Liberty, Equality, Geography: An Interview with John P. Clark on the Revolutionary Eco-Anarchism of Elisée Reclus

From Truth Out

Social geography is the study of how landscape, climate, and other features of a place shape the livelihoods, values, and cultural traditions of its inhabitants (and vice versa). Frenchman Elisée Reclus (1830 – 1905), a progenitor of the discipline, believed strongly in the rights and abilities of people to manage themselves in relation to their local bioregion, free from rule by a remote, centralized government. His approach to anarchy was unique in its emphasis on the environment – Reclus understood that a mindset that encourages one person or people’s domination over another must, in the race to profit from natural “resources”, also foster domination over nature. Like the social ecologists who have succeeded him, Reclus believed that solutions to ecological crises must involve restoring balance, equality, and a sense of interrelationship between humans and other humans, and between humans and the biosphere.
 
The first half of the recently-published Anarchy, Geography, Modernity: Selected Writings of Elisée Reclus, edited and translated by John Clark and Camille Martin, forms a comprehensive critical survey of Reclus’ philosophy and political theory,including biographical information and historical context. The “modern” manifestations of oppression (including the concentration of wealth and power, surveillance, racism, sexism, and ecological degradation) that concerned Reclus in late-1800s Europe, the United States, and Central and South America are indeed still strikingly – infuriatingly – present. The second half of the book consists of translations of several pieces from Reclus’ extensive oeuvre, some of which have never before appeared in English translation.
 
AS: Can you describe how anarchy – specifically the kind based in mutual aid and environmental responsibility in service to a greater good illuminated here by Reclus, and by you in your book The Impossible Community, differs from other conceptions (or misconceptions) of anarchy, and how it might (as contrasted with other ideologies) be useful to us now?
 
John P. Clark: The world is rife with misconceptions about anarchism.
 
The most historically and theoretically grounded definition – the one that goes back to classical figures like Elisée Reclus – is quite simple: anarchy consists of the critique of all systems of domination and the struggle to abolish those systems, in concert with the practice of free, non-dominating community, which is the real alternative to these systems. Anarchy is the entire sphere of human life that takes place outside the boundaries of arche, or domination, in all its forms – statism, nationalism, capitalism, patriarchy, racial oppression, heterosexism, technological domination, the domination of nature, etc. It rejects the hegemony of the centralized state, the capitalist market, and any hybrid of the two, and seeks to create a society free of all systematic forms of domination of humanity and nature. It envisions a society in which power remains decentralized at the base, decision-making is carried out through voluntary association and participatory democracy, and larger social purposes are pursued through the free federation of communities, affinity groups, and associations.
 
Anarchism is not merely about a transformation of social institutional structures, however. As further discussed in my book The Impossible Community, it also encompasses a fundamental transformation of the social imaginary, the social ideology, and the social ethos. Communitarian anarchism assumes that social transformation, to be successful, must encompass all major spheres of social determination. It recognizes that there are ontological, ethical, aesthetic, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of anarchy or non-domination. According to Reclus and other communitarian anarchists, these are not just vague ideals to be achieved in some future utopia; rather, such a transformation is immediately realized here and nowwherever love and solidarity are embodied in existing human relationships and social practice. Anarchism is strongly committed to “prefigurative” forms of association, and to the idea of “creating the new society within the shell of the old.” In fact, the communities of liberation that we create here and now do more than “prefigure” the ultimate goal; they are actual “figurations” of our ideals, actually giving a form, or a face, to them in the present.
 
By demonstrating that the most deeply rooted social order arises not out of coercion, oppression, and domination, but out of mutual aid and cooperation, communitarian anarchism is a truly revolutionary project. In working to regenerate community at the most fundamental level, it seeks to reverse the course of thousands of years of history in which relations of solidarity have been progressively replaced by market relations, commodity relations, bureaucratic relations, technical relations, instrumental relations, and relations of coercion and domination. The ecocidal and genocidal effects of such relations compel us to consider whether we will remain on history’s present catastrophic course, or seize the opportunity to rededicate ourselves to the flourishing of both humanity and the whole of life in the biospheric community. In the work of Reclus we find universally accessible, immediately implementable alternatives.
 
Reclus cites some of the anarchic forms of human community that have made up much of world history, and remarks that “the names of the Spanish comuñeros, of the French communes, of the English yeomen, of the free cities in Germany, of the Republic of Novgorod and of the marvelous communities of Italy must be, with us Anarchists, household words: never was civilized humanity nearer to real Anarchy than it was in certain phases of the communal history of Florence and Nürnberg.” Today we can add the names of many movements that span the century since Reclus: the collectives in the Spanish Revolution; the Gandhian Sarvodaya Movement; the global cooperative movement; the rich history of libertarian intentional communities; the Zapatista Movement; radical indigenous movements throughout the world; the global justice movement; and recently, the “horizontalist” practice of the Occupy Movement.
 
AS: In his 1898 essay “Evolution, Revolution, and the Anarchist Ideal” Reclus reflects on “the spirit of the strike” and various kinds of cooperative associations (such as bartering of goods and services, collaborative communities, and consumers’ associations) as effective ways to build solidarity. He claims that it is “in struggling for a common cause” together that we form the bonds necessary for the ongoing project of social revolution. In an 1895 letter to Clara Koettlitz he advises the aspiring anarchist to “work to free himself personally from all preconceived or imposed ideas, and gradually gather around himself friends who live and act in the same way. It is step by step, through small, loving, and intelligent associations that the great fraternal society will be formed.” Can you speak on the transformative power of the process itself? Can you recommend some constructive immediate steps for today’s revolutionaries?
 
JPC: The spirit of the strike, which means essentially the spirit of active and creative resistance, has enormous significance in the everyday life of any person who is committed to liberatory social transformation. In our present epoch of looming ecocidal and genocidal catastrophe, each person must make a basic decision. It is a “living, forced, momentous option,” to use William James's famous terms. Each must answer the question, “Am I a resister or am I collaborator?” This is as true for us today as it was for anyone living in Vichy France in the early 40s. We must decide either for solidarity with humanity and nature or for betrayal of both in the struggle against domination. For this reason we might say that authentic anarchists are not merely an-archists but anti-archists. To be an “an-archist,” one who is “not an archist,” might imply something like “domination just isn’t my thing,” or “I’m not comfortable with domination.”  But the true spirit of anarchism, that is, anti-archism, implies that “domination is an intolerable thing,” that “when I see domination in any form I become indignant.”
 
I agree with Reclus’ contention that “small, loving and intelligent associations” are thekey to breaking out of the cycle of social determination and regenerating free community on the larger social level. Such micro-communities are “small” in the sense that they are the locus of primary, intimate, face-to-face relationships, they are “loving” in that they are founded on the practice of solidarity, mutual aid, compassion, and cooperation, and they are “intelligent” in that they are self-consciously transformative, awakened to their own meaning and purpose, the primary social space in which theory and practice converge. As primary communities of solidarity they are the only basis on which a solidarity economy and a larger solidarity society can be created. Reclus believed that these “small, loving and intelligent associations” should not isolate themselves, but on the contrary should develop their lives together in close relationship to their larger communities, always considering their role in the evolution of the whole society toward “the great fraternal society” of the future.
 
While ambivalent towards, and even skeptical of, the role of small cooperatives and intentional "communes" or "colonies" separate from the local community, Reclus believed that an indispensable part of the process of social transformation is the creation of institutions that embody a growing spirit and practice of solidarity at the most basic levels of society.He stressed the importance of the development of a “spirit of full association” in which local communities collectively take on many cooperative projects. He looked to already-existing practices of mutual aid and cooperation as a kind of material basis on which further developments could be grounded.The Reclus family’s life, which was pervaded by love and cooperation, was described by Elisée’s nephew and biographer Paul Reclus as “putting communism into practice.” Thus, Reclus’ own family was in effect a libertarian communist or communitarian anarchist affinity group, his most immediate evidence of what is possible in a future society. 
 
In The Impossible Community, I refer to “communities of liberation and solidarity,” but these have gone under many names, notably, the “affinity group” in the anarchist movement, the “base community” in Latin American social justice movements, and the “ashram” in the Gandhian Sarvodaya Movement. In all of these cases, the fact that they have been integral parts of transformative social movements has helped protect them from the pitfalls of self-obsession and self-marginalization that Reclus saw in some intentional communities. Rather than one-sidedly turning inward, they turn both inward and outward simultaneously, and act as the foundation for larger federative activity. We might call them the material and spiritual base for social evolution and social revolution.
 
Reclus’ insights into the “spirit of full association” are desperately needed by today’s anarchists, anti-authoritarians, and all those who are concerned with liberatory social transformation.  On the one hand, many of those who have the most far-reaching visions of social change remain trapped in marginal projects and relatively isolated subcultures. On the other hand, almost all those who are most actively engaged with local communities are in the end co-opted into single-issue politics and innocuous reformism. Reclus urges activists, (who must be, he says, at once “evolutionists” and “revolutionists”) to become deeply engaged in the struggles of actually-existing communities, focusing on the needs and aspirations of ordinary people, while at the same time helping to create new expressions of communal solidarity that are a revolutionary challenge to the existing system of domination.
 
