Call for Workshops - 2012 BASTARD Conference

  • Posted on: 23 January 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href="">Berkeley Anarchist Study Group</a>

2012 BASTARD Conference - Theme: <strong>No Future</strong>

Time is a beast. It has torn through humans chasing them from the fields and woods into suits and office buildings, suburbs and mortgages. There was a chance we were going to defeat it, on the commons of England, Mesopotamia, or during the revolutions on the old continent. But we didn't. Instead time sits on our chests and makes us do horrible things.

This years BASTARD conference will examine time in all its perniciousness. What does a critique of time say about our relationship to history. Is history redeemable? Are we living at the end of history with the glorious victory of the neo-liberal revolution of the past 50 years? If there is no time does that argue for eternal recursion? Is there hope if there is no time?</td><td><img title="it says we should relax and stop thinking so much. Instead we should do stuff. Stuff!" src=""></td></tr></table><...

Contribute a workshop to the 2012 BASTARD conference on this theme, a related topic, or something else entirely. Send your proposals to <a href="">BASTARD Planning Group</a>

Theme: No Future
Date: April 1st
Location: East Bay, CA


I won't be there but I think this has the potential to be super interesting. Someone talk about Kertesz!

Haha. This thing.

I am really glad that anarchists will be talking about time and eternal recursion, that is the way imho.

we crush time like eggs under our collective boots!

then lenin showed up and was all "don't fuck with time"

The only thing I can recall actually written about time was in 'Killing King Abacus' or "Fight Club" (this is your life, it is ending one minute at a time).

Who cares about the topic, I'll be there as long as we get free candy again. That was awesome.

this too, is all i desire.

it was truly the height of the insurrection last year.

There should be a workshop where someone smokes indoors.

-the troletariat

okay, NC rising...!

That happens at multiple anarchist conferences ftr.

What the fuck does it even mean to say there is "no time"?

I would like to tell you, but there's no time.

No no, comrade, sorry to inform you but you have it all wrong. It is precisely when there is no time that one at last has all the time in the world.

‘Time’ is a fiction that we need when we impose absolute space reference framing so as to make up historical narratives; stories in the causal-model terms of 'what things do'.

'things’ are absolute logical entities that notionally inhabit absolute space, a space we use to simplify our world view by getting rid of complex webs of relations that we actually experience, instead populating it only with what we are currently concerned with. reason and logic, as nietzsche says, are tools for building synthetic realities in a highly simplified fashion

1. world average life expectancy is about 70 years. currently over seven billion human bodies will be added to the earth/biosphere every 70 years, ... or 5.25 trillion pounds, 2.63 billion tons of human flesh. since each person drops roughly 300 pounds of excrement per year and 200 gallons of urine, sweat and tears per year, = 2000 pounds per year, to make 2300 pounds per year of ‘throughput’, over a 70 year lifetime that would add up to 161,000 pounds, which for seven billion people is 1.13 quadrillion pounds or 560 billion tons.

2. there is a lot of recycling going on here in the biosphere and we are inextricably included in it [i.e. in a complex web of spatial-relations]. the humanity-dynamic is essentially energy-in-transformation stirred by the sun (phytoplankton eat sunbeams and so do plants) and big fish eat little fish and big animals eat little animals that eat plants and so on. the flesh forms around the flow-hole in the middle like ice around fountain flow in the cold of winter. according to quantum physics, matter and material bodies are toroidal energy-flow, manifesting at the singularity where sink and source are in ‘coniunctio’. topologically, the fleshy doughnut/body covering the digestive tract hole is secondary to the flow circulating through the doughnut-hole.

this whole transformational complex is ‘managed’ by nature and the notion that men in centre-driven structures are managing it is ridiculous. kings and presidents sit in this flow like leaves floating in white water rapids. of course there are police and military who can over-power, injure and kill as directed from a central authority, but the notion that politicians and economists have some sort of directive power over the complex is absurd. their rhetoric is nothing other than logical babble designed to make it appear as if they are ‘in control’; i.e. their rational views are reverse engineered from whatever happens to unfold, whether it be hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, ‘terrorist attacks’, flu epidemics. the notion of 'management' or 'being in control' is inevitably 'after-the-fact' of whatever unanticipated unfolding unfolds.

the universe and the earth’s biosphere are in a continual state of transformation and we are all inextricably included in it while “reason and logic are tools for building synthetic realities” in a time-based doer-deed construction. the story of the globally dominating colonizer culture can be told in terms of a historical time-line, in terms of a sequence of major events, major discoveries, major inventions, major technology developments, major advances in industrial production etc. but time-based doer-deed narratives do not speak to how our living space is transforming. the average life-‘time’ of a hurricane is 12 days but the ‘bigger story’ is the transformation of atmospheric-flow and you can’t measure the transformation of a relational space ... 'in time’.

