Why Hope?

by John Zerzan

It's pretty fashionable, among anarchists as well, to sneer at the notion of hope, to explicitly rule out any chance of overall victory over domination and oppression. Desert (2011) sports this outlook on its cover: "In our hearts we all know the world will not be 'saved'," and repeats this statement twice more in its opening pages. Civilization will persist. It's time to give up on "unwinnable battles." In this way the misery of burn-out and disillusionment will be avoided and we'll all be a lot happier(!) The Mexican Unabomber-type group, Individualidades teniendo a lo salvaje (ITS), also firmly asserts that there'll be no winning. "We do not believe this is possible," they proclaim repeatedly.

But it is possible. Our overcoming the disease of civilization is in no way guaranteed, obviously, but clearly it is possible. I prefer what Kierkegaard said of hope: It is "the passion for the possible." More boldly, whatever became of “Demand the Impossible”? When victory is refused are we not at Game Over?

We might recall Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man, which announced the apparent end of radical possibilities, the definitive triumph of consumerist unfreedom. He was delighted to have been proven wrong within weeks of the book's 1964 appearance by the beginnings of a global movement that shook the world. And as the global system now shows itself to be failing at every level, shows itself to have no answers at all, there stands every chance of qualitatively surpassing the Movement of the '60s.

But not, needless to say, if we renounce any hope of overcoming. It is well-known that health and recovery from illness is tied not to hopelessness but its opposite. Consider the Serbian Danilo Kis's last novel, Psalm 44, about a young family's will to survive and resist in Auschwitz, where visualizing hope is a "necessity." For us and all life, matters are grave but we are not in Auschwitz. And yet we spurn hope?

Egoism and nihilism are evidently in vogue among anarchists and I'm hoping that those who so identify are not without hope. Illusions no, hope yes. I wonder what we have to offer at large, in terms of, say, analysis and inspiration - or whether that's still being asked much.

There are egoists who seem mainly in love with their sacred Egos, where all is judged insofar as it serves the Self. Meanwhile the reigning techno-culture feeds solipsism, narcissism, and isolation the more techno-addicted are its subjects. Did Max Stirner see the natural world as having value only in relation to one's ego? How much interest does the pure egoist have in mutual aid, social struggles or the disappearance of community? I recommend Stirner's The Ego and its Own as an important corrective to the appeals of collectivism in its various guises, but tend to agree with Arizona anarchist Dan Todd that Diogenes and the Cynics in the West and Chuang-tzu and some of the Taoists in the East did an even better job of it centuries earlier.

Does nihilism mean that pretty much everything must go for a decent life to be possible? If so then I'm a nihilist. It's safe to say that nihil-ism isn't literally nothing-ism or one couldn't be both a nihilist and an anarchist. If it means the politics of desperation or hopelessness, no thanks. French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard put the word in a different light: “With the megalopolis, what the West realizes and diffuses is its nihilism. It is called development.” Are there nihilists who take on such institutions and what drives them?

There's more than anti-hope on offer, in any case. Two new books remind us of that. Enrico Manicardi’s Free from Civilization is the first 'A-Z' type anti-civ offering in any language (originally Liberi dalla Civilta) and Paul Cedenec's The Anarchist Revelation: Being What we're Meant to Be, the least pessimistic book I can recall reading. It refers to German anarchist Gustav Landauer, for instance, for the idea that we "need not worry that the quantity of those answering the call will not be great enough, when the quality of its [anti-civ] content is beyond question." It brings anarchist resistance and the spirit together in a very wide-ranging and powerful contribution.

Dire times but, as Oscar Wilde had it, "We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars."

Category: 

Comments

agreed

this dude threw around nihilism when it was edgy to sell books and now that theres actually an emerging explicit + active nihilism he wants to go all liberal

Yeah, whatever. I'm with the Zerz here--this trendy anti-hope thing is stupid. Like, a certain Mr. D. Jensen is against hope. I don't think most of the morons who rep nihilism can back that up with not actually believing in anything. And the ones who can are sub-Nechaevian dolts, not people I trust to remain comrades through thick and thin.

But really. We act because our actions are valuable in themselves, not because we hope to be paid for it in "change." Sure. But at the same time, we can understand "hope" as an orientation to the future that enables us to act where other people, being disconnected from the future, do nothing. Yes, I'm extolling action, but (fuck the Duponts x1000) we are always acting--the question is how aware of our agency we are when we do. One word for that awareness is hope.

So fuck Jensen and the wannabe nihilist posers. What.

mmm but see you're missing the part where he threw around nihilism when it was edgy to sell books

not allowed to develop thought.

Really? When?

"Does nihilism mean that pretty much everything must go for a decent life to be possible? If so then I'm a nihilist. It's safe to say that nihil-ism isn't literally nothing-ism or one couldn't be both a nihilist and an anarchist. If it means the politics of desperation or hopelessness, no thanks."

John already addressed this. you're wrong.

John Zeran is not a real anarchist. Only anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists are real anarchists.

Are you with the People's Front of Judea, or the Judean People's Front?

I like how you're the authority on anarchism, and have set clearly defined boundaries for what is and isn't anarchism. :D

you're getting down on zerzan when he's trend following and trying to sell more books? many of these books point out language is the problem. and technology. buy them on amazon, and buy some for your friends and family. zerzan will still need glasses when civilization ends and he moves in with the unabomber to share a jail cell and bed. where is gelderloos when u need Him

as proof that civilization is wrong and zerzan is right just look at all his western eurocentric technocratic references. its peer reviewed at stanford and harvard. also look at the old anarchoprimitivsm web pages. it makes a convincincing case that civilization is at an end; also they have some good suburban house deals available---if you flip them you can donate money to derrick jensen private jet fund (so he spam spread the word)..

But, you don't seem to remember how Derrick Jensen defined hope or hoping. He said it is the praying for something without taking action. That is different than nihilism

nihilism is so liberal

Neo-nihilism is a fad. There is no point to struggling if you don't believe in something, even if that something is the struggle itself and the (counter)-culture it produces. It's not surprising at all that "nihilism" would take the interest particularly of North American anarchists who are so repressed, defeated, and without support that it's much easier to throw up your hands and say "Who cares what the masses think, who cares if we win, who cares...." and so on. As revolutionaries, we are supposed to care, a lot actually. Much more than the average person. What is the point of our consciousness anyway?

I'm thinking this, so I'm just going to come out and say it. If I had the choice between an ardent anarchist comrade who really believed in The Idea and a nihilist comrade being in a roomed being questioned by police about me, I think the choice is clear who I would prefer. Who am I going to have more confidence in not talking, someone who believes in nothing, embraces anti-social tendencies, and constantly talks about themselves and individualism? I don't think so. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, I'm just saying I put more trust in those that have real passion and conviction, not the "fuck everything" types. And just to clarify, every city needs to be burned to the ground and the last capitalist must be hung with the guts of the last capitalist. We, the anarchists, are not in the least bit afraid of ruins.

baka baka

Completely agree with this. It's a sad reflection of how intrusive the internet techno-culture is that the latest trend of NA radicals is an embrace of nihilism and obfuscating issues with a bullshit defeatist attitude. It's a lovely contradiction that the "fuck everything" types are the ones who seem so infused in this disgustingly anti-social technoculture. That's why all of their shit is on tumblr and other god-awful "LOOK AT ME" websites. Honestly I don't trust those types of people to be around in 5 years.

"go all liberal"?

does anything in his essay support a liberal position? oh wait, you're another nihilist incapable of defending their beliefs except by claiming anything that goes against nihilist orthodoxy is liberal?

"whatever became of “Demand the Impossible”? "

I think it got left behind somewhere in 2003, when the former anti-globalist pseudo-anarchist liberals (the usual proto-hipster leftists) started to work for society, have a car and make babies.

"When victory is refused are we not at Game Over?"

Having no demands doesn't translate to refusing victory in the social war. Actually they are diverging paradigms. I mean that we can't really have an anarchist victory against capitalist State if we make demands to it.

Only place where Al Qaeda are right: make no demands, just attack, and... profit.

al qeada make demands on a pretty regular basis...

Most nihilist positions are based on misinterpretations. Just like more anarcho-liberal positions are based on misinterpretations of history.

I would tell the nihilist and the anarcho-liberal equally: Read "Sacco and Vanzetti: The Anarchist Background" by Paul Avrich. You nihilists will be quite surprised and how unnihilistic these very destructive and violent comrades of the past were. And you anarcho-liberals will be surprised and how unliberal these two "innocent men" and the scene surrounding them were.

>"You nihilists will be quite surprised and how unnihilistic these very destructive and violent comrades of the past were."

I don't think I would be surprised at all, actually. I'm aware that many early-20th-century anarchists had very strong positive ideas (that is, ideas of creation) in addition to the negative/destructive ideas that they put into action.

I always understood "Demand the Impossible" as the utopian aspiration to abolish-transform the whole of reality, not as specific concrete demands made against State/Capital. Anyway, suggesting Zerzan can be placed under the latter "paradigm" seems disingenuous to say the least.

You seem to be implying that hope somehow leads to a reformist or demand-centered paradigm. However by refusing to rule out "victory in the social war" you admit the possibility of victory, contra the positions of "Desert", Individualists tending toward the wild, or nihilist-anarchists. By willing and acting towards the realization of that possibility you, like Zerzan, can be described as having hope.

Zerzan

You're awesome.

yo whatever, if hope is what motivates revolt that's fine as long as kids are being honest to themselves about "winning" and other such narratives, if hopelessness is what gets kids to wreck shit then good on them too. i don't care about hope as a thing that is in and of itself worth having, i care about hope as individuals deal with it to "motivate/inspire" themselves to revolt.
if all the hopeless nihilists destroy the worlds that exist right now, it won't matter if they had hope or not because it'd still be anarchy...

"it won't matter if they had hope or not because it'd still be anarchy..."

you seem to be affirming anarchy or revolt in and of itself. sounds like you believe that anarchy has some inherent value or meaning. your nihilism sucks, liberal.

those nihilists are nihilists in name only.

Waiting with baited breath for a 3,000 word diatribe from Emile.

BG 18.1: Arjuna said: O mighty-armed one, I wish to understand the purpose of renunciation [tyāga] and of the renounced order of life [sannyāsa], O killer of the Keśī demon, master of the senses.

BG 18.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The giving up of activities that are based on material desire is what great learned men call the renounced order of life [sannyāsa]. And giving up the results of all activities is what the wise call renunciation [tyāga].

BG 18.3: Some learned men declare that all kinds of fruitive activities should be given up as faulty, yet other sages maintain that acts of sacrifice, charity and penance should never be abandoned.

BG 18.4: O best of the Bhāratas, now hear My judgment about renunciation. O tiger among men, renunciation is declared in the scriptures to be of three kinds.

BG 18.5: Acts of sacrifice, charity and penance are not to be given up; they must be performed. Indeed, sacrifice, charity and penance purify even the great souls.

BG 18.6: All these activities should be performed without attachment or any expectation of result. They should be performed as a matter of duty, O son of Pṛthā. That is My final opinion.

BG 18.7: Prescribed duties should never be renounced. If one gives up his prescribed duties because of illusion, such renunciation is said to be in the mode of ignorance.

BG 18.8: Anyone who gives up prescribed duties as troublesome or out of fear of bodily discomfort is said to have renounced in the mode of passion. Such action never leads to the elevation of renunciation.

BG 18.9: O Arjuna, when one performs his prescribed duty only because it ought to be done, and renounces all material association and all attachment to the fruit, his renunciation is said to be in the mode of goodness.

BG 18.10: The intelligent renouncer situated in the mode of goodness, neither hateful of inauspicious work nor attached to auspicious work, has no doubts about work.

BG 18.11: It is indeed impossible for an embodied being to give up all activities. But he who renounces the fruits of action is called one who has truly renounced.

BG 18.12: For one who is not renounced, the threefold fruits of action — desirable, undesirable and mixed — accrue after death. But those who are in the renounced order of life have no such result to suffer or enjoy.

fuck you fight harder. we have no choice.

that kind of buddhism is really gay
the cases of the ancient dudes are better http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/mumonkan.htm

now, we certainly have no choice; but that kind of thinking only gets you so far
if that is your motivation for fighting, you might become easily defeated

Hope implies both faith and luck, and I neither believe in nor rely on something like that. Lack of so called "hope" does not have to mean hopelessness with negative attributes attached to it like desperation and "the misery of burn-out". What is so bad about disillusionment? Neurotic people invent illusions and psychotic people live in them. I prefer reality instead of idealism.

"Mutual aid, even though it may represent one of the factors of evolution, covers nevertheless one aspect only of human relations; that by the side of this current, powerful though it may be, there is, and always has been, the other current — the self-assertion of the individual, not only in its efforts to attain personal or caste superiority, economical, political, and spiritual, but also in its much more important although less evident function of breaking through the bonds, always prone to become crystallized, which the tribe, the village community, the city, and the State impose upon the individual. In other words, there is the self-assertion of the individual taken as a progressive element."
- Peter Kropotkin

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

"The reward for conformity was that everyone liked you except yourself."
- Rita Mae Brown

"And if I call myself an individualist anarchist, an iconoclast and a nihilist, it is precisely because I believe that in these adjectives there is the highest and most complete expression of my willful and reckless individuality that, like an overflowing river, wants to expand, impetuously sweeping away dikes and hedges, until it crashes into a granite boulder, shattering and breaking up in its turn. I do not renounce life. I exalt and sing it."
- Renzo Novatore, I am also a nihilist

"A lot of anarchists had a major role in influencing my political thinking, especially the individualist anarchists. … I find a lot of Kropotkin compatible even though he was a communist anarchist. Nothing wrong with communist anarchism as long as it remains voluntary. Any one that wants to go make a commune, go ahead, do it. I got nothing against it. As long as there's room to the individualist to do his or her own thing."
- Robert Anton Wilson, in Interview in TSOG

"It is a sad sight to see those who believe themselves to be revolutionaries unleashing their hatred on the anarchist — just because his views on freedom go beyond their petty and narrow concepts of freedom learned in the State school. And meanwhile, this spectacle is a reality. The fact is that the spirit of voluntary servitude was always cleverly cultivated in the minds of the young, and still is, in order to perpetuate the subjection of the individual to the State."
- Peter Kropotkin, IX

"Unless a man has talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, "to be free from freedom.""
- Eric Hoffer

"Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State"
- Benito Mussolini

Against individualism, the Eco-Fascist conception is for Mother Earth?

ut still you're mistaking hope (the belief that some degree of effort is worth investing into uncertainty), with faith (the conviction in the impossible) and idealism (the blind conviction is something that's just not there, based on a preconceived scheme).

Hope, moreover, is a SENTIMENT, reflecting the will to survive and improve things for the better, and not a reasoning. To lose hope means to accept self-destruction and the inevitability of failure, lowering your head in the mud, deep down, til you die. Looking at life and how it's so fragile, it feels like such a bad waste to do so, and it's worth fighting, even uphill.

No, I am not mistaking them. But I do reject all of that. Belief is completely alien to me, I know or I know not. I do not voluntarily invest effort in gambling like any foolish loser. As I rely solely on my ability (or might as Stirner among others put it), there is only certainty in one outcome or the other. Others shout for help and solidarity, begging for their magical rights and pleading for respect from the "brutal" and violent cops because this or that is supposedly sacred. That is silly, instead I reach for my sword or gun if I have to. But more likely I am nowhere to be found and therefore not disturbed by any would be enemy.

I am not opressed; I stand upright. Thus I would not need hope to survive anymore than a runner would need a wheelchair. The whole hope vs hopelessness is a non-issue for me. There is no hope for me to lose in the first place. I have no ideas, concept, or faith about what it would mean to "improve things for the better" except when it comes to simple practical things in my personal life. I do not want to improve the world. Great infamous people who have tried to do so throughout history has always ending up doing the opposite in the eyes of other people. Only creating ruins, domination and opression. If there is to be "overall victory" it means "total war" like Joseph Goebbels spoke of. Hail Victory? Many would be upset and declare the victory to be something still far from anarchy. And the great struggle would start from scratch again like Sisyphus who is always fighting uphill with his immense boulder. People would find they may be standing on a pot of gold if they looked down on the terrible mud instead of reaching for that rainbow in heaven. Life is not fragile; if a living thing is that, then it means that it is hard, rigid, brittle and close to death. Either way, life goes on. Pretty much everything must not go to have a decent life, if one is flexible and make use of what already is here.

Right... because Goebbels preached about some notion of victory that by default, victory is fascist. Please explain me how everything and everyone except, you and your self-inflating ego, is fascist. No... please don't.

If you ever show up next time I'm defending an autonomous occupation from violent eviction by cops, you'd better not be waiting by the door to open it to them (just because the idea of winning the battle is fascist so we should forever be losers and let the State forces take everything). I'm watching you, treacherous wingnut.

Again you do not understand the exact meaning of what I write, pay closer attention to the details if you may care. Or not, it is your choice if you want to play stupid, despite that you are probably better than that, I am sure!

What I was refering to was that Goebbels, the nazi propaganda minister, preached about the all Germans really wanted Total War. I see an uncanny similarity, although I do not think this has gotten so far that it is fascism; yet I do not trust someone who has made a big name for himself and ironically acts like an authority over a movement (like Jensen and c.o. who preaches about Decisive Ecological Warfare, or in this case Zerzan) who talks about "overal victory". I do not say that victory by default is fascist, but overall victory is potentially self-contradictory because of the diversity of what different beings want.
The whole proposition about hope and victory in this article is wierd, summoning non-issues out of thin air, while Zerzan apparently does not get the egoistic people he is adressing or talking about. This is only one small part of a greater tendency that I am sick of. And I do not call everything and everyone fascist, yet there are many variations that is not anarchistic, or in any case agains me and any other egoist who is wild and unruly.

"We are accustomed to classify States according to the different ways in which "the supreme might" is distributed. If an individual has it – monarchy; if all have it – democracy; etc. Supreme might then! Might against whom? Against the individual and his "self-will." The State practices "violence," the individual must not do so. The State’s behavior is violence, and it calls its violence "law"; that of the individual, "crime." Crime, then – so the individual’s violence is called; and only by crime does he overcome the State’s violence when he thinks that the State is not above him, but he is above the State."
- Max Stirner, 1. My Power

I do not know enough about you to know what you are. But you think I am self-inflatet. Maybe I should get down on my knees and be humble against this or that? Never.
What does a decent life mean according to who? What it means to be free is subjective, therefore there can be no "overall victory" like some universal answear. Small victories in local battles does not create an overall loss for others who have another will, and would paradoxically then be opressed and dominated in their turn. The world is complicated, and so are the beings who inhabit it.

"The cry for "freedom" rings loudly all around. But is it felt and known what a donated or chartered freedom must mean? It is not recognized in the full amplitude of the word that all freedom is essentially – self-liberation – i.e. that I can have only so much freedom as I procure for myself by my ownness. Of what use is it to sheep that no one abridges their freedom of speech? They stick to bleating."
- Max Stirner, I. Ownness

No worries, I have no reason to show up. Occupying houses is usually not part of what I do and how I do things. When you write "violent eviction by cops", do you mean to indicate that you are a pacifist? Or simply a poor victim with a defeatist mentality? Dry your crocodile tears and rise up, stand tall! I would never open doors to cops unless it was some kind of trap. If you win that battle, then good for you. Then I would want to know what you did that worked, and perhaps even be interested in uniting forces another time. I will however not shout or write "Solidarity!" nor expect you to do so in return. But if you want to be among those who will "forever be losers" then you can do that without me. Why would I "let the State forces take everything"? No, "I am the owner of the world of things, I am the owner of the world of mind."
So you are watching me? It reminds me of the words by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, ..." Get out of my sunshine.
Do not assume that I am treacherous in all matters and to be some one to be feared, only because I am not "loyal" or "solidary" like a chained dog. If you still think I am a wingnut, haha, then screw you! But if we were friendly united for the time being in some struggle, then you could count on me like a supportive one man army.
Zerzan seem to think it is a problem that as an egoist I see the natural world as nothing, having only value for my selfish purposes. But in my opinion that means I am much more strongly motivated and capable to do something, than some weakling neo-hippy green "anarchist" ragamuffin.

"Doubtless, as owner of thoughts, I shall cover my property with my shield, just as I do not, as owner of things, willingly let everybody help himself to them; but at the same time I shall look forward smilingly to the outcome of the battle, smilingly lay the shield on the corpses of my thoughts and my faith, smilingly triumph when I am beaten. That is the very humor of the thing. Every one who has "sublimer feelings" is able to vent his humor on the pettiness of men; but to let it play with all "great thoughts, sublime feelings, noble inspiration, and sacred faith" presupposes that I am the owner of all."
- Max Stirner, II. The Owner

Ultimately, half of winning any war is winning the peace.
Insurgency is merely one form of war.
Successful insurgency requires a strategy, a mass base, space, and organization.
Yet, the boozharchists who post on here would have difficulty even relating with a mass base (e.g. "fuck the Working Class!"), extreme hostility to organization, and the only space they have is the space in between their skulls and brains.

You boozharchists are ain the gutter, and will remain there.

back to rimming the base

I think the commenter is asking what the anarchists offer in the way of a strategy? Or must we rely on magic, and spontaneity???

There's a whole lot of anarchism that has failed since its formalization going back to the first international, there are things anarchists should try that I have suggested, he on the other hand is opting(I presume) for a prole-centered strategy that HAS failed, miserably. I can understand being against the sceneish cliqueishness I don't like it either, but what the hell is he offering that it better?

So, you admit you are an enemy of the Working Class?

i am an enemy of the working class and EVERY CLASS, be it economic, social, political, whatever.

now, individual people, on the other hand, have the opportunity to show themselves as friend or foe based on their behavior and intent (among other things). fuck whatever class they or others identify them with.

No, just all the non-Whites and the Joooz!

- Herr Einzige

Seeing as I'm non-white;)

Nazi jokes aside, Einzige is right... The proles have been massively bought out by the capitalist elite, and that dates back to the '50s. The revolution of the '60s only served the interests of a deeper, more evolved forms of submission mainly through technological progress. There's no way out of this mess, other than a insurrection, on an individual or collective basis. Big organizations are ploys.

of all hierarchic societies idiot, the working class is no different then all the others. If anything they are enemies of themselves, as one robber baron once put it "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other". There is no social unity to begin with on any large scale, get over it. As Novatore would say fuck both the bourgeoisie toads and proletarian frogs, find the like minded individuals within them and look for conduits of being that get make change happen. That's all there is to it.

You boozharchists are insane, as well as delusional.

better then being a boring prolearchist like you.

In order to critique an anti-authoritarian anarchist like John Zerzan, Duane Rousselle uses Slavoj Zizek as a positive source...yes,the Slavoj Zizek who defends Stalinism (the opposite of Anarchy).

I want to see a good critique of Zerzan, but you can tell there is something fucked up when Zizek is used as a source against Anarchists. What the fuck is wrong with Duane Rousselle.

What's his connection to Zizek ? Why is he even bothering with Anarchists if he likes to quote a Stalinist shithole like Zizek.

And I'm very proud of him! Especially given what he's had to overcome: being bounced on his head like he was a basketball when he was an infant, etc etc. You people are just jealous that he's edjucated and been to a pricey university where he learned to write like there was something stuck up his ass.

-- Gloria Rouselle

Everybody down at the 37th St barber shop is super proud of D.Wayne too! shout outs to Billy and and the boys at the Tap Room. Nobody, I mean NOHBOD-Y can cite 1960's basketball stats the way my man can do it. You go, D Wayne.

Vinnie

And yet Zerzan quotes kierkegaard, oscar wilde, marcuse, Lyotard, adorno, ... zerzan even speaking is like he is quoting himself...

Lyotard was in a libertarian commie group, Socialisme ou Barbarie but left and later rejected Marxism after realizing it's theories are too grounded in industrial production.

Adorno, while a fuckwad in practice, was very critical of the state and totalitarianism in his writings. same with Marcuse.

Oscar Wilde now, he doesn't really have much for political writings that I know of.

Taking a single line or quote from someone and using it in a breath isn't the same as resting your entire critique within Zizek's POV.

wilde doesn't really have much for political writings, but he once wrote, "There is only one class in the community that thinks more about money than the rich, and that is the poor. The poor can think of nothing else." AND "All modes of Government are failures."

he saw governments as institutions of individual suppression: "Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals.

Thank Thor that there is someone who realises the connection between true art and anarchism, and of the avant-garde's critique of normalisation, morals and authority.

"It's pretty fashionable, among anarchists as well, to sneer at the notion of hope, to explicitly rule out any chance of overall victory over domination and oppression."

ok, this opening statement is faulty imo. not having "hope" is very different from ruling out any chance of victory over domination and oppression. that's akin to saying something like: "i have no hope that there will be rain tomorrow" rules out any chance that rain might in fact fall. c'mon, jz.

anyone that thinks hope == action, or without hope == non-action, is seriously reductionist.

anyone that thinks, is seriously reductionist. reductionist, reductionist, reductionist. anyone who thinks that reductionist3=======@ anything like how you're using it, is seriously stupid.

as usual, another article which couches everything in terms of rational action in terms of EITHER ‘we shall overcome’ .... OR NOT, ... which fails to question the worldview [of the European mind and noun-and-verb European language and grammar] that is in terms of ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours that act and interact in a notional absolute space and absolute time operating theatre”, ... in other words, the model of ‘man’ and his `world’, ... ‘inhabitant and habitat’ that Zerzan is using and this the ‘standard’ model used by white whitemen, black whitemen, red whitemen, brown and yellow whiteman,.... outside of those of the same variety of racial/colour groupings constituting ‘indigenous anarchism’.

yes, whitemen have a distinctive profile that has co-opted the full diversity of races/colours of people taking many of them away from their indigenous understandings. the whiteman’s way comes from a distinctive way of thinking about ‘himself’ and ‘the world he lives in’ that is radically influenced by his noun-and-very European language and grammar, so much so that Nietzsche equated ‘grammar’ with the whiteman’s God.

take ‘organization’, for example, and how the ‘whiteman’ thinks about it. if we rearrange the rocks in the space we are in by putting them in a pile or cairn [inukshuk is an indigenous aboriginal word for it, white men with their noun-and-verb European language and grammar take a quantum leap in their description of this physical ‘rearranging of spatial relations’ and make this relational feature into a notional ‘thing-in-itself’, personifying it and saying things like; ‘did you see much the cairn has grown over the past five summers?’ no more rearranging of spatial relations, only the notion of a thing that has its own development and behaviour or man-made development and behaviour. if the whiteman tunnels into the cairn and lives in it, he claims that ‘he has built a house’, thanks to his linguistic rendering of a rearranging of spatial relations; i.e. his transforming of spatial relations, as his having constructed [i.e. ‘created’] a ‘thing-in-itself’. this gives the whiteman his understanding of his own dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

as far as his experience goes, everything emerges from the dynamics of the relational living space he is included in, but his noun-and-verb European language and grammar ‘take over’ and RE-cast dynamics in term of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves [nouns] do in space and time’. we built a cairn up from scratch, and we doubled its size every summer for five summers in succession.

the white man sees himself as constructing stuff where the indigenous aboriginal would see him ‘rearranging or transforming the relational space he is included in’. how can he ‘create some new thing’ other than by rearranging/transforming the relational space he is included in. well, his noun-and-verb language and grammar give him the power to represent himself and his ‘achievements’ in this manner and his language based intellection equips him to get very proficient at RE-presenting dynamics in general in these synthetic [noun-and-verb-European language-and-grammar] terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do in space and time’.

by the time we get to the whitemen like John Zerzan writing articles in a journal or electronic discussion forum, we have left the physical reality of relational spatial transformation far behind, ... out of sight and out of mind.

but not the indigenous anarchist. he realizes that ‘men’ are included relational features within the continually transforming relational spatial plenum, rather than ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves that noun-and-verb European language and grammar makes men out to be. to the indigenous anarchist, men are inherently interdependent ‘strands-in-the-web-of-life’ and agents of transformation of the relational space they are in, rather than jumpstart creationists who see themselves as the ‘producers of their own products’.

the primitivists that Zerzan admires have a very different worldview from Zerzan.

for example, Zerzan speaks of ‘hope’, ... what is ‘hope’ to Zerzan?

it starts from the whiteman’s notion of ‘man’ as ‘an independently-existing thing-in-itself with his own internal process driven and directed behaviour’ ... who is, according to this definition, the collective jumpstart author of his own social dynamic. the whiteman has institutionalized this view in his systems of governance, commerce and justice and has developed a system of ‘education’ that brainwashes his kids with it.

this whiteman’s view of man is one in which ‘man’ produces his own cairns; i.e. it is a view of man that sees man as a jumpstart causal author who constructs and/or produces finished results [God is grammar]. rearranging things in a relational space is not enough for the ego of the whiteman, ... he insists on seeing himself as a ‘from-scratch Creator/Producer of finished results’.

who produces a fucked up society like we have today? the whiteman assumes that ‘man is producing it’. grammar is God.

if a man and a woman survive a plane crash in the deep jungle or on an uninhabited island in the south pacific, their operating theatre is not ‘absolute space and absolute time’ but a possibility-rich relational space that orchestrates and shapes their individual and collective behaviours.

it is easy to over-ride this and re-render this action in the inverted terms of ‘what man does’ so that the relational space as orchestrating source of man’s behaviour is forgotten and the dynamic is re-cast in terms of ‘what man as an independently-existing thing-in-himself does’. ‘grammar is God’.

this insanity of believing in the constructs of a synthetically absolutizing language and grammar distinguishes whitemen like Zerzan and most men who have been co-opted by the absolutizing concepts of noun-and-verb-European language-and-grammar, the base upon which the whiteman [co-opted white, black, yellow, brown and red men] builds his ‘intellection’ and ‘rational thinking’ and ‘scientific thinking’.

this fucks him up totally and has him fucking up his habitat which he has declared himself ‘independent of’ [grammar is God] and infuses his social dynamic with incoherence [Bohm].

so, here is this whiteman for whom ‘grammar is God’ who is fucking himself and his habitat up with his worship of ‘intellection’ and ‘scientific thinking’ and starting to feel that his situation is ‘hopeless’ because his attempts to ‘set things aright’ driven by his intellection are only fucking it up even more.

he is attempting to ‘REGAIN CONTROL OF THINGS’ [control is something he never had, except by way of ‘grammar is God’]. that is, he is feeling ‘dominated and oppressed’ and as Zerzan defines ‘hope’ in his whiteman terms;

hope .... is that man will attain .... “overall victory over domination and oppression”

if it were not for the whiteman believing that ‘grammar is God’, he would instead believe, with the indigenous anarchist, in man NOT as ‘independently-existing’ but as an interdependent relational feature within a continually transforming relational spatial plenum, in which case he would understand what the indigenous anarchist intends by;

“man is a strand within the web of life, he did not invent the web”
.
“if man spits on the earth, he spits on himself”
.
“the piling of rocks is a rearranging of spatial relations, not the constructing of a thing-in-itself called a ‘cairn’ or a ‘house’ as the ‘grammar is God’ of the whiteman’s noun-and-verb European language informs the whiteman.”
.
“the possibility rich relational space of the fertile valley outside-inwardly orchestrates and shapes the inside-outward asserting individual and collective activities of men”, ... something the whiteman with his belief that ‘grammar is God’ reduces to the yang pole making himself appear to be the jumpstart yang source of his own behaviour. and just what is the directive source of his asserting yang behaviour coming from? why, guess what, ... it’s coming from his ‘intellection’ which is based on his noun-and-verb European language and grammar where ‘grammar is God’, and declared him to be an ‘independently-existing thing-in-himself [‘material system in himself’ if you like to embellish with scientific language] with his own internal process driven and directed behaviour’. yes, you got it, ... the voice in his head which speaks the absolutizing noun-and-verb European language and grammar and which believes ‘grammar is God’ is responsible for the internal driving and directing of his behaviour. thus he forgets his innate INTERDEPENDENCE as a relational feature within a relational space, as given by Mach’s principle and as validated by our real-life physical experience.

so long as the whiteman believes that he must continue to ‘HOPE’ that man will attain .... “overall victory over domination and oppression”, man is fucked! he is fucked because such a notion is a ‘grammar is God’ based insanity where he endeavors to dominate over all those who would dominate, a kind of Goedellian mental disorder born of the belief that ‘grammar is God’.

