Why Riot?

From Ultra - by Phil A. Neel

Two years ago in Seattle, on May 1st, 2012, roughly four to five hundred people engaged in the largest riot the city had seen in more than a decade. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of property were destroyed[i], a minor state of emergency was declared, and the next day’s headlines were filled with horror stories of crazy, “out-of-town” anarchists run amok.

This event, occurring on the tail end of the Occupy movement, also quickly became the post-facto excuse for extensive federal, state and municipal investigation, surveillance and ongoing repression of political dissent. Several anarchists in the Pacific Northwest were put in prison without charge in the fall of that year, only to be released months later, still with no charges filed. Houses were raided in search of anarchist literature and black hoodies. Up to a year later, people were still being followed.

I was one of the five people originally charged for crimes on May Day 2012[ii]. I’ve since pled guilty to slightly lesser charges, in order to avoid going to trial on two felonies[iii]. I pled in the fall of 2013 and completed the bulk of the sentence in the winter, spending three months in King County’s Work-Education Release (WER) Unit. Technically an “alternative to confinement,” living in WER effectively means that you are imprisoned at all times that you are not allowed out for work, school or treatment (for mental health or drug offenses).

This puts me in a unique position. Since I am one of the few people who has pled guilty to certain crimes from May 1st, 2012, including Riot, I do not necessarily face the same risks in talking about—and defending—the riot as a tactic or the impulses behind it. This by no means makes what I say below an exhaustive or fully representative account of why others may have engaged in that same riot. They mostly got away—a good thing in and of itself, though federal charges may still be pending for one window that was smashed in an empty courthouse. But this also means that they cannot speak of or defend their participation without risking repression.

To be clear: I’m not speaking on behalf of any groups who wound up engaged in the riot that occurred on May Day 2012. To my knowledge, the riot was by no means planned ahead of time, and the anti-capitalist march that the riot grew out of, technically an Occupy Seattle event, was itself planned in public meetings. I’m not even speaking on behalf of this specific riot, but instead on behalf of rioting as such, in the abstract. The question “Why Riot” is not simply: why did you engage in this riot, but, instead, why riot at all? And the perspective given here is that of a rioter.

So I’m writing here for simple reasons: to defend the riot as a general tactic and to explain why one might engage in a riot. By this I mean to defend and explain not just the window breaking, not just “non-injurious violence,” and certainly not just the media spectacle it generates, but the riot itself—that dangerous, ugly word that sounds so basically criminal and which often takes (as in London in 2011) a form so fundamentally unpalatable for civil society that it can only be understood as purely irrational, without any logic, and without possible defense.

I aim, nonetheless, to defend and explain the riot, because we live in a new era of riots. Riots have been increasing in absolute number globally for the past thirty years. They are our immediate future, and this future will spare Seattle no less than Athens or London, Guangzhou or Cairo.

 

Who am I?

I am a member of the poorest generation since those who came of age during the Great Depression. Born to the “end of history,” we watched the ecstatic growth of the Clinton years morph seamlessly into the New Normal of Bush and Obama.

We have no hope of doing better than our parents did, by almost any measure. We have inherited an economy in secular stagnation, a ruined environment on the verge of collapse, a political system created by and for the wealthy, skyrocketing inequality, and an emotionally devastating, hyper-atomized culture of pyrrhic consumption.

The most recent economic collapse has hit us the hardest. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, the median net worth of people under 35 fell 55 percent between 2005 and 2009, while those over 65 lost only a fraction as much, around 6 percent[iv]. The result is that if you calculate debt alongside income, wealth inequality is today increasingly generational. Those over 65 hold a median net worth of $170,494, an increase from 1984 of 42 percent. Meanwhile, the median net worth of those under 35 has fallen 68 percent over the same period, leaving young people today with a median worth of only $3,662[v].

Despite cultural narratives of laziness and entitlement, this differential is not due to lack of effort or education (my generation is the most educated, as well, and works some of the longest hours for the least pay). The same Pew Study notes that older white Americans have simply been the beneficiaries of good timing. They were raised in an era of cheap housing and education, massive state welfare and unprecedented economic ascent following the creative destruction of two world wars and a depression—wars and crises that they themselves didn’t have to live through.

And the jobs that older Americans hold are not being passed down to us, though their debt is. When they retire, the few remaining secure, living wage and often unionized positions will be eliminated, their components dispersed into three or four different unskilled functions performed by part-time service workers. The entirety of the job growth that has come since the “recovery” began has been in low-wage, temporary or highly precarious jobs, which exist alongside a permanently heightened unemployment rate.

 

The Old Economy Steve meme took off after the financial crisis, speaking to this divide between generations

The Old Economy Steve meme took off after the financial crisis, speaking to this divide between generations

In the long term, this means that, after having been roundly robbed in almost every respect by our parents’ generation, our own future holds nothing more than the hope that we might be employed in two or three separate part-time, no-promotion positions in the few growth sectors, such as healthcare, where we can have the privilege of being paid minimum wage to wipe the asses of the generation that robbed us.

It is no coincidence, then, that every time we hear a fucking baby boomer explain how we’re so entitled, and how they worked summers to pay for college, we contemplate whether or not disemboweling them and selling their organs on the booming black market might be the only way to pay back our student loans.

 

Where did I come from?

Meanwhile, this economic overhaul has led not only to a global reordering of where things are made, and by whom, but also to a spatial concentration of economic activity in the US.[vi] Those metropolitan regions that were capable of becoming network hubs for global logistics systems fared best, with their amalgamation of hi-tech industries and producer services. These became the urban palaces, with concentrations of “cultural capital” and redesigned downtown cores (lightly cleansed of “undesirable” populations) built to appeal to tourists and foreign dignitaries.

Beyond this, large swaths of the country were simply abandoned as wastelands, where resource extraction was either hyper-mechanized or too expensive, agricultural goods were produced under heavy government subsidy, and small urban centers were forced to compete for the most undesirable jobs in industrial farming, food processing, waste management, warehousing or the growing private prison industry. In many areas, the informal economy expanded enormously—consistent with global trends, most visible in the worldwide growth of slums.

 

This is the America I was raised in

This is the America I was raised in

I am from one of these wastelands where the majority of work is informal, the majority of formal industries are dirty or miserable, and where rates of poverty, unemployment, chronic disease, illiteracy, and mental illness are often two to three times the national average. Raised in a trailer several miles off a reservation in one of the poorest counties on the west coast, all of the structural shifts mentioned above were for me not academic abstractions, but living reality. I come from that part of America—the majority of it—where weed is the biggest cash crop, where kids eat Special K like it’s cereal, and where the only “revitalization” we’ve ever seen is when the abandoned factory down the street was converted into a meth lab.

And I was, due mostly to dumb luck, one of the few who was able to earn enough to pay the exit fee. Upon arrival in Seattle, despite having a degree I was fed into the lowest tiers of the labor market. Rather than being some “out-of-town” suburban youth using Seattle as a “playground,” as commentators would claim of the rioters, I was, in fact, one of the multitude of invisible workers that the city depended on—whether hauling goods to and from the port, working in the south county warehouses, cleaning downtown’s sprawling office towers, or, as in my case, working behind the kitchen door.

At the time of the riot, I was working for ten cents more than minimum wage in a wholesale kitchen in South Seattle, where we produced tens of thousands of pre-packaged sandwiches and salads for consumption in upscale city cafés and office buildings. It is not an exaggeration to say that my full-time work schedule (for the duration of Occupy Seattle, which I attended every day after morning shifts at work) amounted to me feeding hundreds of thousands of Seattleites over the several months that Occupy was a present force in the city. It’s likely, then, that those hysteric KIRO-TV commentators claiming that I was part of some “outsider” gang come from the heart of chaos (or Portland, maybe?) to fuck up Seattle have themselves regularly eaten the food that I was paid poverty wages to make.

Despite the language of post-industrial, guilt-free success common to many wealthy Seattleites’ image of themselves, the fact is that Seattle, like any other global city, relies on what is called a dual labor market[vii]. Higher tiers of skilled labor, cultural production, finance and producer services exist atop a secondary tier of less skilled, minimally compensated work in high-turnover jobs with little chance of promotion.

This creates a fundamental spatial problem within capitalism: despite the outsourcing of the dirtiest, most dangerous jobs in manufacturing and resource extraction, the rich can never entirely get away from the poor. The extension of surveillance, incarceration and deportation, the militarization of the police, and the softer counter-insurgency of philanthropy foundations[viii], social justice NGOs, conservative unions and various other poverty pimps are all methods to manage different dimensions of this problem. The riot is what happens when all these mediations fail. And in an era of crisis and austerity, such mediation becomes more and more difficult to maintain.

So in all the media’s talk of “outsiders,” “anarchists” and other terms meant to make the rioting subject opaque to those not immediately engaged in the riot, the one fact that was consistently distorted was the simplest: the thieves in the palace were, in fact, the servants.

I, the terrifying, irrational rioter, am you.

 

Why don’t I engage in more productive forms of protest?

The other common theme was, of course, the morality play between the “good protestor” and the “bad protestor.” The rioters somehow “infiltrated” the march. They distracted from the “real” issues. They turned “normal” people away from the day’s events, ultimately hurting attempts at reform that were already underway.

There is in this an implicit assumption that there exist “better” forms of protest, and that we rioters do not also do these things. This produces a few small ironies, as when the local alt-weekly, The Stranger, contrasted the negotiated arrest of fast food protestors, who showed their courage by standing their ground and “demanding arrest,” with the May Day rioters, who did nothing but “hide behind bandanas while hurling rocks.” The irony here was that I was myself one of those rioters and one of those fast food workers—having been involved in the fast food campaign from its inauguration, leading a walkout at my workplace in the first strike, planning segments of the intermediate actions (including the wage theft protest, though my pending riot case prevented me from being arrested there), and then briefly taking a paid position with Working Washington for two weeks leading up to the second strike.

Beyond the irony, though, there is the troublesome presumption that this highly negotiated, thoroughly controlled and largely non-threatening activism is somehow more productive in the long term. When I did engage in the fast food strikes, I did so initially as a fast food worker, and the short-term goal there was to build power among food workers in the city. Despite this, no amount of organizing for (often much-needed) reforms can get over the basic problems of reform itself, which is today equivalent to trying to take a step uphill during an avalanche—you may well complete that step, but the ground itself is moving the opposite direction.

What would have been easily achievable, relatively minor reforms in the boom era of fifty or sixty years ago, such as raising the minimum wage to match inflation, enforcing laws against wage theft, and coming up with an equitable tax system, today require herculean effort and mass mobilization, even when ninety percent of the original demand is usually sacrificed simply to show “good faith” at the negotiating table.

 

Why don’t I like capitalism?

There is plenty more to talk about here—which you can explore if you please. But the basic problem, cut to the size of a tweet, is that the economy is the name for a hostage situation in which the vast majority of the population is made dependent on a small minority through implicit threat of violence.

If we challenge the system’s capacity to infinitely accumulate more at a compounding rate, it goes into crisis—this is basic definition of crisis: when profitable growth slows, stops, or, god forbid, reverses. Whenever this accumulation is challenged, whether by contingent factors such as poor location, or intentional ones, such as a resistant populace, those who hold the power (the wealthy) will start killing hostages.

This is precisely what has been happening over the last fifty years of economic restructuring. Any regions that show significant resistance to the lowering of wages, the dismantling of social services, the export or mechanization of jobs, or the privatization of public property can easily be sacrificed. The American landscape, circa 2014, is littered with just such dead hostages: Detroit and Flint, MI, Camden, NJ, Athens, OH, Jackson, MS, the mining towns of West Virginia or northern Nevada.

The handful of cities (such as New York and Seattle) that were able to escape this fate today pride themselves on being such good hostages. The only reason they were able to survive this rigged game of neoliberal roulette was because of a mixture of sheer geographic luck (often as port cities or pre-existing financial centers) and their absolute openness to do whatever the rich wanted. Public goods were sold off at bargain basement prices, downtown cores were redesigned according to the whims of a few large interests in retail, finance and real estate, and tax money, paired with future tax exemptions, was simply handed out as bribes to big players like Nordstrom and Boeing.[ix]

If we then zoom out to the global scale, it is abundantly obvious that the currently existing economic system—which we call capitalism—is a failed one. If it ever had any grudging utility in raising general livelihoods after its mass sacrifices in war and colonization, that time has unequivocally passed. Aside from the numerous examples cited above, there are a few especially appalling illustrations. Slavery is growing worldwide at a rate higher than at any other time in recent history. Mechanization is set to push massive swaths of workers out of the production process entirely, even while the gains of this increase in productivity are themselves concentrated almost exclusively in the hands of the wealthy. The central role of finance and speculation in the global economy has resulted in massive spikes in global food prices, causing famines and food riots, as well as a situation in which the majority of grain in the world, to take one example, is controlled by just four companies.

 

Global slavery has been increasing

Global slavery has been increasing

Meanwhile, the bulk of the globe’s basic goods production is increasingly concentrated—both in the producer services of high-GDP metropoles like London, New York and Tokyo and in the “world’s factory” of South and Southeast Asia. The production of these goods is not only dominated by vast, low-wage retailers like Wal-Mart and Amazon, but also increasingly dictated by massive contract manufacturers like Foxconn or Yue Yuen, which concentrate their production in factory cities where the lives of migrant workers are surveilled and managed in a quasi-military fashion.

The concentration of the production process coincides with the concentration of the wealth generated by that process. Even within the old “first world,” poverty and unemployment have been on the rise since long before the most recent crisis. Greece and Spain are only the most visible signs of this trend. In the US, especially, the trend splits along racial lines. Cities and schools are resegregating, though the patterns of segregation are more complex than the redlining of the Jim Crow era. One dimension of this resegregation has been the growth of the US prison system into one of the largest the world has ever seen. Even if calculated as a percentage of population, rather than absolute number, the US today imprisons roughly the same fraction of its population as the USSR did at the height of the gulag system—and our prison population is still on the rise.

Curable diseases are returning en masse, while new viruses are being developed at record rates in the evolutionary pressure-cooker of industrial agriculture. Each economic crisis is larger than the one preceding it, and these crises are not just “business cycles.” Or, more accurately: the so-called business cycle is simply a sine wave oscillating around a trajectory of absolute decline. And this decline, like the last major ones in the global economic system, will only be reversible through an unimaginably massive bout of creative destruction.

In the face of a collapsing environment, a hyper-volatile economic system and skyrocketing global inequality, it is simply utopian to believe that the present system can be perpetuated indefinitely without great violence. Opposition to capitalism has become an eminently practical endeavor.

 

But… Why riot?

Despite all of this, the riot itself may still seem an enigma. On the surface, riots appear to produce little in terms of concrete results and, when you add up the numbers, often do less actual economic damage to large business interests than, for example, blockading the port. They produce a certain spectacle, but so does Jay-Z.

In one sense, there is often a practical side to many riots, which can be far better at winning demands than negotiated attempts at reform. Despite the fact that reform itself is designed to treat symptoms rather than the disease, it’s also evident that riots are a useful tool even in reform efforts. Riots, accompanying illegal blockades, occupations and wildcat strikes, have proliferated in China’s Pearl River Delta over the past several years, and the result has been that workers there have seen an unprecedented rise in manufacturing wages, which more than doubled between 2004 and 2009. Some scholars have called the phenomenon “collective bargaining by riot.”

Similarly, more and more historical work has been emerging showing that riots and other forms of armed organizing were very much the meat of movements like the civil rights struggle in the US, despite the common perception that these things were somehow “non-violent.” It is, in fact, difficult to find any example of a successful, significant sequence of reforms that did not utilize the riot at one point or another. As Paul Gilje, the pre-eminent historian of the US riot, has argued: “Riots have been important mechanisms for change,” and, in fact, “the United States of America was born amid a wave of rioting.” The tactic, then, should by no means be seen as in and of itself exceptional.

And it’s also not a sufficient tactic unto itself. The function of the riot is less about a religious or petulant obsession with the act of breaking shit and also not entirely about winning any given demand. This was apparent in examples like Occupy, which had no coherent, agreed-upon demands, aside from a general rejection of those in power. This demandlessness was a feature not only of Occupy, however, but of nearly every one of the mass movements that began in 2011, starting with the Arab Spring. In each instance, the only thing that was agreed upon was that the system was fundamentally fucked, and it was this aspect alone that transformed the riots from mere attempts at reform into truly historical procedures.

My generation was not only born into the ecstatic “end of history” of the 1990s, but is also the global generation—of slum-dwelling youth and “graduates with no future”—who are inducing the first pangs of history’s rebirth. And this rebirth has taken the figure of the hooded rioter, as has been evidenced by the increasingly frequent transformation of mass riots into occupations of public squares, which themselves evolved into new forms of rioting and, ultimately, the first major insurrection of the 21st century—which took place in Egypt and has since been largely crushed by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces.

The riot is most important, then, not in its traditional ability to win demands that progressives can only drool over, but instead when it takes on a demandless character. This absence of demands in the riot and occupation implies two things: First, it implies a rejection of existing mediations. We do not intend to vote for fundamentally corrupt political parties or play the rigged game of activism. Though it may be important in particular instances to fight for and win certain demands, such as the demand for $15 an hour, these reforms in and of themselves contribute nothing to the ultimate goal of winning a better world. They can contribute to this project only in very particular contexts, and only when superseded by forms adequate to that true project, as when the growing spate of strikes in Egypt in the years leading up to 2011 was suddenly superseded by a mass insurrection.

Second, it implies the question of power. The riot affirms our power in a profoundly direct way. By “our” power I mean, first, the power of those who have been and are continually fucked-over by the world as it presently is, though these groups by no means all experience this in the same way and to the same degree—the low-wage service workers, the prisoners, the migrant laborers, the indebted, unemployed graduates, the suicidal paper-pushers, the 农民工on the assembly line, the child slaves of Nestle cocoa plantations, my childhood friends who never got out of the trailer or off the rez. But I also mean the power of our generation: the millenials, a label that already implies the apocalyptic ambiance of our era. Or, more colloquially: Generation Fucked, because, well, obviously.

The question of power, though, isn’t simply a question of the devolution of power to the majority of people, though this is the ultimate goal. At the immediate level it is a struggle over power between shrinking fractions of the population dedicated to maintaining the complete shit-show that is the status quo, and growing fractions of the population dedicated to destroying that shit-show as thoroughly as humanly possible, while in the process collectively constructing a system in which poverty becomes impossible, no one is illegal, power itself is not concentrated in the hands of a minority of the population, our metabolism with the natural world bears less and less resemblance to the metabolism of a meth-head scouring the medicine cabinet, and the collective material wealth and accumulated intelligence of the human species is made freely accessible to all members of that species, rather than being reserved as party-swag for half-naked Russian oligarchs.

Pretending that power does not exist directly serves those who presently hold it. And the riot overturns such pretense by exerting our own power against theirs. It is a mechanism whereby we both scare the rich and attract people to a project that goes far beyond the reform of a collapsing world. In this particular instance, it has worked. Many of the fast food workers with whom I organized in the year following the riot understood its portent perfectly well. By May Day 2013, the riot had taken on a life of its own.

The riot, then, is not a hindrance to “real” struggle or a well-intentioned accident where people’s “understandable” anger gets “out of control.” Getting out of control is the point, which is precisely why the riot is the foundation from which any future worth the name must be built.

And we will be the ones to build it. Our generation: the millenials, generation fucked, or, as we’ve taken to calling it: Generation Zero. Zero because we’ve got nothing left except debt—but also nothing to lose. And zero because, like the riot, it all starts here.

