was not a matter of racial superiority but rather a geographical fluke. Certainly he avoids more recent historical events such as the industrial revolution, but I feel his broad thesis is concerned more with the agricultural hegemony which typifies and allowed for the European imperialistic foundation to prosper and spread outwards, arrogantly and with a missionary zeal, into the realms where indigenous sustainability and its simplicity were no match for the cannons of the Enlightenment era.
I had a chuckle at this---
-You, Bob, are up against the popular Western civilization trend to JUDGE what people do on the basis of seeing people as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ who should have installed within them, in their ‘centre-of-reason’, the best possible [they keep changing, of course] ‘social behaviour protocols/narratives’, these being decided by yang reasoning on the basis of ‘doers-of-deeds’ doing it to ‘the done-tos’, ... a dualist structure like the ‘offender’ – ‘victim’ doed-of-deeds and ‘done-to’ structure which ISOLATES a locally observed dynamic [a relational dynamic within a relational activity continuum] making it into a LOCALLY AUTHORED CAUSE-EFFECT EVENT, ... taking the transforming relational spatial plenum apart into tiny local pieces, as is the way of the differential equations of mathematical physics [the philosophy behind science is bigger than the science it incarnates as a reasoning structure as it can also include art], and which by isolating the doer-deed to ‘done to’ effect, isolates at the same time, every other nominal doer of deed from its involvement in that local event, ... in radical disagreement with Mach’s principle.-
Its just that my grand-children shoot down any intellectual idea I have, thus, I have become a simpleton of sorts, I don't want to think too much about anything beyond making the children happy. Lol, they are the future, I want a good world for them to grow up in, don't we all friend?

Bob, like i say, i think we are close to ‘being on the same page’ but where you cite Lovelock’s Gaia and say;

“Diamond in a nutshell re-evaluates the geographic rather than the genetic influences which created domesticity and sedentary existence over the nomadic alternative, thus, the Euro-centric dominance was not a matter of racial superiority but rather a geographical fluke.”

Both of these views, Diamond’s and Lovelock’s are of ‘one-sided influence’. Geologists ‘do it’ outside-inwardly and Biologists ‘do it’ inside-outwardly.

Biologists start with a chemical soup and add a lightning bolt and work life up from the micro to the macro (of course that is being reversed with epigenetics and the implications are 'yin/yang' rather than 'yang-genetics' and 'yin-epigenetics') so that the primary reality or primary mover-and-shaker is some micro-animating source called ‘life’ that lives inside a gene and pushes things inside-outwardly from there.

Geologists and geographers tend to start from the outside and say 14 billion years ago we just had a space full of energy and radiation and some of that congealed about 4 or 5 billion years ago and we got Gaia and Gaia is a big organic system that grows a lot of stuff within it, all of which is relationally interdependent, making Gaia the primary reality or primary mover-and-shaker and implying that ‘life’ is hatched as an outside-inward orchestrating influence [the goddess Gaia recalls the goddess Lilith or ‘yin’ or ‘djinn’, also known as ‘succubus’, the spirit or ‘daemon’ that comes in the night and lowers herself down over a man’s penis, bringing on an erection and ejaculation while he is still sleeping, and the incubus is the other ‘daemon’ that penetrates women or men as they sleep]. That is, we are talking about 3 different ways to interpret basic topologies/symmetries of dynamics here .

“An incubus (nominal form constructed from the Latin verb, incubo, incubare, or "to lie upon") is a demon in male form who, according to a number of mythological and legendary traditions, lies upon sleepers, especially women, in order to have sexual intercourse with them. Its female counterpart is the succubus. An incubus may pursue sexual relations with a woman in order to father a child, as in the legend of Merlin. Religious tradition holds that repeated intercourse with an incubus or succubus may result in the deterioration of health, or even death.”

Where you speak of ‘Euro-centric dominance as if it were ‘something that happened’ as if the Europeans were ‘doers of deeds’, the indigenous anarchist view is in terms of a never-beginning, never-ending transforming relational spatial plenum, rather than in historical space and time terms. That is, if the primary dynamic is understood as transformation, the split into parts outside-inward influence and/or inside-outward influence must be ‘invisible spirit influences’. The transformational worldview is one that doesn’t regard either of these two transformation splitting views as ‘real’; i.e. like world view of a Schroedinger or indigenous anarchist. as Nietzsche describes it;

“And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income …” –Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, 1067

There is no past in this worldview, there is only the continuing ‘now’. The only way one can explain a transforming relational space is in terms of each ‘point’ being ‘not a point’ but a ‘cell’, the nexus or confluence of SIMULTANEOUSLY incoming and outgoing influences [the wave view].