AS: The caption to an illustration of the globe being held up by two hands that appears in the preface to Reclus’ 3,500-page masterwork L’Homme et la Terre (reproduced in this edition of Anarchy, Geography, Modernity) contains one of his best-known maxims: “L’homme est la nature prenant conscience d’elle-même” – translated here as “humanity is nature becoming self-conscious.” Do you think (or might Reclus have thought) that humans are the only biological creature that is an artifact of nature becoming conscious of itself?
 

 
JPC: Human beings are certainly not the only form of nature’s consciousness. Of course, all consciousness is nature’s consciousness, and since the objects of this consciousness are also nature, there is a sense in which all consciousness is nature’s self-consciousness, as I’m sure Reclus would agree. But the idea that humans are self-conscious nature in a strong sense means that not only do we possess consciousness,we are capable of knowing that we have this quality and guiding our actions accordingly. There is a degree of self-consciousness that makes possible a sense of wonder at the natural world and a sense of responsibility concerning it. It is this self-consciousness that makes possible a narrative understanding of our place in the natural world. 
 
We are only now beginning to see the way in which Reclus’ thought made a major contribution to the dawning awareness of humanity’s place within a larger story of the earth. His conviction that “humanity is nature becoming self-conscious” belongs to certain wide-ranging tendencies in Nineteenth Century thought. On the one hand, German idealist philosophy (Hegel, Schelling) and Romantic literature (Wordsworth, the transcendentalists) reinterpreted all of reality as aspects of a Universal Spirit that encompasses humanity and nature, and was becoming conscious of itself in history. But these insights stayed largely on an idealist and aesthetic level, and Spirit remained largely divorced from scientific and material realities. Marx’s historical materialism contributed much of what was lacking in such idealist accounts, in that it interpreted history as the story of the alienation of humanity from its own life activity and productive processes, and of the overcoming of this split and the ideologies that mystify it. This account was in many ways a great advance, in that it was grounded in material reality and took seriously the insights of modern science. Yet it tended toward a reductionism that ignored many of the dimensions of nature and spirit that idealism and Romanticism uncovered. Reclus’ thought was the first attempt at a real synthesis and transcendence of these two perspectives. In his work, Hegel’s story of “Spirit” and Marx’s story of “Man” are raised up (aufgehoben) to the level of the “Earth Story”, a narrative in which humanity is seen as developing in dialectical relation to nature, and in which the opposition between spirit and matter is overcome...or, minimally, that the project of overcoming it is posed seriously.
 
Prior to the late twentieth century,broad, encompassing, synthesizing conceptions of the global and of “globalization” had not pervaded the general consciousness. Yet, well before the end of the Nineteenth Century, Reclus had already begun developing a theoretically sophisticated historical and geographical conception of globalization, one that encompasses the geological, geographical, ecological, political, economic, and cultural spheres. Reclus is thus a crucial figure in the emergence of a conception of globalization that remains more advanced than the ones that predominate even today. He urged us, long before this language even existed, to overcome the “centrisms” that have doomed us. He attacked the egocentrism that raises one individual above others and the anthropocentrism that subordinates the natural world to humanity. But not least of all he challenged his age to overcome Eurocentrism and adopt a truly global perspective. He asks, “Hasn’t it become obvious to members of the great human family that the center of civilization is already everywhere?” [AGM, p.  222]. In the end, Reclus is a visionary and prophet of earth-consciousness and world-consciousness in their deepest senses, senses that are still only beginning to dawn on humanity.
 
Reclus summarizes his project in his two great works, The New Universal Geography and Humanity and the Earth (which together run to nearly 20,000 pages) as “the attempt to follow the evolution of humanity in relation to forms of life on earth, and the evolution of forms of life on earth in relation to humanity.” [Élisée Reclus, Leçon d’ouverture du cours de Géographie comparée dans l’espace et dans le temps. Extrait de la REVUE UNIVERSITAIRE, Bruxelles, 1894, p. 5, my translation]. It is for this reason that he deserves recognition as a founder not only of social geography but also of social ecology. In fact, his rich, detailed development of social ecological analysis makes most of what has gone under that rubric since his time seem amateurish in comparison. We need to reinvigorate social ecology today with the kind of scientific and historical grounding found in Reclus but with a theoretical rigor that goes far beyond his efforts.
 
Reclus’ announcement that “humanity is nature becoming self-conscious” is a quite momentous one, and is certain to become even more fateful as global climate catastrophe accelerates and as we move more deeply into the Sixth Mass Extinction of life on Earth.We need to ponder what is at stake today in the question of whether humanity can actively assume its role as self-conscious nature. Reclus was confident that it would succeed in doing so, and in the process demonstrate that another world is possible beyond the limits of domination. Today, in our much less optimistic age, it is much more difficult for many to believe that such an “other world” is at all possible, despite the fact there are ever stronger indications that the present one is becoming less possible day by day. This world’s ultimate impossibility, even if it is inevitable, remains implausible. For its productive powers, imaginary powers and ideological powers are all seeming testimony to its insuperable reality, and these powerscontinue to expand.  In reality, we have good reason to ask whether, if another world does not rapidly become possible, any world at all will remain actual. The impossible community, the Reclusian community of love and solidarity, is a practical and dialectical answer to this more than theoretical, more than rhetorical question. In the midst of a world-destroying epoch, the impossible community presents itself as a world-making and world-preserving community. In the midst of egocentric cynicism and moral paralysis, it is a charismatic community of gifts and of the gift. It is an ethos that inspires and reawakens the person, sweeping him or her into a new realm of deeper reality and more compelling truth. It is our ultimate hope for the world.
 
 
Alyce Santoro’s interview with John P. Clark on his book The Impossible Community: Realizing Communitarian Anarchism published in Truthout on June 9, 2013 can be found here.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Category: 

Comments

colonialism and indigenous anarchism differ in that the colonizers believe that power really does jumpstart from 'the internals' of 'superior' individuals and individual states, while indigenous anarchists believe that individuals and individual states are like 'sailboaters' that derive their power and steerage from the spatial-relational flow-dynamics they are included in; i.e. masses of people in need can be exploited by politicians promising a path to resolution of their needs. it is thus the relational need or 'something out of balance' that is the source of the power that manifests in a leader or in a state. there are no independent sources of power in the physics of nature, all power is relationally sourced.

this ‘contraria sunt complementa’ [yin/yang] topology in nature’s dynamics is implicit in the shift from intentional community [all yang-no-yin] to the anarchist community of Reclus [yin/yang]; e.g. in the comment on turning inward and outward simultaneously;

"In The Impossible Community, I refer to “communities of liberation and solidarity,” but these have gone under many names, notably, the “affinity group” in the anarchist movement, the “base community” in Latin American social justice movements, and the “ashram” in the Gandhian Sarvodaya Movement. In all of these cases, the fact that they have been integral parts of transformative social movements has helped protect them from the pitfalls of self-obsession and self-marginalization that Reclus saw in some intentional communities. Rather than one-sidedly turning inward, they turn both inward and outward simultaneously, and act as the foundation for larger federative activity. We might call them the material and spiritual base for social evolution and social revolution."

there is an obvious link here to Lamarckism; i.e. Lamarck saw the basic topology of nature's dynamics as 'outside-inward' influence at the same time as inside-outward influence' [yin/yang] and that this applied across the synthetic split between the organic and inorganic world that was part of Christian, Judaic and Islamic belief. Lamarck's view of basic dynamics were that outside-inward orchestrating 'field' [les fluides incontenables] influence orchestrated inside-outward asserting 'fluid' [les fluides contenables] flow.

the structures of nature were thus 'relational structures' as modern physics would now have them.

this yin/yang view of dynamics is an 'archetype' or basic 'fractal' for organization over all scales, and thus the 'community' in nature would also be seen as a 'relational structure' rather than a 'thing' that deliberately pushed forth its own organization as in 'intentional community'.

see, for example, THE STRUCTURE OF NATURE: NATURAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND ARTISTIC FORMS IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY FRANCE by Serena Keshavejee;

"The article focuses on how the artistic, natural and scientific forms in 19th century France is influenced by the Lamarckian evolutionary theory. It mentions that environmental historians have traced the movement back to the 19th century when concerns over pollution, sanitation and deforestation have developed. It cites evolutionary scientist Ernst Haeckel as he coined the term oekologie or ecology as the investigation of the total relations of the animal both to its inorganic and organic environment. It examines the works of 19th century French writers Elie Faure and Elisée Reclus"

Authoritarian structures are yang structures where power is presumed to locally jumpstart out of things, an artefact of the noun-and-verb European language-and-grammar architecture that is reinforced by Christian etc. Creation myth.