In the end, then, you can lose the economics, you can lose the spectacle and the moralizing and the god-awful appeals to cute and fuzzy “social/racial/environmental justice.” Throw all of this in the alembic of the riot, and it boils down to the simplest of propositions:

Our future’s already been looted. It’s time to loot back.

 

Phil A. Neel

 

[i] Note that left-wing political riots primarily target property and, secondarily, engage in defensive violence against the protectors of that property, namely police, security officers, or vigilantes. This has been referred to as “non-injurious” violence, since there is an implicit agreement that rioters not cause harm to innocent bystanders, and since persons are not the primary target of the violence. By contrast, right-wing riots exhibit an opposite aspect, where persons, and particularly the least powerful in a situation, are generally the primary target of the violence, with property destruction being the ancillary. This is a well-documented phenomenon. See, for example: Gilje, Paul A. Rioting in America, Indiana University Press, 1996.

[ii] Of these five cases, one has been dropped after significant expense on the part of the city achieved only a hung jury. Out of all five, there have been only two guilty pleas, mine included.

[iii] It’s worth noting here that striking a police officer in the United States is a felony—which also means that, if you hit a cop and are found guilty of the crime, you lose the right to vote (usually for the duration of your multi-year probation, though in some states, such as Kentucky, you are disenfranchised for the rest of your life).

[iv] Ages 35-44 lost 49%, 45-54 lost 28% and 55-64 lost 14%.

[v] If you calculate the same data for Generation X and the younger Baby Boomers, with the same age brackets used in 1984, you see ages 35-44 losing 44% of their median income, though still holding roughly ten times the wealth ($39,601) as millenials. Ages 45-54 losing 10%, holding a median of $101,651, and ages 55-64 gaining 10%, growing to $162,065. Similarly, since 1967, poverty among the 35-and-under age group has increased from 12% to 22%, while, for those 65 and older, it has actually dropped from 33% to 11%.

[vi] For a more detailed academic account of this process, see Saskia Sassen, The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press, 1991.

[vii] See Michael Piore, Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. Cambridge University Press, 1979

[viii] The philanthropic endeavors of the wealthy are similar to the actions of a burglar who, after robbing a neighborhood, returns to that neighborhood to return half of one percent of the loot as gifts—or, in the case of much international philanthropy, in the form of gift cards that you can only use at the burglar’s own department store, as when the Gates family gives loans earmarked to be used only for the purchase of pharmaceuticals from companies in which the Gates family owns a significant share.

[ix] For a detailed account of this process in Seattle, see: Timothy A. Gibson, Securing the Spectacular City: The Politics of Revitalization and Homelessness in Downtown Seattle. Lexington Books, 2003.

Category: 

Comments

This looks like a much better "the coming insurrection" for Americans...and short enough to finish in one sitting. Riot!

...TCI is about more then just rioting...in fact, if re-read the entire last section of the book where it lays out a number of ways to get organized and to move forward. I swear to god, American IA's have misunderstood that book and Call to know end.

Yeah, maybe its because that shit was some hyped up boring confusing crap. This author writes intelligently and clearly without having to sift tbrough a bunch of mumbo jumbo. TCI is smart, but think communicates much better.

Holy shit, seriously? TCI was confusing? How? Not that it was in the simplest language possible, but, shit.

I found TCI to be unintelligible and I'm a huge theory nerd.

What was difficult to understand? What kind of "theory" are you a "nerd" about?

And what's with this implication that texts can or must be arranged on a one-dimensional spectrum from 'best' to 'worst'? Creeping utilitarianism...

I doubt the "theory nerd" actually thought it was unintelligible. It's certainly easier to read then Society of the Spectacle or even much of AJODA.

EITHER WAY: don't start at the beginning of the book. If you feel like you aren't really too interested in "theory" then go pick up a copy, or find the .pdf on the internet, and re-read all of the last sections, beginning with "Get Going!". This part of the book is very easy to read, certainly no more difficult than any essay from Rolling Thunder.

I do not think it is wise to separate thinking conceptually from thinking tactically let alone from thinking strategically, but if you not willing or able to think conceptually at the level of this book, at least re-read the end. I think that it is mostly the unwillingness to engage with the actual substance of this book that has lead north American IA's to think that they agree with this book when they really don't. Be challenged by this text. Also, let yourself read it slowly. I am a huge theory-head and I didn't get this way with a formal education, I learned this shit by going slow, looking up words I don't know, asking for interpretations from friends et cetera. My practice is much better for it because I feel capable of contributing strategically with conceptual backing. I feel less lost when other comrades feel uncertain, I feel less confused about how to move forward. It's worth it.

ps
The piece posted here is also very good. More like this.

Another "theory nerd" here. I've been at this a long time and never need to look up words. Nonetheless, I'd be inclined to use the word "unintelligible" to describe this text (and The Call, etc). I mean, it was ok, I guess, but really nothing special or terribly original.

if you think tiqqun was a hard read or unoriginal (its entire appeal being its highly original language/juxtapositions of different, sometimes weirdly conflicting theories and literature, and that it somehow, despite all of this, spoke to HORDES of ppl) you need to go back to theory nerd school.

I'd definitely read a copy if someone could translate it to English, or just actually say what it's trying to say.

It says we should riot and ignore unions and assemblies.

Tiqqun = "Insurrectionary Anarchy"

Seems like you're the one who's confused.

Very, very, very good. Circulate!

One of the better pieces of writing to be published as of late.

The problem with a riot as i see it, is that it hit randomly. It will hit large and small industries or business. I think it would be much better for the anarchist movement if it would be possible somehow get it organized so it wont hit small business. Why? Not because the law says it, but because damaging small business has a much bigger negative impact on people who you potentially could turn over and become anarchist. But when they see all the randomly damage they may be more reluctant getting in to it.

That said, riot is still an important tool, but i dont see it as an universal tool. I dont see riot as something that will be productive in the early stages of a revolution. Its like if you wanna cut a piece of paper with a saw. Better get a scissor then. Then later in the build up to a revolution you can do the riot. When we get a good sizable movement, its like now we have some wood and now we can pull out the saw.

randomness is illusion

i think your chronology is confused and strained. sometimes riots are ways of growing that "movement," sometimes they happen as a method of building strength, or a kind of "revolutionary gymnastics," or a way to invite others into a situation.

as for the "random damage," most riots we ve seen over the last three or four years were fairly focused: police, businesses, etc. As for some small vs. large business, well i think you might wanna talk to the people doing the rioting....Small business is often the worst perpretrator of poverty wages and fucked up gentrification in city centers; they dont suddenly get off the hook from a crowd of angry proles just cus theyre not niketown. (incidentally, in this revolution of yours - are such businesses not expropriated too? in which case, what does smashing the window of a bougie local coffeeshop compare with STEALING ALL OF IT....) The problem of big vs small seems rather a problem of communication and articulation, of the crowd and others understanding why its happening. People whining indefense of small businesses doesnt help this-though admittedly neither do those who absolutely refuse to communicate. Fortunately this very articulate article does an excellent job of explaining exactly some of the dynamics occurring in this "randomness" youre worried about.

yeah we wouldn't want to alienate any bosses/capitalists would we
i bet the workers who get their paychecks stolen from small business owners give a silent cheer when they hear their window was smashed
also fuck appealing to developement

identify with the mode of being that makes up bosses/capitalists. I recall talking to a university/college aged work mate of mind saying that raising the m-wage to $17 per hour would be bad for business. Not everyone is like this, but to infer the opposite to workers as a whole is just crude imputation.

The WWs happened, things changed. Appeal to something else.

I mean there is a reason why the state use precision bombing (dont know how much precision there is to it) but still. Its not because the state wanna do as little damage as possible, we can just see what happened in Vietnam war, or if the state would feel sorrow for the wounded and dead civilians and kids losing their parents. No the reason why the state use precision bombing is because carpet bombing turns people off.
It was acceptable once when the technology couldnt do better, but now people demand more.

The state learned what will come out of random damage, and we should learn from that too.

i know that's where pride goeth, but i take a good deal of it being 64 with a "net worth" of maybe $10,000
fuck greed, fuck jobs touted as a good thing, fuck capitalism, fuck patriarchy, and fuck its' armed enforcers!

inevitably patriarchy ends up being something liberal to say, like "fuck white supramacy" and such

How exactly does it serve us not to have a language with which to describe the different forms of hierarchy at work around us? I want a real answer, not some moronic teenage jingoism.

Serve how? Any specific issue that lends itself to politicians can't be the order of the day.

Else you'll have more shit like this http://anarchistnews.org/content/white-boy%E2%80%99s-resistance-patriarc...

I wouldn't call it exactly "a language", either, but some "language". The former makes it sound like its all going to be the same.

OK, I'm sold on your second point--we need language, or lots of different language, for speaking about the different manifestations of hierarchy and systematic domination. Well put. However, if every time somebody points out that (for example) racialization has been essential to the development of capitalism and the functioning of the prison-industrial complex, some jingoist with poor social skills interrupts and is like "LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL!!!!" my guess is that it won't work out very well.

An understanding of the existing forms and means of domination doesn't necessarily imply efforts to reform rather than destroy them. Perhaps it would be valuable to be able to speak about them specifically so as to show that nothing good can come of trying to abolish them piecemeal.

Finally, one of the good things about anarchism is that we understand that what we're fighting is not just an external system, but something that penetrates into our own social relations. Being able to identify and oppose patriarchal dynamics in our own groups is helpful for making us stronger and closer (or at least figuring out who our real friends are). Equating the use of the word patriarchy with "being liberal" probably means rendering ourselves powerless against the enemies within as well as the institutions ranged against us.

It's a pretty fine line. Yes, patriarchal behavior should be challenged when it happens internally, which is bound to happen because we've all been socialized in a patriarchal society. On the other hand, identity politics has clearly run amok, and is being used in extremely divisive ways by people who's politics are questionable at best. If the Lawrence Jarach episode wasn't evidence enough, check of the Kristian Williams controversy at this years Law and Disorder conference for the latest manifestation of this phenomenon.

i would have to point out to the liberal their misunderstanding and appropriation of the term, not abandon it to them.

Great read. <3

Print-ready PDF pamphlet of this essay: http://oplopanaxpublishing.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/why-riot/

any way to adjust the letter "O" on the cover? It doesnt print or copy well at all with the light greys around it...

shit, working on it, my photoshop skills are even shittier than my indesign skills...

its fixed.

now its REALLY fixed.

Thank you! Handed out a bunch of these at this year's totally predictable and scripted May Day rally and march in Portland. Here's to hoping that it plants the seeds for something more promising to happen next year. Or even some time in the interim when there aren't a shit ton of cops watching our every move!

i foresee a barren crop next year. maybe yall should take peyote and go to a corporate retreat at burning man and wild out - get some creative culture juices flowing

No, thank YOU. I just fiddled around on a computer while you were out in the streets, making the computing actually worthwhile.

While I despise the capitalist system I can see your obvious education and would suggest you get a job in some writing capacity rather than fast food. You might create some other articles which the fascist/capitalists wouldn't object to as a resume of your writing skills and education.
Otherwise, KEEP RIOTING! It's all BULLSHIT to sit around talking about this and that. Only people who get up and DO SOMETHING that are worth a damn. And I'm not talking about grabbing kids who break windows in downtown Seattle. FUCK ALL THOSE BUSINESSES! They are not small businesses with locations like that. The only way we are going to get change from these rich motherfuckers who would laugh gleefully at function of a slaughterhouse is to scare the living shit out of them or kill them. We'll have to do what it takes or witness the world dying a slow death. The young people of today are the most unlucky when it comes to wealth and health on Earth. But, maybe just maybe, they will be the first to witness the new hope after we crush the fascists.

"Get a job writing"

Uh, hate to break it to you...people don't really get paid to write anymore. Sorry, there's more money in fast food.

And that includes this article. Demandless riots do not exist beyond theoretical constructions that are unable to escape the leftist paradigm. POWER is ultimately an illusion, and the sooner anarchs realize this the better.

The problem with this anarchism is that it still tries to contort itself to the noisy expression of the rabble. The rabble will always have their say not the anarch, leave them to their noise. Really the last anarchist on the question of insurrection and expropriation was Novatore, but Novatore pushed things to such immediate and personal levels that the only logical update to his approach is an approach of letting go, decommissioning, self/collective therapy, contextual immediate care for the self without the noise factor.

Rioting is fundamentally representative of ideological intensification.The modern political machines necessary regurgitation. Leftism is more tailor made for these political archetypes then something authentically anarchic. It ultimately comes down to that age old adage of changing your self from within, not screaming at your reflection, which is what rioting is.

So, what, then?

How about demonstrations of power, like that Vandal demo? I wouldn't call it a "riot", though it could become one. I don't know if I agree with Sir E. Perhaps if we start a riot from a leftist position it won't ever break the mold. But then again, maybe what we want isn't necessarily a riot, but a momentum that occasionally does group demonstrations of power?

Like totally man, don't let the harsh vibes get you down. Be the change you want to see, or something. This is some 70s hippy new age bullshit, an era marked by inward retreat and a general decline in movements of resistance. Unfortunately, given the current pace of ecocide taking place and the ensuing economic crisis formed by a scarcity of resources, this generation doesn't have the luxury of wallowing in their own privilege and pretending like the machinations of those in power have no bearing on them or their future. The only hope they have is to bring this death machine to a grinding halt.

right? this fools always on this "the only option is to do nothing" shit.
i wish Sir Einzige would finish melted his brain with LSD and stop with his pseudo-radical drop-out culture bullshit. Take that shit back to Berkley... in like 1972.

"Demandless riots do not exist beyond theoretical constructions that are unable to escape the leftist paradigm"

nigga what?

"POWER is ultimately an illusion, and the sooner anarchs realize this the better"

used as in english "power relations", sounds liberal

but ultimately, not ultimately

how you hear

"Really the last anarchist on the question of insurrection and expropriation was Novatore"

the last anarchist you read about??

"that the only logical update to his approach is an approach of letting go, decommissioning, self/collective therapy"

*whips out dick*

"It ultimately comes down to that age old adage of changing your self from within, not screaming at your reflection, which is what rioting is."

sounds new age

There's no self to change. There's no reflection to scream at.

web of illusion, nigga

Better then being old age

This is the worst thing ive ever read on this website:

"It ultimately comes down to that age old adage of changing your self from within, not screaming at your reflection, which is what rioting is."

And thats saying something.

Was a product of the noise of 1968. It was a completely configured outcome. Ironically many people who intensified their being by becoming riot actors were indeed materially comfortable. We have a long and large enough sample size going back to 1789 to conclude that these noisy historical riots are simply regurgitations as a means to return to the modern materialist machine.

" It is a matter of bringing decisive moments back in order to lay them to rest. It is a matter of putting beyond use certain modes of violence. It is a matter of de-commissioning, de-weaponising, de-monetising - of taking the sting out of things. It is a matter of therapeutically de-energising circuits of accumulation and acceleration, and of taking out of circulation the harmful materials which are being amassed there. It is a matter of gently interrupting those behavioural tendencies which slip back into the same addictive patterns."

huh materialist cockface

feds are trying to get ppl to riot to to identify and "legally" take as many uncontrollables out of the populace as possible, face cameras will now be required attire. riot porn will only serve to scare the populace into more submission.

new strategy is needed. these things no longer are relevant.

This is just garbage conpsiracy nonsense. "They WANT us to revolt! So they can arrest us!" Right. I think youre at the wrong place, try alex jones.

As for scaring the populace - what is this populace? If it has become a riot it is by definition to some degree contagious, speaking to general concerns, interests, and feelings. A riot of poor folks in an urban enclave will scare some -it should - and inspire others. This is natural and good. Are we scaring people? is the wrong question. Who is it scaring, who is it inviting, and how do we network and relate with the latter in news subversive ways, beyond just the riot? These could be and have been interesting starting points.

its certainly not scaring the police and the national guard. it gives them a theatre to show off their power. learn to think. no one is 'inspired watching their friends/comrades get beat and arrested, unless theyre sadists or masochists....maybe in like 5 years you'll get it. throw around words like alex jones all you want to try to discredit me...im an anarchist who actually learned something important abt occupy and rioting. new strategy is needed for a new terrain. not quite sure what that is yet , but its cominh...capitalisms sadist/. masochist (military/protesters) cycle. need to be broken on its ear. its going nowhere. just round and round.

ps-the only riots that are necessary and effective are in prisons.

If your riots primarily end with the rioters getting beaten and arrested rather than the cops getting beaten and set on fire, it's not an issue with the riot as a form, you're just doing it wrong.

i can get with this...

just throwing it out there that 70s ultra-leftists who targeted heads of state (for assassinations or kidnapping) struck fear deeper into the establishment, than a bunch of kids with signs that cops can enjoy themselves with beating and humiliating (big cop party.) what did we learn from occupy. it changed nearly nothing, people are now more afraid and apathetic to take to the streets than ever in america...same in egypt.

just throwing it out there that the "ultra leftists" you are talking about were almost undoubtedly marxist-leninists who considered themselves the armed vanguard but actually played an critical role in the defusing and dismantling of insurrectionary movements (by losing--although they also would have served the same function had they "won")

HOW and why. Anarchists have also used these tactics (historically.) Would you like to expound on this ? :" who considered themselves the armed vanguard but actually played an critical role in the defusing and dismantling of insurrectionary movements "

"Anarchists have also used these tactics (historically.)"

And they failed

knocking over newspaper boxes, yelling at cops in robocop google glasses until they bloody your (recorded) face, white oogles stoked about exciting riots in brown neighborhoods where their houses dont down get burnt down and their shit doesnt get stolen and their black asses arrested...and, of, course, and elegant dinners in new hampshire to write letters to anarchists in prison are sure-fire winners though.

I'm not saying that assassination is like the best thing ever or anything, but hey. Let's assess the situation. I mean, assuming I'm not just another puffy white person who really doenst give a fuck, and will just carve out my little life without rage or confrontation...is it really worth it.

But don't expect that on a general level it does not reflect the old order more then a post order. If anarchs are going to fail in the future(and at best we do make beautiful failures)then let us fail in new ways at least.

I ve seen quite a few riot type situations over the last 15 years, and yet i ve seen far more beatings and arrested administered at other kinds of protest. Ive also seen the police in these situations, in an actually explosive, generalizing situation, with looks of sheer terror on their faces.

I couldnt agree more that getting ourselves beaten or arrested is stupid - i dont think i know many who would disagree with you on this point. But this is not what we are referring to when we talk about the riot, generally speaking. As another commenter pointed out, if this is your understanding of what a riot entails, then you(we) are seriously doing it wrong.

Of course we always need new terrain. BUt the riot is not a singular tactic that has come and gone - its a feature of a generalizing, typically proletarian (understood in the broadest non marxist sense) rage that has existed as such for at least 500 years. The terrain will certainly change, as our enemies do. The riot will stay, and has been of late an especially important feature of our time; as this article points out, we live in an "era of riots" for a reason.

As for the suggestion that the riot "scares" the "populace" -- such a suggestion is either total nonsense or using a term so undefined (populace) in who it actually refers to as to be totally useless. Again, lets scare some of the populace and invite others.

thanks for the reasoned response...by 'populace' i was referring to protesters, rioters, etc. And the point isnt that the riot itself scares the populace in general (which isnt nec a bad thing), it is that it most riots protests devolve into many more 'uncontrollables' getting beaten and arrested and put on permanent record than cops, who are better armed, and trained sadists. this leads to a feeling of apathy and fear. and i dont see the riots worldwide, except in prisons or dire labour disputes, doing much but portraying a theatre of cruelty.

its also apropos to point out i have no illusion of hard-on for the masses or their "contagious" revolts. im not a marxist...sure ppl need to let out steam a couple times a year. thats why the aristocracy created may day for the masses, to get drunk all day and do puppet shows abt the king.

if one reads tiqqun carefully one can get an first inkling of how these new insurrections can be strategised (altho i'm almost sure the authors had no intention of this other than the knowledge they had acquired in esoteric literature {the inside joke of the coming insurrection amounts to be secretive and do nothing}. but there is more there-bc that knowledge sept out. the first step is learning how power is actually functioning now and mirroring them, that is only a first step.

