General discussion

continuing conversation on some thoughts

one view of the self associates with the view of Bohm (and Mach, Nietzsche, Emerson) wherein the world is a transforming relational continuum (energy-charged plenum) which is the mother of all physically real things (relational forms in the flow). this is what Nietzsche calls the 'big sagacity view of the natural Self'.

continuing conversation from on antifa

at the bottom of this critique, as RAWilson and Nietzsche and others have noted is the problematic ‘belief in being’. Organization that is rallied by a desire to eliminate the forces of evil, along with organization that is rallied by a desire to promote the forces of good are DELUSIONAL, and BELIEF IN BEING is the source of this ‘delusion’.

continuing conversation from nature, essence

as Emerson said, 'thinking' is a tool that has been running away with the workman. You say;

"The point is this: thinking shapes languages, not the other way around."

indigenous aboriginals employ relational languages that have no concept of 'being' and which would have one understand the world as 'given only once' [as also in modern physics], as a transforming relational continuum, thus they had no concept for treating portions of the terrain as 'ownable parcels' that could be bought and sold.

continuing conversation from totw: on conversations...

Part of the reason for the split into 'camps' is that there are two types of logic that can be used in inquiring into the same data-sets. There is nothing new here. Anyone can read about the logic of the excluded third and the logic of the included third, which Poincare associates with the difference between using Euclidian [linear space, dualist] reference-framing and non-Euclidian [curved space, non-dualist] reference framing.

The Future of Democracy lies in Anarchy

The word democracy derives from the Greek word that literally means “people govern”. Generally, it is assumed throughout the world that the democratic way of decision-making is the best possible and therefore the most acceptable. The only problem is that nobody knows exactly what it means. It would be ideal if people mutually agree and create rules on an equal basis that would be valid in their collective but it is impossible to achieve because every society brings an unlimited number of decisions about which all people cannot decide on either due to lack of interest, knowledge, or time.

continuing conversation from totw: on democracy...

yes, indigenous/Eastern vs Western anarchism compare as follows

before we can talk about organizing architecture, there is the age-old enigma of 'the one and the many' [how inhabitants and habitat relate] which leads to (a) non-dualist and (b) dualist options where (a) is understood as having the topology of storm cells in a fluid unum and (b) is understood as 'independent things-in-themselves' in a fixed and independent operating theatre.

Pages