“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

the never-beginning-never-ending 'transforming' of our living space is 'beyond the measuring power of 'time''. 'time' reduces transformation to reason/logic-created-reality, the dysfunctional pseudo-reality of our globally dominating 'Western' culture.

See, this is what I'm talking about. What the fuck does any of that mean?
>'time' reduces transformation to reason/logic-created-reality
well no shit, that's because it works. When I use Newtonian physics, I can predict where a ball I throw will land, using time a variable, location as another. Saying we should abolish the notion to end a pseudo-reality is like saying I should poke out your eyes so you can't be fooled by illusion, to do it because of dominating culture is doing it so you can't judge how people look.

actually, it's funny you mention eye-poking ... i was just talking about voluntarily blinding myself the other day. THEN, as if completely out of the blue, i watched the final matrix movie, and (spoiler) neo was blind for half the movie! maybe time DOESN'T exist ??

'time' is useful, not only for making predictions as to where a thrown ball can land, but also to predict the gross national product of a colonial power, and/or the number of board-feet of lumber that the softwood/hardwood industry can produce over a five year period. such predictions of deliberately-caused results (e.g. GDP) do not 'inform' us on the transformation of space, how the oppressed space of the colonies will spawn rebellion among the indigenous peoples and how many omar mukhtars will be hanged. such time-based predictions of cause-effect results such as the colonizing state's GDP will not tell you how the oxygen-producing capacity of the forests are in decline, affecting everything in the biosphere including the lumberjacks and the accountants as they keep track of their time-based cause-effect results.

time-based prediction of 'cause-and-result' is all about 'what things do' and is innately incapable of accounting for how the habitat-dynamic is transforming. this is because predictions in terms of 'what things do' over 'time' assumes that space is a non-participant in dynamics that proceed from past to future. you can predict that if you increase the fuel supply to your car engine, the speed of the engine will increase proportionally, but that is only if oxygen concentration in the intake holds constant and carbon monoxide etc. can disperse rather than concentrating. if people were to run their engines while their cars were in the parking garage, for a dozen hours or so, mach's principle becomes evident; "the dynamics of the habitat [supplying-oxygen] are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants [engines] at the same time as the dynamics of of the inhabitants [carbon mono/di-oxide discharging] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat [supplying oxygen]"

newton's laws and cause-and-effect in general, are based on the assumption that space is a non-participant in the dynamic [i.e. that space is an absolute, fixed, empty and infinite reference frame], so that newtonian thinking allows us to reduce our focus to 'what things do'; i.e. to reduce our focus to the assertive influences of the inhabitants of space, as if situated in an absolute [idealized] non-participating reference-frame space.

if we acknowledge space-matter relativity, then movement is no longer from the past through the present into the future, it is outside-inward flowing at the same time as inside-outward flowing, as in toroidal flow (convection cells) and as in 'plate tectonics'. what 'unfolds' and what 'infolds' in the space on the surface of the sphere of the earth are 'relative' (as in 'conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation').

the space of the biosphere persists while the forms within it are continually, cyclically, boiling up and out and collapsing down and in. this is a description of relational transformation consistent with our sensory experience.

'time' is the interval between the sequence of images associated with the observer's observations; i.e. 'time' arises in connection with the activity of the observer, rather than being innate in the phenomenon which the observer is included in at the same time as he is looking out at it. the forests are growing and supplying oxygen to the observer as he focuses on how many felled trees he is piling up 'out in front of himself' in the log-holding yard [a time-based succession of photographic images will measure the growth of the log pile]. the subjectifying power of language allows us to impute 'growth' to 'the pile' or the 'result' out of the context of the transformation of space [the clearcut etc.] and also, to impute excluded-voyeur-observer status to the oxygen-fuelled observers and lumberjacks, even as the reducing in the relative proportion of space that is forested is reducing the richness of his oxygen supply.

our sensory experience informs us that the lumberjack and the trees are included in the transformational dynamic he is looking out at. the subjectifying powers of language, meanwhile, allow him to SYNTHETICALLY REDUCE the transformation he is included in, to newtonian terms of 'what things do', as in a time succession proceeding from past through present to future.

