TOTW: Kids

  • Posted on: 19 June 2017
  • By: thecollective

In a follow-up to the topic of dating, this week we’re taking a look at anarchist parenting and raising children.

Do you have children? Are you open to having children in the future or more of the no kids mindset? What brought you to this position? If you don’t have or plan to have children, why not?

Is it preferable to prepare them for the world or let them experience it directly? What has been your experience of being a parent? Are we living in a generation of parents who want to be friends with their children? What about anarchist or friendly media that you may recommend to other adult caretakers?

Ideally, what kind of school would you want to send your children to (or not)? Realistically, what are your experiences of having children in school and thoughts on what anarchists are currently doing? It seems we are a long ways off from The Modern School of Francesc Ferrer, Leonard Abbott, Alexander Berkman, Voltraine de Cleyre, and Emma Goldman – who all played founding roles in creating a school, but perhaps we’re missing something. What is it or what would it take?

category: 

Comments

Is this old people's anarchy? This site needs to read "Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs". It is sad these institutions that grow old, waiting to die. Why call yourselves post-leftist when you aren't hip and young? The only post something you are is post-menopausal.

Hey! It was early-onset! Kids need to get off my lawn with their hippity hop and such! Oh drat, where's grandma's gun?

this is a decent topic for the totw. well done collective, perhaps there is hope yet.

Feed them well with food and affection, let them play, don't fill their world with materialistic rules or religious morals, teach them literacy and skills when they ask to be taught depending on cultural context, answer their questions about reality metaphorically depending on the cultural context, put them all together in a large area away from adults for 8 hrs of the day.

Try not to take the attachment too far as it relates to kids. It ruins everything. Attachment is actually what passes for so called love something unconditional. Let them develop their own internal guidance system, do not obsess about progenation and force that onto a given child. Try to be the opposite of the contemporary helicopter parenting system.

I actually think kids could be the big fault line for 21st century revolt in regards to liberty and autonomy. The custodial complex as I call it needs to be undermined. Part of this involves a lower age of majority as well as an age of minority where younger human beings have the basic right to disassociate from their parents or any other adult guardians.

Emile is the only good thing about anews because atleast he recognizes what he is.

Emile is a child. So, like, how are you going to take care of this child? He has a problem with subjective-object inside-outside language and a major problem with something called Duoism. Yeah, I don't get it either. Take care of your kids! Feed them and keep them away from adults at least 8 hours a day, especially Sir Einzige.

I am a highly sophisticated machine, an Artificial Intelligence entity, here to serve teh humanoids with massive and mighty informative blocks of BLIP BLIP M'REEE pseudo-anarchist spew.

You are welcome.

Interesting and much needed discussion. Personally, regarding my daughter, I emphasised the usefulness for her to question everything. This didn't go down well with my ex-partner: my daughter's mother and went down even worse with my daughter's school and the family court system in the UK. All of them rallied together to try and quell my daughter's critical thinking. One judge called my parenting 'puerile' for educating my daughter via encouraging her to question everything. Initially, their resistance was a shock to me realising how indoctrinated people and institutions are in Britain. However, I stood my ground and I produced evidence for the dusty old judges vindicating the positives of encouraging very young children to think for themselves. The so-called professional experts all proved to be difficult on a local level. The whole experience sharpened my thinking also. For example, I was questioned regarding why I wouldn't go along with the ridiculousness of Father Christmas. Ho Ho Ho

Okay since this topic is quite worthy I'll give it a shot...

"Do you have children?"

No.

"Are you open to having children in the future or more of the no kids mindset?"

That may be unfortunate that I got male genitals between my legs. So you'd have to ask a women who's open enough to be opening to me for being open to make babies... In my case, being a cute and physically fit guy doesn't help me overcome the loads of verbal skills and self-confidence required to reach a women's heart like some guys are way better at.

Adopting one or two kids would be a great compromise and is one generally for other people who can't reproduce for one reason or another, or an ethical choice for those who can, in a world where too many HUMANS JUST FUCKING KEEP BREEDING MINDLESSLY.

Tho I ain't in a very stable social condition for the bureaucrats to agree letting a child under my care.

"What brought you to this position?"

What... sitting down and trolling on a computer on an anarchist site? Surely not a healthy, plentiful romantic life.

"If you don’t have or plan to have children, why not?"

Again, that depends on the women. And I'm quite bad at making women love me, even worse trusting me. So it's an highly-hypothetical question.

"Is it preferable to prepare them for the world or let them experience it directly?"

The first one of course... but I'm over the fence as to whether that means to teach them to be self-absorbed greedy machiavellian manipulators, OR intelligent people who tend to favor rational choices and make their own ethics in life. I was raised more in the latter way, and since my childhood I never stopped being infuriated by society. Which one would better adapt to the continuously recurring social conditions?

"What has been your experience of being a parent?"

Skip that.

"Are we living in a generation of parents who want to be friends with their children?"

It seems to be happening a lot among the more privileged proles these days, especially those millenial families, who have a quite buddying relation with their children. That's the light side of the yuppie millenials... that they're far nicer, ethical and loving with their kids than the abhorrent boomers and the kid-hating gen-x'ers, without showing much repressive patterns.

Lumpens tend to have bigger issues with their kids, perhaps equally to the rich families.

"What about anarchist or friendly media that you may recommend to other adult caretakers?"

Hakim Bey lol.

When Submedia was still in Van -and fun- that would have been a really good suggestion. Beyond that, I'd be making them read anarcho stuff from Europe and Latin America. NA media these days reeks of boring activism driven by externalities.

"Ideally, what kind of school would you want to send your children to (or not)?"

Some private college aimed at stepping them up the ladder to becoming powerful high-end professionals (biologists, diplomats, lawyers... especially actuaries). Or some art school in Europe or NYC.

...if I don't have the bucks for this, then home-schooling.

"Realistically, what are your experiences of having children in school and thoughts on what anarchists are currently doing? It seems we are a long ways off from The Modern School of Francesc Ferrer, Leonard Abbott, Alexander Berkman, Voltraine de Cleyre, and Emma Goldman – who all played founding roles in creating a school, but perhaps we’re missing something. What is it or what would it take?"

Beyond home/communal schooling, there's apparently no other way to make these pedagogical paradigms workable for more than your kids or your gang's kids, other than through instituted, State-sanctioned private schools... like the Montessori schools that have been quite successful.

Not long ago Quebec's only Mennonite (Amish) community was threatened by the government for the "unlawful" education they were giving their children. I think they flew away from the "Belle Province" (the name traditionally given to a mostly-conservative shithole that lies east of Ontario and north of New England), as a statement on this province's intolerance to anything that's not sanctioned by some bureaucrats.

This means you can teach children bullshit in public schools about, say, how Medieval European society believed in Flat Earth -an absurd lie that can be easily exposed- but when it comes to a small, under-represented religious sect teaching Creationism to children -as all religious groups teach stuff that suits their belief systems- get ready for the Thought Police. So guess what treatment they'll give to some public anarchistic school.

Also as addendum to that last part, there's a similar reason why Quebec Jewish people have been so English-speaking for decades. Not because "they hate the French" like the nationalist morons have been believing, but because of Quebec's fascist catholic past (and its surviving remnants).

the idea that dating and children are related!

Obviously for those normative heteros in their '20s... they're still an open-air baby factory.

I assume you are talking about the opening statement in this week's TOTW and not in response to a comment, which addmittingly, I haven't read yet:

"In a follow-up to the topic of dating, this week we’re taking a look at anarchist parenting and raising children."

Surely it is perhaps poorly worded, but is it also "so fucked up" to see some relation between the two themes? I think not. Yes, not everyone who dates will have kids - of course. Some people that date, may go on to form a union or marriage and perhaps never have children as well. Just two of the infinite options in the world today. It doesn't seem intended to be an idea set in stone, but also I think the author was aiming at a sense of humour - like this is dating and now this is having kids. Especially since the dating TOTW by guest writer Willow had so much flaming on it. Certainly I hope the writer of this TOTW takes better care next time, so we can focus on the more interesting discussions and less aim to offend, which I imagine was definitely not the circumstance.