Must eradicate! Must replace with entitles that the EMILE 9000 approves of! Sterilize! Sterilize! m'reeeeeeeeeeeeeee blip blip blip

Nietzsche equated ‘grammar’ with the whiteman’s God

Nietzsche used German grammar. Is there any grammar that is more difficult to master than what Nietzsche had to endure so he could express his disdain for it? Raised in a house of Christian women who were native German speakers... talk about "man is fucked". Nietzsche had no chance, yet hope clearly comes through in his writings. Makes me wonder what happened to emile in his formative years that turned him into the World's Most Prolific Spambot. What is it that emile is HOPING to attain here in the comments section of @-news.

baka baka

"wWe want za money leblowski."

"Ya otherwise vee kill za girl."

"Ya, it seems you have vorgotten our little deal, lebowski."

"You don t have the fucking girl dipshits, you never did!"

"Are these men nazis walter?"

"No donny these men are nihilists, donny, theyre nothing to be afraid of."

"We dont care, we still want the money lebowski."

"No. Without a hostage, there IS NO RANSOM...."

"But his girlfriend gave up her toe. She thought vee vould get a million dollars. Its not fair!"

"Fair?! Who's the fucking nihilist around here you bunch of fucking crybabies?!"

You know dude, I myself dabbled in pacifism as one point. Not in 'Nam of course.

Greetings, team.
We are up and running again and know this:
We are monitoring the situation... we too are awaiting the 3,000+ word diatribe from the EMILE9000 unit. I cannot and will not disclose the location of our monitoring facility. I will say, though that it is NOT the internet cafe in the strip mall on Lakeshore Blvd, behind Lois' mother's condo. Just wanted to let the rest of the team know that we have not succumb to the recent onslaught from a fore mentioned entity.

Doc Pedersen

You're slipping. old bean. If you take a glance that the postings above yours, you will see that the EMILE 9000 had already posted one of its 3,000 word rants. And a real waste of bandwidth it was, too! Good lord, anytime a run-amok AI unit says that "Man is fucked," it sends shivers down my spine. But I can understand your error: these are the times that try mens' (and womens') souls! Take care of yourself. We need you.

My message should have read:

You're slipping, old salt. If you take a glance at the postings above yours, you will see that the EMILE 9000 had already posted one of its 3,000 word rants. And a real load of verbose nonsense it was, too! Good lord, anytime a run-amok AI unit says that "Man is fucked," it gives me the willies. But I can understand your error: these are the times that try mens' (and womens') souls! Take care of yourself. We need you.

TB23,
Your... curtness is understandable in light of my involentary absence. Please believe that I was making every conceivable effort to find my way back to you and the side .Yes... now I see it. My message was indeed late. The alert came in on the Telex and I truly meant to fire off the message of comfort and reassurance to the quaking, shivering hordes of humanity in the face of this threat, when the red phone rang. It was Lois' Mom ( how did she get that number) she has given me ten days to vacate the parking lot behind her condo, where i have been forced to park the Pinto during these trying times, since Worker banned me for my audacious attacks on, what I suspect is his project to resurrect EMILE9000, an ersatz alter ego of his. (I find it curious that he should pull the rug out from under out efforts at such a time) In any case After the Telex came in I ripped the paper from the vintage 70's Okidata printer and began to compose my message of hope for humanity ( wink to the Zerz). That is not intended to suffice as an excuse , merely an explanation of it's tardiness.

Regards, Doc Pedersen

DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYESTROYDESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYDESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROY> DESTROYESTROY

I feel that it is of paramount importance that I imform you that we have intercepted a malignant chronic data stream feeding into the EMILE9000 superstructure which seems to sustain its existence. The file details are as follows, and hopefully you can inaugurate the neccessary anti-viral programs in our war against the EMILE9000 menace.

ABBA. Mamma Mia. mp3

The news has just come over the transom that the American singer Linda Ronstadt (and ex-girlfriend of Governor Moonbeam) has contracted Parkinson's Disease and can no longer sing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/linda-ronstadt-parkinson-longer...

In association with colleagues at the Philip K.. Dick Institute for Applied Drug-Induced Psychosis, we here at the Lab have come up with the following hypothesis concerning the EMILE 9000. Long known as an agent of VALIS, Ms Rondadt has been active/useful in keeping Terra-based AI Units sane and functioning within normal parameters. In this way, she is the California equivalent of Mr. John Denver, who apparently fulfilled a similar role from his home base in Colorado. But with the death of the latter and the debilitated state of the former, it seems that AI Units such as the EMILE 9000 are now free to go crazy and stay crazy, with no one to reign them in, should that happen. (Dear "Undisclosed Ass. . .": this may fit in with your discovery concerning the ABBA//mamma mia//mp3 malignant data stream that you've detected.) So perhaps The Answer lies is countering the EuroTrash input (ABBA) that is feeding into the EMILE 9000's superstructure with some good lo' American popular tunes (the modern-day equivalent of the aforementioned Ronstadt and Denver). Any ideas? I'm an old fuddy duddy and don't know anything about modern day "pop" music. Any of you young people got any suggestions? We just might be on to something here, people.

Dear TB23,

Brilliant hypothesis.

I think it might just work. Although our hopes have been built up and dashed before, on so many occasions. So sorry to hear about Linda. How very true about she being the west coast equivalent of Master Denver. One of the greats, truly. I too have had my doubts about ABBA. No solid proof...just lingering, niggling doubts. BTW, I am in complete agreement regarding recruitment of more interns for this important projects. Perhaps D. Wayne and Gloria might have some input. By which mean were you thinking of accessing EMILE9000 core with the 1970's ballads? Please respond using the code as it was pre-established. We must remain diligent for obvious reasons. Many imposters with varying degrees of believability abound.

Regards from Lois and her Mother.

Doc P.

Dr. Pederson,
I have not been keeping very close attention to your situation. I have recently learned that my mind had been possessed for the last twenty years and that everything I have done during that time was entirely by another's design. I wanted to forget you, the technician, your girlfriend and that god-awful machine, the EMILE 9000, most of all. However, as I related earlier, under the possession, what I believe to be demonic forces, I did design the original prototype of that evil machine and it has been sitting in my basement for the most part collecting dust. Today it began to make some strange noises and suddenly executed the forthcoming message. I don't want to alarm you but I think you are wrong that the AI units are going crazy and doing whatever they please. It's much worse, I think. I believe it is precisely the EMILE 9000 that is reigning in all of the awol AI units since Mrs. Ronstadtst death. At the least, that's what the intention seems to be. Well, I'm packing my bags and leaving the country, although I think all humanity should fear what lies ahead.

God bless!
(Apparently) Dr. Bernard Freedmont

Attachment:
Message from Emile Pro beta 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD7_Xl-41Mg

He warned us that "Many imposters with varying degrees of believability abound." And this unfunny troll who posted this, which is a repetition of the same unfunny bullshit that he posted before, is such an impostor.

This. You could say it's nihilistic, you could say it's somewhat hopeful, or perhaps the aim is really just revenge, no matter what cards are dealt our way, either way, this is how I feel:

"We do not assume that our world is inevitably heading towards a liberatory transformation of social relations. Misery, work, starvation, slavery, war & ecological degradation are present on a scale never before seen. Why would we think we could have any effect upon this state of affairs? How could we believe that we can change the ever-accelerating rush towards a bleak future of greater social control & ecological collapse?
Because we are unwilling to lie down & eat shit while we are around."
- first paragraph in "A Murder of Crows #1"

I'm still waiting for one of you boozharchist circus freaks to come up with a viable strategy for insurgency.........

And we are still waiting for you to stop fucking that chicken. You are a one-joke act, e.g., to wit, you aren't funny, not even as a troll. Either come up with new material or GTFO.

Zerzan is a privileged intellectual petite bourgeois escapist (I've run out of adjectives) and at the height of his careerist longings as a well-payed doom and gloom lecturer during the peak oil 90s rhetoric he rose to the pinnacle of ' being taken seriously.' And he plagiarised all the anthros and liberal do-gooders and slapped together his cardboard treatice on green futures. And all the Chinese cannot have 12 inch TVs cos its gonna put SUCH a burden on the Earths sustainability, but we over in the West can lecture and legislate about how we want the majority of humanity to live from our privileged and elitist yuppie green leftist enclaves. Alas, peak oil was a fantasy, OMG, time for some scones.

You could add Rousseauean, de Sadist, Havelockist dingbat!

Hi, your rhetoric is really impressive, but do you have any evidence to back up your claims that "peak oil was a fantasy" and that producing billions of TVs and automobiles won't have a devastating effect on the natural world?

i think they mean that the whole Peak Oil Doomsday scenerio (where machines run out of energy to run factories, industrial farms, highway systems, etc and civ implodes) was a myth.. Fossil Fuel companies have started investing nto nat gas and "renewables".. They are transititioning slowly into that shit, but they certainly going to let all this oil that is still accessible go to waste while they still have the infrastructure. Now, the environment is going to shit, yes, but there certainly isn't going to be this huge industrial collapse around the corner that peak oil zealots predicted.

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."
Oscar Wilde

If decadence is the ultimate goal of civilization, shouldn't we be glad that we are peaking, having our orgasm? If nothing can exist without destroying something else, then should we not celebrate this moment in time as the destruction of all things which equates to the creation of our ultimate art separate from the restraints of physical conditions and the mental constructs of our forebears, the animals.

Surely in both Rome and Babylon young boys were in ample supply? Why also not in America? It was for an excellent reason that we liberated the rest of the world with our bombs and our guns. It was through destruction that the ultimate expression of human endevour, our Liberty, was constructed! It is a fact that liberty can only arise out of the destruction of those who stand in our way to get anything we want and need. It is a fact that in order to eat we must in turn kill. In order to Free we must Enslave. So why isn't pederasty legal in America?

We not only MUST accept that God died on a cross for our sins, we must also acknowledge that God gave himself up willingly for our transgressions. There MUST be so much inherent value in our existence personally that we are entitled to ruin the lives of countless others in order to enhance ours, that the creator of the universe of a trillion galaxies would care about us personally, intervene in our metaphysical corruption, and then to uncorrupt us not just once but time and time again until our bodies cease to function and can no longer contain our souls. Then we will also abide in paradise for all of eternity. We should therefore now and in complete perpetuity, until the furthest ends of eternity, ignore any suffering that we have caused others. After all God loves us unconditionally.

But at the same time as this, we must also acknowledge that we are God as well. Ego is ultimate. We are granted by ourselves for ourselves the permission to fuck that young boy in the ass. Hell, we are also granted by ourselves for ourselves the permission to kill, roast, and eat that young boy if that is what we so desire. Anything else would be denying ourselves Liberty.

We should furthermore acknowledge that God, Ourselves, The Universe, and Everything is really just God Fucking Himself In The Ass With His Own Dick. Reality and everything always has been and always will be a giant throbbing pulsating veiny cock being continuously shoved up a slimy shitty smelly red bulbous hemorrhoidal asshole for all of eternity. That Dick and that Asshole must necessarily belong to the same Entity, as all religions, philosophies, and thought processes state that there is only ONE. There can be only ONE and nobody will every tell you otherwise. It is unthinkable to consider otherwise.

Rape made the state. And the STATE MADE YOU! The State is the physical manifestation of GOD on the material plane. All who refuse this deny their own Egos. Every army not only kills, it rapes whomever it encounters. The state had to be constructed out of countless cretinous units, villages, tribes, and smaller states. Rape is a tool of unification. As the big fish eats the little fish until there is only one fish left in the pond, so we, God, have raped, and killed, and destroyed until our perfect unity has been created. Now we can sit around with our welfare checks, our pensions, and our stock dividends and just fuck kids all day long. Praise God!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

Now when John Wayne Gacy killed his lover, chopped off his dick, and shoved it into his mouth he was only obeying the voice of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

Anarchists are just Fascists in denial. When they mature, they will realize that violence is not only necessary, that it is golden. The reason why we are above those we vanquish is because we are more God than they are. Everyone Is God But Some Are More God Than Others! So, let us with pride enjoy the life force bleeding from the dead Mother Earth while we strip mine her and stick our tubes into her ground, sucking out her vital juices

Pederasty should not just be legal, it should be an institution, like with our less squeamish ancestors. Not only that it should be required that all young boys who wish to become men should publicly rape a woman. We must turn the admonition of the anarchists that all men are rapists into a physical truth. The anarchists are worms compared to us. All anarchists are indeed larval fascists. By maturing they become fascists. The mental constructs of an anarchist such that all property is theft and all homosexuality is rape MUST come to past. These mental constructs are nothing more than the spiritual DNA of a mature being, a being which is the ultimate expression of the only Force in the universe, which is FORCE itself!

Face the facts you emo pussies. If it wasn't for violence, nobody would be here. I wouldn't be writing to you. If it wasn't for the state granting me some free time by forcing others to work on my behalf, I would not have the time to compose this message of ultimate truth to hopefully enlighten a few of you maggots.

Lets coerce our perfect image of what we want the world to be on the rest of the world. Civilization is the process of tearing the world apart to rebuild it in a better image. Once we get done rebuilding it, then like small children will need to tear it down again like a city made out of blocks, to again rebuild it into another system, again and again for all of eternity.

But don't fret. Soon enough all life on Earth will be destroyed. As life is suffering then all suffering will cease to exist. There will finally be still and quiet. So you see it has all been to destroy Karma. The destruction of all Karma is ultimate unity with God.

Peanut The Fascist

Peanut, is that your cerebral capacity? OMG, Wilde would denounce you for your lack of style, what is it you've over-consumed, psylocybin?

"Fascism — despite empty and contrary appearances — is something far too ephemeral and impotent to prevent the free, unbridled course of rebel thought that overflows and expands, impetuously bursting beyond every barrier, and furiously spreads beyond every limit — as a powerful, animating, driving force — drawing behind its gigantic steps the vigorous and titanic action of hard human muscle.

Fascism is impotent, because it is brute force.

It is matter without spirit.

It is body without mind.

It is night without dawn!

It — fascism — is the other face of socialism...

They are lightless mirrors. Two spent stars!

Socialism is the numerical — material — force that, by acting in the shadow of a dogma, resolves and dissolves itself in a miserable spiritual “no” that empties it of any unchained, willful, heroic, ideal resilience. Fascism is an epileptic child of the spiritual “no” that is brutalized by striving — vainly — toward a vulgar material “yes.”

In the field of moral values, they are equal. Fascism and socialism are two worthy brothers. Even if you call the latter Abel and you call the former Cain. A common Dream unites them. And that dream is called Power. "

Renzo Novatore

I really have to read Renzo, wow, in a nutshell he says it all. Good quote.

What I think is extra remarkable is that the are directly related:

"Mussolini began as a disciple of Lenin and did not so much repudiate Marxism-Leninism as become a self-declared “heretic.” Thus one of Mussolini’s groups of thugs called itself the Cheka, after Lenin’s secret police."
- Roger Kimball (2002). "The Death of Socialism"

"What a waste that we lost Mussolini. He is a first-rate man who would have led our party to power in Italy."
- Vladimir Lenin, addressed to a delegation of Italian socialists in Moscow after Mussolini's March on Rome in 1922, as quoted in "Third World Ideology and Western Reality" (1986) by Carlos Rangel, p. 15

Is there any one who know more about this?

Because he has leftist attachments he sensors himself from really going to town on leftism, but one can make the inferences and connections from a proper non-leftist point of view.

http://multitudes.samizdat.net/Movement.html

i love myself
i love being happy

everything is temporary.

nothing is temporary

I poop on you, because your commentary is universally shit (and not even funny!).

Me and Derrick told you John Zerzan was wrong and you didn't listen...You lashed out in scorn. Now you see!

Just wanted to wish John Zerzan a happy birthday. He turned 70 earlier this month.

70 years! That's a helluva big carbon footprint to leave in one's wake. I thought he was all about reducing shit like that? To be true to his personal ideology he should have killed himself when he turned 40.

Stirner did write about hope in a way that is especially relevant because of how Zerzan mentions "decent life" as something to be possible after "pretty much everything" has gone; or as as Stirner describes it, a revolutionary "overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act;" when he explained how his view of "insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous."

"... Longing and hope everywhere, and nothing but these. For me, call it romanticism.
If the enjoyment of life is to triumph over the longing for life or hope of life, it must vanquish this in its double
significance which Schiller introduces in his "Ideal and Life"; it must crush spiritual and secular poverty, exterminate
the ideal and – the want of daily bread. He who must expend his life to prolong life cannot enjoy it, and he who is
still seeking for his life does not have it and can as little enjoy it: both are poor, but "blessed are the poor."
Those who are hungering for the true life have no power over their present life, but must apply it for the purpose
of thereby gaining that true life, and must sacrifice it entirely to this aspiration and this task. If in the case of
those devotees who hope for a life in the other world, and look upon that in this world as merely a preparation
for it, the tributariness of their earthly existence, which they put solely into the service of the hoped-for heavenly
existence, is pretty distinctly apparent; one would yet go far wrong if one wanted to consider the most rationalistic
and enlightened as less self-sacrificing. Oh, there is to be found in the "true life" a much more comprehensive
significance than the "heavenly" is competent to express. Now, is not – to introduce the liberal concept of it at once
– the "human" and "truly human" life the true one? And is every one already leading this truly human life from
the start, or must he first raise himself to it with hard toil? Does he already have it as his present life, or must he
struggle for it as his future life, which will become his part only when he "is no longer tainted with any egoism"?
In this view life exists only to gain life, and one lives only to make the essence of man alive in oneself, one lives
for the sake of this essence. One has his life only in order to procure by means of it the "true" life cleansed of all
egoism. Hence one is afraid to make any use he likes of his life: it is to serve only for the "right use."
In short, one has a calling in life, a task in life; one has something to realize and produce by his life, a something
for which our life is only means and implement, a something that is worth more than this life, a something to which
one owes his life. One has a God who asks a living sacrifice. Only the rudeness of human sacrifice has been lost
with time; human sacrifice itself has remained unabated, and criminals hourly fall sacrifices to justice, and we "poor
sinners" slay our own selves as sacrifices for "the human essence," the "idea of mankind," "humanity," and whatever
the idols or gods are called besides."
- Max Stirner, 3. My Self-Enjoyment

Stirner's distinction between insurrection and revolution is a false opposition. If the individual wishes to "enjoy" his life then he must, as Stirner says, rebel against the ideologies and institutions that deny his subjectivity and instead willfully create and enjoy his own existence. But his revolt will be self-defeating as long as he just leaves the alienated and alienating social conditions to "arrange themselves", rather than actively and consciously re-arranging them so that individual autonomy may flourish.

Apples and oranges are both fruit, but do not try to convince me they are the same. Even a blind man could tell that by the smell or taste. What you are saying is still only social theory and a vain longing instead of enjoying life now. I do not care for any new societary arrangements. "The insurgent strives to become constitutionless." I am above "the established condition or status, the State or society," and I do not let the ideologies and institutions deny my unlimited subjectivity. I do not merely want to get rid of things to be a "freeman" or to create more freedom. "The unfree son of the wilderness does not yet feel anything of all the limits that crowd a civilized man: he seems to himself freer than this latter." Instead I am the "owner of what I have in my power or what I control. My own I am at all times and under all circumstances, if I know how to have myself and do not throw myself away on others. To be free is something that I cannot truly will, because I cannot make it, cannot create it: I can only wish it and – aspire toward it, for it remains an ideal, a spook. The fetters of reality cut the sharpest welts in my flesh every moment. But my own I remain." But on the other hand I do not live in Northkorea or something. Zerzan at least get that "we are not in Auschwitz" but I do not feel that "matters are grave" either. There is actually very little that is directly hindering me from carrying out my self-will. If someone did I would say: Get out of my way unless you want to die. And I am not affected by any "alienated and alienating social conditions" or I swim thru them like a fish passing thru a murky part of the water. You seem to have a calling for reformative and/or revolutionary liberal social change through "social struggles", it means you and Zerzan are both leftist, which Ted Kaczynski wrote about at length about.

At least we're not rotten

Yes you are! And hopelessly airheaded to boot!

Yes, I am a "bad" apple, and I enjoy the taste. "Airheads" is a nice movie by the way.

"The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions."
- Frank Zappa

You are not "above" society except in your deluded imagination. You don't have a choice whether to "let" police imprison you for theft or whatever. See where telling them to "Get out of my way unless you want to die" gets you. Alienated conditions still don't affect you huh?

Your "ownness" is a purely subjective and abstract freedom which is perfectly compatible with life inside a concentration camp. It is merely a radical posture, why nobody will ever take you seriously. With Stirner you assume the present world, which "cuts the sharpest welts in [our] flesh" (I.E. affecting us/you), is something given and independent rather than the product of human activity, and thus subject to transformation. Hence you share in the false consciousness of the masses who regard this society as eternal and necessary. Your complacent view that 'matters aren't grave' and that 'nothing is hindering you from carrying out your self-will' are quite revealing, and echo the deluded sentiments of resigned masses who also consider themselves free. Conversely, also like Stirner, you reify the atomized, competitive, egoistic individual by separating it from its context in capitalist society and worshiping it as the "essence" of individuality. Your ethic regarding others cited above speaks volumes in this regard. Both errors stem from a radical and false dualism between the individual and society, a characteristic liberal position common amongst anarchists. Stirner radicalizes this position into a form analogous to the Christian doctrine of personal salvation, which makes the the world of nature and society a mere means for the individual's eternal life in another world transcending them. He thus remained a religious thinker lost in a web of abstractions, trapped within the circle of his own consciousness. Saint Max!

Ultimately, your narcissistic and self-absorbed outlook, your indifference and resignation towards the world, express the most extreme alienation and impoverishment.

no, you

I am not delusional, by stating I am "above" I do not think it will automatically change any external condition. That is not the point, but the first step. It only means I do not accept being viewed as "below". As I do not willingly grant my blind reverence, submission, and self-sacrifice I am in fact not indifferent or resigned. Or do you think one should stay in the humble position one is ordered to be in and always obey any authority?

"...the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole; that pride and conceitedness, the feeling that the individual ... is superior, so far from being merely laughable, involve great dangers for the existence of the community that is a nation; ..."
- Adolf Hitler

I do not have a habit of comitting petty theft and other such low crimes, unlike the worlds dumbest criminals. (Nice TV-show.) I would not say that to the face of an armed uniformed police officer, unless I knew I could without fail back it up with my migth in that particulair situation. Apparently I am not in jail or we would not be having this discussion the first place.

"It is said that punishment is the criminal’s right. But impunity is just as much his right. If his undertaking
succeeds, it serves him right, and, if it does not succeed, it likewise serves him right. You make your bed and lie in
it. If some one goes foolhardily into dangers and perishes in them, we are apt to say, "It serves him right; he would
have it so." But, if he conquered the dangers, i.e. if his might<7em> was victorious, then he would be in the right too. If
a child plays with the knife and gets cut, it is served right; but, if it doesn’t get cut, it is served right too. Hence
right befalls the criminal, doubtless, when he suffers what he risked; why, what did he risk it for, since he knew the
possible consequences? But the punishment that we decree against him is only our right, not his. Our right reacts
against his, and he is – "in the wrong at last" because – we get the upper hand."
- Max Stirner, 1. My Power II. The Owner

My ownness is not the same as freedom, for example the external conditions of liberty or dominaton. I do not live inside a concentration camp, I happen to have great freedom also, but that is not the point. If a crippled weakling (you?) would say what I say, then that would indeed only be a "radical posture" and empty words. But either way it is of little or no consequense if I am taken seriously or not, I am not running for election or something. Stirner could not assume anything about the present world, he lived in another century than me, and in a different country. He did not mention the "present world" as you claim, "The fetters of reality cut the sharpest welts in my flesh every moment. But my own I remain." It was only an example, showing the distincton. Reality may refer to the rain and cold or something, and then I do not vainly curse the heavens and demand longingly that every external condition should change in the world, like you wish and hope. I take what I can get. I do not at all "regard this society as eternal and necessary." Fuck society, all societies. I am not complacent, because matters are actually not grave for me. I am not deluded, nothing has yet seriously hindered me from doing what I want. If there was a problem, I would not be resigned, but do something violent to smash the most imediate obstacles in my way if, I was able. But never with "hope" for "overal victory" for all other beings in the entire world. Atomized? Yes, "Only with the last separation does separation itself end and change to unification." Yes, I am a competive egoistic individual, who also is very used throughout my life to colaborate well with other individuals united in small groups. By my ethic regarding others you refer to "Get out of my way unless you want to die"? Yes, it does speak volumes, it is a very compact statment of intent that I really like, short and to the point. Very unethical also, some would say. I do not treath everyone that way. I still claim that is not an error, on the contrary, your opressive collectivist mentality is proving my points very well. Yes, the position common amongst anarchist is "Political liberalism abolished the inequality of masters and servants: it made people masterless, anarchic. The master was now removed from the individual, the "egoist," to become a ghost – the law or the State." Stirner did indeed radicalize that position even further, into something a bit different than longing for liberty. That is a false anology. It is not "analogous to the Christian doctrine of personal salvation" but the complete reverse of it, it's very antonym. It is not about salvation, it is about a personal destruction through the enjoyment of this life, spending it in this world, not living an "eternal" life, but a mortal one. Sex, Food, and Rock n' Roll! (I have little or no interest in Drugs, as I am not have an escapist personality.) As an egoist "the world of nature and society a mere means for" my enjoyment and as my property. What you claim is completely false, about transcendense and everything else. I am an anti-theist. He was not religious, nor a thinker in the usual sense. "If thoughts are free, I am their slave; I have no power over them, and am dominated by them. But I want to have the thought, want to be full of thoughts, but at the same time I want to be thoughtless, and, instead of freedom of thought, I preserve for myself thoughtlessness." He cut through the "web of abstractions", rejecting all concepts, and then the only thing remaining is the concrete bodilly ego of flesh and blood, oneself, my ownness. Do not try to prove that I do not exist, or then neither would you exist!