we can see in time-lapse photography, the growth of the log-pile and we can see in time-lapse photography the growth of italy's treasury, just as if these developments were taking place on a flat plane of infinite extent [where one's actions of the past, once left behind, never come back around to haunt one's future]. the predictions regarding this cause-effect growth may be very accurate, but what about the transformation of the space that associates with them, the decline in air quality, the death of indigenous slaves and rebels in the colonies? the colonial powers have excellent accountants and excellent chain saws/lumberjacks and excellent military enforcers, and if they decided to double their time-based production targets tomorrow, they might very well achieve them. would anything else associate with this doubling of cause-effect production? would this not induce the growth of hardship (sweatshops or worse), the growth of rebellion, and the growth of enforcers? as mcluhan said, it matters little 'what thing do' [the time-based view of dynamics], what matters is how our relations with one another and the habitat are transforming [the transformation of the medium is the message rather than 'what things do'].

meanwhile, the leaders of the colonial states have always kept the public focused on time-based production out of the context of 'the more comprehensive view of dynamics' in terms of the transformation of living space relations; e.g. by way of the following sort of popular aphorism.

I'm just glad that somebody besides Hugo Chavez is reading Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, !!

Oh christ, it's the zombie offspring of english majors who thought they were philosophers. We're done here.

Here’s a ‘deconstruction’ of Sean Carroll’s ‘logic’ that you won’t find in any respectable science journal because it's heresy; the same heresy that got Ernst Mach ‘excommunicated’ from ‘the Church of Physics’ [Mach’s own words] because he refused to commit to a belief in ‘particles’. This same ‘heretical view’ permeates Nietzsche’s work and is what got Schroedinger [and David Bohm] 'excommunicated' from ‘the socio-political discipline of physics’ aka 'the Church of Physics'; the heresy that ‘particles’ are not ‘real’ but are standing wave resonances, excitations of the energy-charged spatial-plenum, visible ‘flow-features’ within the energy-charged spatial-plenum, not real objects hidden from us in a probability cloud.

Schroedinger observed;

“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). …” “… The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. …” “Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.”

i have inserted numbered footnotes in a transcription (immediately below) of Sean Carroll’s youtube discourse on ‘time’. as you read Carroll’s discourse, hold on to Schroedinger and Mach’s view that ‘particles’ and ‘material bodies’ are like ‘storm-cells’ in the flow of the atmosphere [excitations in the energy-charged spatial-plenum]; i.e. visually, they have local centres [RELATIVE to the flow] and we can use language to subjectify them, giving them names and imputing to 'them' ‘their own behaviour’, but actually the spatial-relation flow dynamics is the ‘primary reality’ and their ‘local thing-in-itself-ness’ is something we [thanks to the synthetic subjectifying powers of language] endow them with for our convenience; i.e. we CREATE A REALITY based on notional ‘particles’ as ‘things-in-themselves.’

Sean Carroll ...'reasons' or 'logically argues' as follows;

“It’s perfectly obvious that time has a direction. [1] All we mean by that is that the past is different from the future in lots of different ways [2]; we were younger in the past; we will be older in the future [3]; we remember the past, we don’t remember the future. The surprise is that that difference between past and future is nowhere to be found in the deep down laws of physics. Time is actually a lot like space. If you were out in a space suit flying around, there’d be no difference between ‘up’, ‘down’, ‘left’, ‘right’. Likewise, there’s no intrinsic difference between the past and the future in the laws of physics [4], and that’s not completely a mystery to us; we know that what actually happens in the real world is that you’re not just made of one or two particles bumping into each other, you’re a very, very complicated collection of many, many particle and they’re becoming more disorderly with time. This is to say that ‘entropy’ increases [entropy = disorder]. The interesting thing is that every difference between the past and the future can ultimately be traced to the fact that the entropy was lower in the past and is growing [5]; that’s the second law of thermodynamics, that the universe was orderly, its becoming more disorderly. and that’s not a surprise; there are more ways to be disorderly than orderly. The surprise is that the universe was ever low-entropy to begin with [6], that we go all the way back to the ‘big bang’, 13.7 billion years ago, the universe began in a highly ordered state, so modern cosmologists are trying to understand right now, why the early universe was in a such precise state [7], why it was so low entropy. Once we understand that, it will make perfect sense to us why the ‘arrow of time’ stretches as it does, from the past, to today, all the way toward the future.”

[1] This statement of Carroll's; “It’s perfectly obvious that time has a direction. is a classic exemplar of ‘petitio principii’, circular reasoning. this statement aiming to 'prove' that 'time exists' contains a dependency on our assuming that time exists.