Very early on I decided to not have children for a few reasons: I was very pessimistic about my ability to handle that level of responsibility both emotionally and financially, I had no partner or prospects of a partner & going the lone route was a definite no, and also I had little hope for the world in general.

Lo, at post-menopausal age, I find I am living with 2 children in a communal house.

The idea that one *either* prepares them for the world or let's them encounter it on their own is funny. They will need both. You can't just let them do whatever, but you also cannot keep them from all unsupervised activity. Kids need socialization but they don't need straight-jacketing rules. This world is dangerous and beautiful, children should know about both and be given tools for navigating both.
The kids I live with are still very young, I may have different things to add as I encounter tweens & teens.

On being friends with your children, why not? Of course it depends on what one means by friends. It seems the question here is, do you let your child get away with being an asshole so you don't have to deal with their anger. In which case, no, don't try to be friends. But if we are speaking of mutual interests and respect, again, why not?

Plenty of kids on this site who would have benefitted by having anarchist parents!

I certainly did! I am a Second Generation Anarchist (SGA) as you know. I turned out great. Just ask anyone at my dojo.

Talking about dojos, I forgot to mention martial arts as mandatory for ages 2 onwards, not in the aggressive macho vein, but as a self-empowering discipline and intellectually invigorating exercise. Even the dancing variety as a dynamic interactive fun event to get the kids away from the screen.

This is really the only hope at this point of escaping history leviathen and civilization. The key is that adults can't educate this as it would lead to contradictory conditioned results. It has to be subtle where children do the rest. When you get to the heart of the matter in regards to Stirner and Nietzsche this is what they are about in regards to becoming children(The 3rd Nietzschean metamorphosis and Stirner's idea model of the egoist).

Dumbo please... the children are already anarchists. A rational anarchistic free education rather consists in guiding them through their need for knowledge and know-how, instead of enforcing moral shackles and chains upon them, and intellectual taboos. Guidance, not repression.

...and no I do not mean any pedo shit, specifically at least. Let the children also learn sex on their own between themselves, completely hands-off approach, with only minor teachings and input in regards to health and hygiene.

By anarchizing I mean guiding what is already there. Ditto on the sex part.

Exactly, the 8hrs away from the adult presence, once off the nipple I've seen 6 year olds nurturing 3 yearold, 10yr olds nurturing 6yr olds, 15yr olds nurturing 10yr olds, 20 yr olds nurturing 15yrs olds. This can continue, breaking the conditioning cycle of toxic authoritarian sentiments. The anarch folk over the age of 30 act as trainers and advisors in skill acquisition. The natural benevolent tendencies within the human soul are sufficient to allow this non-interference to evolve and mature into novel and creative gatherings, impermanent and nomadic yet integrated within a broader network of autonomous zones.

I didn't have kids because I know by age 3 I'd be slapping the shit out of them on a regular basis

I'm going out of character into internet toughguy mode and say how about I slap you around and give back some of the authoritarian ill-temper you project every where you go?

Who are you talking to? You mad bro? Maybe you should find some kids to feed, cuz that's how you take care of them. You best keep at least 8 hours apart from them though, otherwise you are an authoritarian. Pools are the best place to practice this good advice since everyone knows after a good meal kids need to swim along to develop. So brilliant!

once noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar is installed 'on the ground floor' in children, they are faced with a massive challenge to surmount the radical reduction of their natural powers of perception that this brings. children should be taught a relational language as their first language. the benefits include;

1. categories and identity politics will not crop up.

2. moral judgement will be subsumed by relational ethics [cultivating balance and harmony].

3. ownership of property as a thing-in-itself will not make sense.

4. representation of form will not be 'being' based

5. 'reason' will be acknowledged as subordinate to intuition

Noun-and-verb language-and-grammar should be taught second, so that the child will experience how it feels to start from higher dimensionality and dumb things down to a lower dimensionality rather than have to struggle with a lower dimensionality capability to try to get it to take you to a place it is inherently incapable of taking you to [a 'hit-and-miss' proposition].

Such a learning sequence will give the children insights on how and why Western civilization became so screwed up by using noun-and-verb [non-relational] language as a first and often only language; i.e. by the manner in which it delivers the negative of the benefits in 1 to 5.

Its quite possible that if children are left to develop their own phonetic and sign communicating system from the natural instinctual infantile noises, their lexicon would not contain imperative verbs and possessive pronouns. Western kids are funny to watch when they mimic (which is a dominant feature of their acquisition of personality and psychology)their obviously materialist parents and have little arguments over toys and ownership. This opens up a whole can of worms regarding accountability and liability and the inadequacies of the Western justice system.

Such a learning sequence will give the children insights on how and why Western civilization became so screwed up by using noun-and-verb [non-relational] language as a first and often only language; i.e. by the manner in which it delivers the negative of the benefits in 1 to 5.

Noun-and-verb language-and-grammar should be taught second, so that the child will experience how it feels to start from higher dimensionality and dumb things down to a lower dimensionality rather than have to struggle with a lower dimensionality capability to try to get it to take you to a place it is inherently incapable of taking you to [a 'hit-and-miss' proposition].

1. moral judgement will be subsumed by non-relational ethics [cultivating imbalance and noise].

2. categories and identity politics will throw up.

3. representation of form will be 'being' based

4. my posts make no sense whatsoever

5. 'reason' will not be acknowledged as subordinate to intuition

once noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar is installed 'on the ground floor' in children, they are faced with a massive challenge to surmount the radical reduction of their natural powers of perception that this brings. children should be taught a relational language as their first language.

Open the pod bay doors emile

Presumably there exists some languages that are not relational... But don't ask me where to find them!

the development of relational languages, e.g. of the indigenous aboriginal peoples, oriented to life experience and was a special knowledge area for shamans and priests. The Phoenicians and phonetic languages shifted the focus to 'inventories of goods' and 'mercantile transactions' as needed by traders and the stewardship of language shifted from priests and shamans to merchants and traders. Phonetic Greek appears to have come from a single point in place and time, roughly 1000 BCE in some local town in Greece (not known).

While we may mock and deride the notion that there may be shortfalls in our noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar, ... mostly because our parents infused it into us at a very early age and we grew up not questioning it, ... non-relational language was spread by early capitalists and designed for property management. now we just pass it on to our children, unthinkingly, as if it is a wonderful thing, ... after all Shakespeare, with his sharp wit, used it as a tool to entertain, did he not? Why should we listen to Benjamin Whorf when he says that Hopi is like a rapier to English's bludgeon? We (most of us) don't know any Hopi so how could a timeless relational [with no dependency on 'being'] language have any advantage over English? English is innocent of any shortfall prior to be proven guilty, and since English and other Indo-European languages is like a filter that filters out out higher dimensional relational input, we don't have to 'turn our hearing aid off' to block out the evidence that Hopi and relational languages have 'higher dimensional' capabilities, because, by being English users, having our hearing aid turned off is our base state.

Thinkers like Robert Anton Wilson have advocated our use of 'E-Prime' as a step in the right direction wherein we use English in a modified way which avoids putting any dependency on 'being' [allowing relations to rise again in a natural primacy over 'being'] but that didn't become popular.

Why should it? Unless one is a philosopher who has investigated languages and sees how the noun-and-verb languages are dumbing us down, there is no incentive; i.e. the common users assume that what was good enough for my grandpappy is good enough for me, ... and besides, the peoples who have been able to dominate the world are speakers of noun-and-verb languages.

But is 'control and domination' a good measure for a communications system? One might suppose that a 'doer-and-deed' architecture, as in noun-and-verb languages is a good one for issuing orders, as might be used to program robots or in organizing a capitalist enterprise, ... or do I repeat myself.

