Topic of the Week: International vs Domestic

  • Posted on: 2 May 2016
  • By: thecollective

This week in particular is a good example of people attempting to take lessons from around the world (especially Europe) about how anarchists should behave, and, by extension, what makes a good anarchist.
Does that work? How do you and your friends negotiate the differences of culture, police capacity, city structure, etc, that create different visions and expectations and abilities for anarchists in various places?
For the more philosophical among you, what do you think of the implicit (tacit) internationalism of blanket comparisons between scenes in different places?
(We also, of course, take lessons from history, which are just as complicated, given that it is fair to say that things are really different now than they were when (for example) Emile Henry was alive, or Novatore, or Sasha Berkman, etc. but perhaps that is a question for another time.)

category: 

Comments

The tendency and desire to make broad generalizations is a general pitfall for what seems like most westerners (this sentence being an example).

The way I do this is to push worker cooperatives as a means to subverting traditional authority with the hope it will lead to the end of all hierarchy in all organizations.

I'm not from the US.
The way that the rising surveillance capitalism in your country is growing freaks me out.
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/02/google-microsoft-pact...
ect ect

This combined with the fact that radicals and anybody who might do something about it is being priced out of the techie areas, forming a barrier between us and them, is concerning.

Yet, unlike in my country, your country has more than a handful of anarchists. Anarchists enough to put together something. When I think about what we could do here with the just the few of anarchists I know in the US it confuses me.

Am I just not hearing about the shit being done?

I think it's important to be in dialogue between different contexts (national and otherwise)--sometimes what works in one won't work in another, but other times, it takes off like wildfire. I like that the new Fire to the Prisons is intended to connect local and international struggles, and I hope they can raise enough money to print it:

https://www.generosity.com/fundraising/help-print-and-distribute-fire-to...

I think rather it is better that anarchists from the same culture organize, only if they stay long time in some country, they can meet during the time with domestic anarchists and do something together but it is very hard to mix people form different cultures without that one side get subordinated.
for me, as an immigrant in the west, it is always problem if one anarchist come and he must adapt himself in western daily stupidities, instead to have autonomy and freedom to live and does as he wants. don't forget that even west and east germans don't like each others after 25 years living together, they grew up in different systems and they have different mentality, different functioning in daily life, even they speak the same language, they have mentality barrier.
therefore, if anarchists from albania/russia come to germany, I am sure they will have cultural/mentality problems with daily life of western people, they can subordinate/suppress their needs in order to become part of German anarchist groups or they can stay separated group and participate together in protests, etc, but if they start to be together whole day, they will get problems, and western people usually expect from outsiders to adapt and not to criticize, you don't have voice when you are new. despite of blabla about freedom, many anarchists will not let you to be free.
therefore, anarchist immigrants should have their groups and domestic anarchists their groups, they can collaborate together but there will be hegemony if you mix them whole day every day. all in all, people can make actions/protest together, but there is cultural barrier to spend together whole day every day.
+ there are different types of anarchists who don't collaborate in the same city, country... local conflicts.
+ it is better for security that immigrants organize between themselves than with domestic anarchists that can be infiltrated by the secret service. If I come from italy to sweden, and I organize with other italians, there is a smaller chance for swedish agents to spy us, to arrest us, especially if we don't agitate around for militant actions than we do it secretly, why we should come to foreign country and call others to use violence if they didn't do it before we came? use it by yourself and don't speak to anyone, that's the best option.

There's definitely a noticeable difference when you compare anarchist riots around the world with ones in the US. One is very well organized, mobile, fluent, INTELLIGENT, coherent, ballzy and big in numbers while the US none of that.

Yeah, "anarchist riots" in, say, Honduras, China, Iran, Macedonia, Paraguay, Portugal, Belarus, Nigeria, Norway, India, Bangladesh, Slovakia, New Zealand, Mauritania, and Thailand are all "very well organized, mobile, fluent, INTELLIGENT, coherent, ballzy and big in numbers." Sure. So are all of the "anarchist riots" in Canada and Russia and the UK, I bet.

You're a fucking idiot. Isn't there a toilet that needs cleaning there at the police academy?

