The New Nihilism forum topic from the comment section

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
The New Nihilism forum topic from the comment section

the fabric of the cosmos.
infinite becomings. the flow of relations.
both Wilson's magnificent essay and emile's prescient
response give to all of us ways for the opportunity express
ourselves and to allow us to experiment and experience different world-views
and different life-styles with a sense of creative satisfaction and wonderment.
how fortunate we are on this site to be able to partake in these explorations.
Submitted by azano on Thu, 08/20/2015 - 09:42

living in the nexus of open options feels good to me
i must say that in coming together with others (as in engaging with azano and le way) who are not rushing to reduce many options to one [which, through a process of rational argument and debate, becomes the obligatory, politically correct narrow and explicit path] it feels harmonious, like this could be 'a design for evolution', right here at the nexus of many-to-one as we become our own fountain-source of one-to-many. that's it, we could understand ourselves as the nexus where the convergent confluence of many-to-one becomes, at the same time, the divergent fountaining of one-to-many as in a flow which spawns convection cells as its agents of transformation;

"coniunctio is a synonym for coincidentia oppositorum is a synonym for coniunctio. it is term used in describing a revelation of the oneness of things previously believed to be different. Such insight into the unity of things is a kind of transcendence, and is found in various mystical traditions. The idea occurs in the traditions of Tantric Hinduism and Buddhism, in German mysticism, Taoism, Zen and Sufism, among others."

we all have our ways of interpreting the world based on our unique experiencing of it arising from our unique situational inclusion within it, so that in coming together as a group, there is a many to one confluence or meeting of disparate interpretations of what is going on. does it really 'make sense' to debate which of these interpretation options 'best captures what is actually going on'? what if what is actually going on is our 'experiencing' rather than our voyeur observations as to the operations and interactions of the independent things out there? if our experiencings were the more primary reality, we would have to sit around in a circle and share our experiences and no-one would be able to second-guess our experiences when shared 'from the heart', ... unlike when we share our observations processed by our head which are much coloured by our prior experiencing, which goes unmentioned so that our observations are presented as 'the truth'; "the man sexually harassed me" is an observation coloured by early experiences of sexual abuse as the "the man like me and is showing his affection for me by flirting with me" is an observation coloured by early experience of happy and healthy gender relations. head-processed voyeur observations of actions are deeply imbued with the colouring of earlier experience [e.g. what side of the fence one's experience was conditioned in (what side of the fence one was brought up on)]; the 'head' is colouring the video during the voyeur observation [there is no input coming in from the experiencings of those caught in the voyeur's field of observation];

"an action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same ” crime ” may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’

we know that our personal head-processed voyeur observations of conflict between 'one of ours' and 'one of theirs' will treat a killing, if it is one of theirs killed by one of ours, as a courageous and heroic act, and if one of ours is killed by one of theirs, as a cowardly and despicable act, ... and if we capture the evil assassin, in our courts, when we tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the cowardliness and ugly and evil behaviour perpetrated by the assassin will be exposed, and the truth of the matter confirmed by all of our countrymen who bore witness to the crime.

nietzsche's contention is transparently obvious, that our head-processed voyeur observations are coloured by our earlier life experience; e.g. what a woman deems sexual harassment may derive less from the accused actions and more from the woman's earlier experience of sexual abuse. all of this is bundled together in the our head-processed voyeur observations [which do not penetrate deep enough to 'know the experience-conditioned heart' of the observed other].

herd behaviour manifests not only amongst members of same proud nation state, but also amongst members of the same proud gender. the man rightfully accused of rape can get his similarly experientially conditioned brothers to swear that his accusor is a slut that opens up for all comers including well-hung neighbourhood dogs. the woman whose experience has made her cynical of male intentions who accuses a man of sexual harassment can get her similarly experientially conditioned sisters to swear that the man is a chronic abuser of women. the strength of confirmation of head-processed voyeur observations derives more from the experiential conditioning of those confirming it than from the inferences built into the interpretation. this is generally true in intellectual debating. the group that is largest and strongest establishes 'the truth'; i.e. the principle of Lafontaine prevails; 'la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure'. it is the tyranny of the majority. the actions of a U.S. navy seal who kills Osama bin Laden will be judged as courageous and heroic here and cowardly and degenerate there. one could debate forever as to which was the case and there would be no resolution because the meaning is not in the actions, but is coming from the experiential conditioning of the observer. that is the general case, as admitted in the poststructuralist admission of 'the death of the author' [meaning is always top-sided by the observer/listener since, as nietzsche points out, "an action in itself is quite devoid of value"

these are some of the grounds that support a re-orientation of understanding to 'experience' and thus to accept that we all have our own unique experiencing that arises from our unique situational inclusion in a world that is only given once, as a transforming relational activity continuum.

when we are amongst those gathering in forum and we can detect various subgroups muttering to themselves and ready to take positions and support one another, we know that we in a forum where the dominant ethic is the principle of Lafontaine, where there will be a battle aimed at coming out with one dominant view that will be anointed as the 'politically correct view' that gives meanings to actions as if the meanings are in the actions themselves, and it is not necessary to understanding the experiential conditioning of those who are dominating in the infusing of meaning into the actions in question, and in fact those who are employing the principle of Lafontaine do not want anyone to question their own experiential conditioning. they are like the woman who accuses the man of sexual harassment, they do not want to open up to the public the sexual abuse they suffered, their being used as a sexual object then rejected and discarded, they are convinced that this vicious and insensitive intention lives in the heart of most men and they didn't get to where they are today, not recognizing it.

what strength of voice does the author of an action have in establishing the meaning of 'his action' or can we say that actions, which are essentially relational, belong more to the hitter than to the fielder? the man chases the woman until she catches him, so the saying goes. there is no hitting without fielding, ... that would be the sound of one hand clapping. he who claps last claps loudest, ... that would be the fielder/listener. that is 'the death of the author'. the pregnant silence is broken by noise-making and all the credit is given to the noise. e.g. as a kid i went to a double header movie where i had to sit through some sentimental romantic film in waiting for the action thriller to start. i had a cold and when i pulled out my handkerchief and blew my nose loudly, the whole theatre erupted in laughter. i asked my friend what that was all about and he said that my nose-blowing came at the precise moment when the deeply in love woman was informed that her lover had left her. there was a lot of tension that had built up and stored itself in the pregnant silence of that moment, the release of which was triggered by my nose-blowing [noise-making].