the shift in the view of community in Reclus' writing is the shift from yang to yin/yang. As Nietzsche also pointed out, relational forms are activities within an activity continuum [lightning, a storm-cell, the earth] or systems within relational suprasystems, and a noun-and-verb European/Scientific language and grammar makes the inner activity [the whirl in the flow] a notional 'subject' or 'independent thing' and has it grammatically inflect a verb so that what was an activity within an activity continuum [a relational form within a transforming relational spatial plenum], becomes, thanks to grammar 'an independent thing-in-itself that jumpstarts it own behaviour'. that is the 'yang' view of community. the 'yin/yang' view of community is that of a relational resonance structure, the sustained balancing of outside-inwards orchestrating influence and inside-outwards asserting action. this is the dynamic topology of exceptionally performing teams.

the yin/yang view of anarchist community ties to the ancient taoist view of anarchism [wu wei] as well.

this article and interview is kind of like a yang view of a yin/yang understanding; i.e. it doesn't quite get all the way to what Reclus is saying, particularly when one bundles in phrases such as 'global climate catastrophe' as if it were man-caused, a yang premise that contradicts Reclus' basic theme; i.e. the premise is not that things really do jumpstart from local actions in a yang fashion, the premise is that man mistakenly believes they do, so that he predicts he can eliminate mosquitoes with DDT and sets out to do it, only to discover that the overall effect on the habitat is catastrophic. note that the catastrophe is not something he 'causes' in a 'cause-effect sense', it comes from his mistaken mechanical view of the world where science was only looking at what things do [yang aspect] and was blind to the conjugate relational between inhabitant and the habitat [as in Lamarckian theory] and as in Mach's principle;

" "the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants'

compare this to Reclus' anarchist community that is turning inward and outward simultaneously

now, you are on a Real roll,emile. beautifully lyrical,with vitality in your
new poetic language of waves and swirling that stagnant stardust in in us.
the key with your delivery is your articulation of the possibility to get out of the muck
of our fear; and to show us a way to join in solidarity
with the relation of forces without resorting to self- us reaction- formations.
Thanx so much
azano

It says "'global climate catastrophe' as if it were man-caused,"

THAT'S RIGHT! Global climate catastrophe is not caused by "man"
God caused it, it is totally natural, which makes it OK yin-yang wise.
A win/win situation!

emile, wouldn't nietzsche have laughed at talk of `harmony', at this kind of talk of `community'
yet nietzsche wrote a lot of things. so, do u dismiss that as `aspects of his `personality' that didnt fit' with what he realized, or what

rethoric question dont reply

for my part, i feel the relational ties; i.e. ... ‘mitakuye oyasin’, ... we are all related, as children in one big family, ... and that our separation comes from acculturation. our acculturation has us develop masks which we mount over top of our child-like innocence, tolerance, inquisitiveness. uniforms also are like masks. the person who dresses like a waiter starts acting like a waiter, and if a couple come into the restaurant dressed like customers, they start acting like customers, and if a man comes in dressed as a priest, he starts acting as a priest, and the same for a nun and a turban wearing sheik etc. etc. and if they all got high and naked, then they would be like children playing together who had not yet ‘learned how to behave’.

in other words, i do not agree that putting on masks and role-plays ‘makes us real, not fake’;

“Most of us mean what we say, but know it is only in the context of their "regular "lives where perforce we compromise ourselves in daily life to get from one day to the next. THAT makes us real, not fake, just mortal human beings.
Judge ye not lest you be Judged.

it is not a case of ‘judging the individual’, but one of judging a cultural belief system that seems to have taken us over. john locke in his ‘two treatises on government’ observes that naturally evolving community develops by relational needs opening up and outside-inwardly orchestrating the evolving/development of inside-outward asserting roles such as that of the waiter. where there was a need for someone to serve meals, someone who was propitiously situated and available [not otherwise occupied] ‘rose to the occasion’ and put on appropriate clothes etc, and in this way community evolved, naturally, as a web of relations. that is, natural community IS a relation web.

‘relations first, thing-dependent-on-relations’ [things like waiters and customers; e.g. waiters can become customers and customers can become waiters depending the relational dynamics].

ok, what locke bemoaned was the invention of money and the invention of wage labour which led to the ‘unravelling’ of community, a weave of social relations into which one’s labour was mixed;

“Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.” – John Locke, Two Treatises of Government

labour as a social function was the relational structure of naturally evolving community [community as a relational structure sustained by socially-engaging labour], however, the advent of money and wage-labour allowed the ‘trading out of social function’ for money. money thus ‘unravels community’ and alienates individuals from one another by introducing paid ‘role-plays’ that can be 'dropped' at the end of each 'eight-hour-day' [the social binding of paid labour returns to zero each time the wages are paid and neither side owes anything to the other].

the scene you and sartre describe, which you say is ‘ubiquitous in our lives’ is a ‘capitalist scenario’;

“However the waiter and the customer (and I grew up in the family Restaurant business, so I know what I am talking about) conspire in their roles to validate the Ruse. This process is ubiquitous in our lives. ... The only one's who don"t are the true sociopaths with the lacuna of total lack of Conscience, narcissistic anti - social personalities.”

i.e. it is a capitalist scenario where people are trapped inside of role-plays because community has ‘unravelled’ and labour as a social function that was the woven fabric of community is split out into ‘role-plays’ like ‘the waiter’ and ‘customer’ role plays.

in a non-capitalist society, such as indigenous anarchist community, labour-AS-A-SOCIAL-FUNCTION is retained, as indicated in the following quote from Nootka [Nuu-chah-nulth] Chief Maquinna;

“Once I was in Victoria, and I saw a very large house; they told me it was a bank and that the white men place their money there to take care of, and that by-and-by they got it back, with interest. We are Indians and have no such bank; but when we have plenty of money or blankets, we give them away to other chiefs and people, and by-and-by they return them, with interest, and our hearts feel good. Our potlatch is our bank.” [for the full letter and associated context (jailing of indigenous aboriginal peoples for continuing with the potlatch tradition) see 'First People First Voices', edited by Penny Petrone]

we are used to living in a capitalist society and trading our labour for money instead of using our labour in social functions that are the relational weave of community. the business man who hires a female escort to be his companion while away from home in a distant city may treat her very well, almost like his regular partner, and she will treat him almost as if he were her regular partner, and the money part will be kept separate and done by credit card through the escort agency, and it won’t be called ‘prostitution’ because the two become friends over the weekend and sleeping together is their choice. of course, if her cell rings while they are in a love session and it is the agency telling her that his credit card is bouncing their charges, ... the affectionate role-plays may stop right there, and an ugly scene may develop of the sort that unfolds when the customer fails to tip the waiter.

“Most of us mean what we say, but know it is only in the context of their "regular "lives where perforce we compromise ourselves in daily life to get from one day to the next. THAT makes us real, not fake, just mortal human beings.
Judge ye not lest you be Judged.

it is not a case of judging the individuals. the female escort may be a single parent who has children to feed and likewise the waiter. the role-playing associates with the capitalist system.

“the waiter and the customer ... conspire in their roles to validate the Ruse. This process is ubiquitous in our lives”

yes, it is ubiquitous. it is the trading out of labour as social function that is the relational weave of community, ... for labour-for-money, removing the social function that binds people together and alienating individuals from one another, forcing them to engage via ‘role-plays’. each person may be caring and want to treat the other caringly, but they both have this uncomfortable feeling in them, knowing they are trapped in a system that is imposing these role-play situations on them.

there is ‘self-deception’ in believing that cameraderie is a yang condition that has to be assertively determined; e.g. by ‘becoming members’ of a group whose ‘ideals’ are in common. cameraderie comes naturally when we remove our masks, uniforms and role-plays, including the role-play that associates with membership in an exclusive group with common ideals, ... religious, political, or commercial; i.e. natural cameraderie is ‘relations-first, things-dependent on relations’.

the cameraderie in the nazi SS or in the navy SEALs is ‘things-first, relations-dependent on things’, as is the ‘radical community’ cameraderie. it is cameraderie from putting masks on rather than taking them off. it is cameradie that is ‘policed’ by rationality [one must know who one’s comrades are; no jews for SS, no KGB for SEALs, no capitalists for radical community, etc.]