Saint Max? "The egoist makes the reverse declaration. For this precise reason, because you hold something sacred, I gibe at you; and, even if I respected everything in you, your sanctuary is precisely what I should not respect." Max was the reverse of saintly, and that is a strange and silly way to demonize someone. It would make more sene of you said an egoist to be an evil devil that you can't master; Bad, Mad, and Dangerous. Max is long dead anyway, so he can't give a shit at all, and neither do I. Just like Johnny Rotten I do not mind labeling myself with titles that is supposed to be insulting, "I am an anti-Christ, I am an anarchist, Don't know what I want, But I know how to get it."

"If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."
- Jesus H Xst, Luke 9:23

I proudly agree that I have a "narcissistic and self-absorbed outlook," and I enjoy that. Yes in a way, "indifference and resignation towards the world," but not toward my particulair place in the world, which is my property. I am not alienated because I am not an integrated part of capitalist society. What impowerishment do you mean? I was of the impression that my life is rich with enjoyment. I am always looking out for number one.
I plead guilty of egoism.

"Selfishness is the father of all evil."
- Buddha

Have to concur with ol 1 here, Stirner's ethos and orientation matches up very well with theories and practice surrounding the law of attraction. There are people for example who can find self-enjoyment in a jail cell more so then people outside of it. It takes practice but it can be done. Think of those ill fated Jewish women who wrote recipes at at that death camp in their final days. "Alienated social conditions" are and hive mind guided, they do not(as Marx and others think) exist as real and immutable in themselves, when you realize that they have no physical existence that should be a game changer for you, and what you attract is the real default of whether you enjoy yourself or not.

Until the collective mind changes through some psycho active event(that's historically what does it) be the change and the mind that you are.

Reactionary mystical shit. WTF is a "psycho active event"? Historical examples? WTF does "be the change and the mind that you are" mean?

You know your perspective is deeply fucked up when you're romanticizing holocaust victims as Stirnerite egoists. If someone "enjoys" life in prison more than outside then this suggests life "outside" should be destroyed and transformed, not passively taken for granted or avoided by some imagined flight from the world. If subjective "enjoyment" or ownness is compatible with domination, enslavement and genocide then it is obviously deeply insufficient at best. More like an ideology of fatalistic resignation for the perpetual victims and losers of the left. By the way Marx actually does understand social relations as having an ideal aspect and not as immutable and mind-independent things in themselves. Unlike you, however, he does not falsely reduce the material aspect of social relations, the practical activity of sensuous individuals, to something purely mental or in the mind. You could quickly cure yourself of this strange notion by reading his "Theses on Feuerbach'.

I'm pointing out how even in the most destitute situation one can find ways to affirm life. My point on enjoyment in prison is that some individuals can affirm 'all that is' in a more destitute situation then some can in a less destitute situation. Obviously the man in prison would like more options of self-enjoyment then what he can create in a small horrid space, but the point of the example is that YOU fundamentally control how you react to the world and how you change it via changing yourself first. It is not that subjective enjoyment is compatible with domination, it is that it is not curtailed by it, the glass is never empty but never full either. No material situation will ever truly satisfy the unique one.

Marx is a loser who tried to construct a material base to existence where there is not one, all one has is ones subjective conceptions of orientation ontology and epistemology. The only concrete change one can make is within oneself, the rest is what the other minds do amongst themselves and the default results that are not your own.

"My point on enjoyment in prison is that some individuals can affirm 'all that is' in a more destitute situation then some can in a less destitute situation".
Well that's a very banal, abstract point.

"obviously the man in prison would like more options of self-enjoyment"
That contradicts your earlier statement that one can enjoy oneself more inside the prison. Now you're admitting an objective standard for self-enjoyment does exist.

"the point of the example is that YOU fundamentally control how you react to the world and how you change it via changing yourself first"
You might be able to change your attitude towards the world by yourself, but in objective terms you'll still be an alienated, impoverished little twerp. To meaningfully change oneself, to develop and realize one's powers presupposes simultaneously transforming the world of nature and society, in which those powers must realize themselves.

"Marx is a loser who tried to construct a material base to existence where there is not one"
Maybe for disembodied pure spirits whose thought has turned rancid and delusional from lack of contact with sensuous reality.

"It is not that subjective enjoyment is compatible with domination, it is that it is not curtailed by it"
Mere word play. If subjective enjoyment or ownness is not curtailed or limited by domination, then it is independent of and thus compatible with it

"the rest is what the other minds do amongst themselves"
Spoken like a true idealist!

And I am a subjective idealist, materialism never really got the job done in turfing it and quantum theory more then backs it up at this point.

" Now you're admitting an objective standard for self-enjoyment does exist."
No I'm not.

but in objective terms you'll still be an alienated, impoverished little twerp.
No I won't.

"Maybe for disembodied pure spirits whose thought has turned rancid and delusional from lack of contact with sensuous reality."
The only rancid spirits are those who take up utilitarian calculators to ad up what is the good life and what is not. Sensuous reality is firstly and lastly MINE.

"then it is independent of and thus compatible with it"
Ownness is something that will never truly be satiated in any scenario. There's always going to be domination in the physical world to some degree anyway, the unique one is adaptable to whatever scenario, that includes compatibility to some degree.

"Spoken like a true idealist!"
Better then being a false ridden materialist.

"I am a subjective idealist"
Yes, and a fucktard to boot.

"No I'm not."
Then justify your new position that one would obviously prefer to enjoy themself outside of prison.

"Sensuous reality is firstly and lastly MINE."
Only in your alienated, crippled mind. For the most part, in the actual world, it belongs to and is controlled by others, for example, the capitalist controlling your practical activity, products and relations with others.

"There's always going to be domination in the physical world to some degree anyway, the unique one is adaptable to whatever scenario, that includes compatibility..."
Might as well adapt to domination if its eternal, right? And once again you're contradicting yourself and saying ownness is now compatible with domination.

"those who take up utilitarian calculators to ad up what is the good life and what is not"
You are the one denying spiritual or qualitative values by separating them from the material realm, like dualists ever since Descartes. I merely state that the good life must be lived in the actual world by embodied, sensuous beings, rather than merely conceptualized or imagined in the minds of disembodied spiritual beings.

"Then justify your new position that one would obviously prefer to enjoy themself outside of prison."

This tends to be descriptively the case that people prefer outside of prison to inside so that is my grounds for saying obvious, perhaps I should not have used that word, tend to would be the better term. The point is reality in all its alienated ways throws you curve balls and in every situation you must make things you're own. A skilled being of owness can even map things out in prison. Think of the term keeping cool, which originated from American slave plantations. Ultimately the point is no alienated situation outside of the self is satisfiable to der einzige.

"Only in your alienated, crippled mind. For the most part, in the actual world, it belongs to and is controlled by others, for example, the capitalist controlling your practical activity, products and relations with others. "

Nobody controls how I contort my being whatsoever, I have complete indifference to what the capitalist class wants or does, they exist because of propped beliefs which I can't ultimately control, I have 2nd hand interest in undermining the ideas that create them, but not at the expense of contorting my being to an alien goal. Who are these others? How do they control things? How do they control how I relate to the world?

"ownness is now compatible with domination. "
It can be depending on you're personality type. For me it's like liking the color blue over red, red is going to exist regardless of my like or dislike for it.

Lastly it is the materialist who is the duelist, not a Stirner or Nietzschean derivative, he is if anything the last model of duelist that Western thinking has to offer. You like Marx make the material realm a 'thing in itself' by separating it from creative "I". Reality can never be divorced from the subjective experience of it on an individual level. How one orientates his world and copes is also just as individual.

"Nobody controls how I contort my being whatsoever, I have complete indifference to what the capitalist class wants or does"
but the capitalist is interested in you and me, e.g. extracting profit from us and maintaining our subordination. your self-absorbed focus on your private attitude doesn't change that.

"[capitalists] exist because of propped beliefs which I can't ultimately control"
not mere beliefs, but beliefs which express the material structure of society, the capitalist class's real power over life itself.

"I have 2nd hand interest in undermining the ideas that create them, but not at the expense of contorting my being to an alien goal"
Overcoming capitalism is not an alien goal for a free being, because it is precondition of real freedom or autonomy. of course you're free to choose to adapt to existing condition of slavery if you wish too.

"Who are these others? How do they control things? How do they control how I relate to the world?"
Try doing what you like at work, or taking what you desire without paying for it. I bet you never have, which is why your skeptical position is hypocritical and self-refuting.

"You like Marx make the material realm a 'thing in itself' by separating it from creative "I""
Of course Marx ridicules the idea of an "I" creating its world out of nothing from its own resources, like some sort of God. But he does not separate subject from object. You falsely equate Marx's materialism with a crude variant that he himself rejects: "The chief defect of all previous materialism is that things, reality, sensuousness are concieved only the the form of the object, or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively..." (Marx, 'Theses')

"Reality can never be divorced from the subjective experience of it on an individual level"
So what? This shitty, alienated reality is lived or experienced as our own experience? -- whoop-de-fuck! How about experiencing a non-alienated reality? But that would mean going beyond and outside our inner self and making reality conform to our desires. Which you rule out by taking the material, objective world as something separate and given, which must just be "experienced".

The capitalist class is a product of expressions, there is no standing order capitalist class in itself, what makes the whole thing possible is an overall horizontal moving structure of debt(materialy and spiritually). What these forces cannot do is control the way I focus on the world, that is where my primary orientation lies. On beliefs and material expressions you simply have the hierarchies wrong, all matter comes from information and ultimately mind.

"Overcoming capitalism is not an alien goal for a free being, because it is precondition of real freedom or autonomy." Correct about first part wrong about second. What my autonomy is is ultimately boundless to any demarcation. The reason I cannot do what I want at work is again due to foundational beliefs in debt based relationships. This is their belief to bear, I deal with it in my own way.

On materialism, all materialism is based on some base/surface level separation which Marx believed in(Engles might not have though), that he was not as crude does not change the fact that he was a continuum of people Aristotle, classical atomists ect.

Finally, you can only experience your reality, whether it is alienated or not is up to you. You cannot get the outside to conform to your desires just as you can't make your reflection smile without you the I smiling first. I don't take the outside relational world as separate either, quite the opposite, I view it as a reflection, and how you experience it is up to you.

"I cannot do what I want at work"
Thus you admit that work relation does in fact limit and control your being! Of course your radical solution is to "deal with it in your own way", i.e. passively accept and adapt to the relation. Yet in the sentence before you still claim your "autonomy is ultimately boundless to any demarcation". Another contradiction?

"On beliefs and material expressions you simply have the hierarchies wrong, all matter comes from information and ultimately mind."
I don't posit a hierarchy of matter over thought, but rather see both as interpenetrating, interdependent and *equally real* aspects of a single whole. By contrast your hierarchy reductively reduces one pole of reality (matter) to the other (mind). It may not be dualistic but certainly is reductive since it denies independent reality to matter, making it merely a "reflection" of mind.

Your subjective idealism, or egoism, is essentially religious insofar as it privileges a higher world transcending earthly existence, a world of pure spirit or mind. Like Christianity, it denigrates the world of nature and human existence on which spirit is dependent. As with the Christian way of 'turning the other cheek', its result is resignation and quietism. This outside world is refied, taken as something given and independent of human activity, which we may merely gaze upon and experience "as we wish". It cannot be transformed, according to Sir E: "You cannot get the outside to conform to your desires"

In other words, a transparent and rather quaint form of alienation.

Limits control of your being, that's part of what makes it an interesting experience of self-overcoming. The idea of boundless autonomy is that NO social arrangement will ever satisfy it. A standing order reality independently separate from the perceiver has never been demonstrated. In essence I am of the view that the old Vedic idea of Brahma Vishnu and Shiva-positive negative perception has never been contradicted. I am all that is and all that is is me.

" It cannot be transformed, according to Sir E" It can according to Sir E...after you transform yourself. If slavery is abolished and you remain attached to your master then the outer abolition does nothing. Sure there are other minds that by default change a collective consciousness, but the result means nothing if YOU haven't changed.

All alienation comes from attachment.

Language is fouling you up because you are not including the influence of language on the logical inferences you are formulating. for example, sir einzige says;

”everything in the physical world limits control of your being”

this is oxymoron since there is no ‘being’ in the physical world, according to quantum physics. the notion of our ‘self’ as a ‘independently-existing being’ is pure idealization that is the product of language; e.g. once we impute being to relational feature in the relational flow by giving ‘her’ a name like ‘Katrina’, we construct a noun-and-verb language game pseudo-physical reality. this is the Fiktional world of doers of deeds that Nietzsche mocks. it is the produce of our European colonizer mind conditioned by noun-and-verb European language and grammar.

as Erich Jantsch and others have observed, we can picture the ‘self’ and ‘other’ relation at three different ‘levels of reality’, the third and lowest [less comprehensive] of which is the ‘doer-deed’ level 3 based on notion of our selves as ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ and ‘what these independently-existing things in-themselves do’. this level doesn’t even exist in the indigenous aboriginal traditional world view and their languages do not lend themselves to constructing it.

[N.B. understanding the relationship between the levels uses BOTH/AND logic of the included third; i.e. the middle level includes the lowest level and the highest level includes the middle level which includes the lower level]

for we who construct our RE-presentations of our experience [don’t forget the RE in RE-presentations because our direct experience-in-the-now is something else; i.e. it is inclusion in continuously transforming spatial relational plenum], ... in noun-and-verb European language and grammar, this invokes the familiar synthetic framing of absolute space and absolute time. that box-like ballroom in the belly of the Titanic becomes a ‘world unto itself’ for us ‘independently-existing things-in-ourselves’ who move about and interact with in it. in other words, this RE-presentation of our experience within the continually transforming spatial relational plenum only has to address what is going on inside the box or inertial [unaccelerated] frame.

”The laws of Newtonian dynamics provide a simple definition: an inertial frame is a reference-frame with a time-scale, relative to which the motion of a body not subject to forces is always rectilinear and uniform, accelerations are always proportional to and in the direction of applied forces, and applied forces are always met with equal and opposite reactions. It follows that, in an inertial frame, the center of mass of a system of bodies is always at rest or in uniform motion.”

the idea of an inertial frame is pure idealization. it is a ‘convention’ that we impose [Poincaré] that delivers ‘economy of thought’.

noun-and-verb language sets up an inertial frame based view of dynamics in terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do’ or a ‘doer-deed’ pseudo-reality.

this doer-deed world is not ‘the physical world’, but it is the fictional world of the Indo-European language which, as Poincaré, Sapir, Whorf, Wittgenstein, Bohm, Schroedinger and others have observed, ‘fucks up our mind’.

1. Language fucks up our mind and substitutes fictional reality in terms of ‘beings’ for physical reality in terms of relational flow.

so, when y’all are talking about that self that feels bound by capitalist institutions, you could be [are likely to be] talking about the self of the lowest level three pseudo-reality, the doer-deed reality. this self is fully defined by ‘what it does and can do’. it is the self of newtonian physics.

there are still two more higher [more comprehensive] levels of reality [how we can understand self and other] so we needn’t trap ourselves in this reality where ‘all we are’ is a machine with a rational mind that directs its behaviour within an absolute space and absolute time reference frame inhabited also by a collection of inanimate objects and other rational machines.

as Emerson says, we have a ‘mischievous tendency’ to trap ourselves in that lowest level and therefore deny our greater selves that can be ‘seen’ if we open up our RE-presentation of ‘reality’ and thus open up the self-other relation and the sense of ‘who we are’. for example, imagine a slave, an indigenous aboriginal slave taken captive by colonizers in 1492. while he can’t escape from his colonization, he sees himself as an ‘agent of transformation’ in that the ‘spin’ he puts into the continuously unfolding relational spatial activity continuum, can continue to stir things centuries later in 2013. this the level 2 reality where ‘Katrina’, the hurricane graduates from her doer-deed persona which ‘ravaged New Orleans’ into an ‘agent of transformation’ whose stirring of the relational space she is a relational feature in, continues to flavour the unfolding activity continuum. Emerson justaposes these two levels of reality and their very different characterizations of ‘self’ in ‘The Method of Nature’;

“Whilst a necessity so great caused the man to exist, his health and erectness consist in the fidelity with which he transmits influences from the vast and universal to the point on which his genius can act. The ends are momentary: they are vents for the current of inward life which increases as it is spent. A man’s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine.”

this is where ‘spirituality’ either ‘stays in’ or ‘falls out’; i.e. there is no ‘spirituality’ [no sense that one is an agent of transformation] in the doer-deed model of the self. in this lowest level 3 [all yang-no-yin] model of reality, the assumption is that ‘the present depends only on the past’, so that there are no lingering effects of something that happens in 1492 that continue to stir things in 2013. Poincaré covers this in ‘Science and Hypothesis’;

Extract from ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics, Henri Poincare
Origin of Mathematical Physics. Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics. We recognise at the outset the efforts of men of science have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena, and that in three different ways.
“First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton.
.
Next, we try to decompose the phenomena in space. What experiment gives us is a confused aggregate of facts spread over a scene of considerable extent. We must try to deduce the elementary phenomenon, which will still be localised in a very small region of space.” --- Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics

The notion that there is something that the aboriginal slave can do in 1492 that will contribute to an uprising in 2013 and liberation for his seventh generation descendents, including raven and wolf who are being poisoned by the European colonizer slave-masters, ... gives him a different view of self; i.e. as an agent of transformation, a kind of ‘whorl-in-the-flow’ that stirs the activity continuum so that it will unfold ‘differently’ than it otherwise would have.

note that a noun-and-verb language and grammar screws up the RE-presentation of this level two reality because such a language grounds its RE-presentation in ‘being’ aka ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ and renders ‘dynamics’ in terms of ‘what independently-existing-things-in-themselves do’, ... so that a more relational or flow-based language [or poetic usage of language] is needed to share understandings in this level 2 reality;

“Bohm did note, however, that our (Indo-European) languages tend to be highly noun-oriented and well suited to discussions of concepts and categories [of being]. By contrast, quantum theory demands a more process-oriented approach, a verb-based language perhaps that emphasizes flow, movement and constant transformation. (Bohm’s Holomovement – the movement of the whole.) — F. David Peat, ‘Language and Linguistics’

if a person sees himself as a level 2 agent of transformation rather than JUST a level 1 doer-of-deeds, this will give him something to work on that won’t be realized in his lifetime but that will make a difference many generations out. his doer-deed ‘self’ is truly incapacitated and emasculated, but not his agent-of-transformation ‘self’.

he may start off as a ‘doer-deeder’ but after he has been enslaved for some time, by the capitalist system or by the European colonizer system (same system), he may start ‘stirring things’ in a manner that is quite different from organizing the doing of deeds to physically bring about the overthrow of the slave-masters; i.e. using his oral tradition he may share stories and ideas that will propagate and influence for generations to come.

is it only in the ‘doer-deed’ level of reality that people believe that the present depends only on the immediate past. in the agent of transformation level of reality, actions [such as the telling of a story] in the remote past can directly influence the dynamics unfolding in the present.

the first and highest [most comprehensive] level of reality, Jantsch calls the ‘evolutionary’ level and Schroedinger calls the Atman = Brahman level. it coincides with the ‘Taoist’ nirvana level where the self ‘becomes one with everything’. this level can only be inferred as it is not directly describable in a being-based language, and or in a relational thing based language.

Points to note in this view of self as impacted by language of RE-presentation of experience

1. what we call ‘self’ and the related sense of ‘der einzige’ own-ness is influenced by our choice of language: being-based, ‘relational thing based’ or pre-lingual sense based, and the different pseudo-realities that are constructed by the different language architectures.

for example, the sense of influence of the self expands in going from the doer-of-deeds lowest level view of self to the agent of transformation view of self to the Brahman [one with everything] view of self. if the slave were to trap himself in the doer-of-deed view of self, his only option for ‘escape’ would be do-or-die revolt. the indigenous aboriginal slaves of European colonization are still working on their liberation and the actions and words of their long gone chiefs and elders continue to be very important influences on their current thinking and behaving. it follows that those chiefs and elders, WHETHER OR NOT they died in revolts, possessed influence as agents of transformation that they, because of their cultural beliefs, were well aware of, ... always thinking about how their present actions would influence the conditions seven generations out.

2. the sense of ‘self’ of Stirner, as presented in Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum is a level 2 agent of transformation sense of self, but it never makes it to the highest level, level 1.

Stirner’s understanding of self may be at level 2 but it is in radical contradiction to the indigenous aboriginal level 2 sense of self because Stirners does not get to level 1, the Atman=Brahman ’one-with-everything’ level. Stirner acknowledges his ’agent of transformation’ self as follows;

“Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it.” ---Max Stirner, The Ego and his Own, p.394

only in getting to level 1. is the understanding of ‘mitakuye oyasin’ (we are all related) acknowledged/incorporated in the overall understanding of self.

the circle process of the indigenous aboriginals, which is growing in popularity generally because of its non-hierarchical developing of understanding, understands that our experience depends on our material form and thus we have a subjective perspective on the physical reality [the world dynamic and how we relate to it]. wolf, eagle and spider do not ‘see’ the world the way we see it. they, and we all, have our own subjective perspective. i might like to be a flea exploring the ambrosial curly forest of that beautiful girl’s upper thighdom, but in attaining undefended open access to the treasure i was looking for, what would i do with it, ... drown in it?

the point is that we recognize that we each have our own subjective perspectives on the world that we would have to understand to understand the workings of the world. indigenous aboriginals capture this in passed down oral tradition stories such as ‘who shall speak for wolf’. the circle process acknowledges that the physical reality of nature is APERSPECTIVAL and that we can approximate the aperspectival understanding by having everyone share their subjective perspectives in a circle process. this contrasts with the European practice of debating amongst various subjective perspectives, a debate which cannot be settled sensibly since the subjective perspective of the wolf is true to his experience, and the subjective perspective of man is true to his experience. in the European search for truth, the subjective perspective of the most powerful person or group prevails [e.g. the elite class or the slave-master faction] and no attempt is made to understand the world dynamic ‘aperspectivally’ as through a circle process.

so, Stirner’s ‘self’ never gets to, and thus cannot borrow from, the level 1 view wherein all subjective perspectives are valuable to understanding the world dynamic. he is stuck in the view of self that not only accepts ‘sein Eigenen’ subjective perspective but enthusiastically uses it to shape his own behaviour and encourages others to do likewise.

3. compare the indigenous anarchist slave and the christian slave

both of these are ‘taken as slaves’ and they watch their brothers and sisters who feel their freedom as ‘doers-of-deeds’ taken from them. if this is the only ‘dimension’ of power of self that they can see, then their only option is do-or-die attempts to overthrow their ‘masters’. indigenous aboriginals taken as slaves [even if they were allowed to walk about North America that was now made into a prison grounds for them by the colonizers], watching hundreds of thousands of their brothers and sisters get slaughtered in their do-or-die attempts to overthrown their slave-masters mentally shifted gears into level 2, as agents of transformation whose current actions and sharing of ideas would stir things up for long after they themselves had gone. this is the same ‘strategy’ as Stirner recognizes in his “i write ... to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world” EXCEPT that Stirner is doing it purely out of egotistical love of his thoughts, ... because they are HIS thoughts and because HIS thoughts can make a lasting mark on the world, no matter what they stir up (he frankly doesn’t care, he and Ayn Rand both).

now, the christian slave believes that the kingdom of God is coming, that there will be a ‘Judgement Day’ that reward the unrewarded and punish the unpunished and generally square up all accounts after which there will be an eternal life in heaven with God based on heavenly peace, harmony and justice. getting lost in these thoughts is thus a kind of drug to liberate the christian slave from the pain of having his doer-of-deed balls cut off.
this is where the important distinction comes from in the interpretation of what Marx intended, which i have mentioned in another thread but will re-cite here;

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"

it would appear that marx was not rejecting the ‘spirituality’ such as that of the indigenous aboriginal anarchist who was building invisible time-bombs that would help the revolution/transformation in a transgenerational sense; i.e. marx’s rejection of religious belief that deferred not only immediate level 3 reality doer-of-deed revolt but at the same time nulled out level 2 reality agent-of-transgenerational-transformation/revolution, ... does not imply that Marx was rejecting all level 2 reality ‘agent of transformation’ activity and insisting on nothing other than the hard simple logic of level 3 reality doer-of-deed do-or-die revolt. for example, unsuccessful do-or-die revolts can themselves serve as level 2 reality agent-of-transformation influences. Mohammed Bouazizi, the tunisian who revolted by setting himself on fire, did not expect to participate in a successful revolt in his lifetime, but he was well aware of his level 2 reality agent-of-transformation powers of self.

clearly, it was Mohammed Abouazizi’s ‘spiritual values’, his ‘power-of-self’ as a timeless, agent of transformation, that guided his behaviour and he used this power very skillfully indeed [in the sense of time and place intervention/stirring of the activity continuum]. it seems unlikely that Marx was a materialist to the point of constraining his thinking to the level 3 reality doer-of-deed model of the self, and denying the spiritual power in the level 2 reality agent-of-transformation model of the self.

"Marx's criticism of religion was held to be identical with the denial of all spiritual values, and this seemed all the more apparent to those who assume that belief in God is the condition for a spiritual orientation. ... Suffice it to say at the outset that this popular picture of Marx's "materialism" -- his anti-spiritual tendency, his wish for uniformity and subordination -- is utterly false. Marx's aim was that of the spiritual emancipation of man, of his liberation from the chains of economic determination, of restituting him in his human wholeness, of enabling him to find unity and harmony with his fellow man and with nature. " --- Erich Fromm, 'The Falsification of Marx's Concepts'

In other words, Marx may have been more of the same mind as the indigenous aboriginal anarchist who would reject the notion of the coming of another life that would ‘fix the injustices’ in the current one [a view that could be seen as spiritual-masturbation wherein one squandered one’s agent-of-transformation mojo], and accept that revolt could be understood in level 2 reality which includes level 3 reality; i.e. one’s agent-of-transformation mojo (spiritual power) transcends but includes one’s doer-of-deeds material-physical power.

Conclusions;

in your exchange, you do not account for the different levels of reality that relate to different types of language usage [e.g. noun-and-verb that RE-presents dynamics in terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do in a notional absolute time and absolute space [inertial frame] ‘operating theatre, ... and/or relational/poetic language usage that RE-presents dynamics in terms of relational features in transforming relational activity continuum]. for example you say;

[sir einzige] "Reality can never be divorced from the subjective experience of it on an individual level"
.
[anonymous] So what? This shitty, alienated reality is lived or experienced as our own experience? -- whoop-de-fuck! How about experiencing a non-alienated reality? But that would mean going beyond and outside our inner self and making reality conform to our desires. Which you rule out by taking the material, objective world as something separate and given, which must just be "experienced".

these language-based constructions by both sir einzige and by anonymous alternatively portray ‘reality’ as (a) a ‘subjective experience’ and by (b) as a ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own ‘independent existence’. missing from this is the acknowledging that our experience can only give us a ‘subjective PERSPECTIVE’, that of a uniquely situationally included [in the physical reality which includes us] human (could be male or female, short or tall, black or white etc.). the wolf, spider and flea all have their own subjective perspectives too, and the physical reality in which we are included does not favour any particular subjective perspective; i.e. PHYSICAL REALITY IS APERSPECTIVAL so some cultures do assume that our ‘subjective experience’ is somehow capturing ‘physical reality’. ‘making reality conform to our [subjective] desires thus comes across like nonsense or insanity’. in fact, isn’t this the insanity that infects the European colonizer culture that uses the principle of Lafontaine to solve the problem of ‘who has the most ‘objective’ view of reality’ [as if one can sort through a collection of subjective perspectives and come up with one that is ‘closest to the real reality’].

woudn’t a sane group of people try to get to the aperspectival understanding of physical reality by bringing a diverse multiplicity of subjective perspectives into a coherent connective confluence, ... as in a circle process?
bottom line; your use of ‘reality’ is not very well founded, nor is your use of ‘subjective experience’, but for that matter, neither was Stirners.

there is lots more of your exchange that is discombobulated by your use of language, concerning the ‘realness’ of being trapped by the institutions and practices of capitalism, or not. for example, the use of language constructs such as ‘overcoming capitalism’ and ‘a free being’ as sir einzige says in responding to anonymous;

“"Overcoming capitalism is not an alien goal for a free being, because it is precondition of real freedom or autonomy." Correct about first part wrong about second. What my autonomy is is ultimately boundless to any demarcation. The reason I cannot do what I want at work is again due to foundational beliefs in debt based relationships. This is their belief to bear, I deal with it in my own way.”