the author is dead. i was instantly credited with being a gifted comedian with an incredibly good sense of timing. people all around me were laughing and looking at me admiringly, like i was an upcoming Seinfeld or Johnny Carson. what could i do but smile back in affirmation of their perceptiveness and appreciation of 'my' natural talent.

who puts the meaning into actions? they say that 'actions speak louder than words', but i would disagree. it is clear to me that words speak louder than actions because actions do not speak for themselves and have to be spoken of, which means that words take control over the assigning of meaning, and words come from people whose experiential conditioning colours the interpretations that they deliver in words, and boy, don't those interpretations differ, ... so much so that we have to gather together in forums to debate which interpretations are the 'correct ones', which boils down to 'whose experiential conditioning is going to prevail here?'.

so far in this local exchange, the three of us are in 'three body problem' mode where there is no explicit solution to the 'interpretation' forming as the nexus of three or more interpretions taking form from one another's simultaneous mutual influence. this relational nexus is a kind of indeterminate web-of-relations that can serve as the creative nothingness from which some new explicitness can fountain forth. this is a 'design for evolution' wherein we can sit in the nexus where multiple explicit streams form a relational confluence allowing those sitting in the nexus to craft new explicit streams to fountain forth into the continuing flow. if the forum is the nexus, then there is this 'three-body-problem' option that allows us, instead of sifting through the multiplicity of incoming 'interpretations' to find 'the best one', ... to hold onto the relational tension in the interfering confluence and use it as clay to sculpt entirely new and richer interpretations. in this case, the explicit interpretations are secondary to the purely relational nexa.

so, should we just dispense with the 'explicit' and hang our hat on 'the relational'?

“By the principle of Occam’s razor, physicists and philosophers prefer ideas that can explain the same phenomena with the fewest assumptions. In this case you can construct a perfectly valid theory by positing the existence of certain relations without additionally assuming individual things. So proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations.” – Meinard Kuhlmann, ‘What is Real’, Scientific American, August 2013
Submitted by emile on Thu, 08/20/2015 - 13:38

letting words speak louder than actions= Western delusion (Maya)
in noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar, the subject-verb-predicate constructs are the stuff that the veil of Maya is made of; i.e. Western worldviews are all words superimposed on actions which impose meaning [according to the principle of Lafontaine] out of the context of the relational-experiential conditioning from which the actions are arising.

instead of intuiting the experiential conditioning of the authors of action [storm-cells, colliding tectonic plates, tinder-dry-forests-burning included], we are in the habit of outside-inwardly projecting, from voyeur observations, the experiential conditioning of the observer.

that is why the 'Wesker and Scarface duo' is an apropos model for Western society and its institutions. Wesker is the individual suffering from dissociative identity disorder who speaks through the mask/puppet interface of 'representative government' or 'corporate enterprise', notionally 'independent systems' with their own internal process driven and directed behaviours that, so we say, reside, operate and interact in a community that is notionally 'independent' of the 'independent communitarians' that reside, operate and interact within it.

the rejection/denial of the non-duality of community and communitarians [dissociative identity disorder] is the source of belief in subject-verb-predicate constructs [which imply independent existence and jumpstart authoring powers of the subject]. since Western users of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar use these constructs to impart meaning to actions, not only do their words [one must distinguish them from the words of flow-based indigenous languages] 'speak louder than actions', but this makes the Western voyeur view of dynamics, 'all talk and no substance' ['walking the talk' then becomes deeply problematic].

many do not want to acknowledge that the quote/unquote 'courageous and heroic act of a navy seal in killing osama bin ladin', are 'words that speak louder than actions', just as many do not want to acknowledge that the quote/unquote 'cowardly and degenerate act of an agent of the great Satan (United States)' are 'words that speak louder than actions'.

in order to understand the actions of others, we have to be able to 'hear' their experiential conditioning which comes to them from the relational social dynamic they are situationally included in; e.g. the case of the child-soldier. but, in practice, we use our own experiential conditioning to give meaning to the actions that we are voyeur observers of.

there is a circularity aka non-duality in the community-communitarian relation in the physical reality of our natural experience, as in the amoebate collective known as 'slime-mold' which biologists can't decide as to whether it is a collection of individual amoebates or 'one organism with many moving parts' since it behaves as 'one organism' [it forms a large worm-like shape that can wriggle and move far faster than its individual amoebates; it can form flower-like structures and leathery spores within them that will be picked up by birds and thus furnish the amoebates with air transportation so they can populate new grounds where they have not yet consumed all the nutrients. is the slime-mold 'one' or is it 'the many'? what is the relation of the one and the many in the case of community and communitarian?

the general principle in the relational interpretation of modern physics is;

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

in this non-dual or 'relative' view, there is no problem if we accept that 'relations are all there are' that is 'real'; i.e. relational forms in a flow may 'cluster' as in small convection cells within larger convection cells, the flow being the primary reality and the plurality of 'individual' (but certainly not 'independent') forms that seem to have 'their own behaviour' when we focus on them, being 'appearances' or 'schaumkommen' that we intellectually idealize and concretize using subject-verb-predicate constructs so that language can coordinate our 'dreaming' and 'when we dream together, it is reality' [the veil of Maya, that is].

Cantorian realism would have it that once we have defined the rules of membership that establish that the communitarian is a member of the community [set], we can have as many communitarians in the community as we like without having to redefine the community and/or rules of communitarian membership [this leads to infinite sets]. Poincare argued against this 'predicative' logic, arguing that as each new communitarian was added to the community, the rules defining the members would have to change [since relations would have to change and relations are primary];

"The vicious circle paradoxes of mathematics showed that one can create a contradiction in mathematics by using a certain kind of self-referential definition along with some basic existence principles. . . . Poincaré was central in advancing the understanding the nature of the vicious circle paradoxes of mathematics; i.e. he the first to articulate a general distinction between predicative and non-predicative definitions, and he helped to show the relevance of this distinction to the paradoxes in general." -- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

for example, if we define 'community' first, then we can define the 'communitarians' as organs whose behaviour explains the behaviour of the 'community' as an organism, and if we define 'communitarians' first, then we can define the 'community' as an organization, constructed from the behaviours of 'communitarians'. ambiguity between 'organism' and 'organization' leads to such notions as 'the Gaia hypothesis'. In systems sciences, all systems are included in a relational suprasystem and on and on it goes. Do the parts define the whole or does the whole define the parts? or is modern physics correct in its understanding that 'only relations are real', as in a 'fluid-dynamical world'?