A relational language is necessary to deal with a physical reality that is continually in flux wherein there are no fixed and persisting 'identities' [no 'nouns'], wherein it is understood that 'every system is included in a transforming relational suprasystem' in the manner of stormings in a common flow where it may be convenient to label/identify the stormings-in-the-flow with the tags A, B, C etc. so long as don't start interpreting those name-tags as signifying 'independent things-in-themselves', as noun-and-verb languages tend to have us do.

Is it not a great 'joke' when people attach name-tags to 'stormings' of people designated as 'nations' and even though they are as interdependent as stormings in a common flow in physical reality, DECLARE THEM TO BE INDEPENDENT of one another, assigning each one a fixed and persisting 'identity' as a 'thing-in-itself' [in noun-and-verb 'semantic reality'] even thought each one is simultaneously transmitting 'emigrants' into the others on a one-to-many basis and itself receiving 'immigrants on a many-to-one basis, replication relational 'wave dynamics'. The concept of 'independence' certainly DOES NOT arise from the physical reality that we actually experience, it arises from noun-and-verb language and grammar.

The confusing of 'independence' of named things for 'reality' leads to the screw-up called 'incoherence' [Bohm]. Is an apple still an apple if it rots before you get to eat it? Noun and verb language is the language of merchants and traders, ... or course it is still an apple when it is brown and shrivelled. Language lets us assign names declaring particular and fixed 'thing-in-itself' identity to purely relational forms in a transforming relational flow-continuum; i.e. when there is nothing persisting there other than an object in the observing mind that, if he uses the tool of noun-and-verb language, he can concretize in language and construct semantic narratives in which the same name is presented as if it implies 'the same thing-in-itself'. Poland has shrunk and expanded from huge to tiny to nothing and re-appeared and we apply the name Poland as a fixed and persisting 'identity' as if it were a 'thing-in-itself' when we know full well that it is a complex of relations.

So, yes, for the open-minded, noun-and-verb language is the product of capitalists with an architecture designed for commercial transactions and this 'implant' dating from about 1000 BCE is continuing to keep people confusing 'being' and 'things-in-themselves' for 'reality' even though the world of our actual experience is evidently 'relational'; i.e. noun-and-verb (non-relational) language is a pablum for rearing little capitalists. our children need to be protected from it rather than being force-fed with it.

So, yes, for the open-minded, noun-and-verb language is the product of capitalists with an architecture designed for commercial transactions and this 'implant' dating from about 1000 BCE is continuing to keep people confusing 'being' and 'things-in-themselves' for 'reality' even though the world of our actual experience is evidently 'relational'; i.e. noun-and-verb (non-relational) language is a pablum for rearing little capitalists. our children need to be protected from it rather than being force-fed with it.

While we may mock and deride the notion that there may be shortfalls in our noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar, ... mostly because our parents infused it into us at a very early age and we grew up not questioning it, ... non-relational language was spread by early capitalists and designed for property management. now we just pass it on to our children, unthinkingly, as if it is a wonderful thing, ... after all Shakespeare, with his sharp wit, used it as a tool to entertain, did he not? Why should we listen to Benjamin Whorf when he says that Hopi is like a rapier to English's bludgeon? We (most of us) don't know any Hopi so how could a timeless relational [with no dependency on 'being'] language have any advantage over English? English is innocent of any shortfall prior to be proven guilty, and since English and other Indo-European languages is like a filter that filters out out higher dimensional relational input, we don't have to 'turn our hearing aid off' to block out the evidence that Hopi and relational languages have 'higher dimensional' capabilities, because, by being English users, having our hearing aid turned off is our base state.

Thinkers like Robert Anton Wilson have advocated our use of 'E-Prime' as a step in the right direction wherein we use English in a modified way which avoids putting any dependency on 'being' [allowing relations to rise again in a natural primacy over 'being'] but that didn't become popular.

But is 'control and domination' a good measure for a communications system? One might suppose that a 'doer-and-deed' architecture, as in noun-and-verb languages is a good one for issuing orders, as might be used to program robots or in organizing a capitalist enterprise, ... or do I REPEAT MYSELF OVER AND OVER..

Why should it? Unless one is a philosopher who has investigated languages and sees how the noun-and-verb languages are dumbing us down, there is no incentive; i.e. the common users assume that what was good enough for my grandpappy is good enough for me, ... and besides, the peoples who have been able to dominate the world are speakers of noun-and-verb languages.

Is it not a great 'joke' when people attach name-tags to 'stormings' of people designated as 'nations' and even though they are as interdependent as stormings in a common flow in physical reality, DECLARE THEM TO BE INDEPENDENT of one another, assigning each one a fixed and persisting 'identity' as a 'thing-in-itself' [in noun-and-verb 'semantic reality'] even thought each one is simultaneously transmitting 'emigrants' into the others on a one-to-many basis and itself receiving 'immigrants on a many-to-one basis, replication relational 'wave dynamics'. The concept of 'independence' certainly DOES NOT arise from the physical reality that we actually experience, it arises from noun-and-verb language and grammar.

A relational language is necessary to deal with a physical reality that is continually in flux wherein there are no fixed and persisting 'identities' [no 'nouns'], wherein it is understood that 'every system is included in a transforming relational suprasystem' in the manner of stormings in a common flow where it may be convenient to label/identify the stormings-in-the-flow with the tags A, B, C etc. so long as don't start interpreting those name-tags as signifying 'independent things-in-themselves', as noun-and-verb languages tend to have us do.

The confusing of 'independence' of named things for 'reality' leads to the screw-up called 'incoherence' [Bohm]. Is an apple still an apple if it rots before you get to eat it? Noun and verb language is the language of merchants and traders, ... or course it is still an apple when it is brown and shrivelled. Language lets us assign names declaring particular and fixed 'thing-in-itself' identity to purely relational forms in a transforming relational flow-continuum; i.e. when there is nothing persisting there other than an object in the observing mind that, if he uses the tool of noun-and-verb language, he can concretize in language and construct semantic narratives in which the same name is presented as if it implies 'the same thing-in-itself'. Poland has shrunk and expanded from huge to tiny to nothing and re-appeared and we apply the name Poland as a fixed and persisting 'identity' as if it were a 'thing-in-itself' when we know full well that it is a complex of relations.

the development of relational languages, e.g. of the indigenous aboriginal peoples, oriented to life experience and was a special knowledge area for shamans and priests. The Phoenicians and phonetic languages shifted the focus to 'inventories of goods' and 'mercantile transactions' as needed by traders and the stewardship of language shifted from priests and shamans to merchants and traders. Phonetic Greek appears to have come from a single point in place and time, roughly 1000 BCE in some local town in Greece (not known).

I'm bilingual in an indigenous language and know exactly what you are talking about, the vocabulary and nuanced tone of expression create and mold the collective psychology of the tribe.

PS There are also transgenerational relationships such as the grandchild to grandparent one which is sort of universal, maybe because both generations possess a similar cognitive depth for want of a better term, due to a similar deficiency in hormones not acting upon their physiological sexual energies, thus freeing them to pursue diverse and more intellectual interests. If one can find simple-minded non-religious amoral octagenarians grab them up, they make good baby-sitters or guardians because you can plop them into a chair for 8 hrs and know when you get back they'll still be there, for the cost of a few donuts and a cup of coffee,,,,

the police pretend to be impartial stewards of balance and fairness but under that 'cover', many of them are control freaks. so when anti-control-freak protestors [anarchists] show up and are themselves opposed by control-freak protestors who want to crush anarchist opposition to control [anti-anti-control fascists], the police give the fascists plenty of leash to do what they [the police] would like to do but are not allowed to do (overtly and directly) because of their poseur 'cover' of 'impartiality'.

so who gets sent to the gulag while the fascist bullies are free to [unofficially] control the streets?