You totally contradict reality my friend. When you compare the years of resistance in places like France, Greece, Latin America, italy and the middle East, you're way out flanked if you want to compare number of rebels getting down with cops. Sorry buster. YOU LOSE!

Countries with a long Marxist tradition, now on the cusp of a Post-Marxist era, have had the organizational apparatus of labour striking mechanisms remain intact, and their evolution conjoined with the modern social networking communications to produce these mass rallies which influence and provoke change within the collective cultural mindset.

And now it's about y'all's anonymous interpersonal conflict instead of the actual discussion.

This was a response to the people talking about "There's definitely a noticeable difference when you compare anarchist riots around the world with ones in the US. One is very well organized, mobile, fluent, INTELLIGENT, coherent, ballzy and big in numbers while the US none of that."

Most of Eastern Europe cultures are divided into 3 represented factions 1) Neo-Marxists, 2) Conservatives 3) Immigrants ,1) 45% 2)45 3)10% . proportions not existing in the US i.e. 1)10% 2)80% 3)10% so it is absurd to believe in democratic uniformity and any identical purpose for Occupation comparing Europe to the whole of the Americas, globalism does not infect the soul of the plebeian horde, especially the French with their Napoleonic Gaulish pride. Their riots are more about putting the final transitional stages to a Post-Marxist future while the US's is putting a new Mall in the local neighborhood and more cash for the end of the week consumer splurge. Different population strokes entirely.
The biggest Canadian riots are booze/sport venting events for an otherwise obedient populace. Diverse affluent Life-Styleism contrasting with the uneducated workerist ethos further complicates the task of unifying any common NA cause beyond the pursuit of fast food and recovering from the ravages of poor diet and no physical exercise.

ethos

Very intelligent succinct comment. NA is a culture-less wasteland, open historicism doesn't work, I wouldn't say unify but tying disparate elements together is a big step in itself, and not just websites. Righteousness and blatant attempts to politicise waste a lot of effort. Apoliticism is a reality. A few centuries at least.

I meant western European, but anyway, one could apply the core of my meaning to many of the other multifaceted cultures of Europe also, and former colonized Asian countries.

Yeah tying together rather than unifying, thanks for pointing out the nuanced meaning these words have in the political context, I rush my comments sometimes.

We are nihilists cause we don't care. =))

Subject of the week: bullshit Manichean dichotomies. It's almost like this site is intentionally reproducing an infantile representation of anarchists...

The thing about traveling is your realize these questions are a bit silly. Everyone is pretty much the same and aspects of the same bullshit exist everywhere. It's recent history and culture (which someone sort of mentioned above) which dictates how successful an anti-authoritarian movement will be. I see a lot of similarities between certain European countries and the USA while some spots are completely foreign in the way the anarchist and radical movements function. In the USA you can look city to city to see completely different ways in which the anti-authoritarian movement ebbs and flows over time. A lot of places end up surprising like for instance Pittsburgh which has always had a larger and more relevant than expected anarchist presence compared to Los Angeles where anarchy was so infused with punk rock that it couldn't ever climb out of that pit.

So what is the answer? I would say a lot of what works elsewhere works everywhere. But the culture and people dictate the existence of tactics even happening in the first place. Unfortunately, the suburban lifestyle is/was a disaster for anarchy in the USA and it is the culprit behind the confusing string of social ideas cropping up over the past 10 years. Kill the safe space in your head.

hm. well said.

Agreed! Grafting quality theory on to existing work being done is huge too, whether its international or local. Most anarchist theory, even a lot of the nihilist stuff (or at least the interesting parts) assumes a backdrop of struggle and networks. If there's no tension at all and no culture of resistance, there's no soil to sink roots in to.

categorizing is analytical backfill that misses the hole point.

the relational situation actualizes behaviours, and then we describe what happens in terms of what people do! how stupid is it to voluntarily do that?

that is the tactic of authoritarianism/colonialism wherein those who are in power oppress and spring load everyone until some snap back, and then describe this dynamic in the one-sided terms of the behaviour of the rebel, insurgent, terrorist. this categorizing is a 'great stupidity' [Nietzsche]. why encourage it? i.e. why assume that an 'anarchist is a category of thing' that behaves differently in different situations when it is the situation that actualizes and orchestrates the behaviour known as 'anarchy'?