"Poincaré regards the utility of science as evidence that scientists do not create facts – they discover facts. Yet, on the other hand, he does not espouse a sort of direct realism by which science merely reflects the objective world. Science neither creates, nor passively reflects truth. Rather, it has a limited power to uncover certain kinds of truths – those that capture, “Not things themselves… but the relations between things; outside those relations there is no reality knowable,” (Science and Hypothesis, xxiv)


1. Western civilization's problem is its 'bewitchment of its understanding by language' in that 'its words speak louder than actions'.

2. Western individuals believe in 'walking the talk'.

3. 'Walking the talk', given that 'words speak louder than actions', amounts to imposing one's experiential conditioning on others. The woman who knows what sexual assault is, can tell others that they are being sexually assaulted, even if they are asking for it and enjoying it.

4. Relations are 'all there is' and all that we can know.

5. Experience is made of relations.

6. 'Really' understanding the world dynamic comes from intuiting the experience of others and not from imposing one's experientially conditioned interpretations on one's voyeur observations.

7. Noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar reduces relational dynamics to subject-verb-predicate being-based actions. as Nietzsche notes, this is all ego-talk. Western/scientific views of the world are all ego-talk.

in other words, we are included in a transforming relational activity continuum. we are relational features within this continuing flow. our 'meaning' or 'value' comes from our agent of transformation role within this dynamic; our value does NOT come from an outside value-reference-settor-in-the-sky. but noun-and-verb constructs do give us the option to give meaning to ourselves by depicting ourselves as 'doers-of-deeds' with God-like powers of jumpstart creative authorship of dynamics, by using a combination of absolute definitions and relations [ego likes this!]. in this case we can speak about 'things moving' and 'forces' that 'cause things to move' [cause-and-effect] and forget that 'relations are all there are'. Nietzsche articulates this as follows;

“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’

the transvaluation of all values involves re-orienting to the physical reality of our natural experience [e.g. talking circles, restorative justice]. of course, language is not up this challenge of developing understanding based on intuiting what others are experiencing [that shapes their actions]. the man cannot expect the woman to articulate in language what she experiences in loving a man, and he may not want to know, however, an understanding of her actions is not going to come from his using his own experiential conditioning to give meaning to his voyeur observations of her actions. but that is our habit and it is a habit of having our words speak louder than our actions.
Submitted by emile on Thu, 08/20/2015 - 17:27

there's no urgency about validating anything laid down here.
nietzsche estimates that it will take a couple of centuries to assimilate this stuff and since he died in 1900, we've got another 85 years to chew on it, so no need to get anxious if one does happen to see how it all 'makes sense'.
Submitted by emile on Fri, 08/21/2015 - 01:57

Can i get some examples of
the fourth way, other than walls of text by authors i'm already familiar with? Is your audience neophytes to non-dualism? Because i've had to go toward the youtube channel 'science & nonduality' for more ideas other than the same stuff repeated at me over and over again.

To me, it just seems like intentionality wins every time in the face of such passivity.

I can talk of becomings, but someone will come with guns to take my home and belongings away (potentially separating my partner and i from each other and from all others we care about/who care for us) if i stop paying to live, paying taxes. I guess i know the response already: too bad, you wanted to force others to change/you wanted change too quickly, and were being intentional in the becomings of tax paying.

I'll copy your words and mail them off to the two nuclear power plants around me over and over and over and see if they shut down instead of almost meltdown multiple times. Oh wait...they'll continue to operate.

I get nondualism now: "fuck it! Tilt a drink back, for life becomes short. Do nothing!"
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 08/21/2015 - 13:03

dualism sees people as targets, non-dualism sees relations
the notion that one should attack and defeat the dualists [the colonizer culture that is imposing its will on everyone] is a dualist notion.

dualism has us believing that we are all independent reason-driven individuals with our own internal intention-driven behaviours. this is the craziness, otherwise known as scientific thinking, that prevails in the land.

if you hold the dualist belief that people are 'independent reason-driven systems', ... or more accurately, 'independent intention-driven systems' since intention can be aberrant or reasoned, then there is only one place to look for the root cause of the problems we face; i.e. in the interior of the 'individuals responsible for them'. we must isolate and eliminate the dualists. this fits with the dualist concept of moral judgement based justice; i.e. it is the 'dualist thing to do'.

on the other hand, the non-dualist view would be that the source of behaviour is 'relational' and does not jumpstart from the interior of the individual, since individuals are not really 'independent intention-driven systems' that reside, operate and interact in a habitat that is independent of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it. [but how else could they be 'independent'? our intuition catches this inherent contradiction].

in the non-dualist view, the source of behaviour is relational and therefore the source of problematic behaviour is relational, so that it is futile to attack the dualists as that would have the attackers understanding themselves as dualists.

this point has been raised by Spanish anarchists in an essay; 'the nihilist recuperation';

"One cannot propose the creation of a new world without the destruction of the current one. And we cannot plan the form of the new world because currently we cannot imagine future conditions. Moreso, planning the form of the world—or planning the form of any collectivity greater than our circle of acquaintances—is an authoritarian exercise. But the State does not only exist in its material forces, rather also in the social relations it reproduces, and a relation cannot be destroyed without simultaneously creating a new relation. A building can be destroyed without constructing a new one, but a relationship of alienation cannot be ended without the creation of another type of relationship. There is always a relation between the beings and bodies in the same space. Without speaking of the creation of new social relations, we cannot speak honestly about the destruction of the State. To put it another way, we have come upon a bifurcation between the proposal to attack the State and the proposal to destroy the State. The proposal that speaks most of destruction, the nihilist one, may be unable to realize it because it dedicates itself only to the attack. It would be a very sad vision of “permanent revolt”: forever attacking the symbols of the State without ever being able to touch the base of its power." Barcelona Indymedia

since the source of the social dysfunction is 'relational', there are no 'responsible individuals' to hunt down and eliminate or overpower. behaviour is relational; e.g. the child-soldier's behaviour is orchestrated and shaped by the relational social dynamics he is situationally included in. however, he is given the standard dualist teaching that claims that humans are independent intention-driven system, ... therefore, in order to fix social problems, the dualist strategy is the local and eliminate or suppress those people who are the cause of the problems. in the non-dualist view the source of the problems is relational.

transforming relations is not equivalent to 'destroying the enemy' [as if the enemy can be identified in terms of discrete and independent human units];i.e. the former is non-dualist, the latter is dualist. dualism puts reason and moral judgement into an unnatural precedence over intuition and restoration of balance-and-harmony, ... while non-dualism inverts the precedence.