Vancouver 2011 shows that rioting is a cathartic behavior built into this epoch of human violence. The problem is rioting is an integrated structural part of modernity. Am integral part of recuperation, much more so then say a relaxing of relations that constrain us.

The phrase "social relations" refers to objective social interactions which occur on the scale of a society and has to do with human beings.

For instance, one could describe the relationship of a dishwasher and the owner of the business they work at and refer to this as typifying a "capitalist social relation."

Similarly, one could describe the massive entrapment of black men into prisons and refer to a certain "white supremacist social relation."

One could not refer to what happens between them and their friends as a "social relation."

For that type of thing, we have other words: "relationship" and also "relationships."

Using the word "relation" or "social relation" in place of "relationship" may be confusing. It makes it seem like what is going on between you and your friends expresses a contradiction at the level of a class contradiction - for which the solution would be revolt. But it does not. Relationships are malleable and should be seen as such.

As a side note:

Relationships do not configure social relations. Social relations - between people and the world, between labor and capital, between people and shelter, between patriarchy and humanity, between racialization and humanity, between people and sources of food, between civilization and worlds - do, on the other hand, configure relationships. Don't forget it. It's kind of a one way street.

First, I appreciate that you've taken the time to make an intelligent argument here.

But this is a kind of materialist determinism you're advancing, no? If I understand the Tikkunist argument, they are saying that certain intensities in personal relations can create social groups that are able to fight back against standard social relations. I'm willing to buy that, based on my limited personal experience. Likewise, the things that go on in a marriage (for example), which might be understood in your framework as a mere relationship, generally express systematic forms of patriarchal domination that you would otherwise describe as "social relations." I think you may be trying to divest the anarchist critique of its greatest advantage, a consistency in understanding power dynamics from the macro to the micro.

"If I understand the Tikkunist argument, they are saying that certain intensities in personal relations can create social groups that are able to fight back against standard social relations."

They are wrong, intensity belongs only in the personal singular specific sphere. On a general level Dupont roughly has it correct in that what is in order is to relax and DEintensify relations on a general level over time. Anarchists have been trying these personal to political things for years and they do not work.

It does not help that all this is based on materialist wants and needs, which is a failure of outlook in itself.

I said it before and I'll say it again, you aren't worth shit if you sit around mentally masturbating. Only people who get out and RIOT will make a difference. I'd also suggest surgical strikes against the fascist machine. Killing innocent slave drone people will never win us anything, but targeting certain establishments which are obviously evil (Monsanto for ex) and blowing them up would be a great message which we have yet to see EVEN ONCE in recent times. Make it clear green leftists (or anarchists W/E (no more mental masturbation about how smart we are or what we've read) are not going to take the destruction of the world as an act of god, but an act of greedy fascist MOTHERFUCKING MURDERERS who will pay the ultimate price to WE THE PEOPLE!

'reason' deceives itself in believing it has the power to hijack and enlist in its employ, non-rational activity.

It seems evident that riots are an explosive release of pent-up relational tensions. This is something very different from;

“The riot affirms our power in a profoundly direct way. By “our” power I mean, first, the power of those who have been and are continually fucked-over by the world as it presently is.
.
Pretending that power does not exist directly serves those who presently hold it. And the riot overturns such pretense by exerting our own power against theirs.”

after the riot, most rioters go back to supporting the same web of relations that emprisons them and builds their pent-up tensions, in a dynamic that resembles ‘old faithful’ where that which has been steaming and exploding cools off and files back into the same over-heated chambers they just broke out of. since rioters are a minority, many of those that are identified are ‘shamed’ by the ‘good citizens of the community’ and are pressured into ‘repenting’. the hard liners get jail sentences.

in the case of exploding crowds, the ‘fever’ is a natural response to the disease they are fighting off. that disease is ‘reason’ [aka ‘science’ aka ‘rationality’]. ‘reason’ pervades western society; it is, as emerson says ‘the tool that has run away with the workman’.

‘morality’ and ‘reason’ are bound together in western society [this binding them together was socrates delusion that has infected all of western civilization, according to nietzsche]. nevertheless, the socratic influence persists and it is commonly felt that it is ‘immoral’ to go against ‘reason’. that is a basic premise of all ‘independent reason-driven systems’ such as the ‘sovereign state’, the ‘corporation’ and even the ‘community’ [the modern ‘replicant community’ that inverts the natural precedence of 'relations-first, things-secondary'].

‘reason’ delivers such ‘equations’ as ‘our society is good because it provides food and clothing and security for all of [=many of] its members, and it is compassionate and helps others when they are in need, like the people of those great oil producing countries, iraq and libya when their defenseless citizens are oppressed by evil dictators. we should be thankful to be members of such a God-blessed reason-based society and we must preserve and protect it against any who would disturb or threaten it, giving our children’s lives to this end, if/as necessary.

this is reason. this is scientific thinking too. it is ‘deterministic’. it is a ‘theory’ that can be, according to ‘reasoning people’, be deterministically actualized by way of cause-effect actions of the members of such a society.

the unqualified belief in ‘reason’ is a disease. it is a disease called ‘western civilization’. it is so pervasive in modern society that it is invisible. everywhere you see people ‘coming from reason’ as if it were the unquestionable norm.

this article by phil neel, even though it touches on the ‘irrational’ dynamic of the ‘riot’, is couched in ‘reason’. the author sees ‘riots’ or ‘non-rational behaviour’, as a ‘strategy’ for concentrating ‘our power’ to counter ‘their power’, ... whoever ‘our’ and ‘their’ may be.

the ‘riot’ is no such thing. it is like slapping the face of a control freak partner that is trying to run your life, ... ‘pick up your socks’, ‘take the garbage out’, ‘do the dishes’, 'cook the dinner', not to declare war against them but to say ‘shut the fuck up’... ‘quit telling me what to do and depriving me of the spirit-lifting opportunity to rise to the occasion and fulfill, naturally, the needs that arise and call out for their fulfilling.

naturally evolving webs of relations [‘community’] are not ‘reason-driven’, they are ‘relational’. if, in the relational dynamic, a need shows up, it invites someone to rise to the occasion and blossom himself into a new person with new skills that will help fill the need. it is ridiculous to ‘reason’ that this dynamic is jumpstarted from the individual, conceived of as an ‘independent reason-driven system that lives in an absolute space and absolute time measurement/reference frame, but that’s what western society does.

am i using ‘reason’ in making this claim? was nietzsche using ‘reason’ in saying;

"Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

no, i am using direct intuition from my physical sensory experience. everything is in flux. there is no such thing as ‘being’ and ‘being’ is the basis of ‘reason’. of course ‘reason’ is a useful tool, but as philosophers like nietzsche and poincaré and mach and whorf and watts and others have pointed out, the view of the world we construct from being-based reason is not the real world of our physical experience. western society, insofar as we are talking about the institutions of government, commerce, community, justice, that it has instituted and which it forcibly preserves and protects is ‘Cantorian reality’. it believes its reasoned constructs constitute ‘reality’. it believes the secularized theological concept of ‘the state’ is a ‘real thing’; i.e. it equivocates ‘idealization’ with ‘reality’, ... but such ‘reality’ is in no way the reality of our natural physical sensory experience. this confusing of ‘reasoned constructs’ for ‘reality’ puts the ‘idealizations’ of ‘reason’ into an unnatural precedence over natural sensory experience. that’s what nietzsche is saying and any of us can use our intuition to affirm what he is saying. i do not believe in the existence of any sovereign state. of course, like the indigenous aboriginal populations of turtle island, i have little choice but to ‘go along’ with the believers in the state, those who put the idealizations of ‘reason’ into an unnatural precedence over natural physical sensory experience.

in effect, i am what poincaré calls [and he is clearly one himself] a ‘pragmatist idealist’; i.e. one who sees the idealizations of ‘reason’ as ‘idealizations NOT physical reality, which have practical value. mach is also in this camp and he calls ‘science’ a ‘minimizing tool’; i.e. a tool that generates ‘economy of thought’ in the way that it collects and organizes the data of our observations and experiences. nietzsche, also in the ‘pragmatist idealist’ camp, refers to the idealized constructs of reason as ‘the metaphysics of language’. our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar install ‘being’ as the source of ‘cause’. let’s be clear; ... there is no such thing as ‘being’ in the natural world of our physical sensory experience; “being is an empty fiction” – Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Whorf, Watts, Schroedinger, Mach.

‘reason’ and its being-based ‘idealizations’ are ‘empty fictions’ which ‘generate economy of thought’. they are a pragmatic tool.

western civilization, as we see it through its threat-of-violence enforced institutions of government (sovereigntism), commerce (capitalism and/or socialism), ‘community’ (hierarchically managed/controlled) and justice (moral-judgement based rewards and punishment allocating), ... PUTS ‘REASON’ INTO AN UNNATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER OUR NATURAL PHYSICAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE, WHICH WE CAN UNDERSTAND AND SPEAK OF THROUGH OUR DIRECT INTUITION WITHOUT DEPENDENCY ON ‘BEING-BASED CONSTRUCTS’ OF REASON.

that’s where ‘riots come from’, ... from people trapped within forcibly imposed roll-out of ‘theory’ [reason-based conceptualizations] who don’t want to live in society of ‘reason’ driven people. who long for the natural primacy of the dionysian over the appollonian, the yin/yang over the yang, where people’s assertive behaviour is pulled by unfolding need and their sense of freely rising to the occasion.

that’s the way small groups still do it. that’s the bindings of the group; i.e. when a need or gap opens up, someone steps in to fill it and to develop the skills and abilities to fill it. everyone in the group is, at the same time, the source of the opening of gaps or needs and the fillers of the needs. it is like an ordinary everyday crowd dynamic, the spatial relations open up corridors of possibility that orchestrate and shape the asserting movements of the individual participants. every individual is, at the same time, co-forming accommodating openings and asserting into them. this is the self-organizing inherent in nature.

OF COURSE, if you want to get into ‘idealization’ that simplifies this real situation involving continually transforming web of spatial relations, ... you can invoke ‘absolute space and absolute time measurement/reference framing, and use this to put ‘beings’ into an unnatural precedence over ‘relations’. by referring the movements of the individual to the absolute reference frame, rather than to the web of spatial relations they are in [implying non-euclidian relational space], one can ‘reason’ that the participants are ‘beings’ that ‘are doing stuff’; i.e. one can ‘reason’ that these people are ‘independent reason-driven systems’ with internal process driven and directed [by their own internal intellection and purpose aka ‘reason’] behaviour.

thank you for this simplification, this ‘economy of thought’, ... mr. euclidian space geometry, ... this imposing of an idealized absolute space and time reference grid, ... this ‘metaphysics of language’ since the notional ‘beings’ this absolute space produces are made into subjects that can inflect ‘verbs’ so as to reformat the dynamics and idealize them as originating from the interior of the ‘beings’.

“Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word.”

the ‘sovereign state’ is such a ‘being’. in fact Enlightenment Europe took this ‘reason’ thing so far as to proclaim ‘being-based reason as an animating source’ the archetype for man, organism and ‘organization’. the notion [secularized theological concept] of the sovereign state is constructed so as to emulate this ‘understanding’ [= delusion]. where yesterday, to give people hope in the event of a disaster, one might build a shrine and put a statue of jesus or mary there, ... today, people plant a sovereign state flag as a shrine, as symbol of hope and faith. this is not to say that people do not need such symbols of ultimate power to restore balance and harmony, only to echo the view of historians of law, that such symbols have been changing;

“The notion of “absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original” is a definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. This “God died around the time of Machiavelli…. Sovereignty was … His earthly replacement.” Walker, R. B. J. and Mendlovitz, Saul H. “Interrogating State Sovereignty.”

the sovereign state is an idealized ‘being’. it is ‘not real’ in a physical sense that could be affirmed by our sensory experience [it can only be affirmed by our intellectual experience]. it is the synthetic product of our ‘reason’, and we put it into an unnatural precedence over our sensory experience; i.e. we make it God-like. the pragmatist idealist might say; such a concept can be useful for generating discursive simplification and ‘economy of thought’ so long as we don’t confuse it for ‘reality’, but the Cantorian realist will say; those things we define as ‘beings’ ARE ‘beings. as john stuart mill observed; “every definition implies an axiom, that in which we affirm the existence of the object we define”.

and off we go, into the wild blue yonder, ... in to the world of ‘the metaphysics of language’ where we say ‘Russia did this’ and ‘the U.S. did this’ and ‘Katrina ravaged New Orleans’ and on and on.

when the aboriginal in his flow-based language says that the terrain is slumping [relations-first view], we [western reason-oriented people] will correct him and say; it is superstitious to think that the terrain is alive and its form is developing, ... the reality is given by those rocks that fall, on random occasion, travelling from the crests of the hills and moving towards the bottom of the valley. we can measure their mass and displacement quantitatively and we can measure the work they do in their moving. this is the real dynamic, the rocks are moving, and it is these rock movements that are ‘eroding’ or ‘wearing down’ the hillcrests. this is, of course, the ‘bullshit’ that comes from being-based reason.

as f. david peat says, the indigenous aboriginal view of dynamics accords with the relational space of modern physics while the western view of dynamics accords with the highly simplified [economy of thought delivering] being-based reason of newtonian physics with its cause-effect determinism.

returning to the shift from ‘natural community’ to the ‘replicant community’ we have pervasively put in its place, .. our ‘reason’ by invoking an absolute space and absolute time measurement/reference frame, substitutes ‘being-based-reason’ for relational activities within the continually transforming relational spatial plenum [relational activity continuum], in the manner our reason substituted sporadic falling of rocks for relational transforming of the terrain. it is ‘scientific analytic being-based reason’ that RE-constructs the dynamics of natural-born community by imputing ‘being’ to the nodes of relational activity in the community such as ‘baking bread’, even though generation after generation of ‘baker’ is pulled into this node in the web of relational activities. by invoking the absolute space and absolute time reference frame and describing the nodal activity as an ‘independent thing that does stuff’, ‘the baking’ becomes ‘the baker who bakes’;

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

in other words, the activity of baking which is a naturally evolved nodal activity in a relational web which draws person after person into it and persists over generations; i.e. this relational-spatial nodal activity is in a natural precedence over the succession of incumbents drawn into it, ... is a dynamic which ‘REASON’ REPLACES with ‘being’ – based yang asserting, cause-effect, results determining action.

being-based reason INVERTS the natural order of the dynamic and makes itself the GOD with the power of animating the world.

this is how western society understands ‘organization’ as ‘reason-driven systems’ such ‘the sovereign state’, ‘the corporation’, ‘the man’, ‘the organism’ and even ‘the community’. all of these are seen, by western society’s being based ‘reason’, as ‘independent reason-driven systems’, ... local self-jumpstarting [yang] systems that reason claims ‘operate within an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre’ that is independent of the things that notional operate within it.

these hierarchical systems are ‘deterministic systems’ that are ‘reason-driven’. they are based on the ‘economy of thought’ that sees individuals and organizations as ‘reason-driven systems’. in other words, ‘reason’ models these systems without any outside-inward orchestrating influence that shapes inside-outward asserting behaviour. ‘reason’ sees the baker one type of ‘independent reason-driven system’ with his own internal process driven and directed behaviour. ‘reason’ blinds itself to the understanding of ‘baking’ as a nodal activity in a relational web that keeps pulling in generation after generation of ‘incumbents’ into the relational nexus or ‘nodal activity’. therefore, ‘reason’ does not acknowledge the spirit-lifting sense of ‘rising to the occasion’ to some relational need or nodal activity that calls to one, inviting one to blossom out into the skilled and energized assertive agent outside-inwardly shaped by the need implied in the nodal relational web otherwise called ‘community’. reason uses the idealized concept of ‘being’ to invert the order of the organizing by substituting ‘beings’ that do stuff for ‘nodal activities’ within the relational web. instead of the nodal activity being primary and the current incumbent secondary [relations-first, things-secondary], ‘reason’ uses ‘being’ to put ‘things-that-do-stuff’ into an unnatural precedence over naturally evolved ‘nodal activity’ in a relational web.

this is what ‘western society’ has done to ‘organization’ in general; i.e. it builds ‘replicant organizations’ in place of naturally evolving relational webs by using money and wage labour [or just plain top-down control and command] to synthetically develop ‘a baker’ to put into a replicant community wherein all the naturally evolving nodal activities are pre-empted by organizational chart slots that drive the system backwards under the direction of an overall logic or reasoning centre. ‘bakers’ are mass produced at a school for bakers and so it is also for all of the other nodal activities in the relational web, so that ‘we can construct a replicant community’ from ‘parts’ using money and wage-labor in place of outside-inward orchestrating influence from naturally arising relational need, fulfilled on-the-fly by individuals ‘rising to the occasion’ and letting themselves be shaped in their development and behaviour by the outside-inward calling of need arising within the relational web.

exit the naturally evolving community where ‘relations are first, things are secondary’ and enter the ‘replicant reason-based community’ where the nodes of activity in the relational web have been replaced by cogs in a machine powered by the need for money rather than the need of the ‘spirit’ to rise to the occasion and become what the nexus in the relational spatial web one is uniquely situationed in is calling for. as individuals, we can be ‘off the society grid’ in the ‘wilderness’ behaving intuitively and letting our relational web build naturally, but insofar as we are in the city or in ‘policed’ areas or, more basically, ‘in the workforce’, we are subject to the dictates of reason-driven organization. as such, we live in a sea of ‘reasonable people’ who tie ‘reason’ to ‘morality’ and who make it the unquestioned invisible background to new reporting and general social discourse.

the tensions that build and which give rise to sporadic violent energy releases called ‘riots’, are tensions coming from being held down within the reason-based grid. ‘riots’ are not an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ tactic

the riot is by no means;

exerting our own power against theirs.”

it is a breaking out of the reason-based grid, a shucking off the chains and fetters of centrally edicted ‘reason’.

‘reason’ as in ‘science’, as mach and other philosophers have point out [pragmatist idealists who see ‘being’ as an ‘empty fiction’ as contrasted with the vast majority of scientists who are ‘cantorian realists’ who believe in ‘being’ as in ‘atoms’ and ‘quarks’ etc.] is popularly confused with ‘reality’.

‘determinism’ is NOT ‘reality’, but it appeals strongly to man’s egotistical ambitions and desire for control over others and over nature.