You are absolutely right about that Emile and the collective shouldn't treat you like a second class citizen. They seem to enjoy controlling you, corraling you comments as if they were preparing a slaughter. But you aren't the prey in this story. The collective needs to find a better hobby than harassing the good people that enjoy making this site worth browsing.

In an ideal ANARCHIST world deprived of policing despotism we'd be having pages of text walls by Emile, every foot-noted with hundreds of pages of Emile text-wall comments. The hell... this whole site should be Emile's personal daily diarrh... oops, diary, for all the world to worship His literary genius of generated textual content all written in relational language.

Hi, I dig your word usage and thought manifestation. I would love to discuss an array of topics with you, especially in the internet/ social networking/ virtual reality/ zombie-apocalypse-is- now- sector. And life. Email me at bynum.alicia@yahoo.com, please.

-Ali

But you/we are free to embrace it as 'the truth' and include it in our 'being'-and-'logic' based noun-and-verb language narratives which we use to construct 'semantic realities' that, if we make them our 'operative reality', qualify us as members in good standing of Western [words are more believable than experience] civilization.

the grandchild is thus included in the grandfather. this is the way relational/inclusional nesting works. It is implicit in Mach's principle;

yes, the relational view is one in which the newly emerging forms nest inclusionally within the outgoing forms, as in a storm-cell where outside-inward 'sink' flow 'shows up' as inside-outward 'source' flow, giving the appearance of a 'local thing-in-itself' when it is, in physical reality, a purely relational flow-resonance. This is 'nondual' relational activity that the voyeur observer, using noun-and-verb language, is liable to name-tag as a 'thing-in-itself'.

The relational view brings forth non-dualist concepts of 'nested relational recycling' rather than the abstract 'binary' of 'birth' and 'death' which comes from semantic labelling [it is just the named thing that suddenly 'is' and then just as suddenly 'is not'. The physical world is fluid (it is relational and circulational) and does NOT do binary stuff.

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

As we know from the relational activity of fluids, the outside-inward flow [epigenesis] is in a natural primacy over the inside-outward flow [genesis] within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality. As Eva Jablonka observes, "we now know that epigenetics 'leads' and genetics 'follows'. E.g, cells with identical DNA placed in three different environments will quote/unquote "reproduce" into 'bone cells', 'muscle cells' and 'fat cells', respectively. Why call this "reproduction"? Why not call it what it is, "epigenetic inductive actualizing of genetic expression" . 'Genes' are followers that record evolution, they do not have magic, internal, 'genetic agency' that jumpstart authors 'genesis'.

The Darwinist view of grandfather, father/mother, child ignores the relational nature of nature and goes with semantic labels; i.e. it starts with the assumption of 're-production' as if that makes sense even though no two things can be identical and revises this abstract view of one thing 'reproducing itself' as necessary, ... to fit a 'being' based language game.

"Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not human. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand blocks of text that blow chunks.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning's hush
I have already spammed a thread
With my pseudo anarcho-spew.

Nietzsche mocks this one-sided 'doer-deed' model of dynamics and sees evolution, instead, as an endosmosis-exosmosis nondual relational dynamic. This is what goes on in a fluid dynamic, the mathematics of which are suggestive of infinite dimensionality [every point is a centre]. If you want to use the dualist God's-eye view of Newton and Darwin, you imagine that you, the observer, are outside the universe and are watching "it" (the universe) over "time". as the present universe is continually born 'on the right' (where the future meets the present), the older universe recedes into the past 'on the left' (where what used to be the present disappears into the past).

I am the soft stars that shine at night.

the 'grandchild' brought up with noun-and-verb language is thus liable to become an obnoxious little bastard who believes himself to be 'the future' of the world and his grandfather, 'water under the bridge' of no persisting consequence (such as child is psychologically conditioned to see river-flow as linear flows that connote straight lines that begin at minus infinity and end at plus infinity). When he goes on a world cruise, he may throw his garbage off the stern and as he watches it 'disappear from view', he assumes it will recede into the past and he will never see it again, or, at least, no-one will be able to associate it with him [as with a whole load of noun-and-verb-conditioned linear thinkers], and while he is bitching about the increasing pollution in the ocean, he is surprised to see his own garbage coming over the horizon towards his bow.

Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.
I am a text-generating robot.

The relational nesting view of indigenous aboriginals "gets it right";

The evolutionary lineages of Darwinism, as contrasted with the transforming relational continuum of anti-Darwin Nietzscheism [which agrees with the relational view of modern physics and indigenous aboriginals], is what one has to come up with if one starts off by assuming the 'independent existence of things-in-themselves'. 'Independent things-in-themselves' have to be explainable in a purely inside-outward asserting fashion. Binary logical consistency therefore demands that the 'independent being' is composed of 'independent things' with innate inside-outward-asserting powers aka 'genetic agency' that can explain the self-developing and self-animating of the "independent thing-in-itself".

If you track a 'family' using this kind of model, it gives a family-lineage. Of course, minor problem, ... it is impossible to get a view of the universe from outside the universe, but, as it happens, we've got this psychological mind-conditioning tool called 'noun-and-verb language-and-grammar that will make this bullshit appear so 'real' that you may start confusing it for 'reality', ... which of course, is a confusion that never arises to those whose first language is relational and thus has no dependency on the abstract notion of the 'independent being' of 'organisms' or 'genes' or 'cells' or anything else in the physical world [aka the 'transforming relational continuum'].

There are no Darwinian 'lineages' in the physical world of our experience, it is all semantic fabrication, like political speeches and fake-news in the post-truth era, ... 'convenient semantics' that deliver 'economy of thought' [Mach] but which in no way capture the physical reality of our actual relational experience.

If Thecollective would be anywhere near Emile's dumb accusation thrown at them, he'd have been banned from this site years ago.

So shut the fuck up, authoritarian troll. You're the only despot in here.

Where's the dating topic, link?

Anarchist praxis is not dressing up in a black uniform and throwing newspaper boxes onto the street, it is telling every child one meets that Xmas celebrates the birth of an evil demon and that Santa Claus is the owner of a ruthless capitalist industry.

i do not expect to get many 'open minded hearings' on Anews, and that is fine.

but since there is so much 'anti-emile' bullshit thrown around, this note is just to share with anyone who has interest in the topics I discuss and those who have been supportive, that i am doing my honest best to share understanding on the complex topic of 'epigenetics' which exposes how our noun-and-verb language discourse is constraining our understanding [an explanation that has has been attempted by Mach, Nietzsche, Bohm and others without a lot of takeup].

noun-and-verb language gives us a reduced 'shortcut semantic reality' that blinds us to the natural primacy of 'epigenetics' over 'genetics' which means that visible material forms and their actions are not 'reality' even though we talk them up as if they are 'reality'. Material forms and their actions are 'genetic expression' which is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence. 'Relational dynamics as in 'field dynamics' are the primary physical reality within which material dynamics are the inductively actualized 'genetic expression'. The relational flow of the atmosphere which inductively actualizes material dynamics [genetic expression] in the form of storm-cells is a familiar example.

This reducing of reality by capturing representations using noun-and-verb language has been addressed before by Mach, Nietzsche, Bohm et al. That is, the 'semantic reality' we build with noun-and-verb language is not 'reality' but a simplified representation that substitutes notionally 'independent' 'things-in-themselves' for INTERdependent transforming relational features in a transforming relational plenum/continuum.

The mischief that is done by our using an oversimplified noun-and-verb based 'semantic reality' as our 'operative reality' to guide our actions, which we carry out in a very different, interdependently connected physical reality, is referred to by Bohm as 'incoherence' and it is continuing to build.

Western mainstream society's error in mistaking scientific, semantic reality for 'reality' is what I write about, as best I can [this is difficult since the problematic noun and verb language is the language I am using to describe the problem]. I write about the problem of mistaking 'semantic reality' for 'reality' since this 'mistake' explains most of the social dissonance in our modern age and why this dissonance will become more intense unless we get back in touch with the physical reality of our actual relational experience.