[i.e. dualism sees humans as independent intention-driven doers of deeds, while non-dualism sees humans as relational forms in a transforming relational activity continuum wherein everything depends on everything and nothing is 'independent' and where space is not split apart from the forms that reside, operate and interact within it].

transforming relations is not 'doing nothing'. indigenous anarchists put a heavy emphasis on 'undermining the intellectual premises of dualism/colonialism'. cultivating voluntary relations without having to have 'common intentions' is also relations-transforming [occupy had some of this, but it was quickly overtaken by the usual dualist quest for common intention based 'organization']

my own energies have been put into 'undermining the intellectual premises of dualism/colonialism'. if people are able to see how their unquestioned foundational assumptions [that are infused into all of us who are raised in a colonized space with the majority of us becoming staunch 'believers' at least initially] are faulty, then dualist beliefs will collapse and the liberated individual will touch down once more on the natural ground [natural instincts and intuitions] of non-dualism.

it is a case of 'letting go' rather than 'making something happen'. cultivating a safe space for 'letting go' is part of the challenge of relational transformation. that is why indigenous anarchists set up barricades to defend spaces where 'letting go' can be safely done.

finally, as the barcelona indymedia essay 'nihilist recuperation' stressed, the dualist call to action leads to a Sisyphusian warring of individual against individual [child soldier against child soldier (don't tell me that adults 'know better')] when the source of the conflict is relational rather than hatched from the interior of a dualism-modeled human-as-'independent intention-driven system'.
Submitted by emile on Fri, 08/21/2015 - 23:21

You write:
"but how else could they be 'independent'? our intuition catches this inherent contradiction."

Simple cos what is related is material and these materialities, these substances of being, are related in all sorts of trivial ways, but independence is nontrivial.
This makes me wonder what a 'relationship' entails by your terms non-dualism.

real distinction (separate material substances, independent existence).
nominal distinction (mental difference: distinct mental being, conceptual ditinction, distinction of language, dependence on thought)

Then the question is how these materialities operate--what forms of life do they fit? And then we ask: whats the meaning of material structures that exist independent of us? Spirits? Civilization? What?
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 08/21/2015 - 23:38

i'm not sure where your comment is going
the contradiction in the case of the words 'inhabitant' and 'habitat' is that each word takes meaning from each other and then they are expressed as taking meaning only from themselves.

"IT is impossible to picture empty space. All our efforts to imagine pure space from which the changing images of material objects are excluded can only result in a representation in which highly-coloured surfaces, for instance, are replaced by lines of slight colouration, and if we continued in this direction to the end, everything would disappear and end in nothing. Hence arises the irreducible relativity of space. Whoever speaks of absolute space uses a word devoid of meaning. This is a truth that has been long proclaimed by all who have reflected on the question, but one which we are too often inclined to forget." --Henri Poincaré, ‘The Relativity of Space’

with respect to the hodge-podge of definitions you have thrown into your comment, i am not able to tune into what point you are trying to make, or perhaps you are just trolling.

i don't think my point is that difficult to see; i.e. the angry utterances of some 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. for example political rabble rousers can cultivate child soldier behaviours which induce more political rabble rousers that cultivate more child soldier behaviours. this is the wesker-scarface model. the rabble rousers are wesker and the child soldiers are scarface. because of the inductive relation between the two (which is like an e/m field inducing electrical eddy currents in a conducting metal), identifying the dummy/puppet through whom the action manifests as fully and solely responsible for the results of his actions, as moral judging would do, misses the point. it targets people as the source of the harm done to the community when it is the dysfunction within the community that is the source of the child soldier behaviours which are doing harm to the community. in other words, there is a circular sourcing here; the community is doing it to itself. indigenous anarchists see it this way [the message is; ... don't target people to try to 'change them out', target community relations instead, which are the ur-source of the harmful actions that 'channel' through particular people (child-soldiers)].

this relational view is non-dualist in the sense that inhabitants and habitat are not two different things but one thing (a transforming relational unum) with different aspects as in 'flow' and 'flow-features' (atmospheric flow and storm-cells). turbulent relational-social flow spawns storm-cells (child-soldiers), the phenomenon does not play out the other way; i.e. the storm-cells are not the source of the turbulent flow, they are the result (or, better, they are the flow's means of transformation).

since science is dualist and moral judgement operates in cahoots with the dualist view of the independent inhabitant that is fully and solely responsible for his own behaviour, ... i say ixnay on science as applied to social dynamics and ixnay to moral judgement of individual people. that puts me at odds with Western society in regard to both its authoritarian institutions and its retributive justice.

anyone who may be 'reading' is free to [encouraged to] consult their own experience as to which understanding (dualist or non-dualist) makes most sense to them. my aim is not to tell anyone what they should believe, my aim is to try to be clear in articulating the 'what is real' options and the hidden assumptions buried in their respective foundations.
Submitted by emile on Sat, 08/22/2015 - 02:24

sure. sorry.
my point was to ask a question about relationality. It has been assumed in western thought that bodies are distinct. Occam suggests bodies are really distinct because they do not depend on each other for existence. Of course, this seems false, but not absolutely given that everyone depends on everyone elses' production, trivial or not in society. Independence from capitalism is difficult (not impossible) because of so many things; independence from World seems like a stupid thing to aim for because one is always disposed to something; there is always causal experience. My first issue is that it seems too easy to say independence is impossible because everything is relational, because the plenum, etc,

when we talk about dualism, usually, we imply a notion of difference concerning substance: mental stuff and physical stuff. If we say no! to the difference, the question is still: what happened to the relating terms that have now been disregarded? If we reject "subject is really distinct from object, or even nominally distinct", we either have a collapsing into objects (brute materialism), a collapsing into subjects (idealism on the whole, as in CS Peirce), or a third term. It's not clear to me how what youre saying about images, perception, etc., fails to avoid the problem it suggests it avoids. The third term is seemingly the second term also.