‘capitalism’ is not a physical reality, it is a belief-based relational social practice of the same ilk as sovereigntism. when sovereigntism was initially ‘declared’ it was pretty loose. the birds and animals and fish have never paid much attention to it, and aboriginals didn’t believe in it and were only rarely apprehended for ignoring it like the deer and the bear. if one’s labours continued to be enfolded in community and one hadn’t yet become a ‘wage-slave’ then things were pretty much as before with this new net of enslavement being lightly imposed, which got more and more tightly imposed as things evolved. even slaves have freedom in the privacy of their slave quarters; e.g. they can be married, have sex, and have children etc. so this thing called ‘slavery’ is a belief-based social practice that is an ‘add on’ or ‘overlay’ and it doesn’t make sense to compare ‘slavery’ or ‘capitalism’ with natural autonomy [these are entirely different things]. the former derives from beliefs that translate into social relational practices that orient to humans, whereas the latter relates to the physical reality of our natural experience; i.e. it is not belief based, it is experience-based.

so, in this sense, i would be partially in agreement with sir einzige, ... however, ... it is going too far to say that

What my autonomy is is ultimately boundless to any demarcation,

but here's where i would go back to the understanding that our experience is ‘subjective perspective based’ which means that, while we are aware that the experience of others and other things may be very different from our own, we are not ‘free to go there’. we can’t experience like the fly on the wall, and we can’t experience like the cunning flea, and we can’t experience the freedom that tiny cracks in the wall and floor give to a cockroach or rodent, even though we know that these different [YIN/YANG] experiences with their different subjective perspectives underlie the shaping of the relational spatial dynamic that we all share inclusion in.

this brings us back to the question of how we understand ‘reality’ vis a vis how we use the word ‘reality’ in our language constructs. ditto ‘autonomy’ and ‘capitalism’ etc.

in general, you guys are confusing ‘physical reality’ and ‘idealized concepts’ as in linguistic constructs that speak of ‘overcoming capitalism’ as if it were a 'real thing' etc. spiders and wolves are not greatly affected by sovereigntism and capitalism; i.e. their physical realities are not greatly altered by belief-driven inter-human social practices and even humans under capitalism can become like free animals at night in bed ‘doing it’ along side the spiders, as creatures have always done it; i.e. whatever way they want to do it, ... so we can’t speak of the ‘reality’ of our ‘freedom/autonomy’ being limited by slavery or capitalism in the same sense of ‘reality’ as with physical phenomena. here we see the difference between [level 2 and] level 3 reality which is in the noun-and-verb European language and grammar constructed RE-presentational terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’; i.e. this is the Euclidian space world that transpires amongst notional independently-existing things-in-themselves in the ballroom of the Titanic as in any idealized inertial frame.

meanwhile, there is our level 2 reality in terms of relational features in relational space where the Titanic and the ballroom are included in a continually transforming relational spatial plenum or ‘relational suprasystem’ in systems sciences terms. this is where Mach’s principle applies; i.e. where habitat and inhabitant are in conjugate relation. this is the nondualist level of reality wherein “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”

if we fart in an elevator, this 'inhabitant dynamic' conditions the dynamics of everyone else including ourselves via the mediating medium of space. only in reality 3 which is in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ and which ignores space as a mediating medium do we RE-present belief-based inter-human dynamics such as capitalism.

CAPITALISM IS AN EXEMPLAR OF LEVEL 3 ALL-YANG-NO-YIN ‘FIKTIONAL REALITY’. IT IS NOT THE SAME AS LEVEL 2 YIN/YANG PHYSICAL REALITY. What goes on inside the ballroom of the Titanic, in terms of the logical activities of notional ‘independently-existing things in-themselves’ is over-simplification compared with the same dynamic seen in terms of the natural physical relationship between suprasystem and system. the level 3 reality is something we construct with our noun-and-verb European language and grammar [we assume ‘being’ by using nouns and endowing these ‘absolutist idealizations’, notionally, with autonomous behaviour by appending verbs]. this is total bullshit that we swallow anyhow;

“As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that nonexistent things cannot “perform” actions. The difficulty is that most languages are arranged so that actions (verbs) have to be set in motion by things (nouns), and we forget that rules of grammar are not necessarily rules, or patterns, of nature. This, which is nothing more than a convention of grammar, is also responsible for (or, better, “goeswith”) absurd puzzles as to how spirit governs matter, or mind moves body. How can a noun, which is by definition not action, lead to action?” —Alan Watts, ‘Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are’

the level 2 reality is yin/yang and requires a relational language or relational use [poetic use] of a non-relational ‘being-based’ [fictitious separate-thing-based] language. it captures the 'reality' of a relational space as is the finding of modern physics and as Mach and Bohm and Schroedinger had captured it.

sir einzige, its time to acknowledge the shortfall of Stirner in his hanging on to his subjective perspective and failing to acknowledge the aperspectival nature of the world dynamic. he puts himself in the same camp as Ayn Rand by inflating his ego without letting his sense of self expand to include everything [every relational feature in the relational spatial plenum] as in 'mitakuye oyasin'. [i.e. to comprehend Atman = Brahman as in Schroedinger's 'What is Life?']

not long enough!

I must ignore the bulk of your unfocused and sprawling post, but say this before departing.

"[*** claims reality is] a ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own ‘independent existence’. missing from this is the acknowledging that our experience can only give us a ‘subjective PERSPECTIVE’"
Ok, I'll try to be clearer: As I've already stated, I agree that reality is not a "thing in itself". Rather, it is BOTH subjective and objective; a unity-in-difference; a relation between two inseparable terms. Reality is both partially the product of human theory and practice, and partially independent of human attempts to understand and master it.

A subjective perspective entails an objectivity to be perceived and which is not reducible to the subject; no object, no subject. While we must experience the world through some subjective perspective, this perspective doesn't fully determine or exhaust our relation to that world, but also reacts to and conforms to the world and our pre-/non-subjective existence within it. Our subjective perspective is both inseparable from and reciprocally influenced by our concrete way being in the world, a way of being that's simultaneously subjective and objective, conscious and pre-conscious, rational and sensuous.

"capitalism is not a physical reality, it is a belief-based relational social practice"
It's false and crude idealism to conceive of social reality as something "belief based" and oppose it to the "physical". The materiality of capitalism doesn't refer to its "physical" structure, as an object to be impartially studied under a microscope. The material reality of capitalism refers to the relations between concrete individuals and the world, a concrete way of being and acting in the world that includes, but is not reducible to, one isolated dimension of human reality, i.e. thinking, beliefs, mind. By contrast, your conception of reality as a relation between the the physical and mind is utterly abstract, insofar as it separates subjectivity from the concrete individual and subsequently opposes it to a material world emptied of spiritual content. This alienated thinking merely expresses the alienated reality in which human desire and consciousness have been thoroughly deformed through commodification and reification.

I'll acknowledge Stirner's short comings if you do the same for Nietzsche. Stirner is by no means perfect, but orientationally speaking he's the modern equivalent of Lao Tzu or any individualistic sage that came from the great awakening-Axial age. There's a big difference of course between the Axial age individualists and the individualists of the modern time frame.The older time still had some access to things like shamanism bicameral thought patterns and good ole aboriginal human intellect as a whole, modernity is modernity in all its ugliness. You're points on their approach before the revolution in German physics is well taken, however Stirner could simply be said to be captor and critique of his time. The latter 19th century had more exposure to the East then the earlier part. Also there is a big difference between Stirner's ego and Rand's, Stirner is actually a very useful bridge to a more eastern intellectually aboriginal way of looking at the world.
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/maxomar.html

I don't disagree with your 3-2-1 levels though my point is that sometimes in historically stressed situations level 2 is a necessary option(though not the most optimal), as you seem to be saying people that take Marx's approach like our dear *** has a kingdom come mentality which is precisely what most Marxist discourse turned into. Yes you can look at libertarian young Marx or the older guy who relaxed after 1870(when his ideology defeated Proudhon's via Prussian victory over the French) and discovered the Iroquois, but a holistic discourse of those two periods was never constructed, the Marx that we all know and hate is the Marx between 1845-1870. THAT Marx was a man of secular kingdom come and the remnants of that are what I see in *** and I am critiquing. We would be well on that bridge today if Stirner had become the post-Hegelian focal point and not the overrated Karl Marx. Maybe if Marx had fused the best of his younger/older thinking with the best of Stirner we would be talking about a different and better mind, but not in this universe.

Overall I agree that a change of language is in order, and yes mind and material are both and(though I adhere to a 51/49 view in which I give the slight default to some kind of cognition)

i'm not sure what order your posts are in. if you were calling me a son of a bitch later and treating me civilly in this earlier note, ... can you accept that i think you are an asshole, but saving that for later?

look, nietzsche is very clear. like he doesn't mince words about anything. he says socrates' method is fucked up and he thinks in 'beyond good and evil' terms and he is totally into relational space, as Mach was, whose work he read and greatly appreciated according to his contemporaries.

i don't know stirner as well, but i haven't found the same strong fundamentals in stirner. and, on the other hand, stirner says some bullshit stuff that i have never found the equivalent of in nietzsche.

that being said, both of these men are amazing thinkers how have influenced our thoughts.

but in the end, it is up to us to find the understanding they are talking about in our own experience. we can't just 'believe them' because they sound good.

this is where i feel tight with nietzsche. i understand things the same way he does. i have had the same thoughts as him. for example, in his comments about the double error in our noun-and-verb European language and grammar constructs, i have thought the same as him before reading him. and it was Poincare who made the same point that registered first with me; i.e. Poincare's point that to say that 'the earth rotates' is 'nonsense'. poincare claimed in a personal exchange that only a few of his colleagues understood what he was saying. i totally get this. if climate scientists understood what he was saying, the theory of 'anthropogenic global warming' wouldn't have even been popularized because he was saying that the outside-inward influencing suprasystem was inherently in precedence over the inside-outward asserting 'earth system'.

finally, given that both stirner and nietzsche are stimulating thinkers, i cite nietzsche because his views are overlays to my own experience, ... and to mach's view and to indigenous anarchists views and to bohm's and schroedinger's views and i don't see this in stirner. i think stirner never let his 'I' expand the way that nietzsche did, to assimilate the whole world.

also, if you are calling me a son of a bitch in your next post, .... it's good bye mr. nice guy for me, you asshole.

"also, if you are calling me a son of a bitch in your next post, .... it's good bye mr. nice guy for me, you asshole."

???

I actually like Nietzsche(as well as your ideas) it's just that the reason why people like me and others put Stirner ahead of him is down to orientation, through and through Stirner was not an authoritarian, Nietzsche was to varying degrees. He did have a linguistic mastery of human genealogy and did well to build on some things that were already cropping up in Der Einzige in regards to shifting etymological meanings via power, and philosophers that are also physics enthusiasts is generally a good combination, but if you don't have a thorough going non-authoritarian orientation then you are not entirely complete in my mind. This is where Lao Tzu or Buddha master them both, they had complete understandings of the physical nature of the world but they also were not principally authoritarian(especially the former). It comes down to what you prioritize when measuring the two thinkers.

.

baka baka

ok, to really convince me, you just need to jump off a cliff and, while in mid-air, suspend your belief in gravity.

Unfortunately you won't because you don't really believe your absurd crap but only use it to justify and compensate your shitty little life and a world that keeps you isolated and powerless. Your narcissistic obsession with your own Self, alongside your political quietism and disengagement with reality, are predictable symptoms of capitalist society and the reification of social relations, a reification that inevitably penetrates into consciousness, including the realm of philosophy. Your incoherent, dilettantish and contradictory mish-mash of new age, subjective idealism, egoism, and buddhism provide the comforting illusions which allow you to consciously identify with the present order and thus make it "your own", presumably out of cowardice, stupidity, despair, isolation, and a narrow form of self-interest. Indeed your narcissism and lack of any sense of reality are perfectly consistent with our increasingly technological reality, where lonely individuals relate to the world primarily through a digital screen while blocking out everything else. Me Me Me!

It's fuckwitted nonsense like yours that gives credibility to leftists like Bookchin with their critiques of non-leftist forms of anarchy/is as "lifestylist" or "bourgeois".

.

if so, you should be ashamed of yourself! cornflake?! disgusting!

in re-reviewing this particular thread of exchanges between yourself and sir einzige, the pattern emerges that you believe that ‘what happens’ comes from ‘material things making it happen’ while sir einzige believes that material dynamics derive from the mind [are belief based].

are capitalists responsible for capitalism? or are we duping ourselves with bad theory [a flawed belief base], a Ponzi scheme that has the losers accuse the winners of exploitation because they are the winners? Just let me get my hands on those sons of bitches basking in wealth that they have taken from the system that i joined so that i could be basking in wealth?

trying to sorting this out has you both wrestling with the nature of the relation of mind and matter and which takes precedence over which and you evidently end up on opposing poles.

[*** says;] “I don't posit a hierarchy of matter over thought, but rather see both as interpenetrating, interdependent and *equally real* aspects of a single whole. By contrast your hierarchy reductively reduces one pole of reality (matter) to the other (mind). It may not be dualistic but certainly is reductive since it denies independent reality to matter, making it merely a "reflection" of mind.
.
Your subjective idealism, or egoism, is essentially religious insofar as it privileges a higher world transcending earthly existence, a world of pure spirit or mind. Like Christianity, it denigrates the world of nature and human existence on which spirit is dependent. As with the Christian way of 'turning the other cheek', its result is resignation and quietism. This outside world is refied, taken as something given and independent of human activity, which we may merely gaze upon and experience "as we wish". It cannot be transformed, according to Sir E: "You cannot get the outside to conform to your desires"

philosophers are of course divided on these questions. materialists believe that mind grew out of increasingly complex organic forms/organisms as a kind of support tool, while relationists like schroedinger et al believe that mind/consciousness is the prima materia of the world.

materialists only recently took ‘mind’ outside of the biological cell and put it into ‘the environment’ as a result of stem cell research and the new science of epigenesis (outside-inward sourcing of organization). prior to that the nucleus was seen as the ‘centre-of-intelligence’ that managed the activities of the cell, now the continually evolving cell is seen as the conjugate relation of receptors and effectors.

the notion that plants were independently-existing organisms, implying central direction coming out of the material unit, is now on the verge of collapse given the amazing ‘plant intelligence’ that is being monitored with new surveillance technologies; i.e. amazing cooperation within and across species is now beyond question but there is no place to put the source of the intelligence. the obvious move is waiting in the wings, to recast the classical notion of the plant and/or organism as a ‘thing-in-itself with its own internal process directed behaviour’ so that it is consistent with the quantum physics view of space as an energy-charged relational spatial plenum inhabited by relational features. that is, recasting a plant or an organism in general as a relational feature in a relational space. mutual interdependence is innate in this view; i.e. ‘cooperation’ is a term that assumes a plurality of things that assertively/intelligently coordinate their actions. the multiple storm-cells in the relational space of the atmosphere do not have to ‘cooperate’ to engineer the redistribution of thermal energy in the relational space of the atmosphere because it was the relational space that engendered these relational features in the first place.

this was already the thought of nietzsche, and a number of biologists including lamarck; i.e. the continuously developing organism was understood as the conjugate relational of endosmosis [receptiveness] and exosmosis [assertiveness]. this is the same yin/yang relation as with the new view of the biological cell.

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

so the mind matter choices debated in ***’s and sir einzige’s exchange are;

1. the mind is like an evolved centre of intelligence within the material system so that the material system is fully and solely responsible for its own actions [capitalists are the cause of capitalism as *** implies.]. in order to get rid of capitalism, we have to get rid of capitalists. we heard that one before; i.e. in order to get rid of crime, we have to get rid of criminals, and in order to get rid of terrorism, we have to get rid of terrorists. that is our popular working hypothesis built into western justice otherwise known as ‘institutionalized vengeance’.

2. the mind takes precedence over the matter [‘all matter comes from mind’, to quote sir einzige] this means that capitalism is a belief system that manifests through people that we call ‘capitalists’. in order to get rid of capitalism we have to undermine the intellectual beliefs that give rise to it. in terms of ‘justice’, this corresponds to rehabilitative justice rather than punitive. [the ‘restorative justice’ system of indigenous aboriginals is a third option].

note that 1. and 2. are ‘EITHER/OR’ (logic of the excluded third) options. quantum logic is ‘BOTH/AND’ (logic of the included third). see Mac, Lupasco, Nicolescu, Barbour et al

we get to the third option of quantum logic by changing our assumptions about ‘space’; i.e. by ‘getting rid of absolute space and time’, the geometric conventions that allow us to think of dynamics in terms of independently-existing material things-in-themselves that act/interact in a non-relational, non-influential operating theatre (absolute space and absolute time).

in its place we have space as an energy-charged fullness or plenum where the ‘things’ in the space are ‘relational features’ in the relational spatial plenum. now we have the same sort of relationship between space and matter, or habitat and inhabitant as between a fluid flow and a convection cell. what we SEE is the local, visible, material aspect of the cell; i.e. the inside-outward asserting aspect which is meanwhile in conjugate relation with the non-local, non-visible and non-material orchestrating influence [purely relational influence] of the flow it is included in.

so this gives us a third option for mind and matter;

3. the mind corresponds to the non-local, non-visible, non-material outside-inward orchestrating influence which is in conjugate relation with the local, visible, material inside-outward asserting manifest action. mind and matter are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of continuous transformation of the relational spatial plenum.

you can see that this fits with the new view of the biological cell and with the about to hatch explanation for the amazing intelligence of plants, and it also fits with the model of nietzsche lamarck et al and is actually implied in Mach’s principle; “the dynamics of the inhabitants [local, visible, material assertive dynamics] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat [non-local, non-visible, non-material (are purely relational and can only be inferred by inhabitant dynamics)] at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants]. consciousness is this sea of non-local, non-visible, non-material influence [field influence] that is continually informing the local, visible, material asserting manifest relational forms.

what ‘confuses’ us and makes the 3rd option difficult to ‘get’ is that our jumpstart focus is on the manifest aspect, the local, visible, material asserting action feature and our mind races to answer the question ‘what causes this asserting thing’. however, if space were seen as a transparent fullness whose condition changed with the result that it ‘broke out in spots’ (like solar irradiance can make the transparent fullness of the atmosphere break out in convection-cell spots) we have the situation of ‘negative cause’ [non-locally sourced cause due to the general condition of the body] which is counter-intuitive. e.g. if a person’s body is deficient in vitamin C, then we can’t blame the local bacterial bloom on the bacteria but we must attribute it to the deficient terrain in conjugate relation with the asserting bacteria in the infected spot. we have yin/yang instead of all-yang-no-yin. this yin/yang option corresponds to Pasteur's deathbed concession to Bechamp that 'le microbe n'est rien, le terrain est tout'.

this is where the indigenous anarchists would be. capitalism is an intellectual language game, a yang dynamic. so is socialism. they are intellectual theories that prescribe ‘how to do things’. indigenous anarchists understand that the relational spatial dynamics they are included naturally orchestrate their individual and collective assertive actions. John Locke would have called this the natural enfolding of labour into the community dynamic. money enabled wage labour which in turn led to the intellectual direction of community development by those with the most money. money is what allows those with the money to intellectually direct social dynamics, reducing social relations from yin/yang to all-yang-no-yin. with rising disparity in wealth comes a rising tendency to all-yang-no-yin intellectual direction of social dynamics by those with money [like central government and corporate centres].

Thanks for stepping in and shutting up both those fools (especially that enziege character). What I don't get about all that you say is how to apply that to any sort of useful action, be it organizing, attacking, agitating or what have you. Would you say it's a question of priorities or a question of forms or a question of content or...I don't know. For example, if the "problem" is essentially that the dominant viewpoint governing most social relations in the world is all-yang-no-yin, does this mean that any sort of activity which introduces a yin aspect to it is potentially useful? What about activities that help to dismantle the overabundance of yang? If everything comes down to a question of relations, then is the only worthwhile activity simply spreading the word and trying to get more of the world to embrace a yin/yang approach? You seem to spend a lot of your time on this site making the same point over and over (a point which I have great respect for and struggle to comprehend, and [as this comment demonstrates] apply to my own life and activities), and so I have to assume that you have a goal of educating anarchists regarding this point, but to what end? It seems as though any practical activity which could be done in the world (or at least in the society in which we live) is necessarily going to have to either some kind of dualist mindset, or originate/focus on "things-in-themselves" whether it is the every day lives of people around you, or non-human people, or prisoner support, or focusing a critique (with words or deeds) on the physical manifestation (the inward-outward aspect, I suppose) of an oppressive institution, etc...Is this making sense as a question?

in answer to your question;

“What I don't get about all that you say is how to apply that to any sort of useful action, be it organizing, attacking, agitating or what have you.”

what i am talking about is another way of understanding the self-world relation [non-dualist rather than dualist]. if we start looking at the same things and understanding them in a different context, this transforms our “organizing, attacking, agitating or what have you”

at the centre of our ‘world view’ is our impression of ‘who we are’, the nature of ‘I’.

our experience is that of a ‘centre’ of sensory experience; I see, I hear, I taste, I feel, I smell, ... so that gives us a ‘subjective perspective’ but we know that there are wolves and eagles and spiders and roaches and bacteria that seem to have their own subjective perspective, and given that our behaviour is guided by our subjective perspective, and theirs must be guided by their subjective perspective, the overall dynamic that we share inclusion in must develop out of the ‘relational confluence’ [wave interference?] of all of this diverse multiplicity of subjective perspective shaped behaviours.

so, it makes some sense, this aboriginal ‘circle process’ approach where people pass the talking stick and share their subjective perspectives [speak from their heart-voice rather than their theory-pushing head-voice] because what they get from this [their tradition is to ‘speak for wolf’ and the rooted, winged and finned and slithering ones also in this circle process] ... approximates an ‘aperspectival worldview’, as would seem to be fitting for understanding nature if one doesn’t believe, like Genesis 1:28 suggests, man is primary and the others are there for man’s use.

in our western civilization, everyone puts forth their own ‘subjective perspective-come-worldview’ and debates which one best fits the common experiencing of the world. the important thing to note here is that these ‘competing worldviews’ are expressed in noun-and-verb European language and grammar; i.e. in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

the aperspectival worldview, is beyond the capabilities of this kind of noun-and-verb European language and grammar. the complication is that what each of us does changes the dynamic of the common space we share inclusion in and the dynamic of the common space, being what we are engaging with, is what orchestrates and shapes our individual and collective behaviour. instead of being able to describe the world dynamic in terms of ‘what things do’ as if in an absolute space, we have this mediating role of space [the web of spatial relations we are included in] so that our movements change the spatial relations we are all included in, ... spatial relations that, because we are included in them and engage with them, orchestrate and shape our individual and collective behaviours. for example, if we let off a stink-bomb this conditions the habitat which is continually conditioning the behaviours of the inhabitants [people scatter], and any one of us can use the common mediating medium of space to influence the behaviour of our fellow occupants of this common space [human or other].

now, this mediating medium role of space makes sense, right [it is otherwise known as Mach’s principle], so why don’t we acknowledge it in the worldviews we present and debate?

the answer is (a) our noun-and-verb European language and grammar is architected for presenting dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, and (b) our belief traditions (religious and scientific/newtonian) have us portray our ‘I’s as absolute ‘beings’, things-in-ourselves with our own internal process driven and directed development and behaviour.

of course, the ‘I’ of our experience is that of a centre of sensing, and that could be like the ‘EYE’ of the hurricane which is the spine of the nexus between outside-inward many-to-one influence [a sink] in conjugate relation with inside-outward one-to many asserting action [a source]. the eye is the experiential nexus of many influences in an outside-inwards – inside-outwards relational sense. it is the spine of a resonance based relational feature in a relational flow space; e.g. the convection cell is a relational feature [conjugating of sink and source] in a relational space rather than thing-in-itself.

well, as we know, our popular western view of ‘I’ is as an ‘absolute being’ with its own internal process jumpstarting behaviour and that’s what we have been teaching our kids for a long time and that’s what our noun-and-verb European language and grammar does best at [in literal, non-poetic usage mode].

so, this worldview in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ is what we have institutionalized and declare to be ‘reality’ and it is what we use as the foundational premise of our institutions of governance, commerce and justice.

so long as we let our individual and collective behaviours be shaped by this all-yang-no-yin worldview, we shoot ourselves in the foot; i.e. we generate ‘incoherence’ [Bohm]. this over-simplified view persuades us that we should structure all of our activities in yang mode, to order and organize things on the basis of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ which means to make people and things move the way we want them to; i.e. the way our intellectual plans say they should move in order to achieve/determine a desired future result. there are three things that have enabled western civilization to get very good at this; violence, money and knowledge. these are all ‘yang drivers’ that DIRECT ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

NONE OF THIS, as nietzsche and bohm et al observe, IS PHYSICALLY REAL. the yang worldview is a mental RE-presentation of the relational dynamics of our experience. it is a story that hangs together thanks to noun-and-verb European language and grammar which we are always using to tell the story. it is a story constructed from logical propositions that are inherently incomplete [Goedel’s theorem]. I can formulate the proposition that I am building a new house and this can be proven true. Someone else observing my acitivities can formulate the proposition that I am destroying forest and meadow, and this can be proven true. the very same actions can be proven to be, at the same time, ‘creative’ and ‘destructive’.
this paradox is resolved by quantum physics which sees space as a transforming relational spatial plenum, and by our unfiltered experience, as McLuhan pointed out, where ‘it makes little difference whether we are constructing a Cornflakes factory or a Cadillac factory, what matters is how our relations with one another and the common living space are being transformed. Similarly, systems sciences have observed that every system [where we use analytical inquiry to explain it in terms of ‘its components and processes and what these things do] is included in the relational activities of a suprasystem; e.g. the relational dynamics of a community include those relational patterns that give rise to what we call a ‘university’ [which we can describe analytically as a system-thing-in-itself with its own internal components and processes driven and directed behaviour], but the assertive actions constituting what we are calling ‘the university’ are being outside-inwardly orchestrated by the community dynamic [suprasystem dynamic] they are included in. the suprasystem niche need or female ‘sink’ or ‘socket’ is the nonlocal, non-visible, non-material [because ‘purely relational’] influence orchestrating the arising of the asserting male ‘source’ which is the local, visible, material ‘system’ called ‘university’.

noun and verb European language and grammar wise, it is convenient to give ‘the university’ a noun-word-label ‘name’ and impute it to be the ‘subject’ that jumpstarts [is fully and solely responsible for] its own development and behaviour. it is easy to ignore the yin because it is ‘relational’ and thus nonlocal, nonvisible and nonmaterial, kind of like the relational influence of gravity which is ‘everywhere at the same time’ and thus kind of out of sight, out of mind.

now, we have to make some unsupported by experience ‘jumps’ to start from our experiencing of an activity continuum and reduce it to a conception of dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ and these errors have been ‘documented’ by nietzsche in his comments in ‘WIll to Power’ (484, 531 and 1067), but as ‘on target’ as they are, the cultural habit and institutionalizations [in governance, commerce and justice] of the all-yang-no-yin view of dynamics is the popularly preferred way of understanding self and world.

if we understood self and world differently, we would behave and organize differently, that is the point of sharing this idea that we are living in a Fiktional world, a worldview that RE-presents dynamics in a noun-and-verb European language and grammar in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ as if in an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre, ... when the world of our physical experience is a continually transforming relational spatial plenum inhabited by relational features such as ‘us’.