‘spiritual ecstasy’ comes in both appollonian and dionysian forms, and i don’t know which type of cameraderie you intend in your following comment; i.e. the word ‘movement’ is ambiguous [one could say; ‘they were together in their movement to ignore the laws against dionysian potlatch ceremonies’ which connotes a ‘defensive action’ in support of ‘relations-first, things-dependent-on-relations’ tradition, ... versus .... the riot police who were being sent back in to disperse the violent protest after recovering the bodies of several of their murdered comrades, experienced a fatalistic calm and deep sense of solidarity/mutuality knowing that they might also be giving their lives up, in protecting the nation from the insurgency’ ]; i.e. you say;

“I have been privileged to be part of movements in my life where I did feel that comradely feeling ,where I did feel part of that group -in- fusion-that Sartre wrote about in his second great opus.I remember that all our pretenses melted away for brief periods of time in a spirit of Affirmation, resolution,mutuality and inner peace and carefree relaxation and exhalation.”

evidently, sartre’s ‘group-in-fusion’ is the apollonian version that needs continuously asserting yang energy-of-fusion to sustain it [which never comes]. the dionysian version is the yang-mask-dropping version [innocent play of children or high-and-naked-adults or potlatch play of indigenous anarchists] which does not depend on rational organization but is spontaneously relations-first, ‘things dependent on relations’.

there are problems with the appollonian 'group-in-fusion';

https://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/the-spirit-of-sartre

In one key exchange, Sartre has been describing as a kind of illustrative mini-example of the group-in-fusion a bus ride in which a group of bus passengers who had previously been merely a disconnected series, a line of people waiting for the bus at the bus stop, had transformed themselves into a fused group by persuading the driver to go off his normal route and to drop each of them at their destinations, which in turn leads to the able-bodied passengers taking pleasure in assisting an old woman in a wheelchair to get off the bus and get into her home, and to an overall atmosphere of joy and free conversation erupting into the dead space where there had previously been merely a collection of anonymous strangers. Gerassi responds by saying, in effect, that's all well and good, but those passengers will inevitably go home and the next day they'll be back in line, the weight of historical forces will again overwhelm and condition them, and their hot moment will go cold -- just as the sans-culottes of the French revolution returned their power to the elites and lost their transformative energy, just as the Paris Commune had failed to sustain itself, and just as the youth of the sixties were seeing their groups dissolve into internal squabbles or get co-opted by the political parties or become overwhelmed, as we would say in Tikkun, by the legacy of generations of Fear of the Other more powerful than the momentary unity made possible by the moment of fusion. "To avoid defeat the group-in-fusion must remain in fusion," says Gerassi. "But how? ... If the group-in-fusion is always bound to fail, no matter how much of a residue it leaves around the edges for historians to contemplate, why risk starting it again?"
.
It is difficult to read these words and not feel that this is exactly the worldwide dilemma of the present moment, that because of the failures of prior social movements and the defeats or distortions of the fused groups that these movements were formed by and inspired, we are unable to risk starting it again and to surrender to the radical hope that this requires of us without a new step in theory to guide and express some new form of social practice.”

summary;

the big self-deception has been identified by nietzsche and by modern physics; i.e. we do not live in a world of ‘independent things’ that ‘do stuff’ and we are not, overselves, ‘independent things’ that ‘do stuff’ [the illusion of an absolute space and absolute time frame 'operating theatre' is the necessary illusion on which the illusion of 'independent things' dependently rests]. what this self-deception hides is that the world is a transforming relational spatial plenum which is continually engendering relational forms such as ourselves.

was nietzsche a ‘know-it-all’? of course not. he was merely pointing to an error-of-grammar, visible to all, that millions of Western people were making, that, if acknowledged, opens up an entirely new way of seeing things which ‘gets rid of the self-deception’; i.e. a new way of seeing things that acknowledges, as modern physics is acknowledging, that the world is ‘relations-first, things-dependent-on-relations’ [yin/yang] and not, as we have been deceiving ourselves, ‘things-first, relations-dependent-on-things’ [all-yang-no-yin].

decolonizing equates to de-masking [blowing away the authoritarian apex that forces us to wear the mask of citizenship wherein we substitute 'our support for rational programs' for spontaneous social engaging]

fuck off retard9000

you just called troll a "retard"?!

WHOOOP WHOOOP WHOOOP

We have a winner in the Indigenous Anarchism category of the Sarah Palin Prize for Best Self-Humiliating Insult!!!!

Will someone please tell emile what he has won?

The complete works and romantic letters of Mach possibly hmm?

I queried the NSA databases and got all the @news passwords.

Posting excerpts of emile's posts like a retard, that's shitposting nigga.

you did . . . what?
and doing what . . . is what?

emile did not post "fuck off retard9000" so i am thinking that the passwords have been hacked.

i have also recently received a message when trying to post that;... 'your address has been blacklisted' ... and my post rejected. this only happened once and then disappeared which suggests hacker play.

evidently, 'identity theft' can be used for voice-stealing as well as money-stealing.

when polar bears follow bluw whales thru the ice-waves, they just be followin, it is HUMANS who PERCEIVE as them purpose-driven as in brain-point and intellection-based behavior or `gay theater' `control room'. the notion of `hacking' is CHONG-ONLY and what those busta nerds came up with as an excuse for doin shit, which is totally unlike when polar bears fish for whales which is ching-chong habitant-inhabitant resonance-medium, psychologically superseding the physically real CHING-CHONG process which is physically real as modern physics prove.

`hacking' is closely related to the operating `systems' bullshit brought by some of those same queers. as systems theorists observe, all systems be in larger systems or supra-systems. like if someone lived all their life in a refrigerator, they would only know that thats how the world refrigerates, but if ONE DAY they got out of the refrigerator and saw that the refrigerator was in a bigger refrigerator truck, their world would expand as they saw how the refrigerator was included in a bigger refrigeration.

as systems theorist russell ackhoff says;

``But what could systems alone be? Could the Ultrasystem be unleashed, and if so, its power harvested by systems, or the destruction of systems? With no systems alone, but systems in an larger system, no Ultrasystem could arise and destroy the systems. To the larger systems in which other systems are included, I call the Suprasystem. What is given to a system, is the psychical; what is given to the Suprasystem, is the physical. Suprasystems could even include other Suprasystems. Thus Kurzt's Angel Systems could be interpreted as Ultrasystems or Suprasystems; the latter being closer to natural fact, there is no need to fear the Ultrasystems.'' Russel Ackhoff, `Angel System Thesis'

we appear to be in the deep shit now.

it is important Not to describe any form of a future society. to do so is to give oneself a false sense of security by prescribing
an " Answer "to the little worm in us asking for" the truth" of what the Just society will be like. It is like wanting to be reassured of a favorable conclusion to a ongoing process which in actuality is of sedimented structure.
Guess what : that's what we have today, yesterday and tomorrow if we let it. A vain attempt at getting a fix on this pesky "anarchist"? ,"elusive"society.
No, we are indeed part of a process already and it doesn't" need "Fixing". that is reactionary. seen in that way, to end up inevitably as a congealed , stratified , ossified, static …. dare I say….: State or a panoply of states ,and we, just subjugated objects in it.
if it is the process that matters , then we have to look for what a process can offer: Nothing (as in no thing)
we don"t need a "what". we need a "how", a" thrust" in the immanent fullness of our becoming.We already know why :we can't stand IT anymore. we want toget rid of the IT. i admit this is scary. but the issues involve the ability to be, the potential for happening , and the possibility of our being able to
create the adequate …EXPRESSION... of our singular and multitudinal projects with certain ethical attributes; and that these include the dignity of oneself and towards others; respect for our endless diversity and difference such that each one of is a unique and at the same time in concert a music of voices who speak to one an other with affirmation. we look to be mutually supportive and steadfastly with a spirit of: resolve.
encouraging each other to be our best becomings.call it Sartre's being -for- ourselves in concert with our surroundings…
call it Heidegger's "being- in- the -world and our environment, or Deleuze's mutuality of our becomings. at any rate ,none of this is static, weighted down, stuck in the stone of conclusions.
I ask you:what are we looking for : We want a rupture from the petrified deadwood of stagnation to the opportunity to a host of endless beginnings.
let us any which ever way we can to"get it on! and on and on and….ON!
Now methodology: NO Formulas . NO fictional yang type Phalligocentric (Lacan)Signifiers:.
White, Male, Human ,Colonizer , Majoritarian, etc. all idealized labels of the POWER STRUCTURE.
O K .. the opposite? no , the mirror-image of the same.
instead how about, for a start:
becoming colorful;
becoming women and children;
becoming animal or plant or insect (Braidotti)
or better yet cosmic
becoming indigenous;
becoming unique and yet united with the cry ONE for ALL and All for One!
note bene: NO BINARY TRAPS.
what we need to face as we get started: an appreciation of our abject post-traumatized
mentally colonized beginnings that have left us flaying from one pathetic and ineffective
damned Program, Platform, Strategy, Ontology, transcendant Theory of Utter loser Bullshit.
Correct me if I am wrong : Democratic Centralism; Religious Faith;"secular humanism".Reason.Progress.
Patience.Science as the ANSWER. BACK to the stone age economics. Ethics of what ? "Praxis" ….
all so lame, so yesterday, so powerless.so empty.
How about ;affirmation, Extension , joy, fullness,resolution, transformative, timelessness. Immersion. Expression.
Imminence. Different,you may say, but actually all the difference in the world and all we will ever need.
Concepts that are Sublime, techniques that require Surprise, love, power, maneuverability, fracturing everything at the same time it becomes an eternal WORK OF ART.The best we have is just right for where we want to go.
toolkit; music, art, poetry,literature, cosmology, festivals, happenings, coops, TAZ's,occupy, spread around, ( I -you could go on and on)
thanx > your Ideas . As frazier says : I'm listening".
nothing too sophisticated, just common sense and worthwhile and dare I say FUN stuff!

if the reader of your comment bases his understanding on the reality of ‘things’ and ‘time’, then there will be no place for the understanding he gleans from your comments to ‘take root’ and grow. when he ‘plays them back’ to himself, ... if he plays them back to himself using a foundational reality based on ‘things’ and ‘time’ then the only meaningful translation will be in the yang terms of ‘what things do’ and the inference in your message will be that we must do things or ‘express ourselves’ using different ‘ethics’; i.e. your words ‘future society’ imply that there IS such a thing but that we shouldn’t try to describe it, and that we must ‘create’ something.

i understand what you intend and i am with you, but i am just exploring the problem with language and how it can put different people on different interpretational tracks.