maybe im misreading you. sorry for being opaque.
Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 08/22/2015 - 08:50

Submitted by Sir Einzige on Sat, 08/22/2015 - 10:29

Monism in what sense?
Infinite, in infinite modes (Spinoza)? Infinite in finite modes? Infinite in both (Scotus)? Pure Actuality as in Thomism (first cause of a chain of secondary causes)? Existence? Matter as monism?
Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 08/22/2015 - 12:29

answering your question branches into eastern & western reality
Ernst Mach’s principle of economy of thought is considered one of the ways of stating the Occam’s razor principle;

"Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."

but Mach did not consider the representations of science [intellectual mechanics] to be ‘reality’; i.e. he saw science as a compact way of ordering observations of sensory experience.

“Science itself, … may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presenting of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought” —Ernst Mach

in which case, it is important NOT to forget to make the distinction between ‘science’ and ‘reality’.

“We … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach

So, in the East, there is an acceptance that the physical reality is like an energy-field-flow (Tao), a transforming relational activity continuum the manifest aspect of which is one side of a two-sided coinage. This arises in quantum physics as described by Bohm’s ‘implicate and explicate order’, and by Schroedinger’s interpretation;

“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” – Erwin Schroedinger

In the Eastern view, the “Tao that can be named is not the true Tao” , meaning that the generative field is not directly manifest but it has manifest aspects and these can be named, so that the Tao is the mother of all manifest, nameable things although it cannot itself be named, like the Heraclitean flow, which is a union-in-opposition (spring tension matched by spring action, as in the bow or the lyre, so that what is basic is ‘harmony’. The reciprocal complement of sink and source in a convection cell is a physical example; i.e. the cell looks like a ‘thing’ but it is the nexus of converging and at the same time diverging flow. Heraclitus’ fire is pure relational transformation, converging fuel, diverging exhaust and the ‘fiery point’ looks like a ‘thing-in-itself’ but it is the union of opposites.

We know how easy it is to name things and then we have a football to kick around and we’re off and running with it. We name a storm-cell, ‘Katrina’ which ‘looks like a thing-in-itself’ even though it is the ‘union of opposites’ [sink-source ‘coincidentia oppositorum’] and then we use that name in subject-verb-predicate intellectual constructs to make it appear (in thought and language) as if the cell is the author of its own development and the author of its own behaviour and is ‘independent’ of the space it reside, operates and interacts in.

In other words, we know how thought and language can ‘clean up’ the messy business of living in a relational physical reality, ... just hang names on what we can see and pretend that they are the authors of their own development and behaviour that reside, operate and interact in a space that has no influence on these independent things that are the authors of their own development and behaviour; e.g. “Katrina is growing larger and stronger”, ... “Katrina is moving towards the Gulf Coast”, ... “Katrina is ravaging New Orleans”, ... “Katrina is moving overland and dissipating”.

So, we started with a transforming relational activity continuum which is continually gathering within itself ‘local entities’ like heraclitean flames thar are the nexa of energy influx/convergence and outflux/divergence, as in a stationary wave or resonance feature which looks like a ‘thing-in-itself’ but which is a variation in the relational structure of space.

I’m just saying that we know how to use thought and language to do this, to make ‘something out of nothing’ and use this nothing-something to build an operative reality. A dimple that gathers for a moment in a flow is not a ‘thing-in-itself’ that can jumpstart author anything like ‘its own development and its own behaviour’. As Emerson says in ‘The Method of Nature’, the genius of nature not only inhabits the organ but creates it. The ‘genius of nature’ being ‘the Tao’, ‘the Logos’, the ‘Great Spirit’ etc.

Mach’s point is that ‘fields’ inductively orchestrate and shape material behaviour at the same time as material behaviour is transforming field [the dynamics of habitat are conditioning the dynamics of inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat]. This we know, but we do not include it in science because it makes for impossible complexity in that everything is influencing everything in the universe since ‘fields’ are ‘everywhere at the same time’. Science, as Mach says, is a process for economically arranging our observations, and let’s face it, if we include in science the understanding that everything is influencing everything, then there is no solid ground to start our intellectual construction from; i.e. there are no ‘things’ to use as local authors of cause-effect action because ‘everything is relative to everything’; i.e. ‘relations are all there are’!

What would Occam think of this. Like Mach, Occam supported including empirical observations.

Inherent uncertainty in material dynamics as in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle suggests there is a blurriness or ‘interdependence’ between location and things moving, suggesting that ‘material things’ are made of what they are moving through. This does not infer the existence of an ‘ether’ but rather than ‘material things are variations in the relational structure of field’.

Space is not [empty] Euclidian’ … “Space is a participant in physical phenomena” … “Space not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.”, … “the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g(μ,ν), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty . . . “A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone” —Albert Einstein.

Uncertainty is a different type of observation that cannot be deduced from Occam's Razor alone. Occam’s Razor can separate two theories that make the same predictions, but does not rule out other theories that might make a different prediction. Empirical evidence is also required, and Occam himself argued for empiricism, not against it.

So, should we do away with ‘things’ and go with ‘field’ and accept that the relational forms we have hung names on and made out to be ‘independent things’ are dimples in the flow like Einstein’s ‘thrown stone’ and like Schroedinger’s ‘variations in the relational structure of ‘wave-space’?

Do culture and psychology come into this as Nietzsche and Wittgenstein claim?

They say that we have a ‘need’ going into our inquiry into the nature of the world and of ourselves, and that need is for ‘certainty’ as in ‘exactness’ or ‘finality’ in the answers to our inquiry.