‘science’ promises the user ‘control’ as in ‘cause-effect determinism’ that can help him live his life ‘by design’ as in the american dream, rather than, as john lennon describes life; ‘as something that happens to us while we are busy making other plans’.

the belief that ‘science knows what it is doing’ is part of the make-up of a reason-based society. but science doesn’t have a clue what it is doing in an overall nature’s dynamic sense, since all of science’s models are built NOT inside of the continually transforming relational spatial plenum, but instead, inside of a notional absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame that is notionally independent of the notional independently-existing things-in-themselves (being) that are operating within it. science is a reasoning tool in the hands of reason-based organizations. reason-based organizations use scientific reasoning to do amazing things; e.g. mine oil from deposits deep in the sedimentary deposits that lie beneath deep ocean waters, ... attack and kill bacteria, viruses and anything else that is a threat to man’s primacy on earth, ... develop pharmaceuticals to desensitize sensitive individuals to allow them to continue to be able to live and function in increasingly intolerable living and working conditions, ... to put men on the moon and produce cirque de soleil and other spectacles that lift the spirits by assuring people that ‘anything is possible’ if one’s reason can be in gear to achieve it. science is more and more assuring people and states and corporations and communities that they can live their lives ‘by design’, without having to accept that ‘life is something that happens to us while we’re busy making other plans’; i.e. science is assuring us [falsely, of course, as in self-deception] that we can ‘cheat nature’s non-rational unfolding’.

of course, the reality is that ‘life is something that happens to us while we’re making other plans’, so that all these reason-based organizations that are busily seeking to live their lives by design, by notional cause-effect determining of results or ‘desired future states’, are infusing massive dysfunction into our relational living space, ... due to the fact that their determinism is based on a notional absolute space and absolute time reference frame that is independent of the inhabitants that reside within in.

science and reason bring an outlook based on ‘being’ and ‘cause-effect determinism’ which is ‘economy of thought’. science has produced the fossil fuel combustion engines that power automobiles and jet airplanes [the drive] and inertial guidance and satellite and electronic positioning systems [direction], ... but ‘drive and direction’ are only the smaller part of nature’s dynamics;

“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”

the inhabitants of Beijing who have been coughing more violently and more frequently are an ‘inhabitant dynamic’ that is as the same time associating with their habit of driving and flying more swiftly and more frequently. the more often we drive and fly, the more often we cough and gasp, ... thanks to the mediating medium of the relational space we share inclusion in.

science and reason deal with the yang side of dynamics, the ‘asserting’ aspect seen as ‘beings’ [systems, machines] with their own internal process driven and directed behaviour. they bundle all of the ‘externalities’ that were not in the yang blueprints of science and reason, into one word, ‘progress’. ‘progress’ is ‘written up’ as the poster boy of western civilization.

‘progress’ is another word for saying that ‘science and reason’s ‘being-based cause-effect determinism’ is EMPTY FICTION; i.e. ‘science’ does not have the foggiest ‘what it is doing’ in terms of nature’s dynamics. it is simply rearranging things in an anthropogenically satisfying manner, using a paradigm wherein things operate in a notional fixed empty and infinite operating space rather than in ‘the natural world’. science and reason are like a hallucinogenic; they put us into a kind of dream world in which man becomes the master and controller of nature who can determine for himself his desired future state and live a life of his own design.

reason is the ‘norm’ in western society. it is what western culture people live by. morality and reason go hand-in-hand in western society. it is the ambient norm of western society as water is to fish. one is immoral if one wants to live ‘relationally’ [like the savages] rather than ‘rationally’. ‘reason-as-the-norm’ defines western civilization.

‘riots’ are a rejection of ‘reason-as-the-norm’. they are not part of some rational agenda as the author spins out and overlays on them;

“The riot affirms our power in a profoundly direct way. By “our” power I mean, first, the power of those who have been and are continually fucked-over by the world as it presently is.
.
Pretending that power does not exist directly serves those who presently hold it. And the riot overturns such pretense by exerting our own power against theirs.”

our natural way is to ‘rise to the occasion and let the activity nodes in the relational web orchestrate our development and behaviour rather than being a commodity cog in the labour pool waiting for some operative in some ‘independent reason-driven system’ aka ‘organization’ to play games of plug-and-play for money with you.

‘riots’ are an explosive release of energy building up from tensions associated with putting science, reason and ‘things-first, relations-secondary’ into an unnatural precedence over natural physical sensory experience; i.e. ‘relations-first, things-secondary’.

the ‘us-versus-them’ reasoning in the article is on a level too shallow to reach the real source of the dysfunction; i.e. it is on the level of ‘being-based reasoning’. ‘being-based reasoning’ is the problem.

"Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses.”

politician

"‘morality’ and ‘reason’ are bound together in western society [this binding them together was socrates delusion that has infected all of western civilization, according to nietzsche]"

Agreed.

"he ‘riot’ is no such thing. it is like slapping the face of a control freak partner that is trying to run your life, ... ‘pick up your socks’, ‘take the garbage out’, ‘do the dishes’, 'cook the dinner', not to declare war against them but to say ‘shut the fuck up’... ‘quit telling me what to do and depriving me of the spirit-lifting opportunity to rise to the occasion and fulfill, naturally, the needs that arise and call out for their fulfilling"

All and well, but the person does does not completely desert the partner. Thus the cycle continues.

Furthermore, reason is indeed used to justify horrific and ignorant things. This does not sully reason as a mode of thinking, even a revolutionary mode of thinking, nor leave chaos and total irrationality as the only answer to all of horrors done in the name of reason. This only presents new problems.

within a partner-relation, the ‘riot’ constituted by a face-slapping is a transformation-seeking act. it is not generally a win/lose struggle for control-over-other, but rather a shift to ‘no-one-in-control’.

that is, you say, ... ‘thus the cycle continues’, but that is not always the case, transformation does occur to the ‘no-one-in-control’ condition where both/all orient to the sustaining of balance and harmony in the unfolding relational experience. i.e. you said;

“All and well, but the person does does not completely desert the partner. Thus the cycle continues.”

so far, the state has not responded to the riot-slap-in-face to ‘shut the fuck up’ and agree to ‘no-one-in-control’ but that doesn’t mean that the ‘riot’ does not emerge from the desire to shift into ‘no-one-in-control’ mode rather than, as the article says, to ‘demonstrate our power over them’.

going back to the partner relation, ... the ‘shut the fuck up’ does not necessarily ‘mean’, ‘i’ll show him/her that i have the power to demonstrate that i can’t be bossed around’, ... it may be intended to mean, ... ‘let’s shift to no-one-in-control.

also, your following comment evidently misses my [and nietzsche et al’s] point;

“Furthermore, reason is indeed used to justify horrific and ignorant things. This does not sully reason as a mode of thinking, even a revolutionary mode of thinking, nor leave chaos and total irrationality as the only answer to all of horrors done in the name of reason. This only presents new problems.”

the point is that ‘sensory experience’ comes naturally before ‘reason’ and ‘sensory experience’ is relational, but the eleatics invented ‘being’ and ‘being’ puts ‘things-first, relations-secondary’; i.e. it puts ‘reason’ into an unnatural precedence over ‘relational experience’. what came of it was a culture (western) that has institutionalized putting ‘reason’ into an unnatural precedence over actual experience.

in the milgram experiment carried out at Yale university in 1961, unsuspecting volunteers were invited to participate in an experiment purportedly to improve people’s memory and learning by applying electric shocks to ‘encourage them’ to do better. the volunteers believed that for each wrong answer, they were administering actual shocks that were progressively larger, the more mistakes the ‘learners’ (actors) made. In reality, there were no shocks.

this set up the conditions in which ‘reason’ clashed with ‘experience’. prior to the experiment milgram and his students and colleagues believed that "only a little over one-tenth of one percent of the subjects would administer the highest shock on the board.", ... however, ... in Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock.

this result was driven by ‘reason’; i.e. by the logic that the importance of the experimental science was so great that it outweighed the casualties that might result during its execution.

the ‘reasoners’ in the centre of government or the centre of corporation have this kind of belief in the importance of their own theories and the immense value that will ultimately come of them. they must be steadfast in pursuing their well-reasoned theories, even as the screams of those who are being crushed during the roll-out/execution of the well-reasoned theories grow louder and louder and more and more pervasive.

this same scenario transpires in a partner relation where one partner is convinced that his/her reasoning is superior to his/her partner’s. the people pushing the well-reasoned theories do not want to ‘hear’ the screams of those being crushed. michael moore, in ‘roger and me’, startled people by juxtaposing those screams and the source of the well-reasoned plans that they came from.

nietzsche’s point, and emile’s, is NOT, as you say, to ... leave chaos and total irrationality as the only answer to all of horrors done in the name of reason. This only presents new problems.”

you are using ‘EITHER/OR’ logic here which is not relevant. the point is that ‘reason’ is the child of ‘consciousness’ aka ‘relational experience’, but the western institutionalized habit is to twist this upside down and put ‘reason’ into an unnatural precedence over ‘experience’.

there is no suggestion in my comment, to “ ... leave chaos and total irrationality as the only answer to all of horrors done in the name of reason.”, there is the suggestion to restore the natural precedence of actual experience over reason. when the battle plans aren’t working as the generals reasoned they would, put the generals out into the trenches where people are being crushed so they can recalibrate their ‘reason’ with ‘experience’.

when indigenous aboriginals riot, it is a rejection of the ‘reason’ being imposed on them by government officals and that is a call that seeks to restore non-one-in-control (no-one and everyone at the helm).

you seem to be confusing ‘no-one-in-control’ for ‘leaving chaos and total irrationality’ as the only alternative to ‘reason’.

‘no-one-in-control’ simply means that ‘reason’ is to no longer serve as the currency of self-managing the social dynamic, ‘experience’ is. that means that, as in a ‘talking circle’, one does not amplify and attenuate the voice of a participant based on judgements of the quality of his/her reasoning. in that approach the principle of Lafontaine always applies; ‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’. The generals in charge who formulate the reasoned plans and roll them out do not allow the ‘troops in the trenches’ to second guess them. in fact, they keep them in the dark by having a unidirectional information flow [observations and experience flow upwards only, while 'reason' flows downwards] and an information-sharing policy on the basis of ‘need-to-know’ so that they can exclude the views of those in the trenches who are being crushed by centralized roll-outs of ‘reason’, ... on the basis that they are ‘uninformed’.

‘no-one-in-control’ can mean that ‘actual experience’ is restored to its natural primacy over ‘reason’ in contrast to what has been built into Western institutions of government, commerce and justice. ‘no-one-in-control’ is the basis for indigenous ANARCHISM. this system is not based on ‘chaos and total irrationality’, it is based on restoring experience to its natural precedence over reason. for those who live in a mental institution [as in the experiment in trieste where the management of the mental hospitals was turned over to the inmates], the group social dynamic is based firstly on the actual unfolding relational experience and how to sustain balance and harmony in it. this was found to be more stable and fair than debating over whose 'reason' was best and 'rolling that out', as would be the natural way for 'community' that either did not have 'a language' or did not rely on it to sustain harmony in their social relational dynamic.

does not mean no- yang whatsoever ;it does mean a balance of flow in the relational plenum.
this can be accomplished by letting -go-of and creating adequate ideas-to embark-in
useful practices: so as to restore a sense of harmony in our milieu.
Besides debunking Power-Memes (Signifiers), and Stratified Structures as you discuss,
this means focusing on and exploring better ways of expressing our natural
abilities (attributes) to sense stasis and return flowing and undulating to blocked, molar formations.
How do we know which practices to do? That is the question!!
Let us start from the idea that any Counter-Power is just the flip side of a Binary SYSTEM
that legitimatizes, validates, and vindicates the very POWER Structure that has Captured and Subjugated
the relational field. Thus , for example, the Police Power is validated, enhanced and legitimized by any direct
and ultimately lame Confrontation. Usually the odds are stacked against us in this way. And we are fated to LOSE whenever we
Try to "get a fix" on the ever-adapting POWER CENTER.
All we "get" is the catharsis of affect : first RESENTMENT , then a desperate" Noble "STRATEGY, ending in feelings of hopeless DEFEAT i.e.,Inferiority.
That's right : The Superior reasserts its DOMINANCE over the INFERIOR, namely we, the MASS.
Now, what's a better way to restore the ecology of relational flow? You are right to ask me
that age old radical question "what is to be done?
The first answers are: NO-THING, NO- PROGRAM, NO- DEMANDS, NO-GOALS, NO -MORE Literally Batting- Our- Heads
AGAINST- The-WALL. And I don't mean
pathetic, lame, suicidal," feelings" of "I SHOWED THEM !!. "They Got a Piece of MY MIND!".
Instead the sentiment should be one of joy, affirmation, creating, moving, in never ending
process of exploring and participating in moments and places of "goings-on"and" happenings"
-any and none of the time, in an untimely fashion, with humor, creativity; not in response to ANY-THING.
But just because… we want to… just because… there is NO CAUSE...
Methodology: intersecting, connecting, disrupting, transforming, and above all indicating and enjoying and expressing our
desires. A better way. There is no-time to wait. any-where and everywhere! For the Heck of IT ! reveling in our differences.
For Life . For Love. For ourselves and an ecology of regard, mutual aid and mutual respect with ourselves and our environs.
Our "technics"? Our Toolkits? : ingenuity, lines-of flight, intensities, rhizomatics, becoming-others ,(swarming, wolf-packing, and diagramming, the "open-road",
horizontal net-working, multitudin -ing,) yes; disappearing, re-emerging; fly like a butterfly- sting like a bee, and
my favorite: rope-a-doping. In effecting rejuvenating our relational forces toward a rebalancing of our relational field.
and yes: on-go-ing….on and on and...

i am with you fully on the ‘big picture’ which trumps the particulars. a relations-first system is wholly fault-tolerant (like fragment of a hologram, the resolution may drop while the picture stays the same).

i just wanted to overtly examine, more closely, one of the word constructs which stuck out, for me, with respect to how a ‘binary system’ relates to a ‘relational field’, ... triggered by the words ‘Captured and Subjugated’;

“Let us start from the idea that any Counter-Power is just the flip side of a Binary SYSTEM that legitimatizes, validates, and vindicates the very POWER Structure that has Captured and Subjugated the relational field.”

the question in my mind is; ‘it does indeed seem as if the binary battle can dominate our perceptions; e.g. state control enforcing police and free-thinking people. of course to call the free-thinkers ‘protesters’ or ‘rebels’ put the binary flavour back into it, and acknowledges the superiority of the state control power structure.

the ‘field’ or ‘a field’ involves a different sort of ‘binary’. huygen’s principle captures this by understanding each pixel of space as ‘two things at the same time’; i.e. each point [doughnut as in convection cell might be a better ‘word-fit’ than ‘point’] is at the same time transmittING and ‘receivING. this is the same topology as convection cells in flow [toroidal flow].

the manner in which the outgoing and incoming is coming into confluence is the source of relational forms which, when our visual sensing puts them on our attention screen, we pin a signifier on to define and label ‘it’ so that the ‘flow-feature’ can be understood as a thing-in-itself. of course, it is a thing-in-itself it must live somewhere, and where it lives cannot be interdependent with the thing-in-itself, otherwise it would not be an ‘in-itself’ thing.

wittgenstein calls this view of the activity continuum with flow-features in it, the ‘synoptic’ view, and observes that it is like a landscape that we can only explore ‘linearly’ by travelling from A to B and from B to C and from E to F and so on, ... so that our philosophical or mountaineering investigations are in fragments even though we know that what we are investigating is a continuum or unum. this view is in the two-dimensional world of surfaces, but if we take it to the three dimensional world of euclidian space, or to the infinite dimensional world of non-euclidian fluid-flow relational space, the problem is seen as the splitting apart of ‘transmitting’ and ‘receiving’. now we are in the realm of ‘echolocation’ of the dolphin or the sonar system where we transmit ‘pings’ and we receive ‘ping-echos’ that inform us of the shape of the space we are situationally included in.

there is just one relational activity continuum but how often we ‘ping’ impacts our impressions of what is going on. when we go the 10th and then 20th high school reunion, our ‘pinging’ of the body of that cutie that sat next to us in biology gives us the sense of a linear-in-time projection that may not be good.

where did ‘time’ come into it, anyway? there is no ‘time’ in the huygens view of wave dynamics, only relational-spatial transformation, where ‘time’ is the sample rate [part of the observer's RE-presentational technique] which we can make as fine or course as we like. if we lie side-by-side with the cutie, observing one another continually (at an infinitesimal sampling interval) our faces will wrinkle and droop and our teeth fall out in a kind of continuous fluid movement like a melting salvador dali clock. one of the pair may see the other melt down and become indistinguishable from the ground he/she is staining on. i.e. the relational activity continuum is ‘the reality’ and the forms are ‘variations in the relational structure of space’ as schroedinger says.

still, i enjoyed the impression of separation between myself and the cute girl when we came together and were able to jointly get back in touch with how transmission and reception can happen ‘at the same time’ and feel like ‘resonance’ that is otherwise known as ‘love’. when we move apart, once in a while she will call, and once in a while i will call her back. but the long sampling interval between ‘pings’ gives rise to ‘aliasing’, ... an error that arises from connecting the last image with the current image and assuming continuity between the two. as leonard cohen writes in ‘everybody knows’, ... if we put a meter on her bed, it would disclose, ... what everybody knows.

time doesn’t really exist apart from our observational sampling interval. there is just one continually transforming relational spatial plenum that is continually gathering and regathering relational forms which are in no way ‘things-in-themselves’ as euclidian geometry and noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar would have it. as rumi says;

“I, you, he, she, we
In the garden of mystic lovers,
these are not true distinctions.”

that’s kind of like quantum non-locality in poetic form.

as you can see, this is just an exploration stimulated by the word structure you used in speaking of how our sense of binary opposition comes to dominate our world view. [i am not confusing the finger pointing to the moon for the moon, ... just exploring how language plays with our mind]

clearly, the absolute split between ‘self’-and-‘other’, ‘police’-and-‘protestor’ could be an ‘aliasing problem’.

experiencing is like continuous, simultaneous transmission-reception while visual observation is troubled by the time interval like 16 frames per second or 10 year highschool reunions. one has ‘oneself covered’ in that we are in touch with our continuing experience, but not so for the ‘objects’ of our visual observing, not even ourselves, in that sense since we sleep [get some 'shut-eye'] for about one third of the day. the bear hibernates and while hibernating is part of his continuing experiencing, he never gets to ‘see’ what winters are like so that if he put visual observation in precedence over his experience, his ‘year’ would connect late fall to early spring. same for us with respect to looking at ourselves in the mirror in the morning and connecting it with looking in the mirror just before we went to bed; i.e. our impression of the world is aliased and biased towards the day, the opposite to nocturnal animals.

so, where you say;

“Let us start from the idea that any Counter-Power is just the flip side of a Binary SYSTEM that legitimatizes, validates, and vindicates the very POWER Structure that has Captured and Subjugated the relational field.”

i am wondering whether the binary system can be an ‘aliasing error’ associated with ‘the belief in time’ that comes from the non-continuous sampling of visual data. i think of our continuous experiencing as tied to the relational field and our visual sampling as what is ‘chopping things up’ into separate parts [the ‘separateness’ of the parts are ‘aliasing errors’ as if we take successive satellite observations of ‘hurricane Katrina’ and look for connections between the observations. while the various swirlings in the transforming relational flow of the atmosphere which are inherently ‘non-local’ as in ‘field influence’ are the ‘real continuity’, we look for features that persist across multiple ‘scans’ and then we connect what is going on with what looks like ‘the same feature’ between the scans, as if the feature itself is undergoing some kind of transformation, at which point the full field ‘drops away’ [simply because we can’t relate the non-persisting [relational-spatial] swirls all over the place in the flow between the scans].