“it is important Not to describe any form of a future society”

you might have said;

1. the notion of a human society is a language-based synthetic concept which isolates humans from the continually transforming relational spatial plenum which is continually engendering them and implies they are ‘independent reason-driven systems’ in an absolute space and absolute time ‘container’ or ‘theatre of operations’. this is a ‘things-first, relations-derive-from-what-things-do’ based concept that bears no relation to nature’s physics, which is a ‘relations-first, things-derive from-how-relations-conflate [‘interfere’, ‘come into confluence’]

2. the notion of ‘future’ is an artefact of splitting apart ‘matter’ and ‘space’ so that relational forms can be imputed to have ‘independent existence’ which means that instead of the world dynamic being understood as the entire relational-spatial plenum transforming, it is understood as ‘things moving’ and ‘things changing’ in split apart ‘space’ and ‘time’.

my point is that your statement, because of its formulation in noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar is simultaneously contradicting your context as you are rolling it out there in this language. that is, the reader may assume that ‘there is a future society’ but we should not try to describe it but allow it ‘to become’ through our actions shaped/modulated by revised ethics.

this retains the notion of ‘society’ as a yang development.

i understand that your understanding inhabits this arrangement of noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar constructs that you have formulated to try to share it, and i can find it hiding in this forest because i know ‘where you are coming from’, ... but my sense is that people who are habituated to understanding things in terms of ‘what things do in absolute space and absolute time’ will have no place to ‘store’ your intended meaning, without addressing the limitations of language which, taken literally, presents ‘reality’ in terms of ‘independent things’ and ‘what thing do’ and ‘how things change’ as if in an empty space inhabited by other ‘independent things’, over ‘time’.

it is confusing to speak of people as ‘independent beings first’ as in your construct;

the dignity of oneself and towards others

and then ‘add in’, with the same stroke of the pen, a ‘relations-dependent-on-things’ aspect as in the ‘things-first, relations deriving from ‘what things do’ view, ... i.e.

“ and at the same time in concert a music of voices who speak to one an other with affirmation “

all of this is ‘yang construction’ based on ‘being’ aimed at conveying a yin/yang reality as is also the case with;

Sartre's being -for- ourselves in concert with our surroundings…

this statement is one of those BINARY TRAPS that you speak of in that it depicts ‘two separate things’, the self as a ‘being’ and the ‘surroundings’. but in a relational space these are not two things but one. the storm-cell is not a ‘being’ that is in concert with its surroundings, it is a continually engendering relational feature in the flow; i.e. its ‘surroundings’ are ‘it’, ... so it is redundant ‘non-sense’ to speak of a ‘being’ in concert with ‘its surroundings’. if nature is a dynamic unum, any splitting apart of a ‘being’ and ‘its surroundings’ is, as mach, nietzsche and schroedinger point out, the concretizing of ‘appearances’; i.e. the artificial subjectification of relational forms in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum.

in the relational space view, there is no such reality as ‘being’, there is only ‘becoming’ so there seems to be a mixed message in your comment, or at least a ‘low road’ and a ‘high road’ that is being offered at the same time.

when you use the term ‘future society’, you implicitly legitimize it, while saying that it is important not to describe it;

“it is important Not to describe any form of a future society”

in the view of the world as a relational space undergoing continual becoming, there is only the present. there is no past and no future, no ‘being’ and no ‘surroundings split off from ‘being’.

as schroedinger points out, this makes our identity more unique still, as being a nexus of relations within the activity continuum. our Atman = Brahman, ... we are the ‘surroundings which are engendering us’. we are no longer ‘doers of deeds’ as sartre and western philosophers (apart from emerson and nietzsche) would have it, we are ‘agents of transformation’ as emerson well describes in ‘The Method of Nature’, but we have a mischievous habit of reducing ourselves to ‘doers-of-deeds’.

our impression of ‘time’ comes from our repeated observations which focus on ‘appearances’; i.e. the changing appearance of a storm-cell that is becoming a ‘hurricane’. clearly, it is not a thing-in-itself but we treat it as such as we capture what we are seeing in words; ‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger’, ‘Katrina is ravaging New Orleans’.

every TIME we LOOK at the cell, IT has CHANGED, and in our observations notebook, we time-stamp WHEN WE LOOKED. we know better. we know that ‘it’ is a relational form; ... an activity in an activity continuum, ... a ‘system’ in a relational suprasystem. analytical inquiry allows us to SYNTHETICALLY isolate this ‘system’ and to understand it by notionally inverting the sourcing of its development and behaviour, attributing the sourcing to its internal components and internal processes. we can describe Katrina by way of three coupled differential equations; i.e. as an independent thing-in-herself with her own internal process driven and directed development and behaviour.

at this point, we can forget about the physical reality wherein outside-inward orchestrating influence plays the lead in shaping the inside-outward asserting activity-that-is-her (she is an activity within a relational activity continuum).

how do we capture this in a noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar? WE DON’T, because our language delivers representations of our experience/observations in a ‘things-first, relations deriving from what thing do’ manner, and what we really need is a language that delivers representations of our experience/observations in a relations-first, things-deriving from the confluence of relational influences’ manner.

there are such languages, as whorf and sapir and watts and bohm and f. david peat have pointed out. native american languages such as Hopi and Nootka are such ‘flow-based languages’. in a flow-based language, which is ‘timeless’, representations always attribute what is unfolding to the relational space first, as in ‘the terrain is slumping’, where the same dynamic is captured in European/Scientific language as ‘rocks are falling’, so that one gets the impression that the process of ‘falling rocks’ comes first and the modification of the terrain is due to ‘processes acting on the terrain’ such as ‘erosion’ due to falling rocks, landslides etc. when the physical reality is the continually transforming relational spatial plenum which is continually engendering relational forms.

the fractal archetype for ‘relations-first, things-deriving-from-the confluence of relational influences’ is implied by ‘the terrain is slumping’ which captures ‘outside-inward orchestrating influence as the leader of the dance with inside-outward asserting action [rocks are falling, rocks fell, rocks will fall] which splits out the dynamic yang figures from the dynamic ground and treats the yang what-things-are-doing [what things have done, what things will do] as ‘reality’. this is the source of inflated ego, authoritarianism, the Enlightenment European dualist archetype of man, organism and organization as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ that operate in ‘surroundings’ that are mutually exclusive to these ‘existential systems’ that operate ‘within them’.

bohm’s belief was that we needed a flow-based language to address this confusion wherein the architecture of our language is continually contradicting our attempts to express the ‘relations-first’ reality by architectural limitations that reduce yin/yang dynamics to all-yang-no-yin representations.

if a reader is already ‘tuned’ to relational views such as yours, there is no problem in finding it in your written noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar, but if the reader is coming from a Western education which teaches a things-first, relations deriving from ‘what things do’ way of viewing dynamics, then such a reader is likely to ‘clean up’ what appears as ‘fog’ clouding what you are saying, and ending up with a dualist impression, as in your construct taken literally;

Sartre's being -for- ourselves in concert with our surroundings…

in the non-dualist relations-first understanding, we are movements within nature’s concert. we are the concert. we are agents of transformation, stirrings in the overall stirring up that is nature’s concert, just as katrina is an agent of transformation that is a stirring within the overall stirring up; i.e. the ongoing atmospheric concert.

basically, our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar, because of its architectural limitations, is an impediment to sharing yin/yang understandings such as yours, and emile’s and that of indigenous anarchists and taoist anarchists. your choice of representational medium is at odds with the sharing of understandings that you are attempting. in other words, your message is dumbed down by the sharing medium you are employing. this suggests that the issue of the limitations of language has to be dealt with ‘at the same time’ in order to open the way for sharing yin/yang [relations-first] understandings without them being reduced to all-yang-no-yin [things-first] representations.

radical community’ is a yang term that fails to capture what is going on.

when a body [biological organization] goes out of balance, bacteria proliferate within it, of various types. [scurvy is an example; it is due to a deficiency in the established organization/system].

of course those people who can only think in yang terms are going to call those proliferating bacteria ‘pathogens’, ‘radical communities’ on the attack that are trying to ‘bring down the system’.

as pasteur and béchamp agreed, ‘le microbe n’est rien, le terrain est tout’. the growth of ‘radical communities’ is nothing, the condition of the established system/organization is everything.