How the hell are we going to get ‘certainty’ in a world where nothing persists but change and where everything that looks like a ‘something’ is the nexus of relations that open up our investigation ‘infinitely’.

As Mach points out, the ‘science’ that we have developed is a thought-economical way of our arranging our observations. Certainly, there would be no reason NOT to acknowledge the same sort of influence between the sun and planets in the solar system as between the solar system and milky way and again between the milky way and the universe, so that our model of the solar system in terms of relational influence associated with the movements of the planets relative to the sun, is overlooking a lot, just for the sake of an artificial ‘completeness’ or ‘certainty’ that the model gives us;

“the motions of the Universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view” of celestial dynamics, … “both views are, indeed, equally correct.” i.e. the geocentric and the heliocentric views are merely two “interpretations” of a Universe that “is only given once.”. Mach goes on to warn; “we … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.”

So, in our inquiry into the nature of the universe and ourselves, we come to this juncture where we can go with ‘uncertainty’ wherein we acknowledge the world as one big ecosystem and the manifest forms in it as relational nexa of ecosystemic influences; i.e. where the relational structure of the community authors the blueprint for the members of the community that gather within it. [This is the result of experiments with the evolution of multi-species microbial communities by Douglas E. Caldwell et al]. This is an inherently ‘anarchistic’ [no overall plan] view of the evolutionary unfolding of the world which is what our experience is informing us is the case.

“[In nature]… “the individual parts reciprocally determine one another.” … “The properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,” … “Every single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.” Therefore, no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” – Ernst Mach

But we ‘Westerners’ want ‘certainty’. We want to be able to confront the child-soldier who did a terrible deed, seize him and shake asking; ‘Did YOU do this dastardly deed?’ [using our most stern subject-object, self-other splitting demeanor] and if he answers ‘yes’, it is case closed, and we can remove that little bastard from this world since, as an independent being residing in an absolute space, is fully and solely responsible for both the inception and the results of his actions.

But, there is a lot of ‘psychology’ coming into the fray here in deciding on the nuts and bolts of our method of inquiry. For example, are we justified in assuming that the blueprint for the action hatched inside the child-soldier? Empirical observations suggest the following;

“Children model their behavior primarily on the behavior of their parents and other authority figures. Whether or not this behavior is effective at producing happiness doesn’t prevent the child from modeling it; the modeling is not a result of reasoning, but is due to simple observation and imitation. This mimicry is illustrated in the old saying “Like father, like son,” or now better put, “Like parent, like child.” Whether parents are happy or not doesn’t stop a child from imitating what he or she observes; children are like dry sponges ready to absorb the first water they come in contact with.”

As Nietzsche points, there is no way to know where an idea or blueprint-for-action is hatched, being that it forms as a nexus of influences within a relational idea-flow complex, and there is no way to know the ‘result’ of an action, being that it continues to propagate within the relational activity continuum.

So, there is a lot of uncertainty here that arises naturally in our inquiry that is very unsatisfying to those who ‘need certainty’ and ‘finality’ (exactness in the results of our inquiry).

Of course, being that we need certainty in the answers to our inquiry, we could structure the questions so that the answers would have to come back in a decisive form; i.e. we could pose questions that require ‘yes or no’, ‘true or false’ or ‘is or is not’ responses.

“For the crystalline purity of logic was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement. … The preconceived idea of crystalline purity can only be removed by turning our whole examination around. (One might say: the axis of reference of our examination must be rotated, but about the fixed point of our real need.)” – Wittgenstein, ‘Philosophical Investigations’, 107-108

This way, we our ‘scientific inquiry’ could deliver the precision that we Western culture acculturated folks are in need of.

What we would have to do, to get these kind of precision answers is to use Aristotelian logic as interrogating technique. Since this logic involves the manipulation of fixed entities, we would have to symbolize the forms we DISTINGUISH in our sensory observing/experiencing as fixed entities with persisting identity, kind of like we like to think of ourselves, or at least as our ego likes to thing of our self, as an independently-existing being which is the jumpstart author of its own development and behaviour, ... as we do with storm-cells like Katrina.

This cultural-psychological ‘Occam’s Razor’ doesn’t really tow the line in regard to the empericism requirement since ‘independent being’ and its cohort ‘absolute space’ are intellectual idealizations that are not only not affirmable by our sensory experience, but everything in our experience-based intuition screams out to reject the possibility, in nature, of these intellectual idealizations of beings and void. Maybe it is our ego that is employing the veto on this issue of arranging for answers to be ‘certain’ and ‘final’?

In any case, Westerners aka users of noun-and-verb language and thought, have a ready-made answer for arranging certainty in their inquiry, and this comes in the form of subject-verb-predicate constructs. By making a relational form a ‘subject’ and having it inflect a verb, we give the impression that an action such as growing or shrinking, forming or dissipating, birthing or dying, are local emanations of the ‘subject’, making the ‘subject’ into a local ‘being’ and granting this ‘being’ with the powers of local jumpstart authoring of development and behaviour. This gets rid of the clutter associated with relational view which goes on and on and on so that one never gets to a final answer. When you shake the child-soldier and ask him; ‘was this your idea, to kill these people’, ... you are already haunted by the fact that kids are like sponges that pick up stuff from their parents and authority figures who themselves picked up stuff from their parents and authority figures who themselves ... and so on ad infinitum.

As an investigator who wants to get the job done, this is not going to cut it. Just as we take full credit for the ‘local-intention-driven’ results of our actions [even if we find ourselves in a birdsnest-on-the-ground that serves as hyper-accommodating ‘fielding’ to our ‘hitting action’], we want to impose full attribution for the ‘local-intention-driven’ negative results, as well. In other words, we want to make ‘local intention’ responsible for actional results, implying that ‘the local being-thing did it’, conforming with our ego-view of dynamics. This way, we can take the subject-verb-predicate constructs literally and say that Katrina is moving, or ‘the sun is rising’ and get rid of the web of relations that goes on forever in a transforming relational activity continuum. THEN we can have certainty in the answers that come back from our investigative inquiry, because some local agency will always be at the bottom of a result, and we only need to drill down and in sufficiently to get to it.