Western justice feeds on categorizing people; i.e. anyone whose angry behaviour is naturally aroused by their finding themselves situated within an authority/colonizer oppressed space [these come in a great variety of forms] are categorized as 'anarchists' or 'terrorists' and described and defined by their behaviours, so that their definition as 'thing-in-itself' stands on its own, as a generalization.

so what's the point in voluntarily supporting such stupidity? 'pride' in the anarchist brand? 'anarchist' is a brand that has already been stolen by the media and the authorities.

Whats the point of sitting in the gulf islands, pounding away on a keyboard to an audience of maybe 2 dozen admirers?

we, each one handles our own shit in our own way. mmm k?
… perhaps emile is unable to stand on their own. . they could be quadriplegic, using voice dictation technology

I'm one of the 2 dozen and for me the point is obvious. If you don't get it, maybe you're just not made of the right stuff

Yeah, you're right. Me and the rest of the world who don't give a fuck about endless, circular, cyber-babble. WE JUST DONT GET IT

so, fuck right off with your endless, cynical, whiner-babble. WE DON'T NEED IT

Yes … you just want to be alone to read big page-scrolling blocs of text until the end of days. Not thunderous applause, not even a whimper, just keyboards clicking away ...

There are a lot of non-dualists, the world over.

Maybe you just couldn't bother to look and instead like to make baseless attacks?

I've heard the same attack time and time again about anarchists. "No one cares about what a tiny number of people think. They're not going to influence shit."

Only some are categorized as brands. Those are to be avoided. Others arise as stylistic, indicative of particular ways. These are rather in the manner of modes. They occupy in space and in time as zones.
They are mobile and tend to appear and dis-appear. What goes on in zones are happenings.
Happenings are formed of disparate forces expressing creative assemblages as counter-intuitive actualizations. The content is often vague, but enriched with unique, singular features of
articulation including verbal, tonal, practical. and effective. they all contribute to a poise (dynamic viscosity)
that encourages flows of currents within every-thing, including us. No categorical straight-jacket here. Instead a gathering of a multitude of indications , not" Propositions" nor "Solutions". There is no Name, no Signifying Subjectivity, thank goodness, for these emanations.
They are in the manner of "presentations"; the striking of a pose (cf. Madonna) , if you will. Poetically inspired enunciations:
of freedom, comradeship,Joy, determination, gathering and dwelling together, to-be : together.
Now, those are the makings of transformations to which we all here aspire. Overflowing, more than enough
for us to point to a praxis for our lives.

i took riot lessons this may in middle europe. the way things were done are very much different compared to the areas where i normally operate (that is northern europe). i've never been to states so dont know about that.
it was a good lesson i think. lots of new ideas and things to think and talk about.

... it is wise to agree that 'all things are one'.

nietzsche is dead. he is not here and so he can't engage in this anarchistnews discussion forum, but his critique of the belief in a being-based world hasn't vanished. if he were here, his critique of being-based views which dominate this discussion forum would be aggressive and abrasive and annoying to those who want to continue to promote the Western being-based 'semantic reality' as 'reality'.

azano's commentaries are poetic and less abrasive than emile's, but all of these commentators, including nietzsche, schroedinger, mach, ... are making the same point, that the being-based Western dualist worldview which splits apart 'things/inhabitant' from 'space/habitat' is intellectual/logical abstraction that fails to capture the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience.

those who are comfortable keeping their comments based on a dualist, being-based 'semantic reality' are disturbed by nietzsche et al's exposure of the incompleteness of the logic-based dualist, materialist worldview that is the standard fare in Western society and in this forum. since our experience affirms the reality of the nietzschean non-dualist, non-being-based [relations-based] view, those that do not even want to consider it, simply attempt to 'shoot the messenger'. this avoidance of engaging on the non-dualist views themselves is evident to the open-minded participant, and so, while 'pickup' is slow, as might be expected [we live in a society that has been using 'semantic reality' as the 'operative reality' from birth], it is not 'zero'.