OWS was ample evidence of a deficiency in the system outside-inwardly orchestrating the inside-outwardly asserting rise of so-called ‘radical communities’. the global system is imploding, collapsing in on itself, as its globalized parasitism of feeding on itself is rising to extremes never before experienced.

is it not clear that the system is seriously out of balance? is it not well known that bodies out of balance become highly accommodating to the proliferating of 'opportunistic' bacteria that some people call pathogens because their way of seeing the world is purely yang.

if baseball hitters improve their batting averages, who can say that it is NOT due to a decline in fielding competencies? [negative causality]

if global surface temperatures shoot up like the curve on a hockey stick, who can say that it is NOT a decline in temperature depressing cryospheric influence [decline in the surface area of melting ice]? [negative causality]

if the only tool in your toolkit for explaining change is a positive causal [yang] tool, then every observed anomaly is going to be explained in terms of positive [yang] cause.

who says that ‘systems’ have to be ‘overthrown’ [positive causality]. the more general case is that ‘systems collapse’ [negative causality].

as with the baseball metaphor where improved hitting performance can come from more accommodating fielding, ... who here believes that huge increases in CEO hitting performance do NOT come from extorting more accommodation from the ‘fielding’ [workers of the world]? [negative causality]

as i recall, corporate management, in the 1980s, increased its playing around with the 'expense line' which included employee wages and benefits to manipulate their 'apparent financial performance', running off all of their oldest and most faithful 'servants' who had helped them through their toughest periods so as to manipulate their expense lines and artificially boost their 'hitting performance'?

investors see only 'batting averages'. they have no idea [and many don't care anyhow] whether the 'improved hitting performance' came from 'management-hitters' or from a forced increase in the accommodating of 'working fielders'.

oh, that’s right, ... one has to go to relativity and quantum physics before one can restore the concept of negative cause, which was banished from mainstream scientific thinking with the coming of absolute space and absolute time reference framing. how can empty space ‘orchestrate any positive asserting’ of the independent things that populate the empty space? the only explanation for the dynamics of independent things residing in an absolute space and absolute time reference frame is ‘positive causal’ explanation, because the asserting of independent systems in empty space can only derive from the internal processes of those 'independent systems'.

so long as people mistake absolute space and absolute time framed dynamics [the all-yang-no-yin, all-positive-cause-no-negative-cause view of dynamics] for reality [instead of seeing such framing as a convenience based economy of thought], anarchism is impossible and authoritarianism is the only possible way of organizing.

articles such as this one promote this 'blindered' view of dynamics.

your points are very well taken-
I am trying to express our immanent,full plenum in a way that takes into account that there is a yang component folded into yin dynamics as well as a yin dynamic folded into the yang without fracturing the common place western grammar
and syntax. Part of this is to communicate to our readers in a somewhat intelligible
though flawed way expressing the yang component as part of dynamic interaction with the yin . more to the point or should I say the plane that we not subsume the yang as interior to the force of the yin, thereby trying to discount the yang altogether in a subtle/?blatant manner. You have to admit that we among all sentient beings do have yang features as part of our colloquial
language partly due to oppressive power relations but also due to our existential ability to be conscious of our own facticity and finitude,an awesome gift/curse if there ever was one,
and thereby able in a mysterious manner to articulate our awareness of our witness to creation of the original substance from
which all relations emerge.I take pains to tone down the noun and promote the verb. Technically you are correct but in
language form it is easy to to subsume the yang to the yin to where it becomes impossible for any concepts at all to be able to be expressed. I am presuming that only a human-type being can even ever carry out this discussion of that yin/yang we are trying to verbalize. It is no wonder you can deemphasize the very real untoward power we as humans have in destroying the actual world habitat that we and other living things share in our little force field we call earth. otherwise we can not only
explain away AGW, the way on a more intimate level we can explain away genocide in our political life let alone more day to day subtle degradations of each other and and our immediate habitat, say , deforestation.
people can easily say, none of this matters until and unless we get the right language one hundred per cent.
I am trying to express concepts that are in basic agreement in a way that bridges indigenous approaches with
unfortunate Western ones so that we can speak to each other now and be relatively be understood. of course you may be correct with the overall points that our language must be articulated in your way to fully grasp the macro aspect of our the full plenum of flows and relational forces.
I do try and that you have agreed. We are leaning from you too despite the unfamiliarity of your way of articulation.
I am also aware that some of my philosophy struggles mightily to avoid appearance of substantial idealistic interpretations. your assistance has been most helpful.

your post brings forth a few thoughts, as follows;

1. my three+ years of posting on anarchistnews.org are characterized by an inability to share these yin/yang understandings ‘at depth’. that is, they can be used to expose more complete views into particular issues, and this can be shared, but that issue-by-issue acknowledgement of how the innately more comprehensive yin/yang view ‘more deeply and fully explains’ the anatomy of an issue/phenomenon, does not mean that the individual that acknowledges its greater depth [on a single issue] is going to make it ‘his/her basic method-of-inquiry or approach-to-understanding’.

clearly, one person ‘can persuade another person’ that they have a better model for a particular issue by explaining it in a new and different way that ‘makes more sense’, but that in itself will not automatically change the individual’s habitual approach to inquiry. for example, scientists simply separate ‘exceptions’ that analytical inquiry is incapable of ‘explaining’ [within the mainstream science paradigm] and calling it ‘complexity’ or ‘non-linear dynamics’. one example is ‘acoustic fluidization’. in avalanches and even in laying down concrete, nature organization is manifest that newtonian physics [what things do] is incapable of dealing with. as rocks of various sizes tumble down a slope together [or descend within a watery slurry], the changing spatial relations open up ‘holes’ so that the medium size rocks fall into the holes made by the large rocks and the small size rocks fall into the holes made by the medium rocks etc. so that there is a net ‘sorting’ from fines to coarse, so that the big rocks get to ride on a ‘carpet’ of smaller rocks, allowing the moving body of rocks in the avalanche to travel much farther than ‘what things do’ based physics models would predict. this is a case of dynamic phenomena characterized by ‘relations-first, things-derive-from-relational nexa’. from a modern physics point of view, this is the general case. from the mainstream science point of view, this is a ‘special case/exception’ with the general case being the ‘things-first, relations-deriving-from-what-things-do’.

mainstream science, then, every time it hits something it’s simplistic ‘what things do’ model can’t explain, throws it into the ‘special/case/exception’ category. a scientist or engineer working on plans for the development of a mountain resort will take into account ‘acoustic fluidization’ in estimating the avalanche risks, but only with rules of thumb, such as; ‘if an unstable formation breaks free and comes down the mountain slope, it may travel end up travelling fifty percent more than one would calculate on the basis of ‘what things do’ because of the internal sorting and organizing in the slurry that accompanies its movement down the slope.

the internal sorting exemplifies how outside-inward orchestrating influence [the relational-spatial holes that form amongst the rocks] shapes inside-outward asserting movement of the rocks. in this dynamic, which is one dynamic [transformation of spatial relations], the outside-inward orchestrating [yin] influence is ‘the leader of the dance’ and the inside-outward asserting material [yang] dynamics is the follower.

so long as scientists and people in general are ‘comfortable’ with having their ‘special case/exceptions’ category in which to ‘bin’ things they can’t explain with their ‘standard’ method of inquiry, their standard inquiry will continue to be their standard inquiry.

this is the issue. the scientist or person acknowledges that his ‘method of inquiry’ does not explain the phenomena known as ‘acoustic fluidization’ so he deals with it as an ‘exception’. so, in those cases where standard theory clearly falls down, one can offer the yin/yang view and people will accept that it gives a better understanding OF THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE/PHENOMENON, which in no way means that they are going to ‘upgrade’ their standard yang inquiry with yin/yang inquiry.

you [azano] are the first person i have ‘met’ in this forum who, by your own intuition, is coming from using yin/yang inquiry as your base-case and thus acknowledging the incompleteness of yang inquiry; i.e. you are coming from ‘relations-first’ inquiry and acknowledging that ‘things-first’ inquiry is a reduction that leads to over-simplification of our view that can put our [yang] actions in conflict with our [yin/yang] experience.

GOOD LUCK TO YOU IN FINDING INNOVATIVE WAYS TO SHARE THIS AND SCREW THE IMPERFECTIONS IN HOW IT IS DONE.

that is, my apparent ‘critiques’ of what you are saying are ‘technical’ in that i feel it is important to come up with a solid template of ‘consistencies’ with the yin/yang approach to ‘check oneself out’ since our noun-and-verb language-and-grammar delivers a ‘what things do’ based model/view which cannot directly capture yin/yang dynamics. for example, in the case of acoustic fluidization, i spoke in terms of ‘what rocks do’, but it is the ‘holes in the moving assemblage of rocks’ [spatial relations] that is the primary shaper of the dynamic. in other words i have not explained, and i cannot explain, the acoustic fluidization phenomenon in terms of ‘what rocks do’. what is missing is that the influence of ‘acoustic space’ like ‘gravity’ is ‘everywhere-at-the-same-time’, but when we talk about ‘what things do’, we assume that the ‘operating space’ is ‘absolute space and absolute time’, a kind of empty box container that has no influence on dynamics, and thus we assume that all of the sourcing of the dynamics must come from ‘the yang action of things’.

for a Western culture [and language] conditioned mind, it is very hard to think in terms that an influence that is everywhere-at-the-same-time as in ‘gravity’ and ‘acoustics’ is primary and that it engenders ‘things’; i.e. that ‘things’ are relational nexa in the pervasive ‘influence-field’ [the continually transforming relational spatial plenum]

2. Pitfalls such as AGW

in the yin/yang view, cause-and-effect is no longer valid. this has been discussed by philosophers of science such as Mach, Poincaré, François Lurçat and others, but almost no-one listens, or rather ‘hears’.