“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’

Let’s face it, nothing is really ‘local’ because the figure-and-ground aspect can’t be split apart into ‘local figure-on-its-own’ and ‘nonlocal ground on its own’. There is nothing other than relations. Our sensory experience/observing can distinguish on the basis of relations, like that building over there that is six times as tall as me, and since my height is about six times the length of my foot, that makes that building 36 feet high. It is all, as Kepler said, ‘ratiocinative intellection’ that goes hand-in-hand [as one bundle with two simultaneous aspects] with ‘intuitive intellection’. While the latter tells you what forms to measure, the former provides the measuring technique which is inherently relational (there are no absolute units at the bottom of measurement, it is all relative). Kepler’s third law says that the square of the period of revolution is proportional to the cube of the mean orbital extension. That is the basis for astronomical units of distance; i.e. distance is relative [“relations are all there is”]. But one thing is for certain, imputing ‘local being’ to things synthetically generates the ‘certainty’ we Western civilization members seem to need.

And we know how to impute ‘being’ to whatever relational forms we can distinguish; i.e. we give the form a name and then we use that name as a grammatical subject that inflects a verb, as in; let’s call that fiery spot in the sky ‘the sun’ and by so doing, impute it to have ‘local, independent being’ [this rules out the complexity of Einstein’s thrown stone or the notion of the sun as a nexus of relational influences within a transforming relational activity continuum], ... and then we can say ‘the sun is rising’ since we can see the distance between the sun and the horizon of the earth enlarging, and relativity speaking, from our local subjective perspective. Of course, we have dropped out the ground of our figure-and-ground perceiving and are describing dynamics in all-figures, no-ground terms [all-hitting, no-fielding terms]. This is ‘what language does for us’, it strips out [by this I mean we use intellectual idealization based on language to strip out] the figures from the ground and instead of the mutual meaning giving in figure-and-ground, we end up by imposing a notional ‘absolute space’ over top of the now stand-alone (independent) local figures;

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

The fact is that this concept of absolute space follows from the formulation of subject-verb-predicate language-and-grammar constructs, which sets us adrift from the physical reality of our natural experience;

“It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question (1) put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” – Benjamin Whorf, ‘The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language’

Just as Poincaré was saying, if we want to go with relational space [non-Euclidian space], which is to rectangular space [Euclidian space] as a polynomial of higher degree is to a polynomial of degree one, then we need a different language convention. Instead of a being-based language convention, we could do with a ‘flow-based’ language convention [indigenous aboriginal languages, Bohm’s ‘rheomode’] wherein we allow the local forms we see to be considered as local relational activities within a relational activity continuum, instead of forcing them to be seen as independent local beings.

So, to return to your question;

“my point was to ask a question about relationality. It has been assumed in western thought that bodies are distinct. Occam suggests bodies are really distinct because they do not depend on each other for existence.”

as pointed out, Occam only chooses between alternative theories that capture the same empirical observations. In this case, the theory of independent bodies drops out our empirical observations that everything seems to be influenced by the things around them. so Occam himself would not call this a fair use of his razor since it is easy to make things simpler by dropping out observations that complexify things, rather than coming up with a theory that does a more economical job of explaining things with the complexifying empirical observations left in.

You further say;

My first issue is that it seems too easy to say independence is impossible because everything is relational, because the plenum, etc,

In speaking of thought and language, it is clear that we can consider ‘independence’ as a ‘state of mind’ or ‘intellectual idealization’ which is different from considering the physical reality of our natural experience, where ‘independence’ is impossible; i.e. we are continually and inextricably included in the unfolding world and at the mercy of “life is what happens to us while we’re busy making other plans”. Of course, when we are in that planning mode, our ego is telling us that we are a local being with internal intention-driven and directed behaviour. That is what our assumption of our self as a ‘human being’ does for us, but it is a state of mind which does not match the physical reality of our natural experience wherein “life is what happens to us while we are busy making other plans”.

So, my point is that when speaking of ‘independence’ we have to distinguish between a ‘state of mind’ (intellectual idealization as comes from the constructs of language) and the physical reality of our natural, actual experience. Independent as intellectual idealization is CERTAINLY possible [certainty is an intellectual idealization using ‘being’ as its base].

you also say;

“If we reject "subject is really distinct from object, or even nominally distinct", we either have a collapsing into objects (brute materialism), a collapsing into subjects (idealism on the whole, as in CS Peirce), or a third term. It's not clear to me how what youre saying about images, perception, etc., fails to avoid the problem it suggests it avoids. The third term is seemingly the second term also.”

Going back to the understandings in Taoism and modern physics, there is an understanding of the world in terms of “relations are all there is”, where relational influence is the source of everything but it is not directly visible or tangible; i.e. it is a ‘field’ or ‘relational influence’ that is ‘everywhere at the same time’, as we would describe ‘gravity’ and ‘electromagnetism’ which, as Lamarck said, are fluides incontenables which excite fluides contenables. That is, fields are non-local, non-visible, non-material, relational influence that can excite behaviours in local, visible, material entities. Fields can contain but cannot themselves be contained. They are like flow which is inferred by visible, tangible storm-cells that erupt within the flow. We can see and touch/feel the storm-cells as local features, ... just not ‘local things-in-themselves’, ... at least not until we switch from natural experiencing to a ‘state of mind’ in which we use language and grammar to define them as ‘local things-in-themselves’, the same state of mind which gives rise to the ‘ego’ where we [intellectually] ‘visualize’ ourselves as independent intention-driven beings, and in the process forget about how “life is what happens to us while our ego is busy thinking of itself as an independent intention driven being and making other plans”.

as john stuart mill observed;

“every definition implies an axiom, that in which we affirm the existence of the object defined”

there is no law against our imposing simplifying conventions such as ‘being’ on our mode of inquiry, so as to ‘clean it up’ and ‘make it more certain. ‘science’ is a technique for ‘cleaning up the physical reality of our experience and making it more certain’;

“ ... we should examine with the utmost care the role of hypothesis; we shall then recognise not only that it is necessary, but that in most cases it is legitimate. We shall also see that 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 [and certainty]; 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

In other words, science is no longer about nature as we actually experience it once we give a foundational role to ‘being’ and its cohort ‘absolute space’ because that is where the dualist split comes into it that cleans up our inquiry and makes it more certain, like we Western civ folks like it.