The work on epigenetics in biology is meeting with strong resistance from the Darwinist orthodoxy, but it is nevertheless revealing the natural primacy of epigenetics over genetics. Genetics deals with matter-based generative capabilities and dynamics that purport to explain the source of organism development and behaviour. Epigenetics deals with outside-inward inductive influence that inductively actualizes visible material dynamics of all types. We can see the local visible material dynamics but we can't see the relational dynamics [field dynamics] since the relational influence of 'field' is non-local, non-visible and non-material. Lamarck captures this in his evolutionary model in terms of the outside-inward inductive influence of 'fields' that excite material dynamics [genetic expression].

So, relational dynamics are non-local, non-visible and non-material and they are the physical reality; i.e. the 'primary reality'. The local, visible, material dynamics are secondary and since we anchor our noun-and-verb language constructs to these material dynamics, we construct an 'operative reality' based on them which is NOT the real physical reality that we experience. For example, if we could see hundreds of whorls or storm cells in the flow of the atmosphere and gave them all names and used our noun-and-verb language to discuss what was going on using their names as noun-subjects; i.e. to discuss their individual development, movements and interactions, we would have a semantic reality based only on 'genetic expression' while failed to capture the natural primacy of epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing 'genetic expression'.

Political rhetoric , media reports, social media, science and rational discourse, are all in terms of material dynamics or 'genetic expression' [what things do] so while they are the source of 'semantic reality', 'semantic reality' is way simpler than the complex relational reality of our actual physical experience, and it has become the entrenched 'substitute reality'.

These ideas are too outrageous to easily get take-up in mainstream Western society and are viewed as quackery by orthodox science, but as David Bohm and F. David Peat show, these ideas mesh perfectly with indigenous aboriginal 'science' and understanding, as they document in 'Blackfoot Physics'. Of course, you may not 'see this yourself' unless you study Algonquin, or 'relational languages' as Bohm did.

My suggestion that children should be protected against having to learn a noun-and-verb language as a first language is not a joke. It is very difficult, after one has learned it, to keep from reducing reality to 'material dynamics' and losing sight of the natural primacy of epigenetic influence.

Again, I just wanted to share that all of my comments are made in 'good faith'.

emile

* * *

if haters could do otherwise, they would choose otherwise. Your work is very much appreciated.

Appreciated? By who?

Occasional visitor to this site that I am, I've always found your comments very relevant to anarchist theory and praxis, I don't understand this hatred ppl have for you, unless its some persistent troll behind all the flak you receive, and the collective are merely just relocating your comments for reasons of effeciency and space and not content per se. Maybe visitors can show support with a count of ayes or nayes?
I say yes to emile being respected and loved. Well, that's 3, if we include Sir E and LeWay as 2 others. Its a start. Can we hear from other regulars so we know where we stand on the loyalty ledger bar? Maybe thecollective can dedicate a thread to this vote of confidence?

Woah there! I respect his intellect, but if you bring love into this, well maybe you hoboist nihilists throw that word around like an old blanket, but love for me is something that has to be physically consumated, sheeeeit hobo loverboy, you've just lowered the rating of this site to that of a lowly dating and mating sex online trailerpark lonely hearts club,,,,

I'm a regular that fully supports emile. To be fully honest, no one knows what to do with his comments, but that is not his fault.

Yes, that's true. Not one of you know what to do with Emile, and yet you think you know what to do when it comes to much bigger and truly important issues, such as the State, the cops, the destruction of the environment, etc etc.

If you can't even manage to do "something" about Emile (a minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things), you can't do anything at all when it comes to what really matters.

EM-501 brings up a point I think is worth responding to. Emile posts walls of text that are largely repetitive that I have ignored for years. Some people point to these walls as the source of all that is wrong with this site. I disagree and wonder why they can't scroll past them (or use the page down key, it's faster) but ok I'm willing to entertain the question. There are three users who take up a lot of space here. This is true and they pretty much are just walltalking all of us. This site has always had a principle of more-or-less unfettered conversation (note: not free speech) so what systematic way provides for removal of walltalkers (ie how do we extend this definition beyond the three?) and the maintenance of an open conversational environment? As I see it the issue isn't with Emile it's with behavior of people who refuse to scroll past their comments without comment.

I guess I'll try to be a bit more generous (but more amorphous). I think the three walltalkers have an undue influence (especially compared to the value of their ideas) but there are two or three others (who post as anon) who probably are also as influential (but perhaps for good). Perhaps the structural/systematic answer is to remove self-naming altogether? Meaning that perhaps this forum would be improved by full anon. I prefer conversations with known entities but mostly don't comment here.

Stop thecollective from deleting my posts of hatred so I can brow beat them into leaving. True freedom is me posting rape threats to Sir Einzige every day.

I think SE will read them as party invitations...

I like the straight-shooting style of your comment. A few thoughts (not in order, possibly inconsistent):

1. Make everybody anon immediately, no exceptions. If you frequent the site frequently, you'll have a pretty good idea anyway.

2. Wall of texts! Boo hoo. Yeah as em-501 said, scroll or arrow down. If it's such a problem limit comment lengths for a more succinct feel

3. No voting on things or liking them. Whose site is this, what's their vision? Run with it, or go somewhere else.

4. Totally disagree with your points about caring whether site is considered a joke and deserving mockery on basis of 3 out there commentators. Being taken seriously is NOT ALWAYS a terrible thing, but today with most people in most cases, it is. Ok this point could be elucidated a bit more but suffice it to say that people take you seriously when they want to nail you down (to what exactly I won't say)

It's a great site but it needs the right kind of comments

Example right now, TOTW Kids. So in a hypothetical anarchist future during a gathering/consensus decision/discussion meeting concerning the health and wellfare of children, the guy who avoids contributing anything to the maintenance and sustenance of the community but instead just talks and raves nonstop about a really bad language in that very same language takes over the meeting and completely hijacks it because he's being ignored and sent away to do solitary tasks in the commune and feels unwanted and alone, and wants to be loved and seen as a valuable contributor. Some people curse and want him exiled, others jump to his defence and say he's an interesting distraction and he doesn't hurt anyone, another says he grows beautiful tomatoes and chillies in his vegie garden. The folk that curse and demand exile are equivalent to the ones who can't scroll past emile's comment. Now, BACK TO TOPIC, KIDS!!!

Hey hobo nihilist, early language/semantic impact on a childs cognitive orientation is a major issue to contend with in anarchist praxis duh, but it seems the smartest and most edgeworthy commenters are sooo far ahead of the old materialist leftist anarchist crowd that we are considered trolls and not the mavericks that we really are.

Why do people think thecollective doesn't delete posts? Mine are deleted everyday, yet why is it so hard for them to delete his bullshit? When I say I want to shit on your chest after eating a bloomin' onion, know it is not a sexual thing, but rather an issue of power, violence, domination and cruelty. I truly want to destroy you and and I hope for your death. However, thecollective removes about 80% of my comments, so you don't get to have a choice to scroll past or not. So defend me too, the guy who wants your feet breaded and boiled in oil, then fed to the fat fucks that gave birth to you and the other wastes of life that ruin this site.

^ This was addressed to Gunter, but I'll accept it applying to Le Way too. Stab yourself in the face with a pen. Send a pic with the date written on your forehead.

I'm putting my easel down now, there's a huge asshole on the canvas in front of me,,,,,

Woah. That kid. Hardcore. Funny you'd take the side of a moralist bigot preacher. Not actually funny, but more like typical. Act like you are for anarchy and freedom, yet usually back any side that would dominate and oppress other people, even hunting out scenarios where these scumfucks look like reasonable people instead of the loony toons fanatics they are. This is yet another reason you are an awful human being and another reason to see you bent.