AGW assumes that man ‘is causing’ global warming. the cause-effect model separates ‘the causal agent’ from ‘the environment’ and makes it appear as if the actions of man determine ‘changes’ in the environment. this is not in agreement with modern physics; i.e. man is included in the environment; i.e. he is a relational form in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum. he is an ‘agent of transformation’ and NOT a doer-of-deeds or ‘determiner of effects’.

he can ‘determiner the death of insects’ by developing toxins and putting these vapours into the atmosphere, but the real physical view of this is that he is intervening in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum, the result of which he can never know, unless he were able to understanding the universe as a plenum (and not by the parts that he breaks it into to simplify his inquiry and generate, for his own convenience, ‘economy of thought’).

pushing out fossil fuel emissions has the same dynamic ‘topology’ as pushing out DDT vapours; i.e. it is an intervention into an unknowable relational transformational unfolding. it is not possible to determine ‘the effect’ of such action. we are not ‘in control’, thus sustaining harmony in our relations with the unfolding the ‘natural ethic’.

e.g. there are no such things as ‘extinctions’ in a continuously transforming relational spatial plenum, there is only ‘transformation’ as manifests in the gathering and regathering of relational forms in the continuing flow. the notion of ‘extinction’ come from our getting used to ‘seeing certain forms’ and imputing ‘independent existence’ to them, rather than understanding these forms as relational features in the continuing flow of nature. nature is one thing within which the pursuit of relational balance is innate, thus the relational forms that gather within this transforming plenum are secondary to the transformational dynamics of the unum/plenum of nature. that does not mean that our human activities are not associated with the disappearance of many of these forms, it is just to say that the continually transforming plenum is primary and that rather than man’s actions ‘killing off’ these species, the real physical process is given by Mach’s principle;

‘The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants.”

one might argue and say that, nevertheless, ‘we are causing their death’, ... but such a statement implies that ‘we are directly causally responsible’, which is not true. since everything is interdependent in a transforming relational spatial plenum, we are making our common living space toxic to ourselves as well;

“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’

the predictions of cause-effect are ‘mechanical’ and depend upon the senses we use to make our observations;

“The laws of nature are equations between the measurable elements α,β,γ,δ . . . . ω of phenomena. As nature is variable, the number of these equations is always less than the number of the elements.
.
If we know all the values of α,β,γ,δ . . . . by which, for example, the values of λ,μ,ν . . . are given, we may call the group α,β,γ,δ . . . . the cause and the group λ,μ,ν . . . the effect. In this sense we may say that the effect is uniquely determined by the cause. The principle of sufficient reason, in the form, for instance, in which Archimedes employed it in the development of the laws of the lever, consequently asserts nothing more than that the effect cannot by any given set of circumstances be at once determined and undetermined. If two circumstances α and λ are connected, then, supposing all others are constant, a change of λ will be accompanied by a change of α, and as a general rule a change of α by a change of λ.” – Mach

the values of α,β,γ,δ are values we obtain with our senses. however, as mach points out, we have based ‘mechanics’ on our visual and tactile senses but not on our full complement of senses which includes much more, such as our acoustic space awareness that we use to navigate passage in a crowd [think of the ‘acoustic fluidization’ example]

what françois lurçat was talking about was that in establishing ‘initial conditions’ aka the values of α,β,γ,δ, we are missing a whole lot of stuff because we limit our observations to vision and touch.

belief in AGW which implies cause-and-effect [mistaken belief that we are 'causing rising temperatures and therefore that we can calculate and predict such cause-and-effect] is a source of incoherence and dysfunction in the social dynamic coming from the general belief in ‘yang’ dynamics type. we cannot predict the future other than in the trivial sense of ‘if we spray more DDT there will be fewer insects in the future’. there is no ‘future’ in the modern physics view of the world as a continuously transforming relational spatial plenum, there is only the continuing present.

to summarize;

1. i wish you the best in finding innovative ways to share in a way that encourages others to ‘upgrade their basic method of inquiry’ from yang to yin/yang.

2. my comments or what appear to be critiques are to simplify and share the philosophical principles and to undermine the intellectual premises of colonialism.

There is the plenum of yin and yang((both),
Yin/yang (either/or)in a subject/object form,
and yang - yin (both and).
You emphasize the first. I, the last. perforce I talk about the yang as the
actualized structural element folded into the larger habitat; while you absorb
the yang into the yin.
therefore you minimize the effect of the yang effect on small systems(say the earth)
and I thereby emphasize the yang as substantial in its effect on that habitat.
of course I agree with you that on a more cosmological as well as "molecular'
scale yang's
effect does not matter in the overall scheme of things. But on a local socius it certainly does.I.E.:
on a small scale, we matter. on a large scale we don"t amount to a hill of beans or or a wifefof breath.

Yin-yang is a dualistic mythological interpretation and therefore a fallacy! How the hell can you juxtapose Sartre's individualistic existentialism into your blueprint for a linguistically determined group consciousness? You are hilariously absurd and should concentrate on being a surrealist abstract yin-yang painter by throwing black and white paint bombs at canvases and calling the mess a philosophical masterpiece of totalitarian neurosis. We come across these creatures who are just plain stubborn, which equates to stupidity, [if a lack of refinement could be called ignorance], not naivety though, innocence is exempt from any judgement, I mean the plain old stubborn fool who cannot take the hint, the one you have to slap some sense into occasionally. That's you! You should take substances or have amoral relationships because to hear you talk as if you are a wise man about the workings of this world in a guarded and tailored grammatical style makes me think you are a fake and a false prophet!

Hi! King
Well that slap woke me up
I start with the recent Western tradition;
Heidegger's being in the world
which is a break from transcendental metaphysics
to relational forces and flows, very similar to Buddhism
with whom he wrote about and resonated with.
Then Sartre whose idealized , more intimate and psychological version,
of Being and Nothing ness, transformed more closely in
The Critique of Dialectical Reason to a more Heidegger type
perspective exploring concepts as seriality, group in fusion,
ossification and regress of revolutionary structures, closer to
Heidegger,albeit tainted with Marxist dialectics.
in short : being for oneself to a more apt being for ourselves .
then backwards to Nietszche "s eternal return and relational
will to power. I am a work in progress. with the help Freud,
Lacan, and finally Deleuze and and most contemporarily,
Braidotti, I will try to get there.
This leads to the politics of horizontal social formations of a transformative nature
i.e. seattle, occupy etc. which are forces coincidental with relations of postmodern and
postindustrial economics and state formations.
Thanx for your input
azano

Wow you're worse than emile. You sound like an hyperactive hippy who gets confused with the bunch of buzzwords they say...

>White, Male, Human ,Colonizer , Majoritarian, etc. all idealized labels of the POWER STRUCTURE.

Reducing english to `labels' is a mistake. `Idealized' refers to `ideas', no? The `ideas' classification shouldn't be taken seriously. And of the POWER STRUCTURE? What the fuck is the POWER STRUCTURE? Don't tell me.

So, fuck the idealized authoritarian label of `human', let's... become plants instead

>just common sense

`Common sense' is largely a matter of speaking so that one is readily understood.

>with certain ethical attributes; and that these include the dignity of oneself and towards others; respect for our endless diversity and difference

Ahahaha

That silly LABEL OF THE YELLOW STAR that helped the
Nazi keep track of the Jew as he killed 6 million?
I stand by all that I say. none of it is trivial.
maybe I'll try to more profound for you for i admit you are right with my
not fully developed examples. For a better explanation, see Rosi Braidotti's
Nomadology regarding Becomings.Well discussed in wikipedia.
All aside, thanks for the input.

for my part, i feel the relational ties; i.e. ... ‘mitakuye oyasin’, ... we are all related, as children in one big family, ... and that our separation comes from acculturation. our acculturation has us develop masks which we mount over top of our child-like innocence, tolerance, inquisitiveness. uniforms also are like masks. the person who dresses like a waiter starts acting like a waiter, and if a couple come into the restaurant dressed like customers, they start acting like customers, and if a man comes in dressed as a priest, he starts acting as a priest, and the same for a nun and a turban wearing sheik etc. etc. and if they all got high and naked, then they would be like children playing together who had not yet ‘learned how to behave’.

in other words, i do not agree that putting on masks and role-plays ‘makes us real, not fake’;

“Most of us mean what we say, but know it is only in the context of their "regular "lives where perforce we compromise ourselves in daily life to get from one day to the next. THAT makes us real, not fake, just mortal human beings.
Judge ye not lest you be Judged.

it is not a case of ‘judging the individual’, but one of judging a cultural belief system that seems to have taken us over. john locke in his ‘two treatises on government’ observes that naturally evolving community develops by relational needs opening up and outside-inwardly orchestrating the evolving/development of inside-outward asserting roles such as that of the waiter. where there was a need for someone to serve meals, someone who was propitiously situated and available [not otherwise occupied] ‘rose to the occasion’ and put on appropriate clothes etc, and in this way community evolved, naturally, as a web of relations. that is, natural community IS a relation web.