So, as i am seeing it, you prefer, .... or rather, .... your comment suggests a preference for the outside-inward influence of geology/geography to explain the continual unfolding world of our experience, whereas others, the majority and the standard view of science and Western civilization prefer the inside-outward influence of biology/psychology to explain the continual unfolding world of our experience.

The indigenous anarchist view is one in which both ‘outside-inward sourcing’ and ‘inside-outward sourcing’ are NOT REAL but apparitions like the succubus and incubus, conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of relational spatial transformation.

The indigenous anarchist does not model himself or others as ‘independent reason-driven systems’. Instead, he understands them as living in their own emotion and experience shaped realities. Therefore, he does not judge them as good or bad (offender and victim etc.) but simply intervenes, where and as conflict threatens or erupts, in the interest of preventing or limiting injury from the wild behaviours that hatch within the relational web from tensions as arise within it, to protect his children, his family, his brothers. That is, his actions are elicited to cultivate, restore and sustain balance and harmony in the relational web dynamic.

where you say;

“I don't want to think too much about anything beyond making the children happy. Lol, they are the future, I want a good world for them to grow up in, don't we all friend?”

Yes, agreed! Such an outlook is precisely that which comes to the indigenous anarchist for the reasons mentioned. He does not assume that those through whom conflict erupts are ‘independent reason-driven system’, but assumes instead that their realities are emotion and experience shaped by their unique situational inclusion within the continually transforming relational spatial plenum. He may put an arrow through the eye of someone whose turbulent behaviour threatens to do injury to those around them but his motivation is to prevent those injuries to the innocent and most particularly to the children. If that ‘sends a message’ to the other trouble-makers, fine, ... all he is interested in is ‘restorative justice’ which is restoring balance and harmony and his assumption is that those others behave the way they are behaving from having been woven into the common interdependent web of relations that he too is woven into wherein every individual acquires a particular, situational suite of experiences that shapes his reality/outlook differently. In this worldview, where there is violence/conflict, one cannot track it back to the interior of some individual as if he were an ‘independent reason-driven system’, but it will trace back into the web of relations wherein blamable sources multiple geometrically with every backward investigation, as in wavefield inversion. E.g. the ravaging of New Orleans by Katrina does not lead back to the centre of Katrina, but leads back everywhere over and around the world and comes back to include the hot output from the airconditioners in the city.

That is, that’s all the indigenous anarchist has to deal with is “making the children happy.” ... cultivating a nurturing space, ... “... a good world for them to grow up in”, RIGHT HERE IN THE CONTINUING NOW. which is ‘all she wrote’ in the view of the world as a continually transforming-in-the-now relational spatial plenum’.

The Western civilization guy, on the other hand, since he believes that the world is ‘constructed’ by the doer-deed acts of its constituents as they cause and effect change over the course of time, ... makes ‘rational plans’ that he believes will achieve ‘the construction of a desired future’. This ‘constructivist’ view means that there will have to be an overall plan that everyone will have to participate in to achieve the desired future. ‘Organization’ in this view is in terms of an ‘independent reason-driven system’ which can be implemented as a ‘sovereign state structure’ or a ‘local community’, the key point being the infusing of a common ‘reason-based narrative’ into the ‘centre of reasoning’ of each of the ‘independent reason-driven systems’ aka Western view of ‘humans’, that are participating. This means that those with the incorrect ‘reason-based narratives’ inhabiting the interior of their ‘independent reason-driven system selves’ will have to be ‘smoked out’ and removed from the system [prisons will have to be built to hold those who lack the concensus narrative.]. This reason-and-morality based system is ‘high maintenance’.