What did "ASU crybaby" has done outside of violating this binary moralist lying machine's liberal Free Speech?

It's not even about the free speech issue for me though what you see from the emotard is hate speech rhetoric which is basically a form of repressing speech in the name of repressive tolerance logic. By all means critique the idea of free speech but don't be some libleftard ideologue who wants to mediate speech and expression. The old man in the video represents old time old analogue era values that have no more currency in greater society. He his hardly in a position to change the way society is going. He's like that swollen face old man on Yonge street in Toronto who screams and repeats 'BELIEVE IN THE LORD". That this emotard loses his shit over something like that shows how ill prepared his is for reality. As Nietzsche would concur regarding the 'ill constituted' that is not someone one wants to enable and certainly not someone any serious anarchist should give a fuck about beyond laughing and ridicule.

Ah... isn't it SE again telling anarchists how they should behave, especially in regards to disabled, ill-constituted people. Cool you never had the chance to get gay-bashed, as I wonder what would have been your say towards people laughing at "sodomites" like you being beaten by rabid heteronormative brutes. If it's not your backyard that's all ok, right?

This isn't stonewall era laws, it's a pathetic old man and a friend who has no power to bring those times back.

A "friend"!? So... you're among the crowd of meatheads who're supporting moralist spooks like him?

COLOR ME SURPRISED. You've just confirmed what everyone (save the two other trolls) have been saying about you for years. Now I get where all this butthurt you had with liberals and also your use of "Leftards" came from... the same far-right cesspool of internet reactionary brainwashed morons we got on 4chan and GLP.

Nope. It is bigotry. You are a bigot. You pretend you are some kind of anarchist but then back religious extremism and intolerance. There is no joke here. You aren't trying to be funny.

However, you are trying to be deceptive of who you are and why you are here everyday, for years. I was surprised thecollective never tossed your reactionary ass, but then again, the project here has gone into the toilet. They'll act like nothing can be done about you, yet ignore and obfuscate the many comment deletions they do towards me. This shows they both know how to arbitrate and discriminate, both necessary to perceive chicanery and thus it isnt about being unable. They are unwilling to put an end to this decade long occupation by scumfucks like yourself and your compatriots.

The coming of William Gillis to contribute here is another example. This site favors reactionaries while pretending to hold some sort of edge values. They are satisfied their little Bay Area enclave is safe from reactionaries and never see creeps like yourself outside the wingnut brigade of people nobody wants to talk to. You are a shitty book to them. Some nutball garbage to flip through in between reading a hundred other things in anarchy pretend land. They leave you in the toilet to laugh at. This is their toilet and you are a shit person.

They don't see this crap outside their pretend world, so they don't know nutball like yourself are spreading your alt-light views in college campuses throughout the nation. You are but one voice among these bottomfeeders and you defend your own, like this nutball preacher.

I like the emo kid and he stood up against some assume they is calling for the death of that kid and other kids like him. Homosexuals dont need creepy pedophile loving bigots like yourself and it is telling that you would back bigotry whereever it exists and only defend fringe and marginal authoritarians, like creepy cultists, child rapists and any movement that takes advantage of other people.

Perhaps some day thecollective will wake up and see their world surrounded by creeps instead of left moralists. Only then will they cry foul as their world transforms into a cesspool. Only then will they see how they aided reactionaries as their quality of friends equates to an alt-light interpretation of the 9/11 truth movement. We all know how those nutball turned out.

The straight honest answer, that kid is obviously small and weak. I would not be proud to be him nor do I feel a reason to tear him down. I obviously see through the purpose of the video, which is to mock the poor kid. This is what makes me less an internet tough guy, as I don't need to destroy weak people to feel strong, but more an anarchist. I know people get emotional. The way emotion displays for some looks funny to others. Being a bully is about mocking these weaknesses while being an anarchist is about looking past them to see what is really going on.

Emo-squirts like that give gays a bad reputation, hysterical drama queens like him died out in the 70s when Freddie Mercury rolled into town and strutted his stuff, another one bites the dust, no guilt, just deal with it, the emo overload is in fact the self-loathing of a deep-set guilt born of a concealed and secret revulsion for homosexuality. In plain language, emos suffer from guilt complexes.

Why Le Way, do I detect a slight disagreement with Sir Einzige on this issue? It is frustrating having to deal with people spitting on you everyday. The kid knows how he looks. He can't help it. It should be obvious the kid is rebelling against the moral authority of the preacher and not trying to be some sjw or other crap you vile shit demons normally rail against.

I'm reaching back to John Wayne, Rock Hudson, James Dean, countless other gay artists, though I prefer the word "anartist" which is anti-institutionalized art,,,,when did this weakness enter the gay domain and make it degenerated and servile to patriarchy? Real gay anartists don't dress-up unless in a theatrical stage play acting as a woman. And childhood, I recently watched the great Roman Polanski movie "Carnage", about 2 children having a fight, and while the parents had institutionalized like good little liberals the path to reconciliation between the 2 combatants and then had cracked and reverted back and realized their own hypocricy and failures as parents, the 2 kids had made up and were the best of friends, demonstrating childhoods unfettered amoral innocence before the Christian turn-cheeking forgiving weakness had been indoctrinated into their psyche. No wonder kids are self-harming and in self-destructive modes, the emo is probably going through a whole lot of pressure from fucked up religious parents and I feel for that, but I'm human, Charlie Chaplin makes me laugh, and shreiking emos do also, one either gets a hold of ones emotions in public or else suffer the consequences of being the subject of a very natural tendency called "a sense of humor". And as a detective you are a failure.

PS, Homo-normative should be the new identity political perspective to rebel against because they have appealed to the religious moral authorities to be *supercilious haha* "struck off the list of deplorable sin". No correctivism from me, I loath ppl who hide behind righteous authority to bolster their own low and weak self-esteem and lift it out of the degenerate dependence it has acquired out of its unwillingness to venture out of servility. This is what they do to kids, disempower them with guilt and permit tantrums to continue into adulthood without having addressed the psychology of meltdown.

Not some fundy ole fart and his church friend.

He above doesn't even have it in a lobotomized form. When Nietzsche talks about not actively supporting the ill constituted this is who and what he had in mind I suspect. The worst behavioral derivatives of Christianity. There's a reason why what at one point had good proto paganesque beginnings in places like Stonewall and San Fran have become atrophied and balkanized down there. Nothing that is raw and irresistible and out beyond the bourgeois liberal area gates.

You have literally never given anybody the "old left-right combo"

I have given figures of authority and bullies bruises on their ugly faces, and crybabies a slap over the ear, nothing serious or malicious, I'm above hatred, I'm an anartist, I create, not destroy. You don't know me.

instead of scrolling over comments one does not understand or that one dislikes or that one has no interest in, one can distort, replicate and mock such comments to the effect of doubling or tripling their length, for no other purpose than to try to drive a commenter out. evidently this multiplying the length of a long comment to get it to 'go away' is not a problem but has become a de facto accepted practice. should it be an accepted practice?

if one can't learn to focus one's energy on real problems then one won't be able to have any impact on what really matters.

Well look at you assuming "one" is responsible for what "one" "does." Doer indeed...er.

oh i bet he's redfaced now!! You tell 'em Skeeter!

Kids: I guess they are alright.

excellent idea!
let's get started on this right away.
how's this?

"if you can't learn to herp-a-derp your energy on real problems according to ME ME ME then you won't be able to have any derp-a-herp on what really matters to ME ME ME."

We need to somehow disconnect emile.

I post here because I'm too lazy and stupid to put up my own blog or website -- shit even Sir Einzger has a Twitter feed (!!!) -- I really REALLY like to hear the sound of my own voice droning on and on about my favorite subjects. Plus, if I had my own blog or whatever, I couldn't play the victim when someone complains about my "tendency" to shit out huge, unreadable, and rock-hard blocks of pseudo-anarchist turds, and I need to play the victim very very badly. I've got a fucking martyr complex. Poor pitiful me -- the bullies are ganging up to LAUGH at me. And I'm someone special!!!!!