after going away for the weekend i come home and am welcomed by my best buddy and then go off to visit my pretty maiden who looks just like she did three days before but hidden from visible light, as i discover, is something that has gone missing, something hidden from view that maidens have, which i suddenly connect with a slight nervousness i detected when i embraced my best buddy on my return. here’s that ‘aliasing’ problem cropping up again, as in connecting observations of the persisting ‘Katrina’ feature in the flow. evidently, the persisting form that comes from subjective visual observation [exposed to aliasing] does not prove the continuity of the ‘identity’ of the form as a ‘thing-in-itself’. it could be that mach’s principle is operative here and that the greater reality is that the developing of the feature is not coming from its own internal processes as an ‘independent thing-in-itself’ but from outside-inward influences. as i look again into the eyes of my cutie, something has changed; i.e. there is not the same immaculate innocence in the eyes, there is a more earthily seductive ‘knowing’ look, as she lights up a cigarette, takes a puff and seems to be off reflecting, pleasurably, on something or other.

i know her experience is continuous as mine is, but i am starting to wonder whether periodic visual observations are capable of capturing ‘her trajectory’ in space and time as an ‘independent entity’, or is something going on that is hidden from view that is sourcing her continuing development, some sort of nonlocal non-visible, non-material relational influences that trump the apparent ‘thing-first, relations secondary’ view of visual observations. maybe my pinging is at too coarse a time interval or maybe i need a laboratory environment as in scientific experimentation to isolate the subject so as to approximate absolute space and absolute time reference framing and thus prove that her development is fully and solely inside-outward asserting. didn’t galileo find that the description of the behaviour of things was made far simpler if one assumed that the entity whose behaviour was being studied was ‘in a vacuum’ so that its behaviour could be deemed ‘its own’ without being distorted by habitat-inhabitant relational interdependencies.

if two peaks rise up out of a common terrain, ping-back observation of one peak from the other peak would imply a self-other split and thus a ‘plurality’ where there was only a relational unity. this recalls schroedinger’s observation on unity versus plurality;

“The only possible alternative [to avoid the contradictions/incoherence] is simply to keep to the immediate experience that consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different personality aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception (the Indian MAJA); the same illusion is produced in a gallery of mirrors, and in the same way Gaurisankar and Mt Everest turned out to be the same peak seen from different valleys.” – Erwin Schroedinger, ‘What is Life’

my feeling is also that the ‘binary system’ is ‘illusion’, and that we as individuals, can still be individuals as storm-cells in a common flow; i.e. in a relations-first, things-secondary dynamic. i have never trusted the notion that a power structure can be a ‘thing-in-itself’. in a group of people, it is the web-of-relations that delivers power to an implicit ‘centre’ and whoever becomes the ‘incumbent’ in that ‘implicit centre’ can direct that power as if it were his/hers, but the power is sourced by the relational terrain. the symbolic ‘head’ of the organization is given a word-label and definition to connote ‘being’ which is then allowed to inflect a verb in a grammatical construct that implies being-caused-effect. this ‘power structure’ arises from psychological impressions that become beliefs that shape individual and collective behaviour and not from physical reality, and therefore ‘it’ [the power structure] cannot Capture and Subjugate the relational field except in the ‘unrestricted activity of the mind’;

“ ... there are several kinds of hypotheses; that some are verifiable, and when once confirmed by experiment become truths of great fertility; that others may be useful to us in fixing our ideas; and finally, that others are hypotheses only in appearance, and reduce to definitions or to conventions in disguise. The latter are to be met with especially in mathematics and in the sciences to which it is applied. From them, indeed, the sciences derive their rigour; such conventions are the result of the unrestricted activity of the mind, which in this domain recognises no obstacle. For 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.” – Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’

the power of the state is NOT REAL in a natural physical sense. shortly before there were multiple states on turtle island, there was transforming web of relations, and then some organizers declared the beginning of the existence of the secularized theological concept aka ‘the sovereign state’, it was psychology that rearranged the relational dynamics in that space, RE-presenting confluence of relational influence in the notional terms of the BEING-BASED POWER of the state. the physical reality is the rearranging of the relational dynamics as influenced by ‘unrestricted activity of the minds of men’.

the social sciences [which accept the language game of attributing the sourcing of dynamics to 'beings'] derive from the inventing of conventions such as ‘state sovereignty’ which are the result of the unrestricted activity of the mind, and while the laws and power of the sovereign state are imposed on the social sciences [essentially inquiry into thought-and-language games] which otherwise could not exist [without imputing being-based power to the ‘players’ whose dynamics are the things-first, relations-secondary topic of inquiry in the social sciences], they are not imposed on Nature. the same can be said for the ‘protest movement’ that sets itself up in opposition to the power structure of the state once 'it' is given definition and name-label so that it can participate in the language games of the social sciences. that is a 'protest movement' is part of the ‘mind game’ called ‘social science’.

the ‘relational fields’ of Nature are in no way ‘taken captive’ and ‘subjugated’ by the mind games that are operative in the ‘social sciences’. this is why indigenous anarchists have set, as their first priority, to ‘undermine the intellectual premises of colonization’. Colonizers are people who confuse the conventions of statehood etc. for ‘reality’, a confusing which is the source of ‘state power’. it is a confusing that, if acknowledged, dissolves state power by dissolving belief in the existence of the state [re-instating belief in relational nexa as in the relations-first, things-second world view that accords with modern physics].

in the physical reality of Nature [relations-first, things-secondary] both protestors and the state arise from the same common ground and are differing personality aspects of the common relational unum/plenum. visual observations, which are the source of fragmenting the unum into a plurality by way of ‘being-based reason’, are plagued by aliasing and other incompletenesses as alluded to above, which gives the impression of 'plurality' that does not in fact physically exist [it exists psychologically].

"Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change [in the relational unum/plenum], they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being [the source of plurality] is an empty fiction.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

hippy

is not a thing in itself. It is a "Useful Fiction", derived from a His-Story
of generations of powerful real People. It is transmitted to us as dominant
Signifiers, not to be confused with signs of coherence to time-images of the present (presently).
For us, the Power Structure warps our values, sensibilities, and our ability to conceive of
a life of be-comings, consonant with our relational field. To the Point indeed ,as a practical matter,
it is" as if" it defines and destroys our milieu as well as our-selves. you of course are correct this this "as if"
state of affairs in no way effects the actual cosmological full plenum of relations and forces. But for us ,in the limited
scope of our more immediate habitat, it is sensed as an insidious ruse, undermining all that we hold dear ,including being able to feel in consonance with our habitat, our milieu; an incongruence to what we ,with thoughtful consideration ,intuit as one -full -immanent plenum.
As to much of athe rest of what you wrote, in general, I heartily agree.

water molecules can become ‘agitated’ and start circulating so vigorously that they come to the boil and rise up fuming.

that is a yang description where the dynamic is seen in terms of ‘the water molecules asserting themselves’.

but if there is a deficiency in the habitat (ambient conditions), one can no longer say that ‘the water molecules are the source of the dynamics’. that is, if the ambient atmospheric pressure is lowered, the same vigorous circulation and rising to a fuming boil ensues, but in this case, the activity of the water molecules is outside-inwardly orchestrated by the ambient conditions in the habitat. the dynamic is not ‘coming from the visible active agents’ but from non-local, non-visible, non-material influence (the pressure field).

there are general principles arising here; i.e. there is a question, in general, as to whether relational forms such as ‘boils’ are sourced inside-outwardly, or outside-inwardly.

science encourages us to interpret all dynamics in terms of inside-outward sourcing of action, which imputes the source of ‘power’ to ‘being’. this is the ‘mechanical view’ of the world, as has been pointed out by mach and by nietzsche. we psychologically/notionally, with language and thought, impute ‘being’ to ‘water’ or ‘boils’ or ‘hurricanes’ and then use grammatical structure to let the word-labelled ‘subject-being’ inflect a verb and thus appear to be a self-sourcing doer-of-deeds. nietzsche’s view is that the ego is the source of this idealized notion of ‘being’ and the follow-on notion where we see our ‘self’ as an ‘independent reason-driven being’, ... an archetype that we use as the basis for dynamics in general, which leads to nietzsche’s charge that science is ‘anthropomorphism’ [i.e. the biological cell, gene, organ, organism, organization (state, corporation, community) are all seen, by this ego-grounded ‘science’ as ‘independent things’ that ‘know what they are doing’ and are notionally driven and directed by their own internal processes, operating in an absolute space/habitat that is notionally independent of themselves, the inhabitants that reside within the habitat]. the dynamics of the habitat cannot, in this all-yang-no-yin view, outside-inwardly orchestrate individual and collective inside-outward asserting dynamics, ... not even in the case of the water molecules that are incited to action because of ‘deficiency’ in the atmospheric ambiance. this will be explained away in terms of the ad hoc notion

in the relational space of modern physics, ‘space’ is no longer an ‘absolute, fixed empty and infinite container that imposes notional ‘independent being’ on the forms residing within it’. that is, in modern physics, it is the ‘general case’ that outside-inward sourcing shapes the gathering and behaviour of the ‘inhabitants’ [relational forms in the continually transforming relational spatial plenum].

should we see the man who becomes a ‘farmer’ as an independent reason-driven system whose motivation is his inside-outward asserting intention ‘to produce wheat’ or is his behaviour outside-inwardly orchestrated by the brightening in his hungry children’s eyes as he brings home the wheat. is there any place for the imagery of a nest full of baby chicks opening their mouths wide for their parents to feed them? as john locke observed back in the 17th century, it was these natural ‘deficiencies’ or ‘needs’ in the relational dynamics of community that orchestrated and shaped the inside-outward asserting development and behaviour of the members of the community. this outside-inward orchestrating influence that was the binding fabric of ‘community’ was replaced by money and wage labour so that the each of these relational nexa or relational nodal activities (e.g. the baker of bread) was treated like a position opening on an organization chart calling for assertive action by an incumbent in exchange for money (wage-labour). the individual’s pursuit of the accumulation of money thus replaced the raising of the spirits and brightening of the eyes of those ‘in need’ as the animating source of the community dynamic. the natural binding of community thus ‘unravelled’ and the community was reconstituted as yang machinery in which the relational nodal activities such as baking bread became ‘positions’ in a ‘community organization chart’ that were filled by money-seeking individuals. instead of the outside-inward orchestrating cheeping chicks whose spirits could be lifted and their strength and powers replenished being the animating source of the community dynamic, the individual pursuit of accumulation of money took over.

the ‘machine’ view of community as given by the ‘organization chart’ and its doer-deed position descriptions was all that ‘science’ being ‘absolute space’ and ‘independent being’ based, could allow; i.e. ‘empty space’ is incapable of exerting outside-inward orchestrating influence that shapes individual and collective development and behaviour. one has to go to the relational [non-euclidian] space of modern physics to allow ‘outside-inward’ need/deficiency [yin-] based sourcing of inside-outward asserting yang behaviour.

because western civilization is highly ‘reason-oriented’ as in ‘science-oriented’ and sees man, organism and organization in terms of ‘independent reason-driven systems’, the reality of outside-inward orchestrated influence that sources inside-outward asserting behaviour is ‘counter-intuition’ [i.e. it runs against the grain of our western culture conditioned intuition].

for example, a deficiency of vitamins ‘shows up as’ the proliferation of bacteria and viruses [there are over 200 bacteria and viruses that are seen as ‘pathogens’ that can ‘cause’ pneumonia] w

for example, there are over 200 bacteria and viruses that are seen as ‘pathogens’ that can ‘cause’ pneumonia but which are all roaming around innocuously [non-pathogenically], but when an individual has a deficiency of ascorbic acid (vitamin C), this presents a condition of the body that is conducive to the proliferation of these microbes. ‘science’ that models the ‘organism’ as an independent reason-driven system [those microbes know what they are doing and they are fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour – that is the biological science’s model of the biological organism, as well as man and ‘organizations’ in general; i.e. it is the all-yang-no-yin view of being-based reason]. causality that comes from the outside-inward is a kind of ‘negative causality’ that we are almost blind to, and which does not fit the independent-being-based model of the organism as being fully and solely inside-outward driven and directed;

louis pasteur, on his deathbed, agreed, finally, with antoine béchamp that ‘le microbe n’est rien, le terrain est tout’; i.e. that outside-inward orchestrating influence was in a natural precedence over inside-outward asserting manifest action; i.e. the manifest proliferation of microbes was the ‘result’ of illness [deficiency in the terrain] and not the ‘cause’ of illness. but like the warnings of françois lurçat that we are clinging to an obsolete formula [the all-yang-no-yin sourcing formula], such warnings go unheeded, so strong has been the cultural conditioning to acceptance of the ‘positive causal’, all-yang-no-yin, cause-effect, doer-of-deeds view of dynamics;

“The evidence from disease would have led sooner to a conception of these food constituents and their functions but for a not unnatural bias in thought. It is difficult to implant the idea of disease as due to deficiency. Disease is so generally associated with positive agents — the parasite, the toxin, the materies morbi— that the thought of the pathologist turns naturally to such positive associations and seems to believe with difficulty in causation prefixed by a minus sign.” — Medical Research Committee, Report on the present state of knowledge concerning accessory food factors (vitamines), Special Report No. 38, London, H.M.S.O, 1919. Cited in ‘The Germ Theory, Beriberi, and the Deficiency Theory of Disease’ by K. Codell Carter [ negative cause ]

meanwhile, the ego-pleasing yang notion of one-sided inside-outward [internal process driven and directed] asserting behaviour continues to predominate. as university of paris physics professor emeritus françois lurçat observes, the all-yang-no-yin view of determinism, while still dominant and pervasive in western medicine and other popular use, is no longer supportable in physics;

“This dream of domination [implied by 'determinism'] has henceforth lost all legitimacy and persists for no other reason than our ‘mental inertia’. An historical epoch has come to an end and we struggle to conjecture what is going to succeed it. Isn’t the need truly well overdue for us to draw on the lessons of the past and recognize where we now are? I would say that a problem is posed to us by allowing ourselves to remain within the framework fixed by this work: to understand the findings of 20th century science. By ‘to understand’ I intend this; not to constrain our understanding to the step-by-step reasoning of physics, but to be able to put these findings into the context of an interpretation of the world. From this point of view, it is necessary to recognize, in my opinion, that we have not understood (Not ‘we’, the specialists, but ‘we’ the educated public). ‘Chaos’ and also ‘relativity’ and ‘quantum mechanics’, for example, remain for all practical purposes impenetrable to the educated view. It is necessary, I believe, to acknowledge with Emmanuel Levinas that we are participating in the end of a certain way of understanding. Will we know how recognize this? Will we know how to discern the characteristics of another way of understanding, larger and less constraining? Therein lies another story that is in the process of unfolding.” – François Lurçat

in the arts world, orchestra leader benjamin zander makes the same point that the conductor does not ‘produce music’, his movements are outside-inwardly source by a brightening of eyes of the participating audience. his job, as he sees it, is to lift the spirits of the members of the audience and ‘to make them powerful’. i.e. see ‘The Transformative Power of Possibility’. one could say that the same thing about the naturally evolved farmer, his dynamic is not ‘producing wheat’ but like the adult birds feeding the wide-open mouthed chicks, to make them powerful. this is an outside-inward orchestrating influence that is shaping the farmer’s development and behaviour, a ‘negative cause’, the water being brought to the boil by outside-inward orchestrating influence, a deficiency that induces transformation in inside-outward asserting actions, ... the loss of sight inducing the growth of sensitivity to echolocation where the blind man makes clicking sounds like the whale and dolphin to acoustically image the relational spatial configuration he is situation within. as nietzsche observes, darwin got it backwards, it is not inside-outward asserting ‘fitness’ that sources evolution, it is deficiency that orchestrates evolution by the ‘Transformative Power of Possibility’.

but that is not the ‘popular take’ in our society. while john lennon would fully accept that;

“life is something that happens to us while we are busy making other plans”—john lennon

such as where a deficiency that arises in the web of relations we are in, a sickness in the family, or a need to have spirits lifted by arts and entertainment,... orchestrates, from ‘out of the blue’, our inside-outward asserting actions, ... that is considered ‘life by default’ which, in the modern individual, should be trumped by ‘life-by design’ as in ‘the american dream’. in order to get there, one has to discipline oneself against being ‘drawn off course’ by outside-inward needs that call on one to take their place in the natural scheme of things, and instead remain true to one’s own internal ego-purpose and ambition;

“Creating the Future of Your Dreams
.
By Usiere Uko
.
You can create the future of your dreams. This may seem far fetched for most people, but what they do not seem to realize is that their present is the future they created by their past actions or inaction. You are where you are today because of the decisions and actions you took yesterday.
.
There is nothing magical about the future. Today is the tomorrow you dreamed about yesterday. If you remain alive, tomorrow always comes. It is up to you to determine your tomorrow by how you live today. Consequently, the future is in the making today. How that future will look like depends to a very large extent on us, on what we dare believe is possible, and aim for.
.
There are two broad ways of approaching life, by default or by design.
.
Life By Default
.
Most folks live life by default. They allow outside forces to determine their direction in life. They go with the flow. They get into the boat and allow the river current to determine the direction the boat is going rather than paddle and steer the boat in the direction they desire. Most people do not believe that they can change their attitude, determine how they react to events and hold on to the ball in the game of their life. Like in the game of football, some players wait for the ball to come to them while others fight for the ball and gain possession. Very few people believe that they can change whatever they do not like in their life. They can change jobs, residence, wardrobe, make their marriage better, determine what makes them happy and what makes them sad. You can choose to be happy or choose to be depressed. By living life by default, you hand over control to other people, your spouse, your boss, your employer, your colleagues, the economy, the government, the weather, what your father and uncle did, what your mama did not do etc
.
Life by Design
.
This is living life intentionally, deliberately, on purpose, premeditated, in control. You leave nothing to chance. You step into the boat with the paddle firmly in your grip, and you decide which side of the shore to head for, no matter the direction and strength of the river current. You fix the problem rather than fix the blame. Like a designer in a studio, you can design your live to whatever level of detail you design. Where you want to live, work, vocation, you name it. You are only limited by your imagination.
.
The secret of creating the future of your dreams is to dream big and start small, taking small steps towards your dream every day. The magic formula is to start small, and keep at it.
.
Do not allow the magnitude of your dreams to scare you. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a step. A step is a far cry from a thousand miles. The secret is to gather enough steps to cover the distance. You can create the future of your dreams. Go for it...”

when the water ‘comes to the boil’ is it its own doing, or is it inspired to ‘rise to the occasion’? does the farmer ‘produce wheat’ or is it the open mouths of children, like hungry chicks in the nest, whose spirits will be lifted and bodies made more powerful by the nourishing powers of the wheat, ... that orchestrates the farmer’s actions? according to science which sees man, the farmer, in the all-yang-no-yin terms of an ‘independent reason-driven machine’, there is only one choice, and that is that man’s biochemical and biophysical internal processes, which express themselves through his intellection and purpose, are the full and sole source of his inside-outward asserting actions, which, according to science, manifest in an absolute space and absolute time reference frame seen as ‘operating theatre’.

there is no ‘transformative power of possibility’ in this machine-world vision of science, in which we are encouraged to live ‘life by design’. it has been purged from a social dynamic that is being modeled after science. our society, as lurçat says, is going ‘De la science a l’Ignorance’; ... from science to ignorance, as epitomized by encouragement to move away from ‘life by default’ i.e. by accepting outside-inward orchestrating of one’s actions, ... to ‘life by design’, ... a single-minded inside-outward asserting drive shaped by one’s vision/dream of a desired future.

so, what is the nature of ‘power’? if we look at ‘community’ as an ‘organization chart’ whose positions are filled by individuals in pursuit of money, we get the machine view of community and the machine view of power, since if the man at the top reaps more money [through taxes, as in the sovereign state, and through wages and profits, as in the corporation] than is sufficient to pay the wages of those in the pyramidal/hierarchical structure of his ‘community’, he can then be in control of the power of the overall structure since everyone in it tends to be in ‘life-by-design’ mode. that is, life by design is ‘all-yang-no-yin’ and leads directly to hierarchical structure which is also all-yang-no-yin [purely mechanical]. in a mechanical structure, each participant must subordinate himself/herself to authority so as to be granted authority over others ‘below her’;

“The capacity for self-surrender, he said, for becoming a tool, for the most unconditional and utter self-abnegation, was but the reverse side of that other power to will and to command. Commanding and obeying formed together one single principle, one indissoluble unity; he who knew how to obey knew also how to command, and conversely; the one idea was comprehended in the other, as people and leader were comprehended in one another.” – thomas mann

in the western culture dominated world, most of us are living in this kind of 'yang science Fiktion power structure'

'reason' deceives itself in believing it has the power to hijack and enlist in its employ, non-rational activity.