You can imagine how much internal ‘overhead’ falls away for the indigenous anarchist who sees his brothers as each living in their own experience-shaped realities so that it makes no sense to bother with ‘trying to straighten them out’ but to have a ‘restorative justice system’ that orients to interventions without judgement that aim to restore, cultivate and sustain balance and harmony in the relational social dynamic. One can ‘smell it’ in observations such as the following;

“To Engels, Morgan’s description of the Iroquois [in Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society and The League of the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois] was important because “it gives us the opportunity of studying the organization of a society which, as yet, knows no state.” Jefferson had also been interested in the Iroquois’ ability to maintain social consensus without a large state apparatus, as had Franklin. Engels described the Iroquoian state in much the same way that American revolutionaries had a century earlier: “Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes, or police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects or judges; without prisons, without trials. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole body of those concerned. . . . The household is run communistically by a number of families; the land is tribal property, only the small gardens being temporarily assigned to the households — still, not a bit of our extensive and complicated machinery of administration is required. . . . There are no poor and needy. The communistic household and the gens know their responsibility toward the aged, the sick and the disabled in war. All are free and equal — including the women.” — Bruce E. Johansen, Forgotten Founders

Finally, I spend a lot of time putting words together to capture these ideas intellectually, NOT because I advocate a reason-and-morality driven world, I don't! But because the lenses we commonly look through today have been built on some over-simplified assumptions, and deconstructions are therefore needed to show how the view differs if the lenses are changed. for example, as Berkeley, Nietzsche and Mach all made note of, we are making a double error when we view things in terms of 'differences'. But we use this every time we see things in a cause-and-effect construct such as 'the man raped the woman'. If we see this in terms of 'offender and victim', we 'localize' this dynamic and our investigation opens and closes with this notion of 'offender and victim'. For example, in peacetime the web of relations that we are included in is a stabilizing influence, but in wartime [or other periods of social frazzling], the relational web is damaged and holes are blown into it, and the parents are no longer there to protect their young daughters etc. and so, when they get raped, if we see that in terms of an offender-victim transaction, we isolate the dynamic to something that occurs between victim and offender. That is all that retributive justice is interested in. The judge in the rape case could be the brother of the father of the raped girl who did not want to take the girl into his own home when his brother was killed fighting for 'the other side'. In this case, everybody would be thinking; 'this never would have happened to her if she had not been abandoned to her own devices at such a young and innocent age', and here we have her uncle, who left her to her own devices, presiding as judge in a system that sees this in the restricted terms of a local offender-victim transaction. In restorative justice, one does not regard 'differences' as competent elemental 'yang' units; i.e. it takes a whole a community to raise a rape victim.

But it is standard in our Western culture to do just that, so that this sort of judgement in terms of local difference based transactions [e.g. offender-victim transactions] becomes the lenses we look out at the world through.

This is true generally in science and it has been pointed out by Mach and Poincare but who is listening? If the temperature goes up in our house, we are conditioned to believe that differences are caused by some yang causal agency. This is because we have built the assumption into science that "the present depends only on the immediate past" But the rise in temperature could be due to a block of ice in your cellar which had been depressing the temperature, finally, after a long time, melting down to nothing. How about indigenous aboriginals who have been smoldering for 500 years finally coming to a critical threshold where they 'go postal'. Science can only explain that in terms of positive causality in which the present depends only on the immediate past. If the forest you live in undergoes 15 years of dry summers and it is set ablaze where you are working with a chain saw, science will apply their usual positive causal framework and say 'you caused it'. The river causes the flood, not the valley that organized the river. Looking at things with positive causal lenses = the assumption that local differentials are 'real'. This assumption associates with two mutually compensating errors built into differential calculus and cited by Berkeley in "THE ANALYST; OR, A DISCOURSE Addressed to an Infidel MATHEMATICIAN. WHEREIN It is examined whether the Object, Principles, and Inferences of the modern Analysis are more distinctly conceived, or more evidently deduced, than Religious Mysteries and Points of Faith. By George Berkeley (1734) Berkeley was right and Nietzsche found the same problem in noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar,...but the viewing lenses institutionalized by Western civilization bring us understanding of what is going on, that is distorted by our having built errors into our viewing lenses that were ignored and are no longer questioned [most users of the modern viewing lenses are unaware that there was even a discussion about possible errors in reducing dynamics to differences].