1. do multiplicities really exist in our actual experience? are mountains 'real'? does counting them and naming them make them real? or are they features of a 'more real' continually transforming relational terrain rather than separate things..

2. do volcanoes 'produce' molten lava and do they 'grow larger'? how about hurricanes, ... do they 'produce' high winds and do they 'grow larger and stronger'? are 'production' and 'growth' ever 'real' outside of 'semantic reality' wherein 'the farmer produces wheat' and where 'GNP undergoes continuing growth'? or is this all 'appearances' within a transforming relational continuum that we capture with noun-and-verb constructs that recast relational dynamics in terms of being-things and 'what being-things do'?

3. do continents really exist? do they 'drift' and 'collide'? or is the physical reality the continual relational transforming of the lithosphere? likewise, as we talk about 'erosional processes' that wear down mountains and 'depositional processes' that fill in valleys, are these 'more real' than 'transformation of the relational terrain'?

few people want to engage on these questions because they can intuit that what is at stake is a shift in their 'operative reality' from a dualist 'semantic reality' based on the logic of independent being-things and 'their' actions, ... to the non-dualist relational reality of our actual, natural experience.'

the Western dualist, being-based 'semantic reality' is manufactured by reifying relational forms and portraying them as independent entities. the resulting 'appearances-based' 'semantic reality' has been described as "twenty-pound theorems constructed from ten pound axioms". using this radically incomplete dualist, being-based construction is ok for a ballpark visual representation of the physical reality of our actual experience, but to use it as our primary 'operative reality' is a recipe for social-relational incoherence and dysfunction, actualized through authoritarian politics.

choosing between making the popular standard dualist, being-based 'semantic reality' our 'operative reality', or tapping into our 'beyond-language' non-dualist relational experience does not depend on 'reading the lips' of nietzsche, azano, emile or anyone, it requires only that we put experience [intuition] in precedence over reason in making simple choices as in the examples above..

and as always, you have no clue whether anyone here already fucking knows that and as always, you lecture from the pulpit as pedant and mistake the booing and hissing for us being "disturbed" by your enlightened views. The blowhard casts himself as misunderstood maverick, over and over and over. So tedious ...

the content of my post challenged the practice of depicting an anarchist as a category-of-thing-in-itself, as in this article where the authors invite readers to explore how we might;

“take lessons from around the world’ as to “how anarchists should behave, and, by extension, what makes a good anarchist.’

my comment expresses the view that an 'anarchist' is not a member of a category of thing that can be identified by its 'common properties'.

my comment expresses the view that 'anarchy' is a relational activity THAT ERUPTS IN A RELATIONAL-TENSION-STRESSED SITUATION like 'insurgency' and 'terrorism' as captured in a relational language architecture [e.g. indigenous aboriginal languages] and as in the relational understanding of modern physics and as in the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience, ... before we make the error of reducing these activities by an 'error of grammar' based on the FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT ERUPTIONS OF VIOLENCE IN A RELATIONAL SOCIAL DYNAMIC ARE DUE TO AN AUTHORING AGENT;

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

my comment was aimed at the dualist practice of constructing 'being' by inventing 'categories of things' based on 'their common properties' and thus eclipsing their relational-situational fetalization wherein, when the relational social dynamic becomes highly oppressive and tensioned, people reach their tolerance threshold and the result is that they break out of the imposed order/organization and 'anarchy' is the result; i.e. ANARCHY IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE ACTION OF ANARCHISTS. it may be convenient to call those who 'go postal' 'anarchists' or 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' but it is an error of grammar to make them out to be the authors of anarchy, insurgency, terrorism.

meanwhile, the writer of this topic of the week article is inviting the reader to define the 'invariable' across a diversity of eruptions of anarchy, as 'the anarchist', as if 'the anarchist' is the author of 'anarchy' in the same manner that the 'insurgent' is said to be author or 'insurgency' and the 'terrorist' is the author of 'terrorism' when it is the spring-loading relational oppression that inductively authors the eruption of the anarchy, insurgency, and terrorism.

fine, if as you say 'you already know that', then why not comment on the content of my message which is that to search for a definition for 'anarchist' by generalizing across many situations where one finds anarchists present inverts the physical reality since it is THOSE SITUATIONS that are inductively actualizing anarchy [insurgency, terrorism] and IT IS NOT THE CASE that ANARCHISTS ARE CAUSALLY AUTHORING 'ANARCHY'.

that was what i was commenting on. are you saying that you were aware of this and that you agree with me?