[2] He builds on the circular reasoning in [1] by saying that ‘the past is different from the future’. since the notion of a past different from the future is a thinly veiled definition of ‘time’, here is another ‘petitio principii’ that he us using to support the construction of his logical/reasoned argument. In a spatial-relational flow continuum [in Mach and Nietzsche and Schroedinger’s world view], there is only ‘transformation’ of spatial-relations. As Nietzsche puts it;

“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

[3] In stating “we were younger in the past; we will be older in the future”, he is assuming ‘absolute thing-in-itself being’; i.e. he is assuming a 'persisting in-itself identity' of ‘the individual’ so that we are defining ‘change’ as a process operating on the notional ‘thing-in-itself-individual’, and such a definition of 'change' contains within it, already, the notion of ‘the passage of time’.

Sure, we can use the subjectifying powers of language to make it appear that a whorl-in-the-flow, an inextricable feature-within-the-spatially-transforming-flow is a ‘thing-in-itself’; i.e. we can call the whorl in the flow ‘Katrina’ and once we have used the subjectifying power of language to give it/her ‘thing-in-itself-identity’, we then see her as ‘younger in the past’ and ‘older in the future’ [rather than as a local expression of spatial transformation]. But what we have done is mentally detaching a visible flow-feature from the flow and re-presenting it to ourselves as a 'thing-in-itself-that-is-changing' is to mentally 'split it out of the flow' by notionally imposing an absolute space and absolute time frame [x,y,z,t reference frame]. in other words, we start off with a flow-feature whose development cannot be separated from the spatial-relational transformation (energy-charged fluid-dynamic) that it is included in, and WE, using the subjectifying powers of language, give it its own ‘being’ [persisting identity]; its own internal sourcing of development and behaviour, thereby giving IT ‘youth’ and ‘age’ as properties of itself-in-its-own-right.

without ‘being’, there can be no ‘aging’, there is only ‘transformation’ of the energy-charged spatial-plenum, as is the core understanding of Nietzsche, Mach, Bohm and Schroedinger.

Aristotelian logic [logic of the excluded third] depends on idealized absolute ‘identities’ such as ‘A’ which can never be equal to ‘not.A’ [e.g. matter, 'A', can never be equal to space, 'not.A']. Therefore, reasoning that is based on logic [of the excluded third] thus limits understanding of physical phenomena. Mach’s and Schroedinger’s ‘transformational’ view of space goes beyond dependency on 'absolute being’ [particles, 'A's that can never be equal to 'not.A' space], bottoming out instead in energy-flow wherein 'particles' are local excitations of the continually transforming energy-charged spatial-plenum, a cosmology that cannot be 'reached' using 'logic of the excluded third', requiring instead, 'logic of the included third’, such a system being entirely possible and having been developed by, for example, Stephane Lupasco.

“To every phenomenon or element or logical event whatsoever, and accordingly to the judgment which thinks of it, the proposition which expresses it, to the sign which symbolizes it must always be associated, structurally and functionally, a logical antiphenomenon, or anti-element or anti-event and therefore a contradictory judgment, proposition or sign in such a fashion that the former can only be potentialized by the actualization of the latter, but not disappear such that either could be self-sufficient in an independent and therefore rigorous non-contradiction – as in all logic, classical or otherwise, that is based on an absoluteness of the principle of non-contradiction.”

The point half-way between actualization and potentialization is a point of maximum antagonism or ‘contradiction’ from which, in the case of complex phenomena, a T-state (T for “tiers inclus”, included third term) emerges, which is capable of resolving the contradiction (or ‘counter-action‘), at another, higher level of reality. “ - Lupasco, Stéphane., Le principe d’antagonisme et la logique de l’énergie, 1951. [see also; ‘Stéphane Lupasco et le tiers inclus. De la physique quantique à l’ontologie’, by Basarab Nicolescu]

Insofar as our sensory experience is informing us that ‘everything is in flux’, reason founded on Aristotelian logic that deconstructs flow into ‘material being’ [particles] is self-deception;

“Reason” is the cause of our falsification of 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. The “apparent” world is the only one: the “true” world is merely added by a lie.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