‘relations first, thing-dependent-on-relations’ [things like waiters and customers; e.g. waiters can become customers and customers can become waiters depending the relational dynamics].

ok, what locke bemoaned was the invention of money and the invention of wage labour which led to the ‘unravelling’ of community, a weave of social relations into which one’s labour was mixed;

“Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.” – John Locke, Two Treatises of Government

labour as a social function was the relational structure of naturally evolving community [community as a relational structure sustained by socially-engaging labour], however, the advent of money and wage-labour allowed the ‘trading out of social function’ for money. money thus ‘unravels community’ and alienates individuals from one another by introducing paid ‘role-plays’ that can be 'dropped' at the end of each 'eight-hour-day' [the social binding of paid labour returns to zero each time the wages are paid and neither side owes anything to the other].

the scene you and sartre describe, which you say is ‘ubiquitous in our lives’ is a ‘capitalist scenario’;

“However the waiter and the customer (and I grew up in the family Restaurant business, so I know what I am talking about) conspire in their roles to validate the Ruse. This process is ubiquitous in our lives. ... The only one's who don"t are the true sociopaths with the lacuna of total lack of Conscience, narcissistic anti - social personalities.”

i.e. it is a capitalist scenario where people are trapped inside of role-plays because community has ‘unravelled’ and labour as a social function that was the woven fabric of community is split out into ‘role-plays’ like ‘the waiter’ and ‘customer’ role plays.

in a non-capitalist society, such as indigenous anarchist community, labour-AS-A-SOCIAL-FUNCTION is retained, as indicated in the following quote from Nootka [Nuu-chah-nulth] Chief Maquinna;

“Once I was in Victoria, and I saw a very large house; they told me it was a bank and that the white men place their money there to take care of, and that by-and-by they got it back, with interest. We are Indians and have no such bank; but when we have plenty of money or blankets, we give them away to other chiefs and people, and by-and-by they return them, with interest, and our hearts feel good. Our potlatch is our bank.” [for the full letter and associated context (jailing of indigenous aboriginal peoples for continuing with the potlatch tradition) see 'First People First Voices', edited by Penny Petrone]

we are used to living in a capitalist society and trading our labour for money instead of using our labour in social functions that are the relational weave of community. the business man who hires a female escort to be his companion while away from home in a distant city may treat her very well, almost like his regular partner, and she will treat him almost as if he were her regular partner, and the money part will be kept separate and done by credit card through the escort agency, and it won’t be called ‘prostitution’ because the two become friends over the weekend and sleeping together is their choice. of course, if her cell rings while they are in a love session and it is the agency telling her that his credit card is bouncing their charges, ... the affectionate role-plays may stop right there, and an ugly scene may develop of the sort that unfolds when the customer fails to tip the waiter.

“Most of us mean what we say, but know it is only in the context of their "regular "lives where perforce we compromise ourselves in daily life to get from one day to the next. THAT makes us real, not fake, just mortal human beings.
Judge ye not lest you be Judged.

it is not a case of judging the individuals. the female escort may be a single parent who has children to feed and likewise the waiter. the role-playing associates with the capitalist system.

“the waiter and the customer ... conspire in their roles to validate the Ruse. This process is ubiquitous in our lives”

yes, it is ubiquitous. it is the trading out of labour as social function that is the relational weave of community, ... for labour-for-money, removing the social function that binds people together and alienating individuals from one another, forcing them to engage via ‘role-plays’. each person may be caring and want to treat the other caringly, but they both have this uncomfortable feeling in them, knowing they are trapped in a system that is imposing these role-play situations on them.

there is ‘self-deception’ in believing that cameraderie is a yang condition that has to be assertively determined; e.g. by ‘becoming members’ of a group whose ‘ideals’ are in common. cameraderie comes naturally when we remove our masks, uniforms and role-plays, including the role-play that associates with membership in an exclusive group with common ideals, ... religious, political, or commercial; i.e. natural cameraderie is ‘relations-first, things-dependent on relations’.

the cameraderie in the nazi SS or in the navy SEALs is ‘things-first, relations-dependent on things’, as is the ‘radical community’ cameraderie. it is cameraderie from putting masks on rather than taking them off. it is cameradie that is ‘policed’ by rationality [one must know who one’s comrades are; no jews for SS, no KGB for SEALs, no capitalists for radical community, etc.]

‘spiritual ecstasy’ comes in both appollonian and dionysian forms, and i don’t know which type of cameraderie you intend in your following comment; i.e. the word ‘movement’ is ambiguous [one could say; ‘they were together in their movement to ignore the laws against dionysian potlatch ceremonies’ which connotes a ‘defensive action’ in support of ‘relations-first, things-dependent-on-relations’ tradition, ... versus .... the riot police who were being sent back in to disperse the violent protest after recovering the bodies of several of their murdered comrades, experienced a fatalistic calm and deep sense of solidarity/mutuality knowing that they might also be giving their lives up, in protecting the nation from the insurgency’ ]; i.e. you say;

“I have been privileged to be part of movements in my life where I did feel that comradely feeling ,where I did feel part of that group -in- fusion-that Sartre wrote about in his second great opus.I remember that all our pretenses melted away for brief periods of time in a spirit of Affirmation, resolution,mutuality and inner peace and carefree relaxation and exhalation.”

evidently, sartre’s ‘group-in-fusion’ is the apollonian version that needs continuously asserting yang energy-of-fusion to sustain it [which never comes]. the dionysian version is the yang-mask-dropping version [innocent play of children or high-and-naked-adults or potlatch play of indigenous anarchists] which does not depend on rational organization but is spontaneously relations-first, ‘things dependent on relations’.

there are problems with the appollonian 'group-in-fusion';

https://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/the-spirit-of-sartre

In one key exchange, Sartre has been describing as a kind of illustrative mini-example of the group-in-fusion a bus ride in which a group of bus passengers who had previously been merely a disconnected series, a line of people waiting for the bus at the bus stop, had transformed themselves into a fused group by persuading the driver to go off his normal route and to drop each of them at their destinations, which in turn leads to the able-bodied passengers taking pleasure in assisting an old woman in a wheelchair to get off the bus and get into her home, and to an overall atmosphere of joy and free conversation erupting into the dead space where there had previously been merely a collection of anonymous strangers. Gerassi responds by saying, in effect, that's all well and good, but those passengers will inevitably go home and the next day they'll be back in line, the weight of historical forces will again overwhelm and condition them, and their hot moment will go cold -- just as the sans-culottes of the French revolution returned their power to the elites and lost their transformative energy, just as the Paris Commune had failed to sustain itself, and just as the youth of the sixties were seeing their groups dissolve into internal squabbles or get co-opted by the political parties or become overwhelmed, as we would say in Tikkun, by the legacy of generations of Fear of the Other more powerful than the momentary unity made possible by the moment of fusion. "To avoid defeat the group-in-fusion must remain in fusion," says Gerassi. "But how? ... If the group-in-fusion is always bound to fail, no matter how much of a residue it leaves around the edges for historians to contemplate, why risk starting it again?"
.
It is difficult to read these words and not feel that this is exactly the worldwide dilemma of the present moment, that because of the failures of prior social movements and the defeats or distortions of the fused groups that these movements were formed by and inspired, we are unable to risk starting it again and to surrender to the radical hope that this requires of us without a new step in theory to guide and express some new form of social practice.”

summary;

the big self-deception has been identified by nietzsche and by modern physics; i.e. we do not live in a world of ‘independent things’ that ‘do stuff’ and we are not, overselves, ‘independent things’ that ‘do stuff’ [the illusion of an absolute space and absolute time frame 'operating theatre' is the necessary illusion on which the illusion of 'independent things' dependently rests]. what this self-deception hides is that the world is a transforming relational spatial plenum which is continually engendering relational forms such as ourselves.

was nietzsche a ‘know-it-all’? of course not. he was merely pointing to an error-of-grammar, visible to all, that millions of Western people were making, that, if acknowledged, opens up an entirely new way of seeing things which ‘gets rid of the self-deception’; i.e. a new way of seeing things that acknowledges, as modern physics is acknowledging, that the world is ‘relations-first, things-dependent-on-relations’ [yin/yang] and not, as we have been deceiving ourselves, ‘things-first, relations-dependent-on-things’ [all-yang-no-yin].

decolonizing equates to de-masking [blowing away the authoritarian apex that forces us to wear the mask of citizenship wherein we substitute 'our support for rational programs' for spontaneous social engaging]

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.
13 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Subscribe to Comments for "Liberty, Equality, Geography: An Interview with John P. Clark on the Revolutionary Eco-Anarchism of Elisée Reclus"