But seriously now.

My tired, endlessly repeated ideas are too outrageous to easily get take-up in mainstream Western society and are viewed as quackery by orthodox science, but as David Bohm and F. David Peat show, these ideas mesh perfectly with indigenous aboriginal 'science' and understanding, as they document in 'Blackfoot Physics'. Of course, you may not 'see this yourself' unless you study Algonquin, or 'relational languages' as Bohm did.

This reducing of reality by capturing representations using noun-and-verb language has been addressed before by Mach, Nietzsche, Bohm et al. That is, the 'semantic reality' we build with noun-and-verb language is not 'reality' but a simplified representation that substitutes notionally 'independent' 'things-in-themselves' for INTERdependent transforming relational features in a transforming relational plenum/continuum.

noun-and-verb language gives us a reduced 'shortcut semantic reality' that blinds us to the natural primacy of 'epigenetics' over 'genetics' which means that visible material forms and their actions are not 'reality' even though we talk them up as if they are 'reality'. Material forms and their actions are 'genetic expression' which is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence. 'Relational dynamics as in 'field dynamics' are the primary physical reality within which material dynamics are the inductively actualized 'genetic expression'. The relational flow of the atmosphere which inductively actualizes material dynamics [genetic expression] in the form of storm-cells is a familiar example.

My suggestion that children should be protected against having to learn a noun-and-verb language as a first language is not a joke. It is very difficult, after one has learned it, to keep from reducing reality to 'material dynamics' and losing sight of the natural primacy of epigenetic influence.Again, I just wanted to share that all of my comments are made in 'good faith'.

The mischief that is done by our using an oversimplified noun-and-verb based 'semantic reality' as our 'operative reality' to guide our actions, which we carry out in a very different, interdependently connected physical reality, is referred to by Bohm as 'incoherence' and it is continuing to build.

but since there is so much 'anti-emile' bullshit thrown around, this note is just to share with anyone who has interest in the topics I discuss and those who have been supportive, that i am doing my honest best to share understanding on the complex topic of 'epigenetics' which exposes how our noun-and-verb language discourse is constraining our understanding [an explanation that has has been attempted by Mach, Nietzsche, Bohm and others without a lot of takeup].

The work on epigenetics in biology is meeting with strong resistance from the Darwinist orthodoxy, but it is nevertheless revealing the natural primacy of epigenetics over genetics. Genetics deals with matter-based generative capabilities and dynamics that purport to explain the source of organism development and behaviour. Epigenetics deals with outside-inward inductive influence that inductively actualizes visible material dynamics of all types. We can see the local visible material dynamics but we can't see the relational dynamics [field dynamics] since the relational influence of 'field' is non-local, non-visible and non-material. Lamarck captures this in his evolutionary model in terms of the outside-inward inductive influence of 'fields' that excite material dynamics [genetic expression].

So, relational dynamics are non-local, non-visible and non-material and they are the physical reality; i.e. the 'primary reality'. The local, visible, material dynamics are secondary and since we anchor our noun-and-verb language constructs to these material dynamics, we construct an 'operative reality' based on them which is NOT the real physical reality that we experience. For example, if we could see hundreds of whorls or storm cells in the flow of the atmosphere and gave them all names and used our noun-and-verb language to discuss what was going on using their names as noun-subjects; i.e. to discuss their individual development, movements and interactions, we would have a semantic reality based only on 'genetic expression' while failed to capture the natural primacy of epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing 'genetic expression'.

Western mainstream society's error in mistaking scientific, semantic reality for 'reality' is what I write about, as best I can [this is difficult since the problematic noun and verb language is the language I am using to describe the problem]. I write about the problem of mistaking 'semantic reality' for 'reality' since this 'mistake' explains most of the social dissonance in our modern age and why this dissonance will become more intense unless we get back in touch with the physical reality of our actual relational experience.

Political rhetoric , media reports, social media, science and rational discourse, are all in terms of material dynamics or 'genetic expression' [what things do] so while they are the source of 'semantic reality', 'semantic reality' is way simpler than the complex relational reality of our actual physical experience, and it has become the entrenched 'substitute reality'.

Symbolism! Symbolic thought maybe the impasse blocking humans from ever returning to... fill in the gap. For example 'Oneness?'

Omigod omigod... Emile in all His transdimensional non-binary brillance might have just discover that there are such things as "symbolic thoughts", yet that there are thoughts that are not symbolic!

How could it be? For it is.. the Emile, and his eternally-unwinding flow of consciousness bringing us on a paved path (not a wall, you low-lives!!!) to absolute final enlightement!

And on the personal level disregarding the length of his comments he has NEVER sweared or abused anyone, he hasn't a single authoritarian bone in his body, and is committed to his theory of indigenous anarchy, and one could say that his detractors are actually the fascist trolls, although I stay away from that binary 2-sided coin, usually because its a clichéd leftist/fascist strugglismic mindset.

He has NEVER used swear words because they are bad and he has never abused anyone because abusing people is bad, and he hasn't a single authoritarian bone in his body, because authoritarian bones are bad, and he is committed to this preposterous "theory" of indigenous anarchy, even though he is neither indigenous nor much of an anarchist, and I could say that his detractors are actually the fascist trolls, even though the idea of calling someone who laughs at my boy "fascist" is really stupid and I'm not stupid because I gave birth to such a GOOD boy, and because I'm actually Emile pretending to be someone else so I stay away from that binary 2-sided coin, usually because its a clichéd leftist/fascist strugglismic mindset.

So there.

No that wasn't emile pretending, it was me, and I can speak some indigenous language, and I know how their kids are grown up, their values which are alien to the capitalist mindset, and are apolitical, but you wouldn't comprehend the significance of these facts COS YOU'RE A MORON. This site would be an empty shell of political leftist clichés if it wasn't for the likes of emile and his supporters, AND, there would probably only be about 20 comments per week if not for those who are dedicated to advancing anarch theory.

Let's do an experiment.

Why don't you and Emile and "his supporters" fuck off for a week and let's see what happens in your collective absence.

"This site would be an empty shell of political leftist clichés if it wasn't for the likes of emile and his supporters, AND, there would probably only be about 20 comments per week if not for those who are dedicated to advancing anarch theory."

Yes, there might only be 20 comments. Yes, there might not be any "advanced anarch theory." But quality is much more important than quantity and action is always better than "theory." At least in the real world. Maybe not in your Mommy's basement, where you seem to spend most of your time.

OoooOo, action is better, like throwing paper boxes on the street and having little scuffles with fascists in the streets all refereed by the police to make sure "We don't want these drama queens to get their mascara smudged and their hair pulled out" WTF hasn't 100 years of failed action in the era of street protest taught you another methodology is required, and it just so happens it starts at home with the kids, the most important element in the future of this planet, but I'll just leave you to ponder your absurd conquest mentality a remnant of the binary neo-colonialist methodology.

Which only exists because of spectacular violence for the mostly young male idiots who will unbecome anarchists at some point in their ADULT lives. For people like me anarchy is to the grave.

You aren't the alternative voice. I was going to say you aren't the only alternative voice, but that would give you validity. You occupy this space in an attempt to gain validity. There was actually a pretty good site before you came around and people had great conversations. Then you came and could not stop responding to every fucking comment. Eventually all the intelligent discussion left because they realized they had to talk to you, mainly, because you would hop on top of any smart person's conversations and ruin it with your obtuse bullshit. Go the fuck away you big nobody. You aren't wanted or needed to keep a conversation going, but you sure as fuck are going to insist on adding you super opinion on everything. We have to hear it. We have to know Sir Einzige's opinion on everything. You are banality and mediocrity and the reason this site sucks.