It seems evident that riots are an explosive release of pent-up relational tensions. This is something very different from;

“The riot affirms our power in a profoundly direct way. By “our” power I mean, first, the power of those who have been and are continually fucked-over by the world as it presently is.
.
Pretending that power does not exist directly serves those who presently hold it. And the riot overturns such pretense by exerting our own power against theirs.”

after the riot, most rioters go back to supporting the same web of relations that emprisons them and builds their pent-up tensions, in a dynamic that resembles ‘old faithful’ where that which has been steaming and exploding cools off and files back into the same over-heated chambers they just broke out of. since rioters are a minority, many of those that are identified are ‘shamed’ by the ‘good citizens of the community’ and are pressured into ‘repenting’. the hard liners get jail sentences.

in the case of exploding crowds, the ‘fever’ is a natural response to the disease they are fighting off. that disease is ‘reason’ [aka ‘science’ aka ‘rationality’]. ‘reason’ pervades western society; it is, as emerson says ‘the tool that has run away with the workman’.

‘morality’ and ‘reason’ are bound together in western society [this binding them together was socrates delusion that has infected all of western civilization, according to nietzsche]. nevertheless, the socratic influence persists and it is commonly felt that it is ‘immoral’ to go against ‘reason’. that is a basic premise of all ‘independent reason-driven systems’ such as the ‘sovereign state’, the ‘corporation’ and even the ‘community’ [the modern ‘replicant community’ that inverts the natural precedence of 'relations-first, things-secondary'].

‘reason’ delivers such ‘equations’ as ‘our society is good because it provides food and clothing and security for all of [=many of] its members, and it is compassionate and helps others when they are in need, like the people of those great oil producing countries, iraq and libya when their defenseless citizens are oppressed by evil dictators. we should be thankful to be members of such a God-blessed reason-based society and we must preserve and protect it against any who would disturb or threaten it, giving our children’s lives to this end, if/as necessary.

this is reason. this is scientific thinking too. it is ‘deterministic’. it is a ‘theory’ that can be, according to ‘reasoning people’, be deterministically actualized by way of cause-effect actions of the members of such a society.

the unqualified belief in ‘reason’ is a disease. it is a disease called ‘western civilization’. it is so pervasive in modern society that it is invisible. everywhere you see people ‘coming from reason’ as if it were the unquestionable norm.

this article by phil neel, even though it touches on the ‘irrational’ dynamic of the ‘riot’, is couched in ‘reason’. the author sees ‘riots’ or ‘non-rational behaviour’, as a ‘strategy’ for concentrating ‘our power’ to counter ‘their power’, ... whoever ‘our’ and ‘their’ may be.

the ‘riot’ is no such thing. it is like slapping the face of a control freak partner that is trying to run your life, ... ‘pick up your socks’, ‘take the garbage out’, ‘do the dishes’, 'cook the dinner', not to declare war against them but to say ‘shut the fuck up’... ‘quit telling me what to do and depriving me of the spirit-lifting opportunity to rise to the occasion and fulfill, naturally, the needs that arise and call out for their fulfilling.

naturally evolving webs of relations [‘community’] are not ‘reason-driven’, they are ‘relational’. if, in the relational dynamic, a need shows up, it invites someone to rise to the occasion and blossom himself into a new person with new skills that will help fill the need. it is ridiculous to ‘reason’ that this dynamic is jumpstarted from the individual, conceived of as an ‘independent reason-driven system that lives in an absolute space and absolute time measurement/reference frame, but that’s what western society does.

am i using ‘reason’ in making this claim? was nietzsche using ‘reason’ in saying;

"Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

no, i am using direct intuition from my physical sensory experience. everything is in flux. there is no such thing as ‘being’ and ‘being’ is the basis of ‘reason’. of course ‘reason’ is a useful tool, but as philosophers like nietzsche and poincaré and mach and whorf and watts and others have pointed out, the view of the world we construct from being-based reason is not the real world of our physical experience. western society, insofar as we are talking about the institutions of government, commerce, community, justice, that it has instituted and which it forcibly preserves and protects is ‘Cantorian reality’. it believes its reasoned constructs constitute ‘reality’. it believes the secularized theological concept of ‘the state’ is a ‘real thing’; i.e. it equivocates ‘idealization’ with ‘reality’, ... but such ‘reality’ is in no way the reality of our natural physical sensory experience. this confusing of ‘reasoned constructs’ for ‘reality’ puts the ‘idealizations’ of ‘reason’ into an unnatural precedence over natural sensory experience. that’s what nietzsche is saying and any of us can use our intuition to affirm what he is saying. i do not believe in the existence of any sovereign state. of course, like the indigenous aboriginal populations of turtle island, i have little choice but to ‘go along’ with the believers in the state, those who put the idealizations of ‘reason’ into an unnatural precedence over natural physical sensory experience.

in effect, i am what poincaré calls [and he is clearly one himself] a ‘pragmatist idealist’; i.e. one who sees the idealizations of ‘reason’ as ‘idealizations NOT physical reality, which have practical value. mach is also in this camp and he calls ‘science’ a ‘minimizing tool’; i.e. a tool that generates ‘economy of thought’ in the way that it collects and organizes the data of our observations and experiences. nietzsche, also in the ‘pragmatist idealist’ camp, refers to the idealized constructs of reason as ‘the metaphysics of language’. our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar install ‘being’ as the source of ‘cause’. let’s be clear; ... there is no such thing as ‘being’ in the natural world of our physical sensory experience; “being is an empty fiction” – Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Whorf, Watts, Schroedinger, Mach.

‘reason’ and its being-based ‘idealizations’ are ‘empty fictions’ which ‘generate economy of thought’. they are a pragmatic tool.

western civilization, as we see it through its threat-of-violence enforced institutions of government (sovereigntism), commerce (capitalism and/or socialism), ‘community’ (hierarchically managed/controlled) and justice (moral-judgement based rewards and punishment allocating), ... PUTS ‘REASON’ INTO AN UNNATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER OUR NATURAL PHYSICAL SENSORY EXPERIENCE, WHICH WE CAN UNDERSTAND AND SPEAK OF THROUGH OUR DIRECT INTUITION WITHOUT DEPENDENCY ON ‘BEING-BASED CONSTRUCTS’ OF REASON.

that’s where ‘riots come from’, ... from people trapped within forcibly imposed roll-out of ‘theory’ [reason-based conceptualizations] who don’t want to live in society of ‘reason’ driven people. who long for the natural primacy of the dionysian over the appollonian, the yin/yang over the yang, where people’s assertive behaviour is pulled by unfolding need and their sense of freely rising to the occasion.

that’s the way small groups still do it. that’s the bindings of the group; i.e. when a need or gap opens up, someone steps in to fill it and to develop the skills and abilities to fill it. everyone in the group is, at the same time, the source of the opening of gaps or needs and the fillers of the needs. it is like an ordinary everyday crowd dynamic, the spatial relations open up corridors of possibility that orchestrate and shape the asserting movements of the individual participants. every individual is, at the same time, co-forming accommodating openings and asserting into them. this is the self-organizing inherent in nature.

OF COURSE, if you want to get into ‘idealization’ that simplifies this real situation involving continually transforming web of spatial relations, ... you can invoke ‘absolute space and absolute time measurement/reference framing, and use this to put ‘beings’ into an unnatural precedence over ‘relations’. by referring the movements of the individual to the absolute reference frame, rather than to the web of spatial relations they are in [implying non-euclidian relational space], one can ‘reason’ that the participants are ‘beings’ that ‘are doing stuff’; i.e. one can ‘reason’ that these people are ‘independent reason-driven systems’ with internal process driven and directed [by their own internal intellection and purpose aka ‘reason’] behaviour.

thank you for this simplification, this ‘economy of thought’, ... mr. euclidian space geometry, ... this imposing of an idealized absolute space and time reference grid, ... this ‘metaphysics of language’ since the notional ‘beings’ this absolute space produces are made into subjects that can inflect ‘verbs’ so as to reformat the dynamics and idealize them as originating from the interior of the ‘beings’.

“Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word.”

the ‘sovereign state’ is such a ‘being’. in fact Enlightenment Europe took this ‘reason’ thing so far as to proclaim ‘being-based reason as an animating source’ the archetype for man, organism and ‘organization’. the notion [secularized theological concept] of the sovereign state is constructed so as to emulate this ‘understanding’ [= delusion]. where yesterday, to give people hope in the event of a disaster, one might build a shrine and put a statue of jesus or mary there, ... today, people plant a sovereign state flag as a shrine, as symbol of hope and faith. this is not to say that people do not need such symbols of ultimate power to restore balance and harmony, only to echo the view of historians of law, that such symbols have been changing;

“The notion of “absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original” is a definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. This “God died around the time of Machiavelli…. Sovereignty was … His earthly replacement.” Walker, R. B. J. and Mendlovitz, Saul H. “Interrogating State Sovereignty.”

the sovereign state is an idealized ‘being’. it is ‘not real’ in a physical sense that could be affirmed by our sensory experience [it can only be affirmed by our intellectual experience]. it is the synthetic product of our ‘reason’, and we put it into an unnatural precedence over our sensory experience; i.e. we make it God-like. the pragmatist idealist might say; such a concept can be useful for generating discursive simplification and ‘economy of thought’ so long as we don’t confuse it for ‘reality’, but the Cantorian realist will say; those things we define as ‘beings’ ARE ‘beings. as john stuart mill observed; “every definition implies an axiom, that in which we affirm the existence of the object we define”.

and off we go, into the wild blue yonder, ... in to the world of ‘the metaphysics of language’ where we say ‘Russia did this’ and ‘the U.S. did this’ and ‘Katrina ravaged New Orleans’ and on and on.

when the aboriginal in his flow-based language says that the terrain is slumping [relations-first view], we [western reason-oriented people] will correct him and say; it is superstitious to think that the terrain is alive and its form is developing, ... the reality is given by those rocks that fall, on random occasion, travelling from the crests of the hills and moving towards the bottom of the valley. we can measure their mass and displacement quantitatively and we can measure the work they do in their moving. this is the real dynamic, the rocks are moving, and it is these rock movements that are ‘eroding’ or ‘wearing down’ the hillcrests. this is, of course, the ‘bullshit’ that comes from being-based reason.

as f. david peat says, the indigenous aboriginal view of dynamics accords with the relational space of modern physics while the western view of dynamics accords with the highly simplified [economy of thought delivering] being-based reason of newtonian physics with its cause-effect determinism.

returning to the shift from ‘natural community’ to the ‘replicant community’ we have pervasively put in its place, .. our ‘reason’ by invoking an absolute space and absolute time measurement/reference frame, substitutes ‘being-based-reason’ for relational activities within the continually transforming relational spatial plenum [relational activity continuum], in the manner our reason substituted sporadic falling of rocks for relational transforming of the terrain. it is ‘scientific analytic being-based reason’ that RE-constructs the dynamics of natural-born community by imputing ‘being’ to the nodes of relational activity in the community such as ‘baking bread’, even though generation after generation of ‘baker’ is pulled into this node in the web of relational activities. by invoking the absolute space and absolute time reference frame and describing the nodal activity as an ‘independent thing that does stuff’, ‘the baking’ becomes ‘the baker who bakes’;

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

in other words, the activity of baking which is a naturally evolved nodal activity in a relational web which draws person after person into it and persists over generations; i.e. this relational-spatial nodal activity is in a natural precedence over the succession of incumbents drawn into it, ... is a dynamic which ‘REASON’ REPLACES with ‘being’ – based yang asserting, cause-effect, results determining action.

being-based reason INVERTS the natural order of the dynamic and makes itself the GOD with the power of animating the world.

this is how western society understands ‘organization’ as ‘reason-driven systems’ such ‘the sovereign state’, ‘the corporation’, ‘the man’, ‘the organism’ and even ‘the community’. all of these are seen, by western society’s being based ‘reason’, as ‘independent reason-driven systems’, ... local self-jumpstarting [yang] systems that reason claims ‘operate within an absolute space and absolute time operating theatre’ that is independent of the things that notional operate within it.

these hierarchical systems are ‘deterministic systems’ that are ‘reason-driven’. they are based on the ‘economy of thought’ that sees individuals and organizations as ‘reason-driven systems’. in other words, ‘reason’ models these systems without any outside-inward orchestrating influence that shapes inside-outward asserting behaviour. ‘reason’ sees the baker one type of ‘independent reason-driven system’ with his own internal process driven and directed behaviour. ‘reason’ blinds itself to the understanding of ‘baking’ as a nodal activity in a relational web that keeps pulling in generation after generation of ‘incumbents’ into the relational nexus or ‘nodal activity’. therefore, ‘reason’ does not acknowledge the spirit-lifting sense of ‘rising to the occasion’ to some relational need or nodal activity that calls to one, inviting one to blossom out into the skilled and energized assertive agent outside-inwardly shaped by the need implied in the nodal relational web otherwise called ‘community’. reason uses the idealized concept of ‘being’ to invert the order of the organizing by substituting ‘beings’ that do stuff for ‘nodal activities’ within the relational web. instead of the nodal activity being primary and the current incumbent secondary [relations-first, things-secondary], ‘reason’ uses ‘being’ to put ‘things-that-do-stuff’ into an unnatural precedence over naturally evolved ‘nodal activity’ in a relational web.

this is what ‘western society’ has done to ‘organization’ in general; i.e. it builds ‘replicant organizations’ in place of naturally evolving relational webs by using money and wage labour [or just plain top-down control and command] to synthetically develop ‘a baker’ to put into a replicant community wherein all the naturally evolving nodal activities are pre-empted by organizational chart slots that drive the system backwards under the direction of an overall logic or reasoning centre. ‘bakers’ are mass produced at a school for bakers and so it is also for all of the other nodal activities in the relational web, so that ‘we can construct a replicant community’ from ‘parts’ using money and wage-labor in place of outside-inward orchestrating influence from naturally arising relational need, fulfilled on-the-fly by individuals ‘rising to the occasion’ and letting themselves be shaped in their development and behaviour by the outside-inward calling of need arising within the relational web.

exit the naturally evolving community where ‘relations are first, things are secondary’ and enter the ‘replicant reason-based community’ where the nodes of activity in the relational web have been replaced by cogs in a machine powered by the need for money rather than the need of the ‘spirit’ to rise to the occasion and become what the nexus in the relational spatial web one is uniquely situationed in is calling for. as individuals, we can be ‘off the society grid’ in the ‘wilderness’ behaving intuitively and letting our relational web build naturally, but insofar as we are in the city or in ‘policed’ areas or, more basically, ‘in the workforce’, we are subject to the dictates of reason-driven organization. as such, we live in a sea of ‘reasonable people’ who tie ‘reason’ to ‘morality’ and who make it the unquestioned invisible background to new reporting and general social discourse.

the tensions that build and which give rise to sporadic violent energy releases called ‘riots’, are tensions coming from being held down within the reason-based grid. ‘riots’ are not an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ tactic

the riot is by no means;

exerting our own power against theirs.”

it is a breaking out of the reason-based grid, a shucking off the chains and fetters of centrally edicted ‘reason’.

‘reason’ as in ‘science’, as mach and other philosophers have point out [pragmatist idealists who see ‘being’ as an ‘empty fiction’ as contrasted with the vast majority of scientists who are ‘cantorian realists’ who believe in ‘being’ as in ‘atoms’ and ‘quarks’ etc.] is popularly confused with ‘reality’.

‘determinism’ is NOT ‘reality’, but it appeals strongly to man’s egotistical ambitions and desire for control over others and over nature.

‘science’ promises the user ‘control’ as in ‘cause-effect determinism’ that can help him live his life ‘by design’ as in the american dream, rather than, as john lennon describes life; ‘as something that happens to us while we are busy making other plans’.

the belief that ‘science knows what it is doing’ is part of the make-up of a reason-based society. but science doesn’t have a clue what it is doing in an overall nature’s dynamic sense, since all of science’s models are built NOT inside of the continually transforming relational spatial plenum, but instead, inside of a notional absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame that is notionally independent of the notional independently-existing things-in-themselves (being) that are operating within it. science is a reasoning tool in the hands of reason-based organizations. reason-based organizations use scientific reasoning to do amazing things; e.g. mine oil from deposits deep in the sedimentary deposits that lie beneath deep ocean waters, ... attack and kill bacteria, viruses and anything else that is a threat to man’s primacy on earth, ... develop pharmaceuticals to desensitize sensitive individuals to allow them to continue to be able to live and function in increasingly intolerable living and working conditions, ... to put men on the moon and produce cirque de soleil and other spectacles that lift the spirits by assuring people that ‘anything is possible’ if one’s reason can be in gear to achieve it. science is more and more assuring people and states and corporations and communities that they can live their lives ‘by design’, without having to accept that ‘life is something that happens to us while we’re busy making other plans’; i.e. science is assuring us [falsely, of course, as in self-deception] that we can ‘cheat nature’s non-rational unfolding’.

of course, the reality is that ‘life is something that happens to us while we’re making other plans’, so that all these reason-based organizations that are busily seeking to live their lives by design, by notional cause-effect determining of results or ‘desired future states’, are infusing massive dysfunction into our relational living space, ... due to the fact that their determinism is based on a notional absolute space and absolute time reference frame that is independent of the inhabitants that reside within in.

science and reason bring an outlook based on ‘being’ and ‘cause-effect determinism’ which is ‘economy of thought’. science has produced the fossil fuel combustion engines that power automobiles and jet airplanes [the drive] and inertial guidance and satellite and electronic positioning systems [direction], ... but ‘drive and direction’ are only the smaller part of nature’s dynamics;

“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”

the inhabitants of Beijing who have been coughing more violently and more frequently are an ‘inhabitant dynamic’ that is as the same time associating with their habit of driving and flying more swiftly and more frequently. the more often we drive and fly, the more often we cough and gasp, ... thanks to the mediating medium of the relational space we share inclusion in.

science and reason deal with the yang side of dynamics, the ‘asserting’ aspect seen as ‘beings’ [systems, machines] with their own internal process driven and directed behaviour. they bundle all of the ‘externalities’ that were not in the yang blueprints of science and reason, into one word, ‘progress’. ‘progress’ is ‘written up’ as the poster boy of western civilization.

‘progress’ is another word for saying that ‘science and reason’s ‘being-based cause-effect determinism’ is EMPTY FICTION; i.e. ‘science’ does not have the foggiest ‘what it is doing’ in terms of nature’s dynamics. it is simply rearranging things in an anthropogenically satisfying manner, using a paradigm wherein things operate in a notional fixed empty and infinite operating space rather than in ‘the natural world’. science and reason are like a hallucinogenic; they put us into a kind of dream world in which man becomes the master and controller of nature who can determine for himself his desired future state and live a life of his own design.

reason is the ‘norm’ in western society. it is what western culture people live by. morality and reason go hand-in-hand in western society. it is the ambient norm of western society as water is to fish. one is immoral if one wants to live ‘relationally’ [like the savages] rather than ‘rationally’. ‘reason-as-the-norm’ defines western civilization.