Yes emile … not only was I already aware of this, not only do we coincidentally agree but rather than mere ad hominem, I was implying that if you didn't always drone on in such a condescending and overly-verbose manner, more people would probably agree with you. Not because you convinced them either, but because the points you're often making are actually pretty fucking obvious to any thinking person.

glad to hear that we coincidentally agree, and i do not deny that my prose is difficult, and i hope that there are others out there, such as yourself?, who will give greater representation to non-dualist, relational viewpoints with a less difficult style than emile's.

but if i don't see anyone making these points in discussing a topic, i jump in and try to do my best to share the non-dualist, relational view of the issue being treated with the dualist, being-based view, and the 'condescension' is in the eye of the beholder. when nietzsche speaks of 'the great stupidity', it is about an interpretation or behaviour, it is not about 'the person'. growing up in Western society means spending a lot of one's time treating absurdity as if it were meaningful.

btw. i am always excited to see non-dualist, relational comments from others [e.g. including but not limited to; rufous h. byrd, azano, le way, sir einzige], that make such points that are 'simple' but i would never say 'obvious'. they become more obvious as one gets more practice in breaking the habit of seeing things in dualist, being-based terms.

the point i was trying to share about 'anarchist identity' is one that i didn't see anyone else making, apart from possibly the very first comment on 'the pitfall of generalizations'.

that is, once one gives oneself a categorical identity, one knows what one is supposed to do as a member of a political group, as a member of a nation, as a member of a gender, as a member of a colour group, as a member of a religion, as a member of an ethnic culture etc. this means that one will respond to the unfolding relational situations one finds oneself in BY PUTTING REASONED INTELLECTION and MORALITY FIRST [to carry oneself as a 'member-in-good-standing' in one's categories should carry oneself], rather than BY PUTTING INTUITION and EXPERIENCE FIRST.

the point is that the unfolding relational situation is in a natural precedence so that all those whose behaviours are termed 'anarchist' are best understood by the unique and particular relational-situational need that inspires them to action [inductively actualizing their creative potentials]. ultimately, there is no persisting identity in those situational sockets [not in a transforming relational continuum wherein the relational form is being continually reinvented by dionysian situational fetalization]. the Western habit of generalizing the relational form ['American', 'anarchist', 'female', 'person of colour'] across many different situations by gathering together 'its' common properties, is 'spook-making'. There is nothing there but form-in-flux [creative nothingness] but we like to talk about 'Americans', 'anarchists', 'females' and 'persons of colour' as if these are describable as things-in-themselves, out of relational context; i.e. without being stymied by the indefinitely deferred context of situational [cosmic] fetalization, so we use common property based categories to 'flesh out' our spooks.

it struck me that a comment about the article's suggested manufacturing of a common property based 'anarchist identity' needed saying. if you or someone else had already made it [hopefully in simpler terms than myself], i would have appreciated that and would have felt no need to comment.

Are distinct from more relevant " signals" that a people express.
These signals are the enuciation of transformational processes
re-acting to impediments to desire . This can take the form of
Identity in Reactionary Ideation. But at other times they articulate
a movement by an affected group attempting to avoid the straight-jacket
Of Identity with instead a multitude of transformations indicative
Of a new relational force for freedom and carving out spaces, zones
of autonomy and concommitant fields of creative activity .
a sign can be of a symptom ( Zizek) ; a multitude-on-the- move ( Hardt
and Negri), an indigenous " clearing- out" of sectors ( Zapatista, Rojava,
Occupy) or simply the whomever, expressing himself by impressing
as a unique one ( Melville) " I prefer not to" to the Other.
These and many other inventive praxes make for an exiting way to
product-fully create alternative worlds-to-be by ever spawned new peoples-to- be ( Deulueze/ Guattari ) . the whaterever by whomever, whenever and wherever. Agaben) No Identity, no Binary dialectic bullshit here.
No Representation , nor any Signifying Subjectivity Here. Just
The Joy and rush of life.(Spinoza) .