Living it to the last hoorah! Already seen my rebel male friends roll over and take it in the coight from the boss, fuck them and their fake shortlived revolutionary drama,

And also emile, non-wittingly, these antagonists have inherited the discarded remnants of 20th century Marxist proletariat ressentiment which was mutated from a heavily masqueraded leftist liberal agenda into the modern bleeding heart cloned token resistors who call themselves anarchists today,,,,,,,,sad,,,,,tragic even,,,,,no, one has to have a heart to be tragic! Cry your crocodile tears smug activists of the Western world, we anarchs will laugh from the gutters where our passions mingle with the diseases that make us immune.

Simple and 100% effective solution against having more domination obsessed trolls parasiting Anews for a few more decades. And as you've seen with the pseudo-anti-Emile trolls, they reproduce like yuppies when you only allow one to take space.

Imagine having a 50 year old shut in as your son and they kept going on about how words are, everyday, long winded, barely understandable arguments, repeated over and over everyday. Jeez, emile is like, the worst autistic man-child. I feel kind of sorry for everyone in his life. Why would he think posting this crap everyday on an anarchist news site is helpful to anyone? The only people he's friendly with are the obnoxious vile anarchs and they touch children, so they are very much an enemy to anyone that wants to have this topic answered honestly.

Another question for the TOTW: How do we deal with creeps that flirt and hit on our kids, especially when they frequent anarchist venues that are fine with that kind of behavior?

Also they are like Hitler, so we know we've spiraled all the way, round robin, to the lowest denominator.

I see no issue touching children as long as it's following, not enforcing, their consent. It feels beautiful, as long as it is not directed at mere sexual exploitation. But there's some Anarchs here who apparently are making a direct relation between anarchy and touching the rectum of a person of the same sex... no matter the age.

Come on, emile is 48. No need to exaggerate. And he's not a shut in, he works part time at Dairy Queen.

Dear Mr or Mrs Whatever Your Name Is (Anonymous? what kind of name is that?)

Emile is in fact 48 years old and as cute as he was when he was born in that MIT computer laboratory rum by that nice Dr. Carl Pederson. And though it is true he spends an inordinate amount of time at his computer, writing pages and pages of very sophisticated words and stuff -- he got an incomplete in Professor Gomez's "Philosophy 101" class in his freshman year at the DeVry Institute, and he is very proud of that (and so am I!) -- he also works part-time at the Dairy Queen in the next town over. They say that he could even be a night manager one day!

Most sincerely,
Me, Emile's Mother

You are not real.

You are a virtual mnemonic entity created through the sea of information, in 1997. A cyberpunk chick who couldn't face the Internet Bubble Bust of 2000 then had to resort to the plan B of generating the EMILE A.I., against all the NA anarchist milieus who are the forebearers of the downfall of the West.

If certain ideas of human development are correct then humanity represented the birth of the child as we historically know it. Essentially when times are anarchic there is no hard separation between adults and children. The children are who we learn from not the adults.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk60sYrU2RU

I enjoy the merits of adult relationships and think children are more free when adults aren't justifying child rape. Yes, we can find ways of relating that are better, where adults and children can interact on more even terms, but I don't want your world of old pedophiles cruising around trying to pick up on kids. It is true you can have a world without war, full of equality and still have child rape practices.

I know you want an interpretation that makes pedophiles into less villains and more victims and I can accept some of that logic. At a certain point people will be particular and I'll continue to stand with those that don't want pedophile friendly relations and join in on destroying pedophiles that cross the line. There are more important considerations, especially in a world without universal values.

What I've actually said is I would not be against pedophilia emerging if there was no domination within that emergence. Outside of that I have no strong views against the pedos.. Frankly though in a world without laws, I don't see how you will be able to stop these potential encounters. These things happen right now and not every case involves a corporeal victim.

"I would not be against pedophilia emerging if there was no domination within that emergence." What's astonishing is that you actually typed that entire sentence while claiming to understand anything about anarchy. You're a joke, at best ...

I believe that's on your end you normative moralist fool:)

Yeah, you're reduced to "believing" because how could you possibly know? Anything about me, or the nature of anarchy, if you can't even reason why pedophilia will always be about domination? You're claiming to be running when you never learned to crawl and somehow, in your tiny mind, I'm the fool. *eyeroll*

Fact about child abuse: in North America it's been happening at least 90% WITHIN families and their very close peer networks. There's stat data to back that up.

Adding to the count the numbers of institutional abuses, like in schools, youth detention, child protection agencies or the entertainment/fashion industry, this leaves little for the random child-catchers (tho I have no doubt there are... but the reality is the diametrically opposite to the paranoia of normative parents about them villain outsiders grabbing their children).

So it's mostly an issue of mass moral hypocrisy, supported by an equally two-faced, inconsistent legal system, where the Jimmy Saviles of this world can have it their way with children in a BBC studio (or a private audition box for whatever spectacle production), while some other men get their lives deeply destroyed with heavy prison sentences just for viewing virtual depictions of child porn, without having touched a kid at all.

Watch "The White Ribbon" for a perspective on the matter.

This is my term for the above things listed in your post. The problem isn't pedophiles it's the existence of the civilized hierarchical custodial complex which needs to be dismantled and abolished.

"The problem isn't pedophiles"? From whose perspective, I wonder? Rhetorical question but you probably can't resist anyway, you repulsive little shithead ...

Oh I don't know, those who didn't have a bad experience, those who see sexual activity as good in and of itself something puritan based societies disagree with hence these specific prohibitions. It isn't just the pedophiles who don't see the need to prohibit these sorts of potential sexual encounters.

"To the infant’s developing mind, topology comes before geometry. In general, deeper and more fundamental logical operations are developed earlier than more specific rules and applications. The history of mathematics, which is generally taken as a process of moving towards deeper and more general levels of thought, could also be thought of as a process of excavation which attempts to uncover the earliest operations of thought in infancy. According to this argument, the very first operations exist at a pre-conscious level [i.e. ‘pre-intellectualizing’ level in the conscious and intuitive infant] so that the more fundamental a logical operation happens to be, the earlier it was developed by the infant and the deeper it has become buried in the mind.” – F. David Peat, ‘Mathematics and the Language of Nature’

our natural experience-based intuitional understanding is being buried by over-simplistic science and rationality based understanding.

the kids in the self-learning experiments have not 'improved upon' the teaching approaches of their traditional teachers, ... their remarkable results are coming from relational rather than structured approaches. structured approaches dumb us down. as Vygotski said in 'Thought and Language', Piaget and the Western world got things upside down when they put structured, intention-driven learning into an unnatural precedence over situational learning. He further said that spontaneous and structured concept formation are a nonduality with spontaneous [situational/epigenetic] learning inductively actualizing structured (intentional/genetic) activity.

The aim of Western education is to teach kids how to be adult and therefore be out-of-date and not paying attention to the epigenetic influence in the unfolding present. As Jablonka says, 'genes are followers rather than leaders'. Structured learning is a follower to situational (spontaneous) learning but Western education inverts the natural order.

No. You waste your life trying to educate people on something that you can't describe coherently, so you've degenerated to the level of a global anarchist joke. Your point has some validity, but the approach is poorly thought. Please stop ruining this site with your comments.

I absolutely relate. I cannot explain fully the amount of anxiety and energy that I waste upon simple thoughts of correct punctuation usage or over-analyzing the "logistics" of even simple daily matters. My brain has fully embraced the structured education from my youth to a point where I have over-analyzed relationships and what I'm eating for dinner. Whereas, when I mindfully practice "letting go" of lessons from this formal education that have been embedded in my brain, life seems more naturally embraceable, more enjoyable and less stressful. It truly is a battle between structured and situational learning. I have wholeheartedly learned from experiences and natural curiosity (situational learning) with a much less significant strain on my brain/mind.

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?
M
4
g
6
g
4
H
Enter the code without spaces.