So there we go, in order to talk about problems with our modern viewing lenses that are sourcing incoherence, one has the difficulty that the listener/viewer is going to be using those same viewing lenses with the big data dropout that reduces yin/yang to yang in taking in one's argument about those lenses having major data dropout that restricts the view to all-yang-no-yin. ... Say what? ... I say again, what is not there in the valley is engendering the river that is there. "The life that I am reaching out to grasp is the me that is reaching out to grasp it" --- R. D. Laing

please don't generalize

Guinness just called....they want to congratulate emile on a new world record: seven 10,000 word essays in one thread.

Emile, I seem to have arrived at the terminus of our dialogue, certainly we were for a moment converging, but this sentence

-Geologists and geographers tend to start from the outside and say 14 billion years ago we just had a space full of energy and radiation and some of that congealed about 4 or 5 billion years ago and we got Gaia and Gaia is a big organic system that grows a lot of stuff within it, all of which is relationally interdependent, making Gaia the primary reality or primary mover-and-shaker and implying that ‘life’ is hatched as an outside-inward orchestrating influence [the goddess Gaia recalls the goddess Lilith or ‘yin’ or ‘djinn’, also known as ‘succubus’, the spirit or ‘daemon’ that comes in the night and lowers herself down over a man’s penis, bringing on an erection and ejaculation while he is still sleeping, and the incubus is the other ‘daemon’ that penetrates women or men as they sleep]. That is, we are talking about 3 different ways to interpret basic topologies/symmetries of dynamics here .-

began the divergence.
I'm not sure what your actual definition of -indigenous- is, nor do I consider neolithic agricultural societies since about 7,000BC to fit into any accepted version of their cosmology, and the inversion of christian mythologies can in no way substitute as a cheap alternative to the true oneness of any HG society's harmony with nature by introducing Celtic phallic/vaginal myths to add to the dualism of your yin-yang interpretation. Unless this was an attempt at sarcasm on your part? We didn't really have to know about Gaia;s ancient mythological meaning, it has no relevance, and Lovelock was merely being ironic in naming his theory after such fantasies.
It has been momentarily enjoyable discussing things with you when you agreed with me briefly on one or two sentences, and I shall be off now to explore the wonderful theory of brevity posited by,,,,I can't recall his name, but its not that important really. Farewell

personally, i am not an ‘on-or-off’ kind of person, but i know that this is a common ‘temperament’ so, no problem.

i remain open to discussion should we bump into one another elsewhere.

i am familiar with lovelock and margulis ideas and have an internet fellow researcher that has participated in their meetings and deliberations, and while he is very supportive of their work (as i am), his take is the same as mine in regard to the topology of the Gaian hypothesis.

it is ‘whole-istic’ which means that it describes a ‘system’ which is a ‘local system’ however huge and complex, which can be understood as ONE SYSTEM, called Gaia, in this case.

the universe as a ‘holodynamic’ a la schroedinger et al is something else, there are no ‘local systems’ or whole-istic systems in a ‘holodynamic’ since a holodynamic is a continually transforming relational spatial plenum. the 'holodynamic' is understood as 'physical reality' while 'systems' are conceptual idealizations. you can't capture, in picturable terms, a 'holodynamic', since it is the past and the future enfolded in the continually transforming present. it is 'every-thing', it is not 'a thing'.

but what Gaia or ‘whole-ism’ does is to get one out of the total fragmentation into parts of analytical systems inquiry where we imagine ‘cells’, ‘organisms’, ‘organizations’ as ‘independent reason-driven systems’. the mainstream science model.

Gaia moves us up to a model wherein we have one whole earth-system which cannot be understood out of the context of ‘whole-and-part’ relations.

But what is the relationship of Gaia to the universe? evidently, the models of biologists and some geologists orient to understanding the earth as if the earth was a ‘thing-in-itself’ (‘geocentricity’). this is not where nietzsche, mach, schroedinger were. their inquiry was into dynamics in a cosmological sense, which was neither anthropocentric nor geo-centric.

i am not saying that such inquiry as steps out from anthropocentrism to geocentrism is not useful, but why latch onto it as ‘the answer’. and why lean too hard on it since Gaia speaks to the earth without speaking to its relationship with its own mother (the universe)?

we are all free to go and explore where we want to and to embrace our favourites, as is what breaks us up into ‘factions’ or ‘factors’

in fact, that is the beauty of the relational space paradigm of schroedinger et al; ... it doesn’t ‘factor’.

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.
Subscribe to Comments for "Interview with Layla AbdelRahim on anarcho-primitivism and red anarchism"