I

yes, indeed. who are we? what do we stand for?, what is our purpose in life? --- the narcissist questions that many are actually proud to give unequivocal answers to, ... a radical departure from dionysian embrace of one's own unique situational fetalization. 'identity' is the purgative of amor fati

"Stirner speaks of the Unique and says immediately: Names name you not. He articulates the word, so long as he calls it the Unique, but adds nonetheless that the Unique is only a name. He thus means something different from what he says, as perhaps someone who calls you Ludwig does not mean a Ludwig in general, but means You, for which he has no word. (...) It is the end point of our phrase world, of this world in whose "beginning was the Word." -- Max Stirner

emile, your attempts to turn the physical/material world into abstract 'relational forms' are confusing to me. especially when you refer to the physical world as "abstract".

i give my own intuition, experience and understanding of specific contexts precedence over any rational/reason-based perspective. i do not ignore rational thought, i simply do not elevate it above my own experience. yet, i still find your attempts to define things completely in terms of western/dualist reality vs "relational" reality as both binary sounding and completely incomprehensible.

is it possible for you to explain, in layman's terms (and less than book-length) and your own words, what the fuck you mean by all that jargon?

in understanding the world as a transforming relational continuum, there are no 'things' [no entities with persisting identity], there is only energy ‘flow’ and ‘flow features’ or ‘relational forms’;

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

the world of ‘things’ is abstract and thus NOT the physical reality of our actual, natural experience. ‘things’ [forms with persisting identity] do not exist in the physical reality of our natural experience, ... we manufacture them using noun-and-verb language and grammar and use them to construct a 'semantic reality'.

so ‘relational forms’ do not belong to themselves like ‘things’ do, but, as with a convection cell in a flow, they belong to the flow; i.e. they belong to the transforming relational continuum.

the flow is the physical reality. the representations of dynamics in terms of noun-and-verb grammar depictions of ‘things’ and ‘what things do’ is a ‘semantic reality’ which is far from the physical reality of relational forms in the flow.

my ‘jargon’ comes from trying to use English in a ‘flow-based’ or ‘relations-based’ mode, which necessitates the deconstruction of all words with a thing-based dependency such as ‘production’ and ‘growth’. There can be no multiplicities in a relational continuum and no quantities. Everything must be understood in terms of relational transformation in order to stay within physical reality, and avoid the language-and-grammar induced shift into abstraction [thing-based semantic reality].

ok, so the answer to my question is obviously no. you continue to explain your jargon in terms of your jargon, which is not very useful to me. but i will give you the benefit of the doubt, that i think you actually tried. you are simply not capable, evidently.

and i do think i am able to glean enough of what you are saying to know that we define the term "abstract" very differently. to you, it seems, physical beings, things and actions are "abstract", while energy and "flows" are not. there are no "things" or individuals, say you. that just doesn't make sense to me.

and while i definitely agree that western thought (whatever the fuck that means) can be quite lacking in nuance (among other things), i do not see things as binary, the way you apparently do. either it is "this" kind of thought, or "that" kind of thought. very limiting, i would say.

but now at least i am clear that i have no affinity with emile, at least not in the realm of communication. good info for me, i won't waste my time anymore. let the emilites engage.

I guess you should only engage with what you already have an affinity for; sounds a tad bit....

...affinity for OR interest in. yep.

where are you picking up binaries? Where are there binaries in non-duality? You're just making up shit and being condescending.

emilites. funny... One can't come into non-duality any other way? i already engage the world in this way. That doesn't mean i need to be a follower of Big Men and their Ideas (because i'm putting direct experience before abstraction (Idea), as you are framing it---so common in leftist traditions.

lol! riiiiight....

" Everything must be understood in terms of relational transformation in order to stay within physical reality, and avoid the language-and-grammar induced shift into abstraction [thing-based semantic reality]."