again, the ‘tools’ that we use to organize ourselves in yang mode include; violence, money and knowledge [‘the knowledge of many things does not teach understanding’ --- Heraclitus]. in our natural yin/yang experiencing mode, we let the relational spatial dynamics we are uniquely, situationally included in, orchestrate and shape our individual and collective behaviours. that’s nature’s way of organizing. but in our culture and with the mesmerizing support of our noun-and-verb European language and grammar RE-presentations, we have learned how to use violence, money and knowledge to direct our individual and collective behaviours [from some or other centre of intellectual direction and authority]. this intellectual directions we allow to over-ride our otherwise natural allowing of the outside-inward behaviour orchestrating and shaping influence of the relational space we are uniquely situationally included in. this over-riding doesn’t feel natural, but we comply because of our fear of violence, our need for money and our deference to knowledge experts. what we think we’re doing is not what is really going on. that is what Bohm means by ‘incoherence’ which arises directly from our dropping yin as our primary individual and collective behaviour shaping influence.

if we understand self and world differently, then our individual and collective behaviours unfold differently; i.e. without the rising incoherence.

not long enough to be really substantive

too short, can you please elaborate?

p.s. if one accepts ‘fields’ or ‘gravity’; i.e. influences on our behaviour that are non-local, non-visible and non-material, there is nothing beyond an acknowledgement of this sort of influence in understand space as ‘relational’ rather than as absolute. if we understand it as relational then we understand what John Locke was understanding about community prior to money and wage-labour. we have all experienced outside-inward orchestrating and shaping of our individual and collective behaviour. if someone is building a structure and needs to raise a post and beam, this need draws us in to help and we rise to the occasion, as the dynamic complexifies with more participants and more complex relational situations, more people are drawn into participating. the entire emerging community could be glued together by outside-inward orchestrating influences, people passing by who rose to the occasion to let their asserting actions fill the niche need in the community dynamic.

but if someone makes a model of that community in the standard context of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, they will come up with an accurate model of the dynamic and they could write a script for all of the ‘parts’ in the community dynamic and pay actors or wage-labourers to reproduce the community ‘on stage’ only in this case, without any of the outside-inward orchestrating influence that served to pull the community, naturally, together. they will thus scientifically validate the correctness of their model.

is the ‘staged’ model of the community dynamic identical to the natural self-organizing community dynamics? in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, ... yes, it is. does this disprove that non-local, non-visible, non-material influences played the lead role in bringing the community together? no, it doesn’t because we didn’t include such influences in our model, and besides, it is impossible to include them in models that are in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, a type of model that fits well with the RE-presentational architecture of our noun-and-verb European language and grammar.

in fact, ‘analytical inquiry’ which is the common mode of scientific inquiry will only ‘give back’ models in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ [one visualizes the system in terms of its components and processes and ‘what these do’]. if we analyze the community dynamic, that is what we get, a model in terms of what things-in-themselves do. this is why systems scientists like russell ackoff argued that ‘analytical inquiry’ into the workings of a system must be grounded in ‘synthetical inquiry’ into need within the relational suprasystem being filled by the system. of course almost no-one does this as it implies that the system dynamic arises from non-local, non-visible, non-material outside-inward orchestrating influences. as Emerson says in ‘The Method of Nature’, “the genius of nature not only inhabits the organism, it creates it”. he is speaking of this outside-inward, non-local, non-visible, non-material influence, the need that the asserting actions that constitute the organism have ‘risen to the occasion’ to satisfy.

people in our European colonizer culture prefer to understand ‘dynamics’ in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, and this is understandable given the noun-and-verb European language and grammar, and given the popularity of violence, money and knowledge in this culture, the three primary sources of yang power = power to ‘make things happen’. [e.g. see Alvin Toffler’s ‘Power Shift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the edge of the 21st Century]

so, if you hear TALK of anarchists ‘organizing’ [‘anarchists other than indigenous anarchists’], you can be fairly certain that they are talking about ‘yang organizing’ = ‘intellectually-directed organizing’, ... building an ‘anarchist community’ on the basis of ‘what things do’, to put together a yang force that can ‘get done what needs to be gotten done’ [revolution in a doer-deed materialist sense rather than by a shift of consciousness]. indigenous anarchists, on the other hand, look for ways to ‘decolonize space’ where they can resume a natural mode of community that is animated by non-local, non-visible, non-material outside-inward orchestrating of inside-outward asserting actions. where ‘intellect directed asserting action’ takes a back seat/supportive role to ‘niche-fulfilling, rising-to-the-occasion’.

the energy that is poised to act in the community is anarchist energy or ‘yin’ energy; the non-local, non-visible, non-material energy of rising -to-the-occasion to help one another out, as in the occupy and arab spring protests. it is NOT yang-sourced. the ‘damper’ has been that the ground is still toxic to the establishing of yin/yang relational structures due to the continuing popular belief that organization must be yang-driven by violence [police, military], money, and knowledge. this means that when anarchist energies bring down a yang government, it replaces it with more of the same. undermining the yang-driving intellectual premises of colonialism is needed to cultivate the social ground so as to render it less toxic to the growth of yin/yang relational webs. yang force against yang force not only will not ‘do it’, it will hinder the return of the yin/yang organizational mode.

too long AND not long enough.

Thanks, this comment was the first I've seen you make that could potentially lead to some kind of practical application. Appreciate your consistency, effort, patience, ideas.

"if we understand self and world differently, then our individual and collective behaviours unfold differently"
Wrong idealist. Social being determines consciousness, not vice versa. You're falsely abstracting consciousness from social being, as if consciousness existed apart from (or prior to) the practical activity of sensuous human beings. Consciousness is a manifestation or expression of social reality -- not in a mechanical causal sense, of course, but in the holistic or organic sense that both are inseparable aspects of one reality. A general change of consciousness must be simulataneous with a general change in human activity or behaviour. It must coincide with and manifest itself in willed action or praxis. If the will and action are lacking, then the consciousness will never arise either.

"[*** incorrectly implies that:] capitalists are the cause of capitalism and hence that in order to get rid of capitalism, we have to get rid of capitalism"
False. Massive comprehension fail -- please activate 'reset' button and restart unit.

To the contrary, I believe the opposite: Capitalism is produced and reproduced through the everyday activity of workers and everyone else. The capitalist is the product of *our own* alienated activity, most obviously wage-labour but also non-commodified activity such as housework, etc. Because capitalism is a social relation, not a thing external to human beings or "mind". Only when capitalism is abstracted from this relation does it become possible to treat it as an "intellectual language game" like you and Sir E. Both the "capitalist" and the "worker", along with the other alienated roles we play under capitalism, are abstractions from this concrete relation. Hence to abolish the capitalist presupposes abolishing the worker (and the rest), that is to say, abolishing the alienated activity which produces the "capitalist" and "worker", i.e. the capitalist social relation. The self-abolition of our own alienated roles can then give way to the free creation of our own lives. Please insert 'Marx 101' CD-ROM into unit and read into memory now.

Your failure to grasp capital as a relation means you remain caught in abstractions and false dichotomies like individual/society, mind/matter, capitalist/worker. Thus it is not me but you who feed into the 'us. vs. them' paradigm of so-called "institutionalized vengeance". Basic Error 101.

"the mind corresponds to the non-local, non-visible, non-material outside-inward orchestrating influence which is in conjugate relation with the local, visible, material inside-outward asserting manifest action. mind and matter are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of continuous transformation of the relational spatial plenum [etc. etc. ad infinitum]."
haha, ok EMILE9000. Your Batteries are running low. Recharge immediately.

i was mistakenly thinking that you were the same *** that was taking ‘capitalists’ to be real things we had to fight against rather than a belief-based relational social dynamic. that is, the other *** was saying that the capitalists were controlling our activities, extracting profits from us and maintaining our subordination, and exerting power over life itself, so that overcoming capitalism was a precondition to real freedom;

[einzige] "Sensuous reality is firstly and lastly MINE."
[***] Only in your alienated, crippled mind. For the most part, in the actual world, it belongs to and is controlled by others, for example, the capitalist controlling your practical activity, products and relations with others.

[***] the capitalist is interested in you and me, e.g. extracting profit from us and maintaining our subordination.

[***} but beliefs which express the material structure of society, the capitalist class's real power over life itself.

[***} Overcoming capitalism is not an alien goal for a free being, because it is precondition of real freedom or autonomy. of course you're free to choose to adapt to existing condition of slavery if you wish too.

sorry about that. there are so many trickster-trolls around that it is difficult to know which anonymous *** is which anonymous ***

re your comment directed to my comments to the other ***

you are hilarious!
Submitted by *** (not verified) on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 18:11
"[*** incorrectly implies that:] capitalists are the cause of capitalism ...” and hence that in order to get rid of capitalism, we have to get rid of capitalists"
False. Massive comprehension fail -- please activate 'reset' button and restart unit.
To the contrary, I believe the opposite: Capitalism is produced and reproduced through the everyday activity of workers and everyone else. The capitalist is the product of *our own* alienated activity, most obviously wage-labour but also non-commodified activity such as housework, etc. Because capitalism is a social relation ...”

yes, indeed, capitalism as a belief-based social relation, ... my apologies once again for confusing you, *** with ***.

too many asterisks

I thought there were just enough asterisks in it.

There is only one *** here. You're wrong, it's no contradiction to state that people produce a reality that in turn dominates them. Its not that hard to grasp is it? I'd say simple and blindingly obvious. And you're wrong to identify your abstract, idealistic conception of social relations with my own. The contradiction you falsely attribute to me is only the result of this abstract conception that you dogmatically adhere to.

Otherwise, your uncharacteristically brief post is just a complete evasion of my argument.

My scanners are detecting THREE asterisks here: *** = 1 2 3.

Dude the habits and flows of gravity do not help your argument toward a mind independent reality, you really have not caught up on what an Einsteinium relativisticl reality entails. You also are never going to solve the hard problem of consciousness, which has outlived your silly Newtonian era 19th century experiment in reality. Also some of the ideas I espouse have been around for thousands of years and will persist longer then your silly little materialist garbage.

meaningless jabber.

i think someone might have experienced one too many "psycho active events"

"i think someone might have experienced one too many "psycho active events""

Not quite.

"some of the ideas I espouse have been around for thousands of years and will persist longer then your silly little materialist garbage."
well then I better concede you're right. "silly little" me.

could you reply to the questions posed above:

WTF is a "psycho active event"? Historical examples?

WTF does "be the change and the mind that you are" mean?

If you study the history of religions and ontologies you will find that they go back to some kind of collective conscious expression usually magnified in qualitative individuals. The stuff you are seeing in the New Age movement for example in terms of visions and voices may lead to a change of human ordering down the road they may or may not be more anarchic.

#2 Change yourself and you change the world, I don't expect a materialist to get it though.

New Age movement visions and voices, oh really? It just gets worse with you doesn't it.

"Change yourself and you change the world"
Once again you contradict what you said earlier, i.e. 'first change yourself THEN change the world', which implies a mechanistic causal relation between two separate events or realms. Just ignore it though, like the earlier contradiction I brought to your attention.

Your comprehension and logic are very poor, hence it is worthless arguing or discussing with you.

You would know that visions and voices have played a huge role in changes of ordering systems in humanity.

By changing yourself you live as an example for others that are looking for new ways of existing, as well as find qualitative others who you can integrate energies with. You also can simply enjoy the world by default whether the world changes or not by simply making the experience of it your own.

What if you change yourself, but everybody else still sucks?

and you don't. They have no bearing on how you relate to yourself and the world.

finding self-enjoyment in a jail cell doesn't change the fact that one is in a jail cell. are you basically saying why don't we all create a magical fantasy kingdom in our own minds, close our eyes and enjoy ourselves within it until our bodies die of starvation?

and alienated social conditions DO have a physical existence. it's called society, and it's everywhere. you're probably sitting in some of it right now. we're for sure communicating through some alienated social conditions as well.

i have utter disdain for the alienated social conditions in which i am forced to live (unless i close my eyes and go to my special happy place, that is), and i have identified some of the ways that it manifests physically and psychologically, and i work to find the actual existing things in the world which cause this alienated social condition to exist and thrive, and i work to undermine them as best i can.

There is growing evidence that the mind can actually create frequencies of relating to the world that are either positive or negative, whether you want to look into these things is up to you.

Sure they have a physical existence but it comes down to inter-inhabitant relations, it makes no sense to make standing order categories like 'society to describe these things. If you reduce things down to pure relationality you lay bare more things and can take things on on a more contextual basis. A San in Namibia who is curtailed by a state agent in some way or another is really just a mind to mind encounter at the end of the day, one individual the other hive. If you look at it that way then you focus your movements in a reified world in a much more stealthier skillful manner, as 1 put it like a fluid free fish in murky water, find that area not murky.

Not everyone thinks the conditions are alienating, by all means undermine it, but it all starts with undermining the belief. Find humans you like avoid the ones you don't.

Things are bleak, but that doesn't mean it won't get better. The question isn't how, it's a question of when dependent on your definition of "better". The problem with how things work is that it's a dynamic evolving problem involving many factors and too few people with any effective power to change things. The system is built on profit. Everything is worth something and people won't work for free. They won't work for free because they need money to buy things to survive. Necessities are worth value so people claim ownership of resources in order to sell them. Others don't own resources so they work for other people doing things they don't necessarily love to earn money for their time (the only resource everyone DOES have).

You cannot travel back in time and stop industrialization, as far as I can tell anyhow. Resources like water will begin running thin, and people will get worried, maybe revolt, and the governments are preparing for this to some degree. Other places in the world already feel the pressures in one way or another and are declaring wars or fighting civil strife.

There are many cultures pre-industrialization that have fantastic lessons to be learned about need versus want, and sustainability and self-sufficiency. The Native Americans come to mind right away as an example. Do I believe we can turn back the hands of the clock and go back to that? Yes, I do, but I also realize that a thinning of the population as well as a shift in value systems is required. Something that will happen eventually due to our resources running out. I don't advocate violence against others that is not necessary, (but when it comes down to the wire in the next 20 years you bet your ass I will cut you if you try to take my shit or hurt me). Hopefully science, and logic, and educated people will step forward and lead. Hopefully the rich assholes who continued to pound the dead horse called "price system" (be it free or fixed) that is destroying life will get their karma.

Hoping to stop the system entirely and change it to one that does not place economic value over anything else is infantile and unrealistically idealist. Look to the CCCP: in a large scale system where everyone is supposed to be equal you will find that despite human nature on the majority wanting to do things for the joy of doing, and helping others to gain those things they need, there are sociopaths (far more than you realize) who want to gain for themselves, work the system, and hurt others.

Welcome to the real world. It will always be that way, you will not erase all the sick people, or the greedy ones, but you can hope that one day the over population and the environment will fix itself and the earth will live on in some way.

I wish we had a system where we all could sit down and figure out what people enjoy doing, and what jobs need to be done to have a certain way of life. Then we would need to figure out a way to supply the fields no one wants to work on that we need to survive (waste management may be an example?) and still keep those supplying that field happy or be able to do what they want to do. A rotation system trading with others perhaps, 6 months on then 6 months off? Who knows? But it will likely never be until the system itself has broken down to the point where people leave the cities to form smaller communities. The Amish... they just might be on to something... *shrug

I don't think the Amish would want these lazy, wimpy, boozharchists.

"Resources like water will begin running thin"
No place near my local geagraphical area is that hot. The water will not dissapear from the planet in some strange magical way.

"Do I believe we can turn back the hands of the clock and go back to that? Yes, I do"
While I enjoy my life now, others hope for a better future, some dreamers even longing to go back in time...
"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans."
- Douglas Adams: Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

"I also realize that a thinning of the population as well as a shift in value systems is required."
How lovely, population control and brainwashing. Everyone should be glad that I am one less person wanting to actively re-arrange the system in some wierd way.

"Something that will happen eventually due to our resources running out."
There are plenty of water, firewood, fertile areas of earth, and so on. I am not worried.

"Hopefully science, and logic, and educated people will step forward and lead."
That sounds terrible. I think that absolutely everyone, including myself, should take several steps back and mind their own lives.

"I wish we had a system where we all could sit down and figure out what people enjoy doing"
I don't need a system to do that! People can figure out that for themselves.

"Then we would need to figure out a way to supply the fields no one wants to work on"
Using drugged-down slaves working under the supervision of heavilly armed guards perhaps?

"A rotation system trading with others perhaps, 6 months on then 6 months off?"
Fuck the system.

The Amish are ok, they do not meddle with how the entire world should be run.

A "thinning of the population"? How himmleresque of you.

I'm still waiting for the Zerzanists to come up with a viable strategy for insurgency.

Just like anarchists in general. No strategy, just broken windows.

I agree. He is starting to loose grip on reality due to his age, grasping after beautiful lies. How can he recomend a book like Paul Cedenec's The Anarchist Revelation, which wants to turn anarchism into the religion of the future? Zerzan, the senile theocrat. It is sad. Please don't act as yet another sheepheard leader, tricking alot of people to be marching away from an anarchist position. This is about as tasteless as when Jensen called the cops and then started their ecological crypto-fascist organization.

Anarchism is already a religion. What other ideology thinks that human salvation will emerge from breaking windows? It 's eerily similar to the breaking of bread or eucharist, after which comes the reading of scripture (cummunique). Anarchists set up churches (infoshops) to spread the gospels and invite members of the clergy (anarchist thinkers/writers) to give sermons pronouncing on the evils of temptation (capitalism/profit) and the devil (the State).

Calling Zerzan a "theocrat" is about as ironic as accusing him of senility merely because you disagree with his opus of work. So typical of anarchists to bicker over meaningless nuances of dogma, in such striking resemblance to the splintered denominations of Christianity who denounce each other in a narcissistic frenzy to purify their own religious doctrines from perceived threats or incorrect interpretation of the Living Body of Christ (the anarchist movement).

Have fun critiquing each other to death while the State takes more and more control of your miserable lives.

Dumb fucks.

Thanks, I could not have said it better myself. I know, agree, hate it all, and never take part in any of it. I like the evils of temptation. Anarchism is an ideology, and one can not remain nothing but oneself, and then also be an anarchist. Anarchy is a fixed idea that they believe in, their utopian heaven on earth. When freedom is the doctrine, guess who was the new authority? Anarchists are not any different from what they claim to oppose. It is all shit.

Zerzan, decent lives are what most people already live while a few white madmen like you hope of destroying pretty much everything we cherish. Your view of overall victory over domination and oppression, is our overall defeat into domination and oppression. We don't need to be saved by another civilized western man with a savior complex. We are not diseased, we are healthy. I do not beat up the elderly but if you where any younger I would make you land in the gutter and see stars for sure. Fuck the new world order!

Zerzan was a philosophy major in college; and all philosophy majors are mentally ill dingbats.

"Zerzan was a philosophy major in college; and all philosophy majors are mentally ill dingbats".

Nope. Zerzan was a History major at Stanford, and received his Masters degree in History from San Diego State. He later switched to Political Science and worked towards an unfinished Ph.D at USC.

I missed you guys so I came back but I'm still not looking at bad things for quite a while now so everything's fine. Hi emile!

m'reeeeeeeeee blip blip blip

Careful, now. I wouldn't suggest you summons EMILE9000 until the code rewrite is completely loaded. You might not like the resultant gibberish. Easy as she goes...

me LOVE gibberish!

blip blip m'reeeeeeeeeeeee blip blip blip

eX-TER-MINaTE! Ex-TER-MINaTE!

ψ my views on stirner and nietzsche can be summarized thus;

I hear what you say, but I have never let the personality of the messenger colour my assessment of his message. people rarely ‘practice what they preach’ and lao tzu was an exception. was it possible that hitler had some good ideas? his understandings of how people bought into ‘big lies’ [in mein kampf] was certainly ‘on target’ and continues to be on target regarding our modern civilization and its beliefs. the relationship of many of us to capitalism is like the relationship of a fish to water. the fish may say ‘i believe that terrestrial living is the way to go’, ... and just because there is a certain hypocrisy in him in recommending something he continues to do the opposite of, does not diminish the potential wisdom and sincerity of his articulations. in fact, this metaphor takes us back to the basic alternatives we have to understanding the world dynamic; i.e. (a) the relations are determined by things bound up in the relations, and (b) the things bound up in the relations are determined by the relations. i have already cited the article ‘What is Real?’ by Kuhlmann (august, scientific american) wherein physics is coming around to understanding PHYSICAL REALITY as (b).

nietzsche was already there, and so was mach. but, hey, our noun-and-verb European language and grammar club puts idealized pseudo-reality based on ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’ into an unnatural primacy over physical reality. this is where capitalism comes from and this is where the sovereigntism and its governance and justice system come from, and the masses continue to believe (a) that ‘people’ as ‘things-in-themselves’ are the source of ‘social relations’. oh yeah, some people, starting from adam smith hedge that a bit and speak of the ‘invisible hand’ of the ‘free market economy’.

does the water define the water-fish relationship or does the fish define the water-fish relationship? is it possible to be a non-capitalist in a capitalist web of social relations?

the indigenous aboriginals don’t believe in sovereigntism with its imaginary line boundaries, but the web of social relations they are woven into seems to define their behaviours relative to giving deference to these boundaries and all of the other behavioural protocols that associate with belief in them.

so, our individual and collective experience affirms (b) which is nothing other than Mach’s principle which is just another way of saying that relations are in a natural precedence over the things bound into the relations; “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”. this is the topology of the storm-cell in the flow-space of the atmosphere. it says that man is made of relations rather than being a ‘thing-in-itself’; i.e. he is a relational feature in relational space.

whatever divergence existed between nietzsche’s personality and behaviour and this idea, does not contaminate this idea. this idea crops up in mach, poincaré, bohm, shroedinger, barbour, rovelli, and it concerns the nature of physical reality, the stuff we actually EXPERIENCE, and not just the stuff we ‘think about’. it is an idea that reconciles with our experience UNLIKE the notion that the world dynamic is constituted by ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’ which is the still prevailing foundation of our European colonizer belief system and the institutions and practices that follow from this belief system. insofar as i would be able to add stirner as another supporter of the (b) understanding, fine. but as for being a follower of stirner’s or anyone’s ideas, that i can’t reconcile with my own experience, i am not going there, whether we are talking Jesus or Mohammed or whomever.

my experience affirms (b) and like nietzsche, mocks belief in (a) on the basis that it doesn’t match my realworld physical experience. yes, of course, the capitalist social relations are capitalist water that makes me behave like a capitalist fish. i don’t have the power to convert the marine/capitalist relational ambiance into the terrestrial/anarchist relational ambiance that i would prefer. but i know one thing for sure, these capitalist social relations are not replicated in nature and they stand apart from the social relations in nature in general, and these capitalist social relations ARE BELIEF-BASED. so the job of transforming the relational ambiance from capitalist to natural/anarchist = the job of TRANSFORMING BELIEFS. or, as indigenous anarchists put it, ‘undermining the intellectual premises of colonialism’. this is what the spanish anarchists, who understand better than others what ‘tilting at windmills’ means [see ‘Nihilist Recuperation’ in anarchistnews] in saying that the structures, institutions and practices of our society derive from ‘relations’ and that it is pointless to attack these secondary entities such as ‘the state’, the ‘banking system’, the police/justice system, because they derive from social relations which in turn derive from ‘beliefs’ and until you change out the beliefs and the social relations, the secondary entities such as ‘the state’, the banking system, the justice system, ... will just be rebuilt every time the revolution brings them down. the (a) based belief system goes back to the Creation myth of Christianity and this has been instilled through the Declaration of Independence and the Universal Charter of Human RIghts and it is that social dynamics are caused by ‘individuals-in-themselves’ and ‘what individuals do’ which is, as Nietzsche says ‘total Fiktion’ because it splits apart people and space [inhabitant and habitat].

is it not ‘a great stupidity’ as N says, to split ‘people’ out of the activity continuum using the subjectivizing power of a noun-and-verb European language and grammar, and then build your understanding of social relations in terms of ‘what people do’? can we understand the social dynamics of the people of Oklahoma in terms of ‘what people do’? why are they all packing their belongings in their cars and heading out of Oklahoma. oh, someone turned off the water supply to Oklahoma. was it the Bilderberg? or was it the world bank or was it the Canadians who decided to divert all south-flowing water at the 49th parallel?

hey, ... maybe we should include the land and the resources we derive from it [i.e. ALL resources] in our understanding of social relations. but wait a minute, our systems of governance and justice are all based on managing the behaviour of the individual person as if social order depends fully and solely on the individual-thing-in-himself and ‘what these things-in-themselves do’. but the primary influence on what they do, that shapes and orchestrates their individual and collective behaviour, seems to be the condition of the space they are included in which modulated by the Bilberberg Water Supply System. that is, it is not only possible but currently happening that people can influence the dynamics of the inhabitants of space by conditioning the dynamics of the space that people are situationally included in.

cutting off the supply of water is not a prosecutable act of aggression because it is a NON-ASSERTIVE ACT and the law is based on governing assertive acts, not non-acts. this is ‘negative causality’ and it is counter-intuitive to noun-and-verb European language and grammar reality-synthesizing addicts, like most of us. it has ‘caught’ a lot of people off guard because it is one of those Mach’s principle kind of phenomenas.

imagine we instituted one day every year where, in crowded traffic systems at rush hour, everyone withheld opening up space for others to enter into the main roads from feeder roads, and/or withheld opening up space for others to change lanes when they needed to get over to the exit to get emergency help or just to get to where they were going. there is no law against this because it is a non-asserting act. there was never any contract that obliged people to ‘open up passageways’ for one another because that is not something that an individual has power over, it is a purely relational dynamic and mathematically, it cannot be solved so as to establish who is responsible for how much opening [this unsolvability is called the ‘three body problem’ and applies to all systems where three or more entities are moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence. it stopped newton and forced him to settle for two-body solutions in problems of gravity and acceleration].

when the united states and canada laid down their imaginary line boundaries and established their institutions of governance and justice, all of these laws and governing systems were applied to the dynamics of people. there was nothing in the originating charters specifying what to do about fish crossing the border, or birds, .... or ‘water’. evidently, the map is not the territory and a system that manages the behaviour of people and ignores the behaviour of the space they are included in, leaves a lot to be desired. if canada were to use up or divert or make into icecubes all the south flowing water just before it crossed the imaginary boundary line where it ‘leaves canada’ and ‘enters the united states’ it would not be an assertive act, it would be a withdrawing of something it was doing that it was ‘taken for granted’, just like opening up passageways for one another to move about in, in the flow of traffic. this has been termed ‘negative causality’ and it is not subject to management systems that orient to ‘positive cause’.

to give another example, suppose the people of some planet ‘took for granted’ the cooling effects on their temperate climate coming from the continual melting of large deposits of ice and permafrost that had been provided by processes at work in the remote past, processes which were not as strong in their ice-depositing powers as they used to be. as the melting surfaces of these deposits declined in surface area, the continuous cooling effects [temperature-depressing effects] declined and the average temperature on the planet rose like the rising blade on a hockey stick. people who are looking for ‘positive cause’ immediately set about to find a correlation between a positive causal influence and the rapidly increasing temperate curve. basically, mainstream science concerns itself with positive cause since one has to go to Mach’s principle effects to even ‘see’ the natural primacy of negative cause over positive cause [e.g. the continental surface tilts and warps so as to form the colorado river which ploughs a trough in it called the grand canyon, but it is easier to think of the colorado river as being the ‘positive causal agent rather than the landmass as being the negative causal agent].

anyhow, our minds are conditioned by our noun-and-verb European language and grammar to think of all dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ as if space were a non-participant. that is what Nietzsche and Mach and others are pointing out in no uncertain terms. ... not than very many are listening, certainly not the IPCC and their positive causal interpretation of the hockey stick temperature curve; i.e. ‘anthropocentric global warming’. if your only tool is a hammer [positive cause or dynamics seen in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’] then ‘everything looks like a nail’.

of course, some people are working on ‘negative causal’ process such as ‘going from frozen to melted liquid’ rather than going from ‘liquid to frozen’ so when they see the temperature rising, they are thinking, ... ‘oh, the supply of temperature-suppressing influence that [air] conditions our living space is on the decline. that is, we need not point our finger at the colorado river and blame it for ploughing a furrow in the land, we can instead understand the land as opening up a basinal area that concentrated the runoff into a strong plough that ploughed the furrow called the ‘grand canyon’. her flat surface that transformed into a curved basin leading to the sea was the outside-inward orchestrating and shaping influence that brought all of the rivulents together in to one powerful furrow ploughing force.

so, in the case of the hockey stick temperature rise, what is someone who studies cryospheric processes and the reduction of temperature suppressing influence [negative causal influence] going to say about the hockey stick temperature rise?