‘riots’ are a rejection of ‘reason-as-the-norm’. they are not part of some rational agenda as the author spins out and overlays on them;

“The riot affirms our power in a profoundly direct way. By “our” power I mean, first, the power of those who have been and are continually fucked-over by the world as it presently is.
.
Pretending that power does not exist directly serves those who presently hold it. And the riot overturns such pretense by exerting our own power against theirs.”

our natural way is to ‘rise to the occasion and let the activity nodes in the relational web orchestrate our development and behaviour rather than being a commodity cog in the labour pool waiting for some operative in some ‘independent reason-driven system’ aka ‘organization’ to play games of plug-and-play for money with you.

‘riots’ are an explosive release of energy building up from tensions associated with putting science, reason and ‘things-first, relations-secondary’ into an unnatural precedence over natural physical sensory experience; i.e. ‘relations-first, things-secondary’.

the ‘us-versus-them’ reasoning in the article is on a level too shallow to reach the real source of the dysfunction; i.e. it is on the level of ‘being-based reasoning’. ‘being-based reasoning’ is the problem.

"Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses.”

Please refer to Brian Mussami's book on
Gilles Deleuze where he discusses molecular
movement issues and theories of chaos,
bio-chemical relational forces , Fractals, matrixes etc.
Lennon was a wise man. His music "used him' to allow for
such interesting and important lyrics from which "expressed" many
such profound concepts. Just one of many artists of all kinds and ages and generations
who continue to produce much in the way of a language and signs (in contrast to Signifiers),
sentient ,and per-ceptive, and affect-ing' and most assertively inspir-ing
food for thought.
as to power of possibility re technology see, of course, Heidegger's seminal devastating critique of capitalist technology,
as well as expanded upon by Mumford, (The Myth of the Machine), David Watson(Against the Megamachine), the corpus of work of John Zerzan and Ellul etc. All western - based theorists
who are in general (but not in every specific instance) in agreement with you or I or we on this site.
By-the way ... none of this has any relation to: a "will to power" , or of relational forces , or of the "power of desiring-machines"(Deleuze)
or the micro-power of a micro-politics ( Foucault) or so many other concepts that are, in a broad sense "em-powering"
which is what all of us here are attempting to explore. All of the above influential writers write very artistically and tap into our desire to be likewise artistically and creatively , ap-prehending and creating in our own way.
Enough!! Time for my wife and I to en-joy some Cinco de Mayo festivities ! Or would that be too much of a 'yang" "thing
to do?"
from a prescient contemporary artist: "I don't care, I'm not caught up in your love affair" (Lorde).

hope you had a fine cinco de mayo experience, whether you feel you were moved to participate by yang reason, or pulled into it by the manner in which it opened some behaviour-transforming possibilities for you; i.e. for you to assert in some new and unpredictable manner (attuned to the relational circumstances that unfolded with you in them, as in ‘life is something that happens to us while we’re busy making yang plans to participate).

re your comment;

“... as to power of possibility re technology see, of course, Heidegger's seminal devastating critique of capitalist technology,
as well as expanded upon by Mumford, (The Myth of the Machine), David Watson(Against the Megamachine), the corpus of work of John Zerzan and Ellul etc. All western - based theorists who are in general (but not in every specific instance) in agreement with you or I or we on this site.”

i would say that rather than ‘agreement’ with my views, there is ‘correlation’, since my views orient to how we see and understand things, rather than ‘critiquing technology’ and its inventors.

i would describe this in terms of whether we see through ‘euclidian lenses’ [things-first, relations-secondary] or ‘non-euclidian lenses’ [relations first, things-secondary].

in this regard, my views on capitalism would be ‘correlated’ to zerzan’s but not ‘in agreement’. the following is a view of capitalism as seen by emile and compared with a view of capitalism as seen by the politics of the left.

*relations-first versus things-first views of capitalism*

this could also be termed ‘the unum versus the plurality’ views of capitalism since relations-first understands dynamics in terms of a continually transforming relational-spatial unum/plenum [a unity that is an energy-charged fullness or flow] versis dynamics understood in terms of ‘independent things’ and ‘what these independent things do’ as if they are local jumpstarting authors of cause-effect results.

imagine the earth’s biosphere and its spring-summer-fall-winter cycles of generating vegetation, and imagine it inhabited by a family of humans with an ethic of living off the vegetables in the continually circulating, energy-transforming biosphere currents [e.g. the cyclic/seasonal production of planktonic ‘blooms’ in the ocean where the plankton produce edible matter by consuming sunbeams aka ‘photosynthesis’] which in turn feed fish which feed bears and humans etc. in one complex, interconnected food-supply-chain/network.

imagine that the family-unum of humans develops a tradition of appointing four (or more) ‘stewards’ to watch over biospheric food-producing, defining their stewardship areas A, B, C, and D so as to fully cover the biosphere-unum. they are to keep track of the ‘production’.

imagine that the four (or more) stewards, one day, become ‘political’ and start to compete with one another to increase the size of their stewardship areas and thus to increase the production from their stewardship area. and in this ‘competition’, they take a leaf from Ayn Rand thinking and instead of acknowledging that they are ‘figureheads’ associated with the production, ... portray themselves as ‘fountainheads’ that are the authors of the production, as if man were ‘in control of nature’.

these figureheads, once the general populace started thinking of them of, seeing them as fountainheads, could then demand salaries and compensation according to the production achieved by their ‘organization’; i.e. organization A, B, C or D. this new ‘managerial class’, the heads of organizations A, B, C, D and their confidents and close associates, agreed that buying and selling their ‘land holdings’ would put some teeth into their competition and allow people to ‘bet’ on which organization would perform best. when A doubled his acreage holdings, he doubled his production and the people who had been ‘betting on A’ so that their portion of production doubled, they were happy to bask in this newly gained abundance and to double the salary and compensation package of the head of division A and his ‘management team’. The heads of B, C and D were forced to resign by those who had been betting on them when they found their share of production shrinking rather than growing. as in sports with football and hockey coaches, B moved over to manage C, C moved over to manage D and D moved over to manage B. In all cases, they claimed that in order to be successful, the management compensation package had to be as good as that of A because it would take a lot of hard work on the part of management to build up their land holdings and production figures once again.

after several decades of different organizations increasing their holdings and production, to the delight of those who were betting on them, and increasing their management compensation packages, the managers were, in all cases [A, B, C and D] making over one thousand times the average employee in their units.

now, if you believe in the ‘relations-first, things-second view, ... there is no such thing as ‘growth’. in a non-euclidian space [relational space] there is only ‘transformation’. ‘growth’ is something that is only ‘apparent’ and not physically real. the storm-cell called ‘Katrina’ is simply a visual form in the continually transforming relational spatial atmosphere unum/plenum. we say that ‘Katrina is growing larger and stronger’ but that is ‘figurative’ and not literally/physically true.

the same is true for the units A, B, C and D, ... they are not ‘really’ independently-existing things-in-themselves with their own self-authored cause-effect production that can ‘grow larger’ and ‘more powerful’. that is ‘illusion’ or ‘Maya’ since there is no ‘plurality of things’, there is only the unum/plenum and the ‘things’ in the plurality are the artefacts of ‘the metaphysics of language’ [Nietzsche], aka ‘the economy of thought’ [Mach], aka ‘the conventions of mathematical language’ [Poincaré].

there is just one biosphere and ‘growth’ as in the doubling of division A is not a physically real dynamic. what is physically real is the continually transforming relational spatial biosphere-unum/plenum. the growth production of division A is a ‘spreadsheet transaction’, in the same manner that if we divide the world up into sovereign states, A, B, C, D etc. and one state, A, seeks to grow by ‘taking over the land holdings’ of another state, the growth of acreage in state A is perfectly, inversely matched by the loss of acreage experienced by state B. in other words, there was no real physical growth, only a spread-sheet transaction.

however, a spread-sheet transaction can change the allocations of those betting on the leader of state A to win. for example, if state A gains new holdings with few people but large resources as in oil fields or wheat fields, then the allocations of resources to those betting on the leader to win can double or treble, even though there has been no ‘real growth’.

‘growth’ is an impression that comes when one assumes that the ‘plurality’ is more real than the ‘unum’, as in case of the plurality of organizations [A, B, C, and D] versus the ‘unum’ [the biosphere].

the trick that is built into Western capitalism [Ayn Randism] and into Western thinking in general, is to use quantitative measure to estimate the size of notionally separate [notionally independently-existing] ‘things’. the quantitative measurement process itself is a ‘collapse of the wave function’ [collapse of the relational understanding]. for example, an ‘acre’ is an absolute measure, like a metre or a second. how many seconds can you have? how many acres can you have? well, as many as you like. as Poincaré observes, we tend to think of absolute units as coming from a ‘supermarket of infinite supply in the sky’ [the view of Cantorian realists, which splits from the view of ‘pragmatist idealists’, the latter believing that absolute units are useful abstractions that have no meaning in the physical reality of our natural experience].

in other words, the measuring of division A or the state of Germany, quantitatively, in terms of ‘absolute units’ imputes local ‘being’ to the state, and it is also the basis for the notion of ‘growth’.

absolute units ‘add up’ linearly so that it is indeed possible to ‘double’ the quantitative measure of division A and/or ‘the state of Germany’, and thus to ‘double the production’ of division A and/or the state of Germany. but when we talk about this growth that is supposedly affirmed by quantitative measure in terms of absolute units [acres, hectares], ... we make no mention of the exactly, reciprocally compensating reduction of acres in B, C, and D, and/or the other states filling up the finite and unbounded space of the biosphere. ‘contraria sunt complementa’ is the motto beneath the yin/yang symbol on the coat of arms Neils Bohr chose when he was knighted for his pioneering world in modern physics. in the curved space of relativity there are no ‘absolute units’. to measure things by way of seeing how many absolute units will fit into them is to measure them relative to ABSOLUTE SPACE and thus to impute ‘absolute existence to them’.

does the ‘thing’ called ‘division A’ [e.g. corporation A] or ‘the state of Germany’ author ‘its own production’, so that if Germany doubles in areal size and production, we can say that ‘Germany doubled its production’ even though global production did not change? .

no, that is absurd.

some other state’s production ‘disappeared’ at the same time that ‘the other state’ disappeared and became a bulge in the belly of the state that ‘grew’. the ‘economic growth’ realized by those betting on division A to win and ‘grow’ comes from a spreadsheet transaction in which production allocated to those betting on division B, C and D is reduced by the same amount as production allocation to those betting on division A is increased. there is no ‘growth’ in any physical sense, merely a rearranging in our manner of mapping and labelling the same relational spatial unum/plenum.

it is an absurdity, the belief in which, serves as the foundation of capitalism. i.e. if corporation A doubles its land holdings and claims that it has ‘doubled its production’, capitalism holds this to be true. it is not true. the source of production is the physical reality of the biosphere upon which we impose areal divisions. if we redefine corporation A on the basis of the growth of its land holding to double that of its immediately prior size, we are just patch-quilt painting the surface of the sphere of the earth differently and nothing has physically changed. i.e. ‘growth’ is impossible in a continually transforming relational spatial biosphere-unum/plenum; i.e. only transformation is possible.

the purported ‘growth’ is based on quantitatively measuring the size of division A using absolute units which, in effect, measure the change in division A relative to absolute space. if we measure it relative to the configuration of the other states that the biosphere-unum is divided up into; i.e. B, C, and D, then the ‘growth’ in A is reciprocally complemented by the ‘reduction’ of B and/or C and/or D. THERE IS NO PHYSICAL GROWTH. there is only a reallocation accruing to the backers of the respective divisions, A, B, C and D.

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

note that ‘this story’ is about ‘how different people understand the same dynamics differently’ [things-first versus relations-first]. it does not even get into ‘technology’ as yet.

some people believe that if you can quantitatively measure a thing then it must be a real, independently-existing thing. but quantitative measure uses absolute units so it is like measuring the thing relative to absolute space. if you believe that absolute space is real then you will believe that a quantitatively measurable thing is real. this gives more credibility to the identity of the notionally separate and independent things in the plurality like divisions A, B, C and D, than to the unum.

our intuition will correct us here, if we let it; i.e. if the radius of the biosphere is very large, then measuring the size of division A is like making the measurement on a flat plane of infinite extent. in that case, if A doubles in size, the ‘outside’ space is unaffected; i.e. there does not have to be any reciprocally complementing reduction in outer space to a growth of the inner space of division D since space is in that case infinite. however, if the radius of the biosphere is finite, then the inside-outward growth of division A has to be matched by reciprocal complementary outside-inward shrinkage in divisions B, C and D. every circle drawn on the surface of a sphere defines two circles, the areal extent of which we can call the one ‘inside’ and the areal extent of the other, we call ‘outside’. the accommodating of the outside area is conjugate to the asserting growth of the inside area. these reciprocally complementary dynamics always happen at the same time because they are dual aspects of one dynamic; i.e. the transformation of spatial relations.

those who believe that ‘growth’ is ‘real’ will credit division A as being the author of real growth. this is the basis of the capitalist ‘free market economy’ and the notion of ‘competition’ as measured in ‘growth of production’ and ‘growth of property holdings’.

this comes from the insanity of putting the reality of a notional plurality of independent things [humans, corporations, sovereign states] in precedence over the reality of the unum/plenum [the continually transforming relational spatial unum/plenum].

this comes from ‘the ego’. when the four brothers started serving as stewards of the production of the biosphere unum/plenum stopped thinking of themselves as ‘figureheads’ and started thinking of themselves as ‘fountainheads’ and competing with one another for ‘growth of holdings and production’, the tool of ‘reason’ began to hijack the workman. we cannot attribute the authoring of action such as movement to a ‘thing’ without at the same time invoking the metaphysics of absolute space and absolute time;

“It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things -- only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

‘being’ does not exist in the real world of our experience [there is only becoming in a flowing universe] and ‘growth’ is impossible [there is only relational spatial transformation].

is a very good way for describing what we do here; if we can get around the bravado tough guy talk here we often see
others who correlate with us as well. The bravado is born out of fear, despair, and mistaking "resolute"
with chest-puffing.
when I say "agreement", I don't mean detail: I mean sentiment where I learn from others different
paradigms that I find useful, not necessarily "THE TRUTH". As Heidegger points out TRUTH is always in the hands of the
Signifying Power, your FIGUREHEADS. The better, more elegant term is aletheia(Gr.); disclosure, or "unhiddeness". or bringing a concept "to light".Useful concepts that promote dialogue and mutual investigations.
Using this approach, I see how your relational plenum is one not of growth. I can also see the yang-yin approach of a proper balance; and I can also understand the current Western understanding of the cosmos as an ever-expanding accelerating
universe of infinite scope and infinite wonder as well. Etc. I am not fixated on the TRUTH of any of these (better described as "concepts".. But I do learn from and draw insight from a number of such "traditions", none of which emphasize MAN's or God's ( no gods , no masters) domination or even a pretense of a dominating MEME, THEME, of RIGHT/WRONG. spiritually speaking, any such HUBRIS is indeed a sign of the what the existential theologians call " the sin of Pride".
(see Buber, Tillich, Niebauer, Marcel, hell, "jesus" himself. (Excuse my diversion into existential theological speculations.)
So, back to the beginning, I find many correlations helpful in dispelling the TYRANNY of Western AUTHORITATIVE-AUTHORITARIAN Argumentation and its not so subtle what "IT" is RIGHT or Wrong. I want ideas that encourage a view of "man" in consonance with her relational
field, not to score points, but to proceed to an accommodating within herself and her "world"; where she is OK with a 'letting- be', a getting-along, and a reveling in, exploring and enjoying. I trust that is what we are doing here by all of us,
and all can be forgiven for our common human frailties.I particularly look for inspiring and interesting discussion the allow for
a focus in a way , not THE WAY. Not all the "ANSWERS", but interesting questions. for all we really are , are question-ing
and become -ing.

is a very good way for describing what we do here; if we can get around the bravado tough guy talk here we often see
others who correlate with us as well. The bravado is born out of fear, despair, and mistaking "resolute"
with chest-puffing.
when I say "agreement", I don't mean detail: I mean sentiment where I learn from others different
paradigms that I find useful, not necessarily "THE TRUTH". As Heidegger points out TRUTH is always in the hands of the
Signifying Power, your FIGUREHEADS. The better, more elegant term is aletheia(Gr.); disclosure, or "unhiddeness". or bringing a concept "to light".Useful concepts that promote dialogue and mutual investigations.
Using this approach, I see how your relational plenum is one not of growth. I can also see the yang-yin approach of a proper balance; and I can also understand the current Western understanding of the cosmos as an ever-expanding accelerating
universe of infinite scope and infinite wonder as well. Etc. I am not fixated on the TRUTH of any of these (better described as "concepts".. But I do learn from and draw insight from a number of such "traditions", none of which emphasize MAN's or God's ( no gods , no masters) domination or even a pretense of a dominating MEME, THEME, of RIGHT/WRONG. spiritually speaking, any such HUBRIS is indeed a sign of the what the existential theologians call " the sin of Pride".
(see Buber, Tillich, Niebauer, Marcel, hell, "jesus" himself. (Excuse my diversion into existential theological speculations.)
So, back to the beginning, I find many correlations helpful in dispelling the TYRANNY of Western AUTHORITATIVE-AUTHORITARIAN Argumentation and its not so subtle what "IT" is RIGHT or Wrong. I want ideas that encourage a view of "man" in consonance with her relational
field, not to score points, but to proceed to an accommodating within herself and her "world"; where she is OK with a 'letting- be', a getting-along, and a reveling in, exploring and enjoying. I trust that is what we are doing here by all of us,
and all can be forgiven for our common human frailties.I particularly look for inspiring and interesting discussion the allow for
a focus in a way , not THE WAY. Not all the "ANSWERS", but interesting questions. for all we really are , are question-ing
and become -ing.

in my above note i am talking about two different language conventions, euclidian [things-first, relations-second] and non-euclidian [relations first, things-secondary]

if the biosphere is divided into 4 ‘portions’, these portions are not ‘things’ that can ‘grow’, ... they are more like holes in a tarp that covers the whole sphere of the earth where ‘holdings’ means a hole in the tarp through which division A can collect what the biosphere keeps seasonally pushing forth. the doubling of the holdings of division A is like the doubling of a hole in the tarp. if the holes in the tarp are fully taken, then to double the area of one of the holes is to encroach on the other holes by the same amount. there is no physical growth in this case, only a rearranging of the spreadsheet tracking the changing size of access holes allocated to divisions A, B, C, and D.

meanwhile, Wall Street uses the euclidian language convention where things are measured in absolute units which assumes an infinite rectangular (euclidian) space. the doubling of the holdings of division A will thus be treated as ‘real growth’ and rewarded by the market as such [increased management compensation, increased shareholder dividend, inflation of share price and so on]. meanwhile, no physical growth whatsoever was involved.

this is what comes of mixing the euclidian space language convention and the non-euclidian space language convention, the illusion of growth is confused for ‘growth’ where there is in actuality zero physical growth; i.e. ‘growth’ is not a viable term in the non-euclidian space language convention; i.e. the only form of dynamics is relational spatial transformation and ‘growth’ makes no sense because there are no ‘absolutely existing things’ to undergo ‘growth’. Wall Street uses the Western concept of ‘organization’ which has the euclidian space convention ‘built into it’; i.e. the view of ‘organization’ [, man and organism] as ‘independent reason-driven systems’. this is the Ayn Rand view, really. the produce from the land holdings of the organization are seen to ‘track back’ along a cause-effect chain and ‘bottom out’ in the brain in the ‘head’ of the organization. this is not like the non-euclidian space language convention which would see the ‘land holdings’ as an access-hole in a biosphere-covering tarp. there is no growth of a particular division’s hole in the tarp, there is only the relational spatial transformation of holes.

so, an interesting question [to me] is; ... given that the euclidian space language convention is our Western and Wall Street default and it erroneously sees ‘growth’ as something ‘real’, and given that non-euclidian space language convention sees spatial relational transformation as the only possible dynamic and ‘growth’ as an ‘illusion’, ... should we be investigating the ‘damage’ being done [the bullet holes we are shooting in our own feet] via our language giving us a delusional sense of ‘reality’?