"the world of ‘things’ is abstract and thus NOT the physical reality of our actual, natural experience. "

binaries....? or just dogmatic statements?

the first statement you cited describes a technique to use English relationally and thus be able to communicate, in English, the minimal assumption of 'relations' that is affirmed by our experience without adding 'convenient' 'economy of thought' generating assumptions such as the existence of independent things, which is contradicted by our direct experience, but used anyhow in our intellectual modelling because of the 'economy of thought' it delivers.

techniques for articulating concepts can hardly be labelled 'dogma'.

there is a basic assumption involved and it is that 'relations are physically real' as affirmed by our experience.

it is the minimal assumption; i.e;

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

it's interesting that no questioning of the philosophical foundations of thing-based reality cropped up until discussion of relations based reality, and now the word 'dogma' is being used in association with the relational [minimal assumption] view of what is real. if dogma is relevant anywhere, the thing-based view of what is real is the leading candidate due to the gratuitous assumption [absolute space and absolute time] used to simplify the representing of motion. in the relational view where there is mutually dependent participants; e.g. the solar system, it is impossible to speak of the motion of one particular body in the mutually dependent matrix, without the simplifying assumption of independent existence of the thing as comes from the assumption of absolute space;

"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. This does not preclude maintaining that absolute space, that is to say the mark to which it would be necessary to refer the earth to know whether it really moves, has no objective existence. Hence, this affirmation; ‘the earth turns round’ has no meaning, since it can be verified by no experiment; since such an experiment, not only could not be either realized or dreamed by the boldest Jules Verne, but can not be conceived of without contradiction; or rather these two propositions; ‘the earth turns round,’ and, ‘it is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round’ have the same meaning; there is nothing more in the one than in the other. “ — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Ch. VII Relative Motion and Absolute Motion

the point is that imposing thingness on relational forms in a transforming relational continuum simplifies the hell out of talking about motion, but there is no justification for it in our experience. while our linguistic description imposes thingness on a volcano so that we can say that it is spewing magma and growing larger from the newly deposited material, our intuition is telling us that what is going on is relational transformation in that there is meltdown going on elsewhere that is the reciprocal complement of the deposition going on over here; i.e. the volcano is not a 'thing' ---that produces magma and grows larger,--- it is a relational feature in a relational transformation.

There are no "things" because things are constantly changing. Think about a rock: From a quick glance it appears to be unchanging, but it is actually getting acted upon constantly by all kinds of other forces. The sun, the rain, plants and animals, the temperature, the wind, moss and lichen, etc. It is never the same rock twice, even if it appears to be.

We could also think about a person picking up a rock. It isn't just that the person picked up the rock. That is just one moment that humans tend to describe with language in a very biased way. But many other things happened in order for the person to pick up the rock (that might actually be more central to why the interaction happened, i.e. the human spilled water on the rock making it shiny and enticing, or someone else through the rock first) - all of the things that acted on the person and on the rock for them to arrive in the same place at the same time.

Since everything is constantly changing it is quite an uninteresting and limiting perspective to point out rigid things in this way. It takes the magic out of experience and we begin to categorize and quantify. Civilization is increasingly headed in this direction.

Chew on this for a bit and it should become quite easy to read emile's posts. There really is no jargon at all, just ways of subjectively describing lived experience.

As for the western thought binary, emile probably doesn't see it that way either, but binaries can occasionally be useful in getting at certain aspects of experience.

mr. deep is who this post was meant to respond to

you said;

"binaries can occasionally be useful in getting at certain aspects of experience."

like most, i use binaries all the time and find them very useful, ... as an intellectual tool.

i use binary logic in making intellectual judgements that help to direct me in my movements/actions. but when i am talking like this about 'what i do' or 'what things do', i am in 'semantic reality'. in the physical reality of my actual, situational experience, my experience is of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum that is too vast for me to ever fully know. i may not ever know that after coming through a yes or no branch on the yes side, as to whether to accept the invite of the neighbour's girlfriend to spend some time with her, that the boyfriend who had just left for a two-week stint on a construction project, had forgotten that he'd left his chainsaw in the garage, just below what was, at the eta of his return, a very noisy master bedroom, and then remembered that he could borrow a friend's, and reversed course just before arriving back at the house.

the tool of binary logic is very useful but it never makes it out of 'semantic reality' into the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
r
R
G
M
5
K
r
Enter the code without spaces.