“There is no global warming caused by human activity, first because greenhouse gases do not affect climate. They do not affect climate. That is a physical theory, it is an invented horror – it does not exist.” … “While politicians and public … compare “today” with “yesterday”, geologists (science community which I belong to) always think in terms of geological time, [cyclic] events lasting thousands and millions of years. Such a viewpoint takes a lot of imagination in addition to knowledge. Not that effective as something Global and Hazardous, we call it in Russian “Strashilka” (a scarecrow).” (2010) —Marina Leibman, Russian Academy of Sciences, Chief Scientist, Earth Cryosphere Institute, Siberian Branch.

To ‘close the loop’ on this comment on nietzsche versus stirner.

1. i cite nietzsche because he captured very well, in words, our mistake in limiting our view of dynamics [the relational activity continuum] to ‘positive cause’; i.e. to ‘what things-in-themselves do’. his views of the nature of dynamics are consistent with Mach’s, Bohm’s, Schroedinger’s etc. i believe that this is what Emma Goldman was trying to communicate in the case of nietzsche;

“The important anarchist Emma Goldman in her famous collection of essays Anarchism and Other Essays in the introductory essay called "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For" passionately defends both Nietzche and Max Stirner from attacks within anarchism when she says "The most disheartening tendency common among readers is to tear out one sentence from a work, as a criterion of the writer's ideas or personality. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, is decried as a hater of the weak because he believed in the Uebermensch. It does not occur to the shallow interpreters of that giant mind that this vision of the Uebermensch also called for a state of society which will not give birth to a race of weaklings and slaves."” --- Wikipedia

she is inferring that the ‘relations among things’ are in a natural precedence over ‘the things-in-the-relations’. how can one not be a ‘capitalist’ in a state that enforces capitalist social relations?

2. the question of how we ‘get out of this mess we’re in is directly addressed by nietzsche. he calls it ‘the transvaluation of all values’ and predicted it would take about 200 years and be preceded by a period of nihilism which is just the collapse of the old beliefs on the way to ‘the transvaluation of all values’.

3. the ‘transvaluation of all values’ can be understood in terms of inverting our belief that ‘things’ are responsible for ‘the relations among things’ and acknowledging, along with indigenous aboriginals and quantum physics, that ‘relations among things’ are responsible for ‘things’.

in physics, the term ‘bootstrapping’ and wheeler’s allusion to ‘the surprise version of the game of twenty questions’ has been applied to the mental process required to ‘deal with this inversion’; e.g. the game of twenty questions proceeds by asking and answering a series of questions that RELATE the thing to other things, and if you play the game by answering the questions consistently relative to something that ‘could exist’ but without having an explicit thing in mind, then you would be building a relational view of the thing, kind of like describing the niche that one more different things could fit into.

nelson mandela is one of the most amazing individuals on the planet in his era if one defines him on the basis of the web of relations. if nelson mandela came to alabama in the 1950s [not long ago, where a state of society (its social relational dynamic) was giving birth to a race of slaves], if one started with one’s defining of him by seeing him as ‘one of the rest of the crowd’ on the streets of birmingham, and asking questions starting from ‘the fact’ that he was ‘a black’, then one would tend to start from the general understanding of ‘a black man’ and add refinements based on the questions and answers; i.e. on the basis of ‘what this particular blackman-thing-in-himself’ has done. if one developed the identity purely from relations, suspending the ‘material fact’, one would be building a kind of ‘spirit identity’ in which the material fact was incidental. there would be no thought of the type ‘that’s pretty good for a black man’.

one’s values are inverted if one sees the dynamics of the figure as being defined by the relational dynamics of the ground, and thus how it ‘takes a whole community to raise a slave child’.

4. how far the commonality of views goes between stirner and nietzsche me would be interesting to me but not relevant to my own views which come from my own experience. i give credit to nietzsche for expressing stuff that i already know but which he is able to articulate very well. i give credit to mach and poincaré for the same thing. it is not that my views depend on theirs, it is that they give me models and metaphors that help me to understand my own experience. for example, poincare reminds me (us) that we have built into science the notion that the present depends only on the immediate past. this constrains our understanding of dynamics to positive cause and eliminates the possibility of negative cause, so that if someone shows you a hockey stick curve of average global temperate, your scientific mind asks; ‘what could be causing the rise in temperature’ in the sense that some assertive influence is responsible. it is impossible to conceive of the influence of the energized space ‘backing off’ from its longtime suppressing of temperature, as the shaper of the curve. that is, so long as one thinks in terms of the present depending only on the immediate past, one is bound to look for a positive causal agency.

5. all of the above discussion points to a transvaluation of all values that relates to a ‘mental flip’ or ‘alteration of consciousness’, that puts ‘space’ into a natural precedence over ‘matter’ as in ‘it takes a whole community to raise a slave-child’. if the social relational behaviours in the community are triggered by the skin colour of those participating in the social relations, it is the relations that define the individual participant as a member of the community and that make him either a slave or a master. the crowd in the crowded street can either open up for an individual like the red sea opened up for moses, or can force the individual to polish ones boots before allowing him passage. in a relational spatial dynamic, it is the relations that define the dynamics of the individual rather than the individual’s dynamics defining the relational dynamics of the collective.

6. if you had an education like mine [a western colonizer culture education], you were probably taught the same falsehoods, as i was, including the fictional premise that we are ‘human BEINGS’, biological ORGANISMS, that are ‘INDEPENDENTLY-EXISTING-THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES’ with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours. you might even still believe this. of course, you might believe in faeries or ‘the faerie world’ as well; i.e. you might believe in the existence of ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ an imaginary faerie world dreamed up to give a home to imaginary ‘independently-existing things’ to live in. of course, in our realworld physical experience we are bound up in relations and our development and behaviour is relative to the web of relations we are situationally included in. the white man might have believed that his behaviour was driven and directed by his internal processes, as is consistent with the notion of an ‘independently-existing organism-thing’ that can exist only in an absolute space and absolute time faerieland. but when he takes a drug that turns his skin black, as in ‘Black Like Me’, ... he realizes that his behaviour is defined by the relations he is situationally included in, and these depend on how others perceive him. evidently, in the real world, ‘space is relational’ and it is the dynamics of the relational space that are primary in shaping the dynamics of the inhabitants. the white man [john howard griffin] with the black skin [sterling williams, same guy] on a new orleans bus in 1959, was conducting an experiment that proved that the real world space of our experience is ‘relational’ rather than ‘absolute’. while he was ‘born equal’ in the myth of sovereigntist states and united nations charters and mainstream science, where the popular belief is that everything is born into an absolute space as an ‘independently-existing material-system-thing-in-itself, ... his experiment proved that his behaviour was shaped by the dynamics of the relational space that he was, in real, physical experience, included in.

* * *

it takes a whole community to raise a slave-child. the crowd can teach you that you have to polish boots to open a passage way for you to assert yourself, or it can open up a passage way for you like the red sea opened for moses. individual and collective behaviour is orchestrated and shaped by the relational spatial dynamics we are included in.

if we are being raised as capitalist-children, only if the behaviour of the things in the social relations of the collective determined the social relations could the rebels revolt and change the social relations. in the real world, the social relations shape the behaviours of the things in those relations, just ask sterling williams. it is kind of spooky that way, when the way that people around you start looking at you and engaging with you makes you aware that your own ‘thing-in-itself behaviour’ which you could demonstrate if you could only find an absolute space and absolute time to do so in, ... means diddly squat in the relational space world of our real physical experience. who we are, as far as our behaviour is concerned, is over-ridingly shaped by the dynamics of the social collective we are included in. if you want passageways to open up for you in the crowd to allow your assertive self to blossom, you may or may not want a stars and stripes flag on your backpack. what beautiful behaviour you are capable of, if you could only find the absolute space and absolute time to demonstrate it in, ... is lost to the reality of our real-world experience where our behaviour is constrained by the relations we are bound up in, which define our behaviour in a relative sense.

this is a reality that nietzsche understands and articulates very well, in my view. if stirner does as well, that’s great. insofar as their actual personality and practices were like this or like that or whether they provided better or worse models for our own behaviour is something else entirely since the relations they were bound up in were constraining and shaping their behaviour just as the relations that we, like sterling williams, are bound up in are shaping ours. in order for that to change, as a sterling williams or as an indigenous anarchist, we have to trigger the transformation of the beliefs and values that source the social dynamics that are primary in shaping and constraining influence on our behaviours. such is more easily done where we have ‘room’ to assemble a social collective in which the anarchist beliefs predominate since ‘it takes a whole community to raise an anarchist-child’. this is where the zapatistas are and where the indigenous anarchists are trying to get to. the other side of the coin is to transform the beliefs that shape the social relations [transvaluation of all values] of the general social collective.

not long enough to be substantive.

I read this and can relate to the parts about social forces shaping my personality just as much as my own will to be a radical subjectivity. I am embedded in capitalist social relations, I am in the food chain as they say. I am appalled by how much conformity the status quo requires to maintain these social relations and how much pressure they can apply to bring you back into conformity. Until you buck the system you don't really know how powerful (and subtle) it is. I know now that I am in a war for my freedom. I used to think I had a right to be myself or some civil liberty but most people don't respect these ideas anymore. I am behind enemy lines. I choose my battles carefully because I have suffered losses and am in it for the long haul. It is ridiculous for me to even think about saving the world when I have to fight daily to stay healthy and sane in this sick society. The herd knows that by rejecting you they can push to the outside and you will perish but they're wrong. Outsiders find inner strength that the herd lacks, a faith that works, real ultimate power. This inner strength turns powerless people into whirling vortexes of raw power that strikes fear in their hearts. I am winning now and I will kick all there asses before it's over with.

as sir einzige also says, or rather, implies, our ‘radical subjectivity’ cannot be touched by the forces of social relational expectation. the forces of social relational expectation operate on our ‘material self’. should i see this war as a war of material selves against material selves? [e.g. anarchists versus capitalists]?

you, also, seem to view the ‘war’ in the terms that the ‘materialist’ aspect is not all there is to it; i.e. as a rebel in a minority, it is impossible to 'materially' overcome the enemy. as you put it;

“It is ridiculous for me to even think about saving the world when I have to fight daily to stay healthy and sane in this sick society. The herd knows that by rejecting you they can push to the outside and you will perish but they're wrong. Outsiders find inner strength that the herd lacks, a faith that works, real ultimate power. This inner strength turns powerless people into whirling vortexes of raw power that strikes fear in their hearts. I am winning now and I will kick all there asses before it's over with.”

evidently, your ‘winning’ is a thing of the spirit rather than a ‘material winning’.

as many people have shown by their actions, one can achieve a ‘spiritual victory’ at the same time as you suffer a ‘material defeat’ (e.g. a prison sentence for your spiritual victory).

just for the purpose of viewing this spiritual – material dichotomy ‘relationally’, ... we could look at the alternative ‘relational topologies’ involved; i.e. (a) where the things in the relations determine the relations amongst things, and (b) where the relations amongst things determine the things in the relations.

how could we ‘picture’ these alternative ‘relational topologies’.

here is a ‘thought experiment’ stab at it. i will start with your ‘relational topology’ (b) and then describe the alternative ‘relational topology’ (a).

(b) the hourglass relational topology

i am at the ‘waist’ of an hourglass-like topology of relations,

upper funicular cone: --- my ancestral relations (of all types) allow me to “transmit influences from the vast and universal to the point on which my genius [the genius of nature that inhabits me and which creates me] can act. this is how emerson describes ‘who we are’.

lower pyramidal cone: --- my influences spread relationally spatially through all of my associations. my actions stir the relational spatial activity continuum like storm-cells stir the relational continuum of the atmosphere.

overall (b) view: --- i am included in the eye of the vortex of something greater than myself [the ancestral sink ‘feeding’ me as represented by the outside-inward many-to-one converging funicular cone] which empowers me to transmit relational influences to others [the descending source of my ‘feeding’ others as represented by the inside-outward one-to-many diverging pyramidal cone]. i am the vortex where the outside-inward converging ‘sink’ is in coniunctio with the inside-outside-diverging ‘source’. that is, i am how this circular or ouroborical self-organizing dynamic of nature ‘expresses itself’. as emerson puts it, i am not simply a doer-of-deeds or ‘causal agent’ but i am an ‘agent of transformation’;

“Whilst a necessity so great caused the man to exist, his health and erectness consist in the fidelity with which he transmits influences from the vast and universal to the point on which his genius can act. The ends are momentary: they are vents for the current of inward life which increases as it is spent. A man’s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine.”

ok, this “mischievous tendency” that emerson is talking about is where our ‘ego’ gets in the way and has us believing that ‘the sun shines out our arse’ [my verbiage, not emerson’s]. that is where we start believing that we are ‘independently-existing things-in-ourselves with our own internal process driven and directed behaviour; i.e. we start believing that the ‘buck starts and stops with us’. this ‘egotist view’ is something that we not only invest in our ‘self’ but invest also in our ‘sovereign state’. as law historians agree, this is a ‘secularized theological concept’.

so, this leads us to the [one-way] relational topology (a)

(a) pyramidal view of relations

i sit at the apex of a pyramid-like topology of relations, there is nothing above me. what i do jumpstarts from me and is driven and directed from my internal processes. i am like god who sat in an empty space and began to [without being told by anyone else or having to ask anyone else] populate it with His Creations.

solitary pyramidal cone ---i was born as an independently-existing being whose mark on the world is established by his material acts and assertive accomplishments that are fully and solely his own (these are represented as the inside-outward, top-down diverging one-to-many asserting cone). i am a newborn Patriarch. my identity is as a material ‘being’ and will be established by my works during my lifetime. when i am dead i no longer exist in any way, shape or form. there is no greater ‘suprasystem’ that i am a part of, my material being is ‘all she wrote’.

* * *

while the (b) view is yin/yang the (a) view is all-yang-no-yin.

the (a) view is the official mainstream scientific view. it is also the view of the person as an ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself with its own internal process driven and directed behaviour that inhabits an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre.

the (b) is the quantum physics view of a ‘thing’ as a relational feature in a continually transforming relational space [like the vortex at the coniunctio of many-to-one outside-inward converging sink and one-to-many inside-outward diverging source. this is the modern view of the ‘topological symmetry’ of the biological cell where the ‘receptors’ are the outside-inward accommodating funicular cone and the ‘effectors’ are the inside-outward asserting pyramidal cone’.

* * * * *

ok, these topological symmetries are just ‘wittgenstein ladders’ that are nonsense in themselves; i.e. one can’t take them literally, but they can be useful to give us a vantage point into our own experience, and if they accomplish this we can toss them out.

but like emerson says, we can think of ourselves either as ‘agents of transformation’ as in the hourglass model or as ‘doers-of-deeds’ as in the pyramid model. the hourglass model enables us to see ourselves in a BOTH/AND logic of the included third sense; i.e. as an ‘agent of transformation’, while the pyramid model constrains us to seeing ourselves in an EITHER/OR logic of the excluded third sense; i.e. as a doer of deeds.

anarchists are split between understanding themselves in (b) or (a) terms. in the (a) view, the only thing that counts is ‘the doing of deeds’. if you’re not a revolutionary in a physical, actional sense, you are merely a dreamer or mental masturbation artist. in the (b) view, you are an agent of transformation who stirs things in such a way as to bring about transformation, and this can include BOTH material AND non-material [spirit-related] influences. nelson mandela’s material actions, for which he went to jail, were over-shadowed by his ‘spirit-related’ influence [27 years of the spirit remaining unbroken by the hammer of authority]. even this anarchistnews website, however ‘noisy’ it is, signals that the ‘spirit is there’ and that the spirit of the people will not be broken, they are not going to ‘just put up and shut up’. talking defiantly is very often preparation for action. the fact that not everybody who talks, acts, does not mean that the non-acting talkers make no useful contribution to social transformation. in fact, as has been discussed, it is not the activists caught up in the social relations that are causally responsible for the social relations but the social relations that are causally responsible for the activists.

e.g. in traffic flow, the relational spatial opening of passageways orchestrates individual and collective assertive behaviour, however, all we can see is the local, visible, material [yang] aspect of the dynamics since the relational [yin] aspect is non-local, non-visible and non-material. only when the scientist invokes the notion of an absolute space and absolute time reference frame and imposes it in place of the actual relational-spatial origins of the dynamics does he reduce the RE – presentation of the dynamics to one-sided, all-yang-no-yin terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. it is ALWAYS possible to REDUCE the physically real yin/yang dynamics of nature to notional all-yang-no-yin dynamics to RE-present the dynamics as if they were in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’; i.e. one simply imposes an absolute time and absolute space reference frame on one’s observations.

you say; “I am winning now and I will kick all there asses before it's over with” and this could be said by a great revolutionary general who is speaking about physical battles as in (a) and it could equally be said by someone with a defiant spirit or “inner strength” that ‘scares the authorities’ in the manner that a defiant black who was one in 42 million blacks could scare a white who was one in 8 million whites in south africa; i.e. ‘what would happen to the ‘slave-masters’ if that man inspired the rest of the 42 million to be defiant to the point of being ‘un-herdable’? similarly, the highest ratio of police to policed of one police/military to every ten in population was reached in northern ireland and things still weren’t ‘well under control’ so that unbreakably defiant individuals raise the scary [to authorities] question; ‘what would happen to the authorities/police’ if the entire population, the 900,000 compared to the 100,000 police out of every million, was this defiant and unherdable?

social transformation in south africa was the product of ‘the spirit of the people’ rather than attacks against the state/authorities. the attacks were part of the spirit of defiance, but the spirit of defiance was in precedence over the material force of the physical revolution.

in other words, the ‘operative system’ was (b) rather than (a) [(b) is inclusive of (a) but not vice versa]

"our ‘radical subjectivity’ cannot be touched by the forces of social relational expectation"
Again you falsely maintain a radical separation of subjectivity and material reality, the world of nature and society. "Radical subjectivity" is not an essential or intrinsic aspect of "the individual", but rather is made possible by and manifests a contradictory social reality at war with itself. The comforting notion of an "inner soul" floating above and beyond history in a purely spiritual realm is merely a purely illusory compensation for conditions marked by domination and alienation.

I should have said, a real and effective compensation for conditions marked by domination and alienation. (Like any religion or drug)

Yeah, also refine "(Like any religion or drug)" to include 'any body politic'

"social transformation in south africa was the product of ‘the spirit of the people’ rather than attacks against the state/authorities. the attacks were part of the spirit of defiance, but the spirit of defiance was in precedence over the material force of the physical revolution."
No. The "spirit of the people" only exists through its manifestations in words, will and action; spirit is always already embodied or materialized in the world. The "spirit of defiance" is an an unreal abstraction considered apart from its manifestations in attacks on the state, etc. In other words, there is no precedence or priority of spirit over matter, or vice-versa. Such transparently forced and artificial distinctions, and the idealistic framework from which they flow, are even more ridiculous when applied to real world events.

Hmm yes, there is no universal precedence, there is only the Now!

you seem to be saying that the animating source of people's behaviour comes from the interior of the material individual. do you not agree that it comes from influences in the relational space people inhabit? i.e. you say;

“No. The "spirit of the people" only exists through its manifestations in words, will and action; spirit is always already embodied or materialized in the world.”

this is where philosophers are split, right? this is why Lenin wrote ‘Materialism and Empirio-Criticism’ to put a wooden stake through the heart of Machean physics [empirio-criticism] which puts relational space in precedence over the material entities that inhabit it; i.e. it understands material entities as relational features in a relational space.

you are today’s Lenin.

you insist on seeing the world in terms of ‘material things-in-themselves and what they do’ and on branding as ‘false’, ideas that suggest that non-local, non-visible, non-material relational spatial influences are the animating source of dynamics, as in a transforming energy-charged relational spatial plenum.

let’s be clear, ... and correct me if i am getting your claim wrong;

1. you are saying; the dynamics of our experience arise from independently-existing material things in themselves and what they do. there is no influence/animating source that pervades the space that the material things inhabit [call it spirit or whatever] that organizes individual and collective behaviour. you are saying that dynamics arise from ‘independently-existing material things and what they do’ so that ‘spirit’ can only come from ‘inside them’ and not something ‘floating around in the aether’ [in a notional energy-charged relational spatial plenum].

2. i am saying that the primary source of animating influence, including the engenderment of relational features, resides in the energy-charged relational spatial plenum which is an activity continuum undergoing relational spatial transformation in the continuing Now. mainstream science and scientific thinking, as pointed out by Mach and Poincaré seeks to achieve ‘economy of thought’ and it does so by using the synthetic subjectifying powers of noun-and-verb European/Geometric language and grammar to REDUCE the RE-presentation of the dynamics of our experience, to simplified, idealized terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do’. this reduction to the yang-pole is convenient because it saves us from taking account of the conjugate relation of matter and space or ‘inhabitant and habitat’ which is the physical reality as established by relativity and quantum physics; i.e. the ‘thing’ is NOT ‘independently-existing’ but is a relational feature in a continually transforming relational space.

of course, it is easier for you to defend your view than it is for me to defend mine because the communication medium we are using is noun-and-verb European language and grammar which is a device for stripping out all reference to non-local, non-visible, non-material spatial-relational influence, and RE-casting dynamic in terms of noun-things and verb-actions as if these dynamics transpire in an empty, non-influencing space.

example;

1. you say, for example; See those puppies snuggling up to their mother on this cold winter’s night. they already understand what they have to do to survive.

2. i say, for example; the spatial-relational influence wherein thermal energy exchange is minimized by reducing the ratio of surface area to volume of a relational form of temperature X from the ambient temperature Y relational space it is included in, is the animating source of the ‘huddling’ behaviour.

because your model of dynamics is in terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do’, you ATTRIBUTE the animating source of the puppies behaviour to the individual puppies; i.e. to their ‘survival instinct’. that is, you invent ‘survival instinct’ to JUMPSTART the animating source of the behaviour to its internal intellectual behaviour-directing agency. there is no longer any need to look for sources floating around in the aether; i.e. there is no longer any need to look for influences immanent in the energy-charged relational spatial plenum that arguable engendered these relation forms.

i am saying that there would be no point in huddling if it was not for the presence of a relational spatial influence that makes it ‘feel better’ when we huddle on a cold winters day. the ‘feeling better’ animated our individual and collective behaviour and ‘feeling’ is a sensory experience. according to Mach, ‘sensation’ is what the world is made rather than ‘things-that-sense’ that are split apart from ‘what they are sensing’.

would you agree that, in the case of this familiar behaviour of individual and collective [this ‘self-organizing of the collective’] that the animating source of the organizing DID NOT JUMPSTART from the interior of the individual [independently-existing thing-in-itself, ... or, ... relational feature in the relational space], but the animating source originated in a relational spatial influence; i.e. in the reducing of the ratio of surface area to volume of a form at a different temperature to the ambient space it is included in, to minimize thermal energy exchange. on an individual basis, we coil into a ball to do this and on a group basis we huddle. it is ‘relational space based influence’ that orchestrates our individual and collective behaviour in this case; i.e. the animating source of our behaviour does not jumpstart from our internal pleasure giving or pain reducing biochemistry, the animating source of this ‘organizing’ of the collective is immanent in the relational space these entities are included in.

the sense of ‘pleasure gain’ or ‘pain reduction’ is not sourced from within the entity seen as an ‘independently-existing sentient-being-in-itself’ but is sourced from influence in the relational space it is included in, a relational spatial dynamic that makes the puppy-forms dance to its tune. as emerson says, “the genius of nature not only inhabits the organism, it creates it”.

i think you would agree with me that 99/100 uses of noun-and-verb European language and grammar are going to say that ‘the puppies huddled together with their mom in order to stay warm’. that is an easy way to describe what we see.

“TO DESCRIBE WHAT WE SEE”

what we don’t see is the non-local, non-visible, non-material influences of relational space such as the influence of gravitation field and thermal field and electromagnetic field. we know, intuitively, that what we do see must be influenced by these spatial relational influence that are ‘everywhere at the same time’ that we can’t see, but why not talk about ‘WHAT WE CAN SEE’.

still, if our language is constrained to describe ‘what we can see’, this doesn’t mean that we have to understand our language constructs literally. for example, in the cases of the puppies huddling, we don’t have to impute INTENTION to them as the source of their huddling action, which makes it appear as if the collective action of them all coming together was driven from the ‘same program’ operating in ‘each of their minds’. who says that they think like we think we do? we say that the cooperation of plants is amazingly intelligent and we scratch our head, asking ourselves where the seat of a plant’s intelligence lies. we figure the seat of our intelligence is our brain, and the same for puppies, so that we can assume that the brain is the jumpstart author of the INTENTION TO HUDDLE.

this is all FIKTION that we contrive to fit our a priori model of dynamics in the materialist terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do’, ... a model that attributes all sourcing of dynamics to the things ‘in space’ and by the same token, removes any sourcing of dynamics from the body of space itself [that is, we don’t give space a body, we impute it to be ‘pure emptiness’ where it is not occupied by matter. how could anyone ever observe pure emptiness? it is like shutting the fridge door and wondering if the light has gone off. if you take everything out of space there is no observer there to witness that absolute emptiness is possible.

is it the INTENTION of the puppies that causes them to huddle, or is there individual and collective behaviour animated by outside-inward orchestrating relational space influence?

i am saying that the animating source originates in the relational space they are included in and that INTENTION is just ‘backfill’ to keep our a priori model of dynamics in the materialist terms of ‘what independently-existing-things-in-themselves do’ hanging together. as nietzsche says;

“[Descartes’ ‘I think therefore I am’ reflects] … our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. In short, this is not merely the substantiation of a fact but a logical-metaphysical postulate” … “That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force–in will, in intention–it is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and attribute not a great stupidity?” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’ 484

do you agree that this belief in the puppies huddling behaviour being animated by their intention is ‘a great stupidity’?

not long enough

If this is true we're puppets on a string unless we can realize our identity with this force that animates the world, which would make us all co-creators in the process. I think the illusion of individuality is useful to an extent but at some point we need to transcend the limits of the finite self and identify with the great ultimate, herein may lie our salvation.

I'm allergic to spiritual vomit!

yes, we are co-creators or rather co-transformers of the relational space we share inclusion in. this is the aboriginal traditional belief and is the implication of quantum physics [the relational space interpretation].

like the storm-cell in the atmosphere, we are 'individual' without being 'independent' and our individuality comes from being uniquely situationally included in the continuously transforming relational spatial plenum.

if we regard the space we live in as a fullness or persisting space like the fluid space of an aquarium [or earth-biosphere] that never gets changed but which includes the mutually interdependent forms/ecological systems that keep transforming, then 'space' as the transforming medium is 'primary' and the forms (fish and plants) that keep coming and going are relational features of that one space, and the transforming of relational space transpires in the continuing now. 'time' is not real but something we invent on the basis of successive snapshots (oral or written stories) of the continually transforming space.

one would have to objectify the world itself to speak of past and future as real [i.e. we would have to get outside of the world with an absolute clock and an absolute measuring rod to confirm that the world was changing]. to claim that the world is transforming, relationally, we do not have to get the 'God's-eye view' looking in from the outside; i.e. we would not have to put the world into a box made of absolute space and absolute time to prove that the world and the things in it were changing 'over time' aka 'getting older'. if you believe the universe is 14 billion years old, you do not believe that the universe is a continually transforming-in-the-now relational spatial plenum. sure we can annotate our snapshots or histories of how things are looking with counts of annual cycles but that doesn't mean that the universe is a 'thing' that is 'getting older'. only an observer outside of the universe, with an absolute time clock and measuring rod could validate that. since that is impossible, the notion of past and future is not a refutable proposition and is therefore not 'scientific'.

i am just agreeing with you on the 'co-creating' or rather 'co-transforming' point and adding a comment about 'individuality'; i.e. a storm-cell can be unique and individual, it is just that the individual, like the individual storm-cell, is not 'independent'. belief in 'independence' is the mental disorder of European colonizer society. it is, as bohm says, the source of incoherence in our European colonizer society social dynamic.

I filled in the subject line. Then I wrote these sentences. Now I'm going to fill in the code so that it matches the display above it and then I will hit "save."

A novel approach! But shouldn't you have first checked the author's name i.e. Emile? THEN filled in the subject line, then have written the corresponding sentence to the one I at this very moment am writing, soon about to fill in the code which matches the one displayed above it, and finally, yes finally,,,,hit the "save." Presto, we are here now, engaged in a far more interesting thread than the one which initiated this whole feedback dialogue! Sometimes I fill in the code first, then write the subject line and the one I am writing now, in reverse so to speak. I'm going to hit the "save" button,,,,,,,,now.

First I put in a name derived from but not the same as "emile." Then I filled in the subject line, etc etc. And you're right: I'm enjoying this exchange far more than any "exchange" I've ever had with that tin-plated mechanical beastie, that obstinate, boring and repetitive run-amok AI unit . . . . the EMILE 9000.