[4] The fact that; “there’s no intrinsic difference between the past and the future in the laws of physics is where Mach, Bohm and Schroedinger were coming from, ... but just watch what Carroll is going to do with ‘particles’. Who says ‘we’re made of particles’ and 'that's all she wrote'? To impose particles as a foundation of ‘material forms’ is, in essence, to impose ‘time’ on one’s world-view, because now we can say that we can observe 'the development of structures [notional things-in-themselves] made of particles and as we continue to observe we see these structures degenerate and decompose; i.e. in saying this we impute ‘persisting thing-in-itself identity’ [‘being’] to the structure made of particles. This means that the ‘identity’ of the visible material form ‘bottoms out’ locally, in these component particles and their doer-deed behaviours, treating the plenum of space as a no-account, non-participant background in this ‘local being’ and ITS genesis and degeneration. But what about the analogy of hurricane Katrina; she doesn’t ‘bottom out’ in local particles and their 'doer-deed behaviours' because we know that solar irradiance can infuse thermal energy into fluids, giving birth to convection cells such as Katrina so that her identity doesn’t bottom out at the limits of her local, visible material self; i.e. her identity is inherently non-local, non-visible and non-material [energy-flow].
Giving ‘particles’ ‘local being’ and equating that with ‘reality’ is the reason that Mach and Schroedinger ‘quit the Church of Physics’.

Once the high priests of physics build their case on ‘particles’, the notion of ‘order’ and ‘disorder’ follows, in terms of the ‘coming together’ and ‘coming apart’ of 'material forms-in-themselves' that are 'made-of-particles'. Can you see ‘space’ anywhere in this imagery of order based on particles that 'come together' and 'come apart'? Space is, in the particle-based cosmology, dealt out of the game, in spite of Mach’s, Bohm’s, Schroedinger’s objections. As Bohm says, the energy-charged spatial-plenum is primary and those visible excitations that we call ‘particles’ are ‘appearances’. As Bohm also says;

“… what we call empty space contains an immense background of energy, and that matter as we know it is a small, ‘quantized’ wavelike excitation on top of this background, rather like a tiny ripple on a vast sea. In current physical theories, one avoids the explicit consideration of this background by calculating only the difference between the energy of empty space and that of space with matter in it. This difference is all that counts in the determination of the general properties of matter as they are presently accessible to observation. However, further developments in physics may make it possible to probe the above-described background in a more direct way. Moreover, even at present, this vast sea of energy may play a key part in the understanding of the cosmos as a whole. In this connection it may be said that space, which has so much energy, is full rather than empty…It is being suggested here, then, that what we perceive through the senses as empty space is actually the plenum, which is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The things that appear to our senses are derivative forms and their true meaning can be seen only when we consider the plenum, in which they are generated and sustained, and into which they must ultimately vanish.”

[5] In spatial transformation, ‘order’ and ‘disorder’ [genesis and degeneration] are dual aspects of the one dynamic, ‘transformation’ [changes in spatial relations in the dynamics of the energy-charged spatial-plenum] but Carroll is basing his discourse on the ‘reality’ of; ‘order’ and ‘disorder’ which are seen as two independent ‘states’ through which we can mentally draw a straight line that implies two directions, towards greater order; towards greater disorder. If space is a plenum undergoing transformation, as in Nietzsche’s, Mach’s, Bohm’s, Schroedinger’s view, then order and disorder are conjugate aspects of the same dynamic [transformation of spatial-relations]. A fluid can become highly ordered by an infusion of thermal energy; e.g. within the fluid space in a layer of water in a saucepan. imbalances in the spatial-relational distribution of thermal energy will induce movement whose visible form is seen as convection cells, and these cells, in pushing radially outward against one another [local pressure being accommodated, in a relative spatial sense, by ambient pressure] will experience back-reflection of their pushing that will shape them into hexagonal cells. Thus, this fluid space undergoes ‘transformation’ in the Machian view, due to energy conversions between potential and kinetic, but if we were to forget about the flow of energy and jumpstart our observations from the behaviour of the ‘PARTICLES of fluid’, we would say that ‘the particles moved towards greater order, and later on [as the spatial energizing subsided, relatively], they moved towards greater disorder. Such a view as Carroll's defines ‘order’ in terms of the kinetic activity of notional ‘material particles’, and puts the blinders on so that we can no longer see the deeper sourcing of the dynamics in the energy-charged spatial plenum. once we focus on ‘what particles on doing’, space becomes a non-participant. But particle behaviour is what every good scientist has to focus on if they want to remain a member in good-standing of ‘The Church of Physics’.