I am truly happy to have to say that
growth is still a factor for our relational field
just as I am truly happy to say that its opposite,
decay, is also a part. I personally do not subscribe
to a full relational plenum that is a zero-sum game;( x cancels out o) . Though it is attractive
in that one can hope that ,in the social sciences at least,, one could then argue for a dialectical
struggle between the forces of expansion of the ever-expanding "free" market vs. static ,stasis formations
such as the state and its bureaucratic power to ( in vain) "block "the growth by diverting energy to its "captured" congealed structures.
this is the contemporary pathetic hegemonic Marxist Paradigm in Marxist States as well as that has caused all manner of atrocities
in our so-called bourgeois"capitalist"states . So much for "class conflicts" for our "liberation".
No, this will not do. There is indeed growth observable to all, and decay also. Yes, there are cycles as in your thinking and mine was in Gaia , our cosmic
becoming and receding. We and our milieu cannot be reduced to a formula. Those who do need to "Know The Truth", Once and for All".
and" live and die to" prove it " and FIXATE in IT are sadly truly lost . We are susceptible to this POWER TRIP. Me too, emile.
If only life was this simple. But then what would we be? Automatons? if so, The Koch brothers, the Stalinists, "Scientists", and the
Philosophical Idealists of every ilk are the least of our problems.
in other words let's take a breath, in-spire and ex-pire and give-it a-break.
That, said, I enjoy the "back and forth" and have to admit that I continue to "grow" . growing- pains, in-deed.

in case there is a misperception creeping into our exchange, this note is simply to try to put some things in broader context.

i am certainly NOT one of those who believe that he holds an absolute truth in his grasp and is attempting to talk people into believing in it.

my understanding is that there are no absolute truths, and everything i share in public discourse intends to make this point, which runs in direct opposition to the formal workings of our ‘Western’ manner of establishing a world view based on truth-in-reason [which then shapes our individual and collective action]

that is, you say;

“There is indeed growth observable to all, and decay also. Yes, there are cycles as in your thinking and mine was in Gaia , our cosmic becoming and receding. We and our milieu cannot be reduced to a formula. Those who do need to "Know The Truth", Once and for All". and" live and die to" prove it " and FIXATE in IT are sadly truly lost . We are susceptible to this POWER TRIP. Me too, emile.”

in this statement, you too appear to be a bit ‘dogmatic’; i.e. you contradict my proposition that ‘growth does not exist’ by saying;

“There is indeed growth observable to all, and decay also”

if it appears that i am nit-picking language when i say that ‘you are portraying ‘growth’ as a real physical process’, ... yes, i am, since what i am exploring is how our choice of a language architecture shapes our ‘reality’. that is what my notes are all about. it is a topic that is central to the philosophical investigations of mach, nietzsche, poincaré, watts, sapir, whorf and others.

i am saying that ‘growth’ is something that forms in your head, it is not something that happens ‘out there’ in the world and therefore it is not something ‘one can observe’. the same for ‘decay’. the concept of ‘growth’ depends upon the concept of a ‘thing’ with continuing identity that ‘does the growing’. ‘the storm-cell is growing larger’ is a noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar construct. is that ‘what we observe’, really? someone might argue that what we observe is the continually swirling, relational-spatially transforming flow of the atmosphere and the interesting [relational] forms that are continually gathering and being regathered within this ‘flow’.

the ‘form’ does not graduate to the status of a ‘thing’ ‘out there’, it is endowed with thingness by ‘thought and language’. once we anoint the pattern in the flow as a ‘thing’, then we can talk about ‘the growth of the things’ and not before. in other words, we ‘manufacture growth’ by way of our tool of language-and-thought. it is not true that ‘growth’ and ‘decay’ exist and can be observed as implied by “There is indeed growth observable to all, and decay also”

now, my aim is not to ‘argue’ as in; ‘to put your argument down’ and have my own argument ‘rule victorious’. this dialogue is not a ‘win/lose competition’, it is about how exploring how different people ‘see things differently’.

my view is that, in the end, there are no ‘truths’ or ‘if there are’, they are hopelessly obscured by different people’s different manner of conceptualizing their experience so that such ‘truths’ even if they did exist, are not going to be useful for co-managing our social dynamic. in my view, therefore, ‘reasoned intellectual argument’ is not a sound basis for self-organizing of a social collective. and of course, those forms that do not use language to share their experiences, so far as we can tell, manage to organize themselves without it.

this leads me to understand that we, as a collective, should self-organize FIRSTLY on the basis of actual experience rather than on the basis of our observations and theories on ‘what is going on out there’. what we actually experience is never what we forecast on the basis of our intellectual, language-and-thought depictions of ‘what is going on out there’, which by the way, are very different depictions depending on whether we opt for a flow-based relational language architecture or a thing-based mechanical what-things-do-based architecture. relational language architecture sees ‘the terrain slumping’ while the thing-based language sees ‘rocks keep rolling down from hillcrest to valley trough, wearing down the hills [decay] and filling in the valleys [growth]. ‘the terrain is transforming’ doesn’t go so far as to endow the hillcrest with ‘being’ and the ‘valleytrough’ with ‘being’, it understands the basic dynamic as ‘morphology’ or ‘relational transformation’ or ‘flow’.

given that different people live in ‘different realities’ depending on such influences as language architectures, it would appear to make more sense to orient to ‘actual unfolding experience’ [“life is something that happens to us while we are busy making other plans based on our preferred language architecture options and the realities that we manufacture with them”].

this is the option for self-organizing preferred by indigenous aboriginals in the iroquois confederacy, as sourced the ‘talking circle’. the ‘talking circle’ is not an occasion for people to present their rationalized views of the world and how to respond to them, the ‘talking circle’ is to share actual told-from-the-heart experiences. everyone’s experience ‘counts’. in listening to each person as the talking piece is held by them. there is no basis for rejecting their view as in the case of the presenting of intellectual views, such as ‘that lady has the IQ of a moron.’ ... ‘that guy never graduated from high-school.’ .... ‘that person is clearly indoctrinated with Marxist theory’. ... ‘that person thinks that the sun shines out of her arse and that it’s powered by the U.S. passport in her purse’.

self-organization that keys to actual physical sensory experience is the self-organization of the iroquois confederacy. it develops from respecting every individual’s experience and those in the ‘talking circle’ must also ‘speak for wolf’ and ‘wolf’s experience’.

if you share with me your experiences, azano, and i share mine with you, and we all share our experiences with each other, we can let the understanding that comes from this sharing orchestrate and shape our individual and collective behaviours, as in ‘self-organizing’.

if, on the other hand, we bypass the ‘experiencing sharing’ of the ‘talking circle’ and we go directly into the ‘debating hall’ [as is the Western way], they when you get up and say; “There is indeed growth observable to all, and decay also”
i may rise up and retort; ‘that is all in your head! there is no ‘growth’ out there to observe. you are the workman that has been hijacked by his own tool of language that emerson talks about.

this self-organizing approach based on ‘reason’; i.e. on getting ourselves onto the same page in the sense of our intellectual view of the world doesn’t work worth a damn for all of the reasons mentioned; “that lady has the IQ of a moron”, we can scratch her input etc. etc. perhaps she is a white lady that was raped by a black man and sees all black people as a threat to social harmony. her experience is real and deserves to be ‘listened to’ by her fellows in the community [and not just by a law enforcement agency] and the life experience of the man who raped her likewise deserves to be ‘listened to’ by his fellows in the community.

on the basis of listening to everyone’s experience, understanding of what is continually unfolding forms in the context of a matrix of relationships. if the white lady and everyone else who comes to ‘share’ starts by delivering her worldview in terms of ‘her intellectual reasoning’, we lose the opportunity to make sense of what is unfolding on the basis of actual experience. intellectual debates get everyone [or a consensus group] ‘on the same page’ based on the seeming ‘soundness’ of a reasoned argument.

such ‘reasoned arguments’ depend upon ‘language architecture conventions’ that shape ‘reality’. world views are divided by the manner in which the flow-based language architecture puts those who employ it in a different sort of reality than the reality of those employing the thing-based language architecture. in a western culture dominated society, the thing-based reality is likely to dominate in any ‘intellectual debating’ as to ‘what is going on out there and what should we do about it’. the thing-based reality depicts man, organism and organization as an ‘independent reason-driven system’. the corollary to this is that a man, an organism and an organization is ‘fully and solely responsible for its own action/behaviour’ [the all-yang-no-yin view of behaviour] which means that ‘moral judgement of individual behaviour’ presents itself as a solid tool for ‘managing the social dynamic’. all that needs to be done in this case is to come up with a list of behaviours that are harmful to the welfare of the collective, and to maintain an enforcement agency to police individual behaviours and to take measures to eradicate those that are deemed harmful to the harmonious functioning of the community.

of course, if one employs a ‘relational’ language architecture, the reality is that events unfold from the nexus of relational influences so that if a man is taunted and mocked while his children die of starvation by the landlord class that is monopolizing access to the natural commons [source of nurturant resources], and like adam smith [and a century later, darwin], contends that this is nature’s way of removing the inferior species, when this man strikes one of those that is denying him access to sources of nurturance that would prevent his children from dying of starvation, ... if his fellows are mostly using the thing-based language architecture that says that his behaviour derives fully and solely from his internal processes and that he is fully and solely responsible for his own behaviour, ... then those fellows are going to go to the ‘look up tables’ of morally correct and incorrect behaviours of individuals, ... and having satisfied themselves that ‘he actually did what he was alleged to have done’, ... then they can look in the ‘punishment column’ adjacent to that line item in the ‘morally incorrect behaviour of an individual’ column, and apply the corresponding ‘punishment’.

in the moral judgement based social dynamics management approach, the community does not even have to be bothered by the management process since it is laid out in the morality-based laws as apply to allowable and prohibited individual behaviour [an individual in the thing-based language architecture option is assumed to jumpstart fully and solely from his own thing-interior].

as we can see from many people sharing their experiences, there is a great lopsidedness to people in the non-landlord class being convicted of morally incorrect behaviours. since the law protects ‘property ownership’ without limit, the law protects the landlord class in their denial of access to essential sources of nurturant resource and intuition informs us that a relational animosity develops between resource monopolizing landlord class and those who are being impoverished by it, inducing tensions whose spring-loaded energies are the source of sporadic violent release. in other words, in the reality of the relational language architecture option, it is NOT true that an individual’s behaviour jumpstarts fully and solely from his/her internal processes as the Western institutionalized model of man, organism and organization as ‘independent reason-driven system’ claims it does. therefore, ‘moral judgement based’ social dynamics management is ‘not appropriate’.

the ‘restorative justice’ of the indigenous aboriginals associates with [derives from] the reality that forms from the relational language architecture option. in this reality, there is no assumption that the behaviour of the individual jumpstarts from the interior of the individual; i.e. the assumption is that the matrix of relations the individual is situationally included in orchestrates and shapes his behaviour. the matrix of relations is ‘the community dynamic’. thus, like storm-cells in the flow of the atmosphere, the behaviour of the individual storm-cell does not come from the interior of the storm-cell but is orchestrated and shaped by the continually transforming relational influence matrix the storm-cell is included in.

adam smith’s reality, in accord with the thing-based language architecture option, is that people who are successful are successful because they have the ‘right stuff’ in their interior which is the full and sole source of their successful behaviour, and those who are less successful are less successful because they do not have ‘the right stuff’ in their interior. there is no other possible source of the origin of an individual’s behaviour in the ‘thing-based language architecture option’ because the implied ‘independence’ of the individual thing implies that the space the individual resides in is independent of the things that reside within it; i.e. the thing-based language assumption implies that ‘space is absolute’ [an absolute fixed, empty and infinite containing space; a ‘habitat’ that is independent of its ‘independent inhabitants’]

“ Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.” —Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

the ‘scantiness of subsistence’ in human society is determined by property ownership and enforced by moral principles [thou shalt not steal] and law enforcement agencies. there are ways to ‘steal’ within the law that are protected by the law, as have been acknowledged since 500 BCE in the writings of lao tzu and others, so that an ‘abundance of subsistance’ can live side-by-side with a ‘scantiness of subsistance’, separated only by a barbed wire fence and armed police that mark the line between the landlord classes and the working classes.

of course, the thing-based language architecture option delivers a reality in which ‘all things are born equal’ as when one sees man, organism and organization as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ that operate in a notional absolute space and absolute time container/operating-theatre.

of course, they call it the ‘lucky sperm club’ if you are born inside an enclave of privilege that is surrounded by barb wire fencing and armed policemen and criminal court judges that has been, for generations, accruing localized disproportionate abundance that contributes directly to an artificial ‘scantiness of subsistence’ via the mediating medium of ‘relational space’.

so long as society sticks to the thing-based language architecture option, the ‘operative reality’ will continue to depict man, organism and organization as ‘independent reason-driven systems’ operating in an independent absolute space and absolute time reference-frame that serves as a notional container for ‘independent objects/systems’, and thus as ‘being born equal’.

this ridiculously artificial and unrealistic [compared to our actual physical experience] pseudo-reality continues to be ‘the official operative reality of Western societies’, serving as the basis for the Western institutions of governance, commerce and justice.

with this being said, ... i just want to make one point about ‘where emile is coming from’, because i have the sense that ‘where he is coming from’ may be seen to be his attempt to ‘reduce things to a formula’ with his talk about the nature of space as ‘non-euclidian/relational’ versus ‘euclidian/absolute, non-relational’; i.e. you say;

“We and our milieu cannot be reduced to a formula. Those who do need to "Know The Truth", Once and for All". and" live and die to" prove it " and FIXATE in IT are sadly truly lost . We are susceptible to this POWER TRIP. Me too, emile.”

the 'relations-first language architecture option’ delivers a reality that LET’S GO OF CERTAINTY; i.e. it let’s go of the certainty that is built into the reality that comes from a ‘things-first language architecture option’. this is exemplified by the ‘restorative justice’ of the relational reality, where the matrix of relations in the community is seen as the source of emergent events, ... whereas the ‘things-first language architecture option’ delivers a reality in which one understands dynamics in the non-relational terms of what independent reason-driven systems do as if in an absolute space that is independent of the things that reside within it. this reality delivers certainty and finality as to the ultimate starting source that is responsible for a ‘result’. in Western justice, this final ultimate sourcing of an event ‘bottoms out’, notionally, in the interior of the ‘independent individual’, in a jumpstart creative act of ‘thought’. there is no need to explore, further, the sourcing of the result. it is ‘certain’ that we can determine the ultimate originating source of the result in this reality that comes from the things-first language architecture option’.

by accepting the relational nature of dynamics, i let go of the dream of ‘knowing the truth’. there is no limit to the continually transforming relational matrix that is sourcing emergent events. if i start from the ravaging of New Orleans by ‘Katrina’, there is linguistic certainty in saying ‘Katrina did it’ and that she is where the buck starts and stops for this ‘result’, the city of New Orleans lying there devastated, ravaged when it was in fine shape the day before. my things-first language architecture option gives me closure in being able to say ‘she did it’. on the other hand, if i took the emersonian [relations-first] view that she was merely the universe expressing itself, that she took on the form and behaviour she did as a means of giving the universe a limb to reach out and manipulate and transform itself, then the ultimate ‘source’ of the result i am investigating is forever lost in the continually transforming relational matrix. it is not that katrina is ‘nothing’ in this case, it is that she is an ‘agent of transformation’ rather than an ‘independent doer-of-deeds’. as emerson says; her health and erectness consist in the fidelity with which she transmits influences from the vast and universal to the point on which her genius can act.

the certainty as to the sourcing of ‘what things do’, in the ‘reality’ of the relations-first language architecture option gets lost in the ‘vast and universal’, thus ‘what things do’ [as in reason and science which deliver synthetic certainty] is not a reliable foundation for shaping our individual and collective behaviour. our actual varied ‘experiences’ brought into relational confluence so that we can ‘intuitively’ extract coherency-based meaning/understanding, provide an alternative approach to self-organization which avoids dependency on the absolute certainty of reason and science which come bundled into various different ‘theories’ argued most successfully by ‘intellectuals’, ‘scientists’, ‘academics’ and politicians with the gift of persuading people of the ‘truth’ of their intellectual theories, ALL OF WHICH depend on synthetic certainty coming from the ‘things-first language architecture option’.

emile’s comments are thus coming from an attempt to collapse belief in the synthetic ‘certainty’ in the reality delivered by the ‘things-first language architecture option’. in other words, they are NOT coming from an attempt by emile to foist some intellectual theoretical ‘truth’ on anyone.

emile is not 'trying to tell other people how to think'. emile is saying 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" [Mach's principle] which means that the actions of others shaped by the beliefs of others conditions the space that we all share inclusion in, which is conditioning our behaviours. thus the beliefs of others coming through the reality delivered by their language architecture option impose on me and others through the mediating medium of relational space. emile's interest is not in 'going to war' against others who have made themselves captive of a synthetic certainty based reality, ... but orients instead to collapsing the belief in certainty-based reality.

is a good sentiment. I was not referring to you
as one of those who blindly impose Truth on me or others. I was referring to others
who parrot the Power Structure language of Signifiers in their attempt to Justify a Reason-based
Idealist philosophy of subject-object metaphysics. I always refer to the Power-Centers out
there contaminating our discussions.
as to growth, maybe a better way of expressing would be to refer to expanding and receding; even Western, modern cosmology allows for the possibility that the effects of dark matter/energy could at some point be understood to indicate
a reversal of cosmos expansion> back to the chaos "prior to " the event-happening that was- is the Big-Bang; expanding/receding.(this is not meant to be taken as some endorsement of Linear Time ; instead Spinoza's more adequate concept of substance extending -differentiating in expression of form)
now please,
I am aware of other ways of looking at the relational field as you helpfully describe.
To me these are helpful concepts all.
they all indicate what may be obvious ,but elusive, that :"all that glitters is not gold ".
paradigms: instead. a way of, in the vernacular, "looking at things", differently.
we need to focus on creating new languages that express our ideas in a reachable
way to assist comprehending and implementing better ways of understanding and better ways of doing.
Here, better means useful, affective, effective, not the Idealist Moralism of Right and Wrong. Undermining the Tyranny of the Noun. utilizing the inciting power of the Verb as becoming(s).
That leads of course to the indigenous -based talking circle approach ( e.g. a facsimile of which I have started to participate in.)

I am not strictly a phenomenologist who believes in "the thing-in-itself", ideal essences, the root cause of,
the right or wrong way, and certainly Not "Absolute Truth". I am a firm "believer- in" "using" certain philosophical
approaches , including indigenous, Eastern, and Western to help me get out of ,at least some of the time , those
idealistic mind-sets that can be insidious. It is, as they say, " a learning experience".

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Subscribe to Comments for "Why Riot?"