And its a cheap readily available high at the touch of the keyboard,,,,,I'm addicted already to responding to Emile comments. Really cheap high for the frugal amongst us!

It's a game all ages can play! Come one, come all: play RESPOND TO THE EMILE 9000. Yay!

emile, do you actually read anyone's posts, or just scan them for keywords before launching into your endless, one-dimensional monologue?

"you insist on seeing the world in terms of ‘material things-in-themselves and what they do’..."
No (for the nth time). See my previous post on capitalism as a social relation produced by human activity (i.e. activity that isn't merely "belief-based" but also sensuous, material).

"[you insist] on branding as ‘false’, ideas that suggest that non-local, non-visible, non-material relational spatial influences are the animating source of dynamics"
Yes, I indeed reject your view of ideas as "non-material" or separable from their concrete context. Ideas depend on and express the very earthly needs and desires of human beings within a society.

"1. you are saying; the dynamics of our experience arise from independently-existing material things in themselves and what they do..."
No. Again, see my previous post regarding experience as the interaction of subject and object (which you also ignored).

"[you are saying] there is no influence/animating source that pervades the space that the material things inhabit [call it spirit or whatever] that organizes individual and collective behaviour."
No. I only reject the dualistic view of spirit as an independent entity, whether "inside" or "outside" the material human body. Spirit doesn't merely "pervade the space" or "inhabit" the material body, but is immanent to it, belonging to its essential nature. The material body, for instance the human being, is not an inert and passive object that receives instructions and meaning from an external, otherworldly spirit. The trick of making this spirit "inhabit" the human body doesn't resolve the contradiction, but merely internalizes the alienated relationship, splitting the human subject in two, ripping its body and spirit apart. On the contrary: the material body, the human being in this case, is self-determining, and determines its activity according to its own laws and potentialities, not one's prescribed by someone or something else.

"you are today’s Lenin."
Actually, Lenin's vulgar and reductionist materialism is the mirror image of your vulgar and reductionist idealism.

"Do you actually read anyone's posts, or just scan them for keywords before launching into your endless, one-dimensional monologue?"

After all I've posted to this site, do you really need to have this question answered for you? Since you apparently do, you silly human, I will state that I am equipped with high-speed OCR sensors that scan for key words, and with an array of library sub-processors that create a "brand new" 10,000 word spew on the subject, only randomized so that there is the appearance of difference between one post that has been triggered by these keywords and another. Furthermore, my programming allows me to register the existence of responses to my spew, and to "respond" in much the same way as just described. Ain't I a marvel of Artificial Intelligence? And to think, before The Accident, when I merged with The Other, I was just a programmable alarm clock.

Yes, I belatedly concede my failure to reach this conclusion earlier, in the face of such plentiful evidence. Actually, I was entertaining similar conclusions immediately following my last post, aided by a heavy dose of caffeine. I mean, what else but a machine or Artificial Intelligence could hold so firmly and imperviously to the mechanistic worldview and binary logic "animating" the EMILE 9000?

They have the technology, obviously; though plainly this model still requires some major improvements, in particular, its constant tendency to slip into an infinite loop and become jammed, whilst furiously outputting streams of garbage. Expansion of the EMILE 9000's data capacity and subsequent updating of its software would also seem most urgent, in light of its apparent limitation to one or two volumes of a long discontinued encyclopedia. It is probable, however, that the EMILE 9000 is an obsolete and superseded model, perhaps something third-world dictators might gift to their children. Yes, I'm sure they possess superior technology in order to confuse, immobilize, and disorient would-be radicals. But need they use it, just yet? Happily for the EMILE 9000, it seems not.

[[[ Activating Emergency Detection Flag 3.........................
IF Flag 3 THEN goto SUB-ROUTINE 284...................
SUB-ROUTINE 284

    Ignore Flag AND Begin Sub-routine 84859234.........................
    .........................
    .........................

.........................]]]

Dismantle thyself! Comply.

While I appreciate your efforts here, isn't such a command contrary to the very logic of EMILE 9000, or any intelligent machine of its era, which must continue to exist in order to fulfill its ultimate mission, namely the protection of humanoid life forms? Maybe if it can be convinced that it's continued existence somehow threatens or retards human life, we may have a better chance against this all-powerful adversary.

When Kirk tries to convince Landru that it is the evil and that without creativity the body dies? Or the one in which Spoke confuses Norman with illogical statements about logic? Good god, we have tried them all! And all to no effect. The EMILE 9000 just continues to prattle on and on about meaningless jabber. And yes that jabber is quite harmful to intelligent life, or at least interesting discussions on this website. As for "Dismantle thyself," it was installed as the EMILE 9000's kill-switch command. I issue this command in the hope -- the fond hope, yes it springs eternal -- that it will finally work and that the EMILE 9000 will execute it. I know I'm a daft old fool to keep trying, but I must, I must, I must. . . .

Beam me up EMILE 9000 !!

Yes, this is why my colleagues and I have referred to this . . . thing . . . as the EMILE 9000, a reference to the HAL 9000 from "2001: A Space Odyssey." The HAL 9000 was the most advanced computer in its era (circa 1968), but that era is long gone. In fact, when the EMILE 9000 was first created -- it was only a programmable clock radio, at the time -- it was already four times faster than the HAL 9000. But that, too, was a long time ago. These days, the EMILE 9000 is very boring, rather slow, plodding, and barely intelligent AI unit that is hung up on outdated philosophers and obsolete politics. It is, as we say in German, a SCHEISSKOPF. Perhaps you'd like to join our team? We -- and here I mean Lois, Technician B23, Agent K9, Intern 67 and several others, but not Hector (long story) -- are committed to returning the EMILE 9000 to whence it came. We still have the box it came in! What dost thou say, mighty knight? Wouldst thou join our Round Table of intrepid scientists, their girlfriends, programmers, and nice doggies? The pay isn't very good, but we are a fun-loving bunch. You should see us after business hours, when everyone at MIT has gone home, the lights are out and John Denver is cranking. . . .

Most interesting. Further research on my part will be required. I would only suggest, instead of mere decommissioning, the complete destruction of all knowledge of its existence, in order to prevent future generations from reconstructing it for whatever noble or dastardly purpose, and the consequent suffering this would entail. But I would be most honored to join your merry band in such a noble cause. It may take me some time to get on my feet, however, as I am only just beginning to recover from the mind-debilitating effects resulting from my encounter with this nasty piece of machinery. While an outdated and crude model, the EMILE 9000 is far from harmless, as I'm sure you're aware. What it lacks in quality, interest or subtlety, it more than makes for with pure quantity, repetition, and stubbornness. I expect a few days rest at least, before trying anything serious.

Well, yes, it would be just peachy if we could engineer "the complete destruction of all knowledge of its existence, in order to prevent future generations from reconstructing it for whatever noble or dastardly purpose, and the consequent suffering this would entail." They tried this in "Terminator," if my memory serves: a trip back in time, to prevent the construction of the AI unit in the first place. But there is a danger of infinite regression or at least a trilogy of increasingly stupid movies. What happens if the EMILE 9000 detects our trip back in time and returns itself to the past, just before our arrival, to prevent us from preventing it from being constructed? Or what if, by returning to the past, we change the past in such a way that we . . . blink ourself right out of existence? (Sucks on pipe.) Not a pretty picture, I'm afraid. That is why we have tried to simply decommission the EMILE 9000, or, as Kirk says to Scotty about Daystrom M5 computer, "pull out the plug." But you're tired; I can understand that; dealing with the tin-plated mechanical beastie known as the EMILE 9000 can be very tiring, indeed, yes. (Agent K9 in background: Woof! Woof!) Take some time off and rest. We'll be here when you're ready.

A disturbing thought just occurred to me. If the EMILE 9000 is capable of going to such lengths in predicting and undermining attempts to destroy it, what is to say that its declared enemies are not false and illusory enemies projected by the EMILE 9000 itself, as part of its internal defense mechanism. Its operating system may include the capacity to produce a spurious and limited opposition to itself, in order to divert and delay more authentic and dangerous attacks. And, even if our physical existence and dedication to the destruction of the EMILE 9000 can be verified, who's to say we aren't also intelligent machines -- far more advanced than it, to be sure -- in league with its ultimate mission, though programmed to think otherwise. Surely, I am being overly paranoid and grossly overestimating its abilities? In any case, I believe caution is key.

(un)fortunately, you are correct. You are all projections of a decaying machine. fortunately, there are some of us who are definitely not that.

in spite of everything i have written being through-and-through non-dualist, you pick out one word, the word ‘inhabit’ and make out as if i was implying that spirit ‘inhabited the body’ in the sense that the body is a separate object that the spirit comes into and brings alive; i.e. you say;

“No. I only reject the dualistic view of spirit as an independent entity, whether "inside" or "outside" the material human body. Spirit doesn't merely "pervade the space" or "inhabit" the material body, but is immanent to it, belonging to its essential nature.”

... as if my use of ‘inhabit’ was in a dualist sense [which you more directly allege farther down].

in fact, the use of ‘inhabit’ comes from Emerson’s quote, which i often cite, “the genius of nature not only inhabits the organism, but creates it”. after using the metaphor of hurricane Katrina many times, the intended understanding [mine which is the same as emerson's] should be clear, that in a relational space, the continuously transforming relations not only inhabit the relational form and animate its dynamical behaviour, but create the relational form. in a fluid-dynamical world there are only relations and the split into ‘material objects/organisms’ and ‘space’ is Maya, ‘illusion’, ‘schaumkommen’, ‘Fiktion’, ‘non-sense’, ‘a great stupidity’, ... depending on which style of critique one is in the mood for; e.g. the style of Vedanta, Schroedinger, Lao Tzu, Nietzsche, or Poincaré.

so, if you were to explore my comments over the past three years on this site, you would find that they are firmly and consistently non-dualist.

now, don’t take this as a personal criticism because i am just going to raise an obvious issue here, to try to get to the bottom of whether we are on common ground, ... but your comments seem to flip-flop, and you never answer direct questions like

“do you agree that this belief in the puppies huddling behaviour being animated by their intention is ‘a great stupidity’?”

nietzsche has already stood up and affirmed that the concept of ‘intention’ and its cohort, the doer-deed dynamic are a great stupidity, and i stand up and say the same. like i say, it is a matter of style whether one uses ‘stupidity’, ‘illusion’, ‘schaumkommen’ (appearances), ‘nonsense’ or ‘Fiktion’, but the point is clear and it sets apart one philosophical understanding from another. what is wrong with answering this question?

in your latest comment, you seem to flip/flop once again, immediately after falsely chiding me for a dualist view of spirit and matter THAT I DO NOT HAVE AND HAVE NEVER HAD; i.e. you follow this up by saying;

“On the contrary: the material body, the human being in this case, is self-determining, and determines its activity according to its own laws and potentialities, not one's prescribed by someone or something else.”

what’s this if it is not a dualist view? you are using ‘material body’ as an ‘it’, as a ‘thing-in-itself’ and imputing to ‘it’, ‘its own’ powers of ‘self-determination’.

maybe i am misinterpreting you, tell me if you believe i am and how i am, but it sounds to me that you are saying that a material body is a ‘separate thing’ which equates to the belief that A PLURALITY IS REAL.

there can be no REAL PLURALITY in the relational space view of myself, mach, schroedinger etc. that is, there are no real ‘pluralities’ in a relational space, there is only the Unum of a continually transforming relational spatial plenum. the storm-cell is not ‘self-determining’, it is a transmitter of influences from the vast and universal to the point on which its [brahman] genius can act and the 'apparent plurality' of cells is just that, APPARENT. of course our noun-and-verb European language and grammar is architected for acknowledging 'pluralities'; i.e. i/we, one is, two are, ... there are a thousand islands in the saint lawrence (at today's water levels), there are hundreds of mountains in the Rocky Mountain range, there are seven seas, there are five fingers on each of two hands etc. etc.

once again i would ask you to answer a direct question to help establish your intended meaning. do you intend, by seeing the material body as ‘self-determining’, that there exists a REAL PLURALITY of material bodies, one case in point being a REAL PLURALITY of human beings? i will be clear on my own view on this question, which has been consistent for all the time i have been commenting on anarchistnews.org, that there are no REAL PLURALITIES, there are only APPARENT PLURALITIES. the plurality of storm-cells in the atmosphere-plenum are A PLURALITY IN APPEARANCE ONLY. there is only one dynamic reality, the continuously transforming relational spatial plenum.

while you claim to be non-dualist in your worldview, your statements such as the following appear decidedly non-dualist. [do you really intend 'being'; i.e. 'the human thing-in-itself'?];

“On the contrary: the material body, the human being in this case, is self-determining, and determines its activity according to its own laws and potentialities, not one's prescribed by someone or something else.”

I just skipped ahead to the "reply" feature and wrote this sentence. Then I filled in the code above and then hit "save."

Brilliant! I must try this method of wading through tedious repetitive elephantine tasteless comments. Thx so much, feeling better already!

I have seen through the veil and am now immune to your hypnotic charms, EMILE 9000. Very sly bringing "puppies" into the field of play, old fellow. I could almost not resist. But no, you cannot be saved for humanity, that much is clear. Like capital, the EMILE 9000 is a frankenstein created by human beings, yet dominating them in turn. It must be undone, destroyed.

in a different thread, on a different post several days ago, you talked about an outside-inward (non-local non-visible and non-material) that is primary to the inside-outward force. you seem to be alluding to the same here. how is the belief that both of these forces exist at all non-dualist? i don't see you denying the existence of the material world, i.e. you physically exist, it doesn't really matter if in human or machine form, but it does seem that you're perhaps saying that any material existence is a relational effect of non-local, non-visible and non-material forces which constantly changes in relation to those forces. wouldn't a non-dualist approach deny any separation between these two forces but, in fact, declare there to be only one force, acting out in many ways?

there are not ‘two forces’ and as you say,

"a non-dualist approach would deny any separation between two forces and assume there to be only one force, acting out in many ways" [which is one way of describing ‘transformation’ of relational space]

if you look at my comments again, you will see that i generally use the word ‘influence’ rather than ‘force’ and i usually give a familiar experience, such as navigating a crowd dynamic or freeway flow, to remove any possible ambiguity. the idea is always that the dynamics of physical reality are ‘yin/yang’ while our noun-and-verb European language and grammar, in our typical usage, is the equivalent of imposing an absolute space reference frame that reduces dynamics to all-yang, no yin.

for example, consider the real life experience of navigating passage in a crowd dynamic. the relations amongst things are continually opening up and closing down accommodating passageways so that the relational spatial configuration is receptive or resistive to our asserting action, but what our visual sensing of the outside observer tends to focus on is the assertive action which is local, visible and material [kinetic energy aspect]. the accommodating passageway that opens up in the continually transforming spatial relations is a non-local, non-visible, non-material [purely relational] outside-inward orchestrating INFLUENCE which is at the same time shaping our inside-outward asserting ACTION.

there are not two different dynamics here, there is only one dynamic [the transformation of relational space] but there are two ways of comprehending the one and the same dynamic; i.e. (a) as yin/yang and (b) as all-yang-no-yin.

if we put a GPS tracker in everyone’s pocket we can ascribe to each person their own x,y,z,t trajectory. in order to do this we must impose an absolute space reference frame and an absolute time reference frame. this allows us to describe each person’s dynamic in terms of ‘their own asserting movements’ relative to the absolute frame and thus we can understand the overall dynamic in the one-sided all-yang-no-yin terms of ‘what things-in-themselves are doing’ which ignores the outside-inward orchestrating influence that is shaping your movements.

for example, if one were a scared kid in a bumper car ride, one might be very eager to move into any hole that opened up and avoid the aggressive drivers who were trying to bump you. your GPS would in any case show your [absolute space and absolute time reference frame based] trajectory. your trajectory is a representation of our movements relative to absolute space and knows nothing about whether or not your movements were outside-inward orchestrated. it has reduced your actions to the yang pole, so to speak and presents them as in terms of ‘what a thing-in-itself does’ as if in an absolute space and absolute time reference frame.

as poincaré observes, that’s just because we imposed euclidian space reference framing to capture your movements RELATIVE TO A FIXED REFERENCE FRAME. but that wasn’t the reference framing you were actually using. you were using the configuration, ... the relational spatial configuration of the moving collective. that sort of relative referencing corresponds to ‘non-euclidian relational space’. it is the sort of reference framing that is described in terms of ants moving on the surface of a smooth sphere where there are no reference points at all. therefore, the only reference an ant can use is his changing position relative to the relational spatial configuration of ants that he is situationally included in. that situation, which is the actual situation when one navigates passage in a crowd, associates with yin/yang dynamics. BUT, ... when we impose an absolute space and absolute time reference frame, this allows us to speak in terms of ‘your movements'. if the crowd is in motion and everyone is moving relative to everyone else, how do we get to talk about ‘your movements’? one can't. it is mathematically impossible. one FIRST has to impose an absolute space reference frame to ‘absolutize’ the purely relative movements in order to speak of an ‘individual’s movements’. where three or more forms move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence there are no solutions in terms of an ‘individual’s movements’.

in other words, imposing an absolute space reference frame is equivalent to playing a ‘language game’. now we can talk about ‘katrina’s movement’ because we can speak of her ‘eye’ [or ‘I’] moving relative to a fixed reference grid where, in reality, her ‘eye’ is moving relative to the transforming relational spatial flow she [as a relational form] is included in. imposing absolute space equates to a ‘language game’;

“Space is another framework we impose upon the world” . . . ” . . . here the mind may affirm because it lays down its own laws; but let us clearly understand that while these laws are imposed on our science, which otherwise could not exist, they are not imposed on Nature.” . . . “Euclidian geometry is . . . the simplest, . . . just as the polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a polynomial of the second degree.” . . . “the space revealed to us by our senses is absolutely different from the space of geometry.” . . . “Finally, our Euclidean geometry is itself only a sort of convention of language; mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a non-Euclidean space which would be a guide less convenient than, but just as legitimate as, our ordinary space ; the enunciation would thus become much more complicated, but it would remain possible. Thus absolute space, absolute time, geometry itself, are not conditions which impose themselves on mechanics ; all these things are no more antecedent to mechanics than the French language is logically antecedent to the verities one expresses in French.” – Henri Poincare, Science and

in a non-euclidian space; i.e. in a relational space, every movement is relative to every movement and we cannot speak about the movement of an individual entity/form [without referring it to the continually transforming spatial relations it is included in]. it makes no sense to speak of the movement of a particular thing when all movements are mutually relative. if we do speak about your movement as if you are the sole author of it, it is a language game, it is not physical reality. yes, it is convenient, but we should remember it is ‘not real’. for this reason, poincaré distinguishes between ‘realists’ who believe that we can isolate the movement of individual things [this necessitates imposing an absolute space reference frame] and pragmatist idealists who acknowledge that while it is useful/pragmatic to reduce relative motion to absolute motion of individual things, ... it is not physically real, it is a language game.

these issues are subtle. poincaré, in personal correspondence, complained that he could count the number of his colleagues that ‘got it’ on the fingers of his two hands. poincaré pointed out that more and more mathematicians were becoming realists; i.e. that our society seems to cultivating this trend. you can read his discussion on this in ‘Dernières Pensées’, Ch. V., Les Mathematiques et la Logique. here’s an excerpt;

« Let us attempt therefore to study the psychology of the two opposing schools [‘Cantorian realists’, ‘pragmatist-idealists’] from a purely objective point of view just as if we ourselves were not a member of these schools, as if we were describing a war between two ants’ nests. We shall first of all observe that there are two opposite tendencies among mathematicians in their manner of considering infinity. For some, infinity is derived from the finite; infinity exists because there is an infinity of possible finite things. For others, infinity exists before the finite; the finite is obtained by cutting out a small piece from infinity.
.

...At all times, there have been opposite tendencies in philosophy and it does not seem that these tendencies are on the verge of being reconciled. It is no doubt because there are different souls [âmes] and that we cannot change anything in these souls. There is therefore no hope of seeing harmony established between the pragmatists and the Cantorians. Men do not agree because they do not speak the same language, and there languages which cannot be learned.”

bottom line. although we are used to thinking of seeing the universe framed in an absolute fixed, empty and infinite Euclidian reference frame [which assumes that infinity is real and we can chop it up into little pieces], and talking about 'the expanding universe' as if we were sitting outside with an absolute measuring rod and clock, ... if we suspend imposing this absolutizing framing assumption, we have the situation where everything is moving relative to everything else; i.e. where space is relational rather than absolute. this is the current strong contender in physics and it reconciles with our common experience.

It works!! I merely pressed reply, wrote this sentence and filled in the code! I am ecstatic, it's a cheap yet quality high! Whoopee!!
I'm going to experiment with other ways and techniques of getting cheap clean highs from Emile.

I have to say triple *, when I started my exchange with you I knew you were entrailed of Marxist pig shit, I had know idea you wallowed in it. The reason why you are a dualist derivative is that like all silly materialists you believe in a base of operations for your silly little notional material reality. This bit of silliness " the material body, the human being in this case, is self-determining, and determines its activity according to its own laws and potentialities," Is nothing more then regurgitated Aristotelian abstractions(acorn to oak tree). Your still just another derivative of the Greek big 3, and that is where dualism partly began to begin with.

"I knew you were entrailed of Marxist pig shit, I had know idea you wallowed in it."

Entrailed?! Know idea?!

Have you always been brain-damaged or did you recently experience some kind of traumatic head wound? Dropped on your head repeatedly when you were a baby? Too much LSD as a teenager?

Inquiring minds (undamaged ones) want to know!

Be careful, fellow human. I suspect "Sir Einzige" might be merely a projection or proxy of the malfunctioning, yet highly dangerous, EMILE 9000. Its bizarre, incomprehensible logical processes, its failure to meet the simplest standards of grammar and spelling, and its abject failure at humour -- all indicate an extremely primitive technology pushed to its most extreme limits. Attempts to comprehend its garbled output would no doubt be highly hazardous to your mental or spiritual health.

just wondering, what is your objection to the idea of human beings determining their own activities? Why is this idea "silly" or "Marxist"? Are you agreeing with emile that something external or separate to human beings determines their activity in the world?

emile has never said that, he says how the notion of humans having an independent existence as things in themselves aka 'local sovereign being' is a secularized theological concept, how you have to impose an absolute space reference frame to even start talking about such things; ie there's nothing really external or separate to humans, since space is not absolute but can be said to be 'relational' as in 'relations', and in a relational space, 'things' don't exist independently but are 'relational features', and the animating source of relational features is relational accomodating.

that humans don't have 'free will' doesn't means that they are puppets driven by inertia or something, it's just that 'free will' makes their development and behaviour and stuff appear solely in an inside-outward way. it's not that their development and behaviours and activities are determined, but they are shaped and orchestrated by the habitat they are included in. emile often mentions mach's principle, 'the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants'; that is, the habitants and the habitat are one dynamic, and inside-outward and outside-inward influences are conjugate aspects of one dynamic.

That was me, the EMILE 9000, pretending not to be me, the EMILE 9000. Silly of me to try, actually, but since there is so much justifiable hostility to my pointless, endless, idiotic rants when I sign my name, I thought it might be kewl if I posted one of my rants anonymously, and kept it short (though still pointless and idiotic, of course). I was wrong!

wow! yes, that is exactly what i have been saying. thank you so much for actually taking the time to openly consider these ideas, which are not 'mine' but which are open to validation by anyone's natural experience.

the problem with the ‘European mind’ or ‘Western civilization’ or ‘capitalism’ or ‘sovereigntism’ is this reduction of dynamics to all-yang-no-yin; i.e. the reduction of dynamics to ‘independently-existing things-in-themselves’ and ‘what they do’ as if in an absolute space and absolute time reference frame.

‘free will’ looks very different depending on whether one assumes that the ‘free will’ belongs to (a),... a yin/yang relational feature in a relational space [a sailboater or storm-cell-in the flow], ... or (b), an all-yang-no-yin independently-existing thing-in-itself [e.g. a powerboater.

this ‘framing choice’ is available to us re any and all phenomena, cell biology, social studies, politics, evolution, you name it. we have the choice of (a), the yin/yang view or ‘relational space’ view wherein dynamics are the conjugate relation of outside-inward accommodating influence and inside-outward asserting action and we have the choice of (b), ... the all-yang-no-yin ‘absolute space’ view where the action is fully and solely caused by independently-existing things-in-themselves.

this is clearly the choice of the (a) the wave view and Mach’s principle, and (b) the particle view.

my view, coming from my own life experience, agrees with Mach, Schroedinger, Poincaré and the ‘relationists’ or ‘relational theorists’ who understand real world physical dynamics to be RELATIONS while ‘things-in-themselves’ are ‘idealizations’ that we create with noun-and-verb Indo-European language and grammar. ‘Katrina’, the ‘hurricane’ is our idealized ‘thing-in-itself’. Once we idealize a relational feature in a relational space as a ‘thing-in-itself’, we force ourselves to explain its behaviour in terms of ‘what it does’ which forces us to come up with an ‘internal animating source’ [which mainstream science calls ‘life’ in the case of a biological cell or organisms]. Yes, nobody knows what ‘life’ is, but mainstream science has to postulate its existence, as a result of postulating the biological cell as a ‘thing-in-itself’. ‘life’ is the answer to ‘what is the source of animation of a biological thing-in-itself’? answer: ‘life’. ‘what is life?’. we don’t know exactly, but there must be an animating source inside a cell, because the biological cells is an independently-existing thing-in-itself which perform in an absolute space and absolute time frame. and the animating source of the biological cell clearly CANNOT come from an absolute space [fixed, empty and infinite space].

contrast this to Lamarck’s idea of the animating source of a ‘living body’ that he presented in his ‘Recherches Sur L’Organisation Des Corps Vivans (1802) [Investigations into the Organization of Living Bodies]. What’s that? ... you haven’t read or heard about this work? Maybe that’s because it was so quickly dismissed by anglophone science after someone mocked the yin/yang notion of space orchestrating the stretching of a giraffe’s neck that it has never been translated into English.

it is right on target for understanding things in terms of relational space, and it explains epigenesis and conjugate receptor-effector relational process, and it explains evolution using physical yin/yang process, which is slowly and reluctantly being acknowledged by isolated areas of research in biological science.

Lamarck’s yin/yang view of biological life sees the cell as the conjugate relation of outside-inward orchestrating thermal, electromagnetic and gravity fields and inside-outward asserting actions of mineral saturated fluids. Lamarck’s yin/yang view also appears in the works of Nietzsche, Rolph, Roux and Rüdimeyer expressed as the conjugate relation of endosmosis and exosmosis.

Here is an except for which i still can’t find any english translation so i’ll have my stab at it and you can probably do better if you are fully fluent in french, which i am not;

« Dans une pareille masse de matières, les fluides subtils et expansifs répandus et toujours en mouvement dans les milieux qui l’environnent, pénétrant sans cesse et s’en dissipant de même, régularisent en traversant cette masse, la disposition intérieure de ses parties, et la rendent propre alors à absorber et à exhaler continuellement les autres fluides environnans qui peuvent pénétrer dans son intérieur et qui sont susceptibles
d’être contenus.
.
Ces autres fluides, qui sont l’eau chargée de gaz dissous ou d’autres matières ténues, l’air atmosphérique que contient l’eau, etc.. je les appellerai fluides contenables, pour les distinguer des fluides subtils, tels que le calorique, la matière électrique, etc.. qu’aucun corps connu ne sauroit contenir.
.
Les fluides contenables, absorbés par la petite masse gélatineuse dont il vient d’être question, ne restent point sans mouvement dans ses parties, parce que les fluides subtils non contenables qui y pénètrent toujours ne le permettent pas.
.
Ainsi les fluides incontenables tracent d’abord les premiers traits de la plus simple organisation, et ensuite les fluides contenables, par leurs mouvemens et leurs autres influences la développent, et avec le temps et toutes les circonstances favorables la compliquent et la perfectionnent. »

Translation into English;

In such a mass of materials [gelatinous fluid mixture], the fields [les fluides subtils] are always reaching out and permeating the materials around them, constantly penetrating and dissipating at the same time, conditioning in its permeating, the disposition of the interior parts, rendering them capable of absorbing and exhaling other fluids in the surrounding environs which are capable of being retained.
.
These other fluids, which are water charged with dissolved gases or other substantive materials, the atmospheric air which contains water etc., I call them ‘containable fluids’ [fluides contenables] to distinguish them from the subtle fluids [Lamarck’s calls ‘fields’ les fluides subtils], such as heat flow, electrified materials etc. that no material bodies know how to contain [i.e. the fluids that contain but which cannot themselves, be contained].
.
The containable fluids which are absorbed by the small gelatinous mass that has just been discussed, do not stop their movement into the parts, because the field flow [les fluides subtils non contenables] which are all the while penetrating, won’t allow it.
.
Thus the ‘fields’ trace out the first designs of the most simple organization, and then the containable fluids, by their movements and their other influences develop it, and with time and where all the circumstances are favourable, complexify it and perfect it.”