[6] If one focuses on all the bits of matter in the universe and observes that the doppler shift is greater the farther away are the bits of matter (stars), one gets the notion ‘the universe is expanding’, a radically different idea from ‘the universe is transforming’ because it makes a ‘thing’ out of the universe and implies a reference frame [imposed by the observer] within which the universe is expanding and can be measured as so-doing; i.e. it uses the subjectification powers of language to endow ‘the universe’ with ‘being’ and thus further endow it with the power to ‘grow/expand’. and since an ‘expanding universe’ means that the universe is bigger today than it was yesterday, though less big today than it will be tomorrow, this notion of an expanding universe defines ‘time’ as a ‘real dimension’. hey, we're not supposed to notice that the very notion of an 'expanding universe' 'thing-ifies' the universe and assumes that there is a fixed, absolute, empty and infinite reference box' framing the universe, otherwise how could we 'measure' and 'prove' its 'expansion'?

but once again, this whole notion of ITS expansion depends on giving ‘being’ to those distant stars that appear to be ‘receding’ from us. in Mach’s et al view, these ‘stars’ don’t merit the idealized ‘being’ we are giving them. in a transformational theory, they are understood as standing wave energy-flows, like tornadoes. sound comes from tornadoes and light comes from tornadoes and we can monitor them with doppler radar and doppler sound monitoring systems are currently being developed to complement doppler radar monitoring, so there is no requirement that the visible forms we see have to be 'things-in-themselves'; i.e. they can be excitations of the energy-charged spatial-plenum.

it is the ‘persisting identity’ or ‘absolute thing-in-itself being’ we impute to matter than underlies the notion of an ‘expanding universe’, and once again, as soon as we impute absolute ‘thing-in-itself being’ to a piece of matter [or a planet or star], we blinder ourselves to the spatial-energy-flow as the sourcing medium and mentally impose an absolute x,y,z,t reference frame, a necessity for measuring the size, distance and behaviour of notional ‘absolutely-existing-things’.

[7] Carroll says; “The surprise is that the universe was ever low-entropy to begin with, ... modern cosmologists are trying to understand right now, why the early universe was in a such precise state”

who says it was ‘in such as precise state’? who says that we can treat that statement as 'reality'? we know full well that that statment derives from the ‘backward extrapolation in TIME of an idealized absolute x,y,t reference-frame based configuration of absolute material-body-things-in-themselves.

The answer to Carroll's 'modern cosmologists' question' is fucking obvious, we put the ‘universe’ in that state by our Church of Physics absolutisms that we built into what we are ‘backwards extrapolating’; i.e. the universe THAT the Church of Physics rendered in terms of absolute space and absolute time formulations. the 'Church of Physics' continues to excommunicate those who see the universe in terms of a transforming energy-charged plenum as did Nietzsche, Poincaré, Mach, Bohm and Schroedinger and, as this note makes manifest, others like myself, not to mention most aboriginal peoples in the world, and those who continue to propound the ancient cosmological traditions of Buddhists, Taoists and Vedas.


‘Change’ understood as relational transformation does not need ‘time’ [‘many moons’ speaks to cycles we are included in, like when our canoe is stuck in a maelstrom and we keep passing the same rock; i.e. this sort of cyclic ‘time’ is relative rather than absolute. it is radically unlike 'absolute time’ that ‘operates on the whole universe’ like the absolute box we impose over the universe in proving that 'the universe is expanding'.]. ‘Time’ is something we are forced to invent once we assume 'absolute thing-in-itself being'; i.e. attributing 'absolute being' to excitations in the energy-charged spatial plenum, because now that we believe the material form is a ‘thing-in-itself’, like when defining and naming a hurricane has us believing [almost] that ‘Katrina’ is a thing-in-herself, then HER ‘genesis’ and ‘degeneration’ belongs to ‘her’, which means that we have to conceive of HER development from youth to age by imposing an absolute x,y,z,t reference frame over her, to give meaning to change that now, thanks to the power of language in imposing 'being', belongs to her. In accepting this 'idealization', we blinder ourselves to the greater reality that she, like all 'material forms', is excitation in an energy-charged spatial flow-plenum.

i'll admit it: to date, i have never once read more than 5 sentences of one of your massive comments. but good god, i wish we hung out.

read the whole comment every time. god is dead. we'll never 'hang out'.

It's on April Fool's Day. Is this an April Fool's Joke? Is BASTARD an April Fool's Joke? If we seek to abolish time, why not start early, and refuse to adhere to the civilizationist sham known as the calendar?

I propose the conference be held whenever the fuck anyone shows the fuck up!


Rad Anarchist Muthafucka (actually, call me whatever you want, just don't call me late to the dumpster dive).

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.
Enter the code without spaces.