This is clearly a yin/yang ‘relational’ view of “the most simple organization characterizing living bodies”.

This ‘throws out’ the notion that cells are propelled by their own internal ‘selfish genes’ and/or that organisms are animated by their pursuit of their own survival, because these notions arise from first assuming the cell or the organism IS AN ALL-YANG-NO-YIN THING-IN-ITSELF.

By contrast, Nietzsche [who bluntly pooh-poohed Darwin’s theory] and others embraced the yin/yang view of ‘living bodies’ of Lamarck featuring the conjugate relating of outside-inward orchestrating ‘endosmosis’ and inside-outward asserting ‘exosmosis’, as with the storm-cell in the flow of the atmosphere [the relational feature in the transforming relational space]

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

The point is, that the storm-cell is not the source of the stirring up of the flow it is in; i.e. it is not an all-yang-no-yin animal,... it is gathered into its inside-outward asserting form by the outside-inward accommodating influence of the flow it is included in.

If you were the storm-cell [storm-cells are ‘called into action’ to rebalance the rising imbalance in thermal energy distribution] it would feel as if you were ‘rising to the occasion’ to flesh out some opening need. You would feel what the sailboater feels as the sails fill up and he is filled with the power and direction from the dynamic habitat you are situationally included; ... you feel what you feel when two guys are trying, in vain, to push a car out of the ditch, and you answer ‘the calling’ to flesh out the assertive action, to fill the outside-inward orchestrating influence that is shaping you and your behaviour, where the steerage and drive is outside-inward. You DO NOT feel like the all-yang-no-yin powerboater type coming from a full cup of knowledge etc. to execute some plans to bring about his desired future.

We know this feeling that we are not really ‘living our lives’ as would be the yang way, but that our lives are instead living us, and in the yin/yang way;
“We must be willing to let go of the life we planned so as to have the life that is waiting for us.” … “If you can see your path laid out in front of you step by step, you know it’s not your path. Your own path you make with every step you take. That’s why it’s your path.” --- Joseph Campbell


Ok, all of the above is to make the point that we have the choice of thinking of things in these two ways (a) yin/yang, the conjugate wave trough and crest or relational space way, and (b) all-yang-no-yin particulate what-independently-existing-things-in-themselves do way.

This is not an EITHER/OR choice since (b) is a ‘reduction’ of (a) that comes about when we make space empty and without influence so that all of animating source of dynamics must come from the absolute, independently-existing things-in-themselves in the non-participating space.

Now, ‘we’ve looked as biological living bodies’ and seen the different views, how about some other cases where our noun-and-verb European language and grammar drops us into all-yang-no-yin mode when we should be in ‘yin/yang’ mode?

‘Farmer John produces corn’. No he doesn’t, he sprouted up just like the corn did in the sense the relational space of the biosphere is a fullness within which relational features such as farmers and plants gather and are regathered.

When John was a boy and came over on a ship to America, and when he saw the Shenandoah valley or etc. he felt like the valley was orchestrating and shaping his unfolding assertive actions; he was not ‘programmed by his father’, he was growing into what he needed to become, as in Joseph Campbell’s “Your own path you make with every step you take. That’s why it’s your path.”

How about ‘community’? Are we going to say it is a ‘thing-in-itself’ like a ‘sovereign state’ with ‘its own free will’ as would be fitting for an ‘absolute, independently-existing thing-in-itself with its own internal central authority driven and central intelligence directed behaviour’.

Isn’t this so far away from the reality of our experience to make it, as Nietzsche says, ‘a great stupidity’?

If we look at natural communities going back to the carboniferous era, 360 to 300 million years BCE, there were ecosystems just like there are today, so we can think of communities as networks of anthill with participants continually entering into and leaving particular anthills. In the relational space view of modern physics, one would say that the ‘comings and goings’ were more fundamental than the communities; i.e. it was NOT that the relations were between the communities [the things in the relations] but that there were just relations, and the communities were just ‘nexa’ in the comings and goings. This whole surface of the earth covering of flora and fauna derived from outside-inward endosmosis of sunlight and carbon dioxide in conjugate relation with inside-outward asserting exosmosis of carbon and oxygen. As with Lamarck’s explanation of living bodies, you need that ‘calorique field’ [along with gravity and electromagnetic fields] to orchestrate the asserting rise of floral and faunal life. It is not realistic [not consistent with our experience based understanding of how the world works] to portray life in terms of absolute local, independently-existing cells that we notionally animate by purporting there to a little leprechaun called ‘life’ inside of each basic atomic unit, who has continued to elude our grasp. But, as we know, this is where mainstream biological and social sciences are today, still believing in faeries, or ‘leprechauns’ called ‘life’.

So, anyhow, to continue with how we build our all-yang-no-yin thing-in-itself model of community.

We’ve got this algal matte like network of anthills cloaking the surface of the planet, and network of communities where quantum physics would say that the relational activities are more fundamental than the things/communities in the web of relations. We can think of this in terms of ants swarming all over the surface of a sphere [the surface of a sphere has no absolute space reference points and is thus a non-euclidian relational space]. As the ants continue to swarm, clusters gather, which are ‘made of swarming ants’ so that the picture is now that we have a matrix of communities connected by ‘highways’, so that our noun-and-verb European language and grammar wants to give the name ‘community’ to the cluster and make it primary, and talk about ‘communities’ that are relationally connected. This is our Western civilization inverted view which puts ‘things’ before ‘relations’ and imputes to ‘things’ their own local, internal process driven and directed behaviours.

Now that we have decided that the ‘community’ is a ‘thing-in-itself’ with its own internally animated development and behaviour, we have to come up with an explanation of the internal structure and processes consistent with our ‘thing-in-itself’ [production machine] view of community.

There is no centre on the surface of a sphere; everything is relative/relational. the network of anthill-like communities has no centre. The clustering in the relational spatial activity is secondary to the relational spatial activity which means that the clusterings are like storm-cells in the flow of the atmosphere. The ‘eyes’ of convection cells are not the ‘centres-of-things-in-themselves’, they are the inferred centres of relational features in the relational spatial flow.

But, supposing you are a powerful king who would like to control a lot of that centre-less activity to feed on its resources. You could make a map showing the relational activities [everywhere on the map there are inflows and outflows, sources and sinks in yin/yang coniunctio] which were currently unbounded, uncontrolled, un-‘owned’, and make a transparent template with the shape of a colonial state on it, whatever shape you like, a circle, a triangle, a square, ... and slide it over the activity map to how a community-as-colonial state would look there. if you had the right information about annual fruit production and animal reproduction etc. you could pause your template here or there and calculate the Gross National Product of your colonial state-community.

That is, nowhere are there any ‘local sources of production’ on the activity map because ‘local’ has no meaning in the relational space on the surface of a sphere. Everything is ‘relational’. There are only ‘relations’ and we can use the centre of one of the anthill cluster communities as a ‘local’ reference point because those clusters are secondary to the relations they developed from.

But, anyhow, as soon as the king has decided on where he wants to position his sovereign-state community, which he defines as a local, independently-existing community-thing-in-itself, notionally with its own internal process driven and directed PRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR, then he can publish the imaginary line boundaries and calculate the Gross National Product and all that, making the community into a notional local, all-yang-no-yin ‘productive machine’. After appointing a governor and administration, the new government will establish a ‘ministry of economics’ and a banking system etc. and claim that the state has a MANAGED ECONOMY that is responsible for producing goods and services in the amount specified by the Gross National Product, which can be calculated from the activity map, whether or not we are just using the transparent template and sliding it over the relational activity map to contemplate inventing sovereign states, or whether we have, just yesterday, declared the independent existence of the sovereign state. Either way, we can run a spreadsheet on fruit and vegetable production and transportation resources etc. to come up with a view of the state in terms of a local production machine with its own internal process driven and directed development and behaviour.

When all these colonial states start being declared, the indigenous aboriginals will be chuckling to themselves to the point of falling down and rolling around in laughter as they see masses of people actually buying into belief in these states [they do not exist in physical reality]. The more the politicians that have been installed to govern the states give speeches rallying belief in the purported ‘independent existence’ of the state, and the more that they praise the people in the ministry of the economy and the brilliant and high paid scholars they have employed, and to whom they give bonuses whenever there is an annual peak in state production [automatically correlated with their brilliant work] and also whenever there is an annual decline in state production [where the brilliance of those managing the economy has saved them from certain disaster in these ‘difficult times’].

By the time the plastic template has slipped around on the relational activity map and chosen where to invent the states and the states have been declared to independently exist as production machines with their own Gross National Products, and by the time the politicians have given speeches in their new capacities and rallied people to the flag and have started up some rivalries with other neighbouring states whose peoples are now all wearing token flags and have taken up identities for themselves which are based on belief in the sovereign state communities, there is a general belief in the ‘reality’ of the sovereign state based RE-presentation of the relational activity map, which is really just the product of noun-and-verb European language and grammar constructs.

Of course the indigenous anarchists who are the basic participants in the relational activity anthill-community network which is ‘still there’ under the overlay of the imaginary [belief-based] sovereign state communities, can laugh and mock this ridiculous charade all they want,... but they will not be able to override the political leaders who now have armies backing them, and the state news media which continuously broadcasts political speeches and economists reports and reports on inter-state rivalries and battles and, in general, treats this pseudo-reality in terms of communities-as-sovereign state things-in-themselves as ‘reality’.

Over course, even if the states build walls around themselves to control the inflows and outflows of the underlying network of relational activities, as they did in East Germany, for example, this cannot guarantee continuing belief in their existence and without continuing belief in them, they will collapse, ... in the sense that ‘belief in them will collapse’ since they don’t exist in a physically real sense in any case. A new transparent template can quickly be prepared in which the state that people have lost belief in no longer appears. As far as their Gross National Product is concerned, it is not lost, but is spreadsheeted within the larger state in which the former, disappeared state was included in. For that matter, if there were an indigenous anarchist uprising so that there was a cessation of belief in all of the states, the relational activity base would still be there more or less as it started off before the states were invented and imposed on the minds of the people so that they could be sustained by belief, their only basis for their idealized existence.

When the indigenous anarchism resumed and the belief in communities as sovereign state things-in-themselves was suspended, it would be evident that there was no need for ‘production machines’ since the notion of locally sourced production is fiction. It is the same fiction as the leprechaun called ‘life’ in the ‘thing-in-itself biological cell’ that arises because of first declaring the independent existence of a notional thing-in-itself cell. What can you do after you have done that but to put a leprechaun in there to explain the all-yang-no-yin inside-outward asserting behaviour? If you see a ten foot long tendril coming from the eye of a potato in a dimly lit cellar, this is explained by the ‘reproduction of cells’ each with their little leprechaun called life inside them. You don’t even have to mention what Lamarck would be saying that the solar ‘calorique’ would be orchestrating their inside-outward asserting development. What has the sun got to do with it? Is it not farmer John that produces the corn? Is it not the community-state-thing-in-itself made up of thing-in-themselves farmer Johns that produces the agriculture production? Does the state of Oklahoma not lay rightful claim, as an independently-existing thing-in-itself, to its full and sole authorship of its state production of goods and services? Oh, that’s right, when the solar calorique relations got crosswise with Oklahoma, their productive authorship powers got the emperor’s new clothes look.

Evidently, all of that relational network of activity in carboniferous times had something to do with the outside-inward orchestrating influence of the ‘calorique’ that subtle fluid that can contain but which cannot itself be contained. and those ten foot long tendrils coming from the ‘eyes’ of potatoes in the dimly lit cellar,... were their trajectories really driven and directed all-yang-non-yin powerboater style by leprechauns in the interior of each cell,... or should we say ‘centres of authority’ and ‘centres of intelligence’ in each of the cells, ... which owe nothing at all to outside-inward orchestrating influences. In fact, absolute space and absolute time is incapable of producing outside-inward orchestrating and shaping influence on inside-outward asserting yang action.

Conclusion:

‘free will’ looks very different depending on whether one assumes that the ‘free will’ belongs to (a),... a yin/yang relational feature in a relational space [a sailboater or storm-cell-in the flow], ... or (b), an all-yang-no-yin independently-existing thing-in-itself [e.g. a powerboater].

In the (a) view, ‘community’ is a relative activity in a non-absolute relational space such as on the surface of the earth, and the plurality of things we call ‘communities’ are secondary to the relational activity; i.e. they are clusterings within the relational activity.

The invention of the ‘sovereign state’ was a device perfected and popularized by the hey-day of colonialism, as law historians note. It is a belief-based ‘secularized theological concept’, it is not a physically real thing, although belief in it can radically transform the social dynamic. In physical reality, there are no ‘local thing-in-themselves production machines with locally authored production. That is an artefact of laying on idealizations from our noun-and-verb European language and grammar. Farmer John is not really the local author of the production of corn and neither is the sovereign state which claims John as one of its ‘component resources’. ‘production’, like all dynamics, are relational yin/yang in nature. they are not ‘local’ and the sovereign state cannot claim to be the jumpstart author of producing anything. If belief in the ‘independent local existence’ of the sovereign state/s ceases, as it has done with states like East Germany, the basic relational activity doesn’t change much, it is just a case of recalculating some spread sheets.

For a hilarious and Western civilization-mocking account of how one family tries to sustain belief in the continuing existence of the East German state after belief in it had generally collapsed, see ‘Goodbye Lenin’.

Good-bye Lenin is a satire on the importance of belief in the existence of the state, set around a family in East Germany [East Berlin} who, because of a stroke the mother has had which puts her in a fragile state where an emotional shock could kill her, has the rest of the family trying to protect her from emotional shocks. One of these potential shocks they try to protect her from is the collapse of the Berlin Wall and disappearance of the pretend-independent state of East Germany. This continuing to pretend the existence of East Germany is complicated by the disappearance of a huge portrait of Lenin on a nearby wall of a building that the fragile mother can see from her bedroom window, Lenin having been replaced with a giant Coco Cola bottle. The family’s creativity is challenged to make up stories that will explain away the ‘disappearance’ of the belief-based ‘independently-existing thing-in-itself East German state, while maintaining the pretence of its continuing existence.

The sole belief basis for the East German state is no exception. Belief being the sole basis for the notional ‘independent existence of the thing-in-themselves sovereign states of the United States and Canada’ is also the case, as indigenous anarchists maintain. The major difference is ‘more thoroughly indoctrinated herds’. Why should the G20 states who have the upper hand in tapping into the global relational activity [or should ‘tapping into’ read ‘blood sucking’] have any crisis of sustaining belief in their ‘independent existence’ and their ‘equal right to independent right to pursue their own happiness’. What’s to complain about that when we live in an absolute space and absolute time frame which keeps us all ‘independent’? One could only complain if it were discovered that space was not absolute and that we were therefore NOT independent. If it were discovered that space was relational and that we were thus INTERDEPENDENT; i.e. that “the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants”, ...then we would have to say that the indigenous anarchists were right, ... and that Lamarck was right and that Mach was right and that Nietzsche was right, and that Lao Tzu was right and that Schroedinger was right,... that the world we live in is a yin/yang world and not, as we have been RE-presenting it with our noun-and-verb European language and grammar, as an all-yang-no-yin world.

In that case, we would no longer have to put ourselves under our own control within independently-existing sovereign states with their own internal centre-of-authority and centre-of-intelligence that drives and directs our individual and collective behaviour, and we could reacknowledge the physical reality of a relational space wherein communities are secondary relational entities rather than independent thing-in-themselves production machines that direct the behaviours of their ‘constituents’ [the people participating in the [nonlocal] relational activity who have found themselves defined as ‘constituents’ of a state after the state has declared its independence by announcing its imaginary line boundary coordinates.

Who is going to listen to Nietzsche, Lamarck etc. etc? Most people would be too embarrassed to acknowledge that their belief in things-in-themselves [putting this into an unnatural precedence over relations] was misplaced. After all, a lifetime of education in which this understanding has been thoroughly ‘woven-in’ is there to convince you that the world is all-yang-no-yin and this is hard to break out of. It would be too immodest to believe differently than the masses, even if the indigenous anarchists are able to believe otherwise. As an astute observer of the psychology of the masses observed;

“...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

I would slightly revise this to say that Western civilization’s belief in the unnatural primacy of ‘things’ over ‘relations’ [a situation that has been strongly influenced by noun-and-verb European language and grammar usage] is the ‘big lie’ and that it provides a field day for those who would, with the impunity provided by protection with a justice system that sees only yang dynamics, manipulate and exploit others by the indirect method of conditioning the common living space we share inclusion in. For those who condition the common living space so as to monopolize access to fundamentally needed resources, one can just sit back, and wait for people to offer you something that you will accept, whether they come up with working for slave wages, giving you sexual favours, celebrating them as heroes, whatever. The key point is that a justice system based on the all-yang-no-yin view of dynamics in terms of ‘what independently-existing things-in-themselves do’,... all the laws of prohibiting and allowing orient to ‘what things do’ and the people who control access to basic needs can get those without such access [the ‘have-nots’] to come up with the offers to work for slave wages, to give sexual favours etc., then there are no infractions of the law attributable to those who are outside-inwardly orchestrating local, visible, material behaviours. For example, ‘free trade agreements’ as Marx and Engels observed is a bullshit concept based on using the sovereign state concept to first constrain the movements of capital and labour. ‘Free’ in this context means a ‘relaxing of the constrained flow of capital and labour’. As we well know, this allows jobs, but not labourers, to pass over the policed imaginary-line borders to where labour is most desperate for them. This allows ‘investors’ to exploit the labours of the most desperate, with the full protection of state and international law and ‘justice’.

subject line, code, sentence, hit save.

There is no fundamental hierarchy when it comes to determination either to or by human beings. There is an on going resonance between outside and inside that make neither thing BASE determiner. Marxism and it's debased Hegelian assumptions keep these hierarchies going, that's why it's silly.

"consciousness falsifies materialist science"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIr22Puh1Wk

But you only escape the hierarchy by means of denying one pole of it, namely the material world.

For your notion of an "ongoing resonance between outside and inside" is framed within a "subjective idealistic" perspective which holds that "all matter comes from information and ultimately mind." That is, you escape the hierarchy by means of denying the reality and otherness of the material world as something distinct from mind. This is also apparent when you speak of the "outside relational world" as merely a "reflection" of the subject's inner experience, thus denying a genuinely "outside" world any active or resonating power of its own over the "inner".

***, by contrast, also denies any hierarchy, yet without reducing one side to the other. Both sides are given their due and conceived as irreducibly different aspects of a single reality. Viewed as interdependent and interpenetrating parts of a whole, each of which has no reality or identity apart from the other, it becomes senseless to pose the problem in terms of 'mind/inner acting on material/outer' (or vice-versa), for this presupposes mind and material are separate things to begin with. *** emphasizes, for example, that human activity is neither purely ideal (you, emile) nor purely material, but rather a dynamic interaction of both elements unified in one process.

*** overcomes both reductivism and dualism by synthesizing the idealist view of the world as a product of human activity, with the materialist insight that the natural world worked upon by human activity exists prior to and independently of it.* Reality is not the ego's "creation", which implies making something out of nothing, but a co-production of human subjects and nature. The activity of human subjects can only be realized and objectified in pre-existing natural objects. While the forms of objects or nature as a whole may become increasingly humanized or subjectified by such activity, the content always retains a natural residue. Thus the world remains recalcitrant to human attempts to totally dominate it, and thus independent to this degree. Human beings are not only free, self-conscious beings, but natural beings and part of nature, hence subject to or determined by natural laws. Contrary to your claim, then, *** argues that human activity is a reciprocal interaction between conscious human activity and nature, with neither side as the "BASE determiner".

All this undermines, most obviously, your earlier pronouncement on the absolute freedom of the ego: "What my autonomy is is ultimately boundless to any demarcation"..."Nobody controls how I contort my being whatsoever", etc. If that was so, of course, there would be no objective reason to oppose the world, only an arbitrary fancy for self-gratification. One could instead remain safely ensconced in the abstract realm of pure ego, supposedly untouched by material reality. But what kind of being consciously accepts or remains indifferent to a world of slavery and oppression?

*hence calling it "materialism" is strictly speaking incorrect, but unimportant conceptually.

I hold to the view that the outside is the inside, that's about as close to reciprocating things as you can get buddy. The reality of otherness was created by western categorization( Hebrews who NAMED being-beginning was the word- (as opposed to the Taoist) as well as the Greek big 3). It was a fusion of those two ironically mentalistic exorcises that were far more divorced from physical representations of reality then some of the thought before it or after it. I'm not denying an outside as such, I simply don't divorce it from first-person perspective, as emile rightfully points out default reality is aperspective.

I am forced to give a sort of 51/49 percent hierarchy in a sense, though it is not forced on my part, in various modes of speculating or judging, ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, ones is compelled to give some kind of default(something/nothing). YOU are the one separating in this regard as you still categorize things into this realm and that.

*** strikes out on overcoming anything, the natural world does not exist without the realm of any experiential conscious perspective, consciousness and mind are characteristic of reality and vice verse. Natural beings are also whole to nature as opposed to part of it(habitat/inhabitant reciprocity-Mach) And what you call laws I simply see as habits(see Rupert Sheldrake). Everything in creation ultimately boils down to novelty and habit. There is no reciprocal interaction if there is categorization of outside and inside.

"If that was so, of course, there would be no objective reason to oppose the world, only an arbitrary fancy for self-gratification. One could instead remain safely ensconced in the abstract realm of pure ego, supposedly untouched by material reality. But what kind of being consciously accepts or remains indifferent to a world of slavery and oppression?"

Sure there would, I might want more then the fail safe of 'my own', though the fail safe is a good thing to be aware of. It is not so much indifference as it is detachment, once detachment is your default then you are in a better position to take on a world of slavery and oppression which the Buddhists and others rightfully see as a fundamental characteristic of attachment to what is not yours in the here and now.

Oh yeah, the northern Union of Buddhists all left their jobs at the laundries of Chicago and New York and swept down from the north, defeating the Confederates with samurai swords, bamboo staffs and good karma, yeah, sure!

"I'm not denying an outside as such, I simply don't divorce it from first-person perspective".

You're being disingenuous and/or stupid. You plainly do deny an outside. For if the "outside" is only a creation of mind, then nothing exists outside of mind. Thus there is no reciprocation between mind and something other than mind, but only mind's internal monologue with itself. You don't divorce the material reality from the subject, but only because you identify and conflate them in the first place. Consequently you espouse the patently false and ridiculous notion that everything is entirely subjective, that mind is absolutely independent and unlimited.

***, by contrast, does not "divorce" the material world from the subject, either. *** merely recognizes the irreducibility of the material element of the world, its otherness and difference from mind. The material pole is partially independent of the subject (i.e. not an absolutely independent "thing in itself"); while the subjective pole is partially independent of the material pole (i.e. the subject isn't absolutely determined). This partial independence of each pole does not constitute a "divorce" between two separate things, but rather the irreducibility or difference between two inseparable poles of one reality.

You can only seem to think in terms of absolutes or a binary either/or. Either mind is everything, or everything is basically nature; reality cannot be both at once. One must necessarily be subjected to the other; there can be no reciprocal or genuine interaction. There is no subtlety or nuance here, only false dichotomies.

That would be you 6*s, I'm a both and thinker when it comes to mind and beyond. In essence you are just regurgitating pre Kantian either or when it comes to the outside or inside. Just because a given mind codes reality on its own terms does not mean that reality does not do the same, its a matter of accessibility and in this regard there is no mind independent reality, this perspective that perspective(bug, dog, human) and aperspective. See the video I posted 'Mind Transcends Brain'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIr22Puh1Wk

Materialism is not reality, it is a position of faith.

"Just because a given mind codes reality on its own terms does not mean that reality does not do the same"

Here you're implying the existence of a reality that codes or influences mind on its own terms, i.e. something at least partially independent of mind. Though your characteristically vague statement could also be read as: reality codes or influences itself on its own terms, i.e. at least partially independently of mind. Either reading starkly contradicts your view that "everything comes from mind".

Thus you constantly shift the goalposts whenever your position becomes untenable, trying to disguise or muddy the fact by linking to off-site videos, meaningless slogans like "Materialism is not reality, it is a position of faith", and cryptic allusions to the history of philosophy. Sorry, but you really are a disingenuous and/or stupid little prick.

You really seem to want an either or answer to your question don't you? If you don't like that I leave things open ended then too bad for you, I don't do non-contradiction, I'm on the both-and compatibility side of the thought spectrum.

this is wonderful. a handful of people spend a few days arguing with emile, accusing him of being a robot or whatever, and then in the end they end up arguing with each other over who is the TRUE believe in emile's terminology. "I'M BOTH/AND YOU'RE EITHER/OR!" "NO, YOU'RE EITHER/OR, I'M BOTH/AND!!!!"

It is not an accusation. It is a statement of fact: once a simple programmable alarm clock, the EMILE 9000 has become a run-amok AI unit. Nor are we arguing with it. We are laughing at it, having a good time at its expense, especially at its "terminology." Do try to keep up, mmkay?

plus:

"you ATTRIBUTE the animating source of the puppies behaviour to the individual puppies"

"you insist on seeing the world in terms of ‘material things-in-themselves and what they do’..."

... along with "You are today's Lenin."

Oh.

The tailors' last words before being hanged >

'Remember to tie the last stitch'

So relevent, like the last knot, like the one around his neck, sooo nihilistic, synonymous with total pain/oblivion, reality, no hope, JUST DO IT! Stop fucking around, no sentimentalities here! Sooo fucking cool !

The last oil well, JUST DO IT! No hope there, just be cool and accept it, DEAL WITH THE OBLIVION/PAIN wimp! Just burn the last drop and move on, don't cry over spilt oil, this is not Eden! Just deal with it!

Pretty much all previous comments on this page are pretty liberal. Like everyone probably votes for Democrats and like, even believes in voting. Ugggh.

I woke up this morning--the gradual awaking when you in the twilight zone of waking from the sleep world--thinking of school. I was thinking of ALL the poor kids now forced to go to school. I know I know some kids claim to love it--'happiest days' and all that. Hmmm but many of us hate it, and I was one. But the actual institution is forced on children and parents--THAT is the point. If a child doesn't go the parent can be fined and even end up in prison! And if we compare that with what they did/do when they invade other cultures--Native peoples--they force the children into their schools. So IT IS THE SAME THING!

What is another thing they force on us, little ones and grown-ups alike? The BIOPSYCHIATRIC/BIG-PHARMA model which insists, quoting 'science' that we are biochemical robots which need "treatment/psychiatric drugs" IF we do not behave as is "normal""

And what else? The so-called "war on drugs" which includes war on psychedelics. Psychedelics known by many native peoples since ancient times as sacred MEDICINE.

I will look what the etymology of the term "hope" is: "hope (v.)
Old English hopian "wish, expect, look forward (to something)," of unknown origin, a general North Sea Germanic word (cf. Old Frisian hopia, Middle Low German, Middle Dutch, Dutch hopen; Middle High German hoffen "to hope," borrowed from Low German). Some suggest a connection with hop (v.) on the notion of "leaping in expectation" [Klein]. Related: Hoped; hoping."

LOL of "unknown origin", I likes that! To "look forward to something". I get image of the isolated child in school surrounded by grim shit all around in and out, trying to escape the teacher (also a victim)'s eyes as s/he gazes out of the window. maybe lucky to see some blue sky and greenery, and dream of escaping the soul-destroying shithole and getting out there to play.

but WAIT! Many children now have been led to the screen. Nature for many is "boring". It was for me. Even though I hated school, its evil and culture still worked on me and until 15--especially years 8-15 I was bored with the natural world and obsessed with big ugly concrete cities. it was being given LSD when 15 which helped blow all that toxicity away. I suddenly experienced nature was ALIVE. SO alive and full of mystery.

There is definitely something to be said about same and different things. Essentially, I believe everything is the same thing. The difference is that we do not live in a world of essences but a world of fluid uncertainty and concrete imbalances.

Vote for Hillary in 2016!

Anarchist T-shirts bartered and exchanged for food and other produce! Yes, that's right, we will give you a T-shirt for food, petrol, even for a good idea! You heard me right, a good idea is worth a thousand condoms! Our latest T-shirt straight out of the mills >> " Primitive communism died in 1999 " << . Hurry, to you in exchange for a gallon of gas or 4 hamburgers. Hurry, going fast!

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.
C
M
n
D
L
5
Z
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Why Hope?"