What I am suggesting is that noun-and-verb language-and-grammar support the creation of an ‘operative reality’ based on intellectual idealization. Once we work out agreement on what observations we want to associate with which words, we can align our intellectual idealizations so as to construct an operative, being-based reality; i.e. “when we dream together, it is reality” [john lennon, yoko ono, miguel cervantes], and language-and-grammar allow us to dream together [to intellectually idealize in a manner that makes common associations between words and observations]. Since our actual experiences are diverse, language sets up an operative reality that favours cronyism; i.e. those of a common experience will construct similar ‘operative realities’, none of which can possible capture the physical reality that comprehends a diversity of natural experiences.

“The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group . . . We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” – Edward Sapir

So, my impression is that when debates come up on this topic, we all speak as if we are talking about ‘one reality’ when in fact we can be talking about ‘two realities’ and mixing things together without declaring which reality we are talking about. The intellectually idealized ‘operative reality’ based on being and absolute space and corresponding subject-verb-predicate constructs is the ‘scientific reality’ where things are cleaned up (relational influences that go on forever are discarded) and made more certain (questions are asked in such a manner that they demand ‘yes or no’, ‘true or false’, ‘is or is not’ responses); i.e. that is characteristic of Aristotelian logic. Dualism is an artefact of an intellectual idealization based ‘operative reality’. The physical reality of our natural experience doesn’t support it. Independent being is possible in the language-based ‘operative reality’ aka 'scientific operative reality'[it is built into it] but not possible in the physical reality of our natural experience. It is therefore important that we let our natural experience-based intuition trump our impeccably neat and tidy 'scientific certainties' and moral judgements based on them.
Submitted by emile on Sat, 08/22/2015 - 14:34

as usual, I wont respond to
this because Im just not interested in spending half an hour picking apart elliptical reasoning. I do hope you aren't like this in person, cos fuuuuck dude!
Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 08/22/2015 - 15:27

glad for you that you have more rewarding stuff to attend to
and thanks for asking for comments, anyway.

btw. here's an abbreviated version of the above responses to your questions expressed in more compact (less elliptical?) notation that you may be able to process more quickly and easily;


and just in case you are not familiar with 'relational concept formation', here's a note on it by uncle albert;

“First of all, an observation of epistemological nature. A geometrical-physical theory as such is incapable of being directly pictured, being merely a system of concepts. But these concepts serve the purpose of bringing a multiplicity of real or imaginary sensory experiences into connection in the mind. To “visualize” a theory therefore means to bring to mind that abundance of sensible experiences for which the theory supplies the schematic arrangement.” – Albert Einstein, ‘Geometry and Experience’

in other words, understandings may be shared by way of relational context; that is essentially what flow-based language is all about.
Submitted by emile on Sat, 08/22/2015 - 19:08

nihilixm as an embrace of chaos and non-dualism...

this response was really helpful - thank you! would love your thoughts on some writings via Ch@os Virxus which seeks to annihilate ego and re-position self/others more neutrally amidst the natural chaos; the premise is similar i think to non-dualist energies in transforming relationships in that if an anarcho-nilihixt cognition spreads like a virxus (a viral prescription) then civilixyzation (the end of the alphabet as pun to ending civil structures of oppression) may be completely undermined... anyway, in particular there's been good dialogue in the anarchist library on-line pertaining to
Submitted by π blackflag on Mon, 08/24/2015 - 12:40

the nexus of convergent confluence from many to one,
as we become divergent from one to the many.
the former is the gathering of us as disparities ,
the latter the creation of new peoples, co-related to our new world-views.
this site serves as that nexus. it's singular essence provides an opportunity to
engage with each other in creating new assemblages of ideas, so important
to our unfolding multiplicities. it occurs an untimely fashion, in a multitude of exciting forms with
a corresponding elan vitale of hope, concern, and , affirmation. we here are examples of many such constructs on this site and in our world. Some, as we , have paths that are well- diagrammed ; others go untraced or perhaps un-noticed. but to each other
what we all share is a belief in these new worlds in the the context of their immanent, un-caused, but essential nature as unique; a value without measure.
what a journey. what a ride! and , to think this is happening everywhere... all the timeI. I wager our chances are as good
as the contrarian forces arrayed against us. as a process then, we emerge and fade, rise up recede
rally and retrench. our theories and praxes in all of their varying forms
are second to none. Perfect? No can do. good enough? you … betcha! our sentiment is joyful, amazed. and filled to the brim with gratitude. enough said; to paraphrase James Bond: this would as it is, is not enough . Nor will it ever be.
Submitted by azano on Fri, 08/21/2015 - 21:36

this is a response to the comment by π blackflag re nihilixm

i will keep this short, but feel it applies to the 'three options' comment in the main article;

nihilixm as an embrace of chaos and non-dualism...
this response was really helpful - thank you! would love your thoughts on some writings via Ch@os Virxus which seeks to annihilate ego and re-position self/others more neutrally amidst the natural chaos; the premise is similar i think to non-dualist energies in transforming relationships in that if an anarcho-nilihixt cognition spreads like a virxus (a viral prescription) then civilixyzation (the end of the alphabet as pun to ending civil structures of oppression) may be completely undermined... anyway, in particular there's been good dialogue in the anarchist library on-line pertaining to
Submitted by π blackflag on Mon, 08/24/2015 - 12:40"

re the 'fourth option'. Western thought and language reduces relational dynamics to 'producer-product' dynamics. for example as Montaigne observes, the bee gathers essences from the diversity of flowers [each, itself a collection-distribution nexus] in the meadow ecosystem and produces its own product (honey, larvae). once we put things in 'producer-product' context, we can no longer see the flowers for the bee. that is, we credit the 'potentials' that reside within the bee for 'producing the product'.

this is the constraining condition which limits the author's view to 'three options'.

if we explore the 'producer-product' formulation in a relational space where, for example; 'the river eroded the valley floor', we can't see the rivulets for the river; i.e. the river is the confluence of a matrix of collection-distribution nexa, induced by the relational influence of the terrain [induction/collection in in a natural precedence over assertion/distribution].

The same is true for the bossman and/or slave-master, landlord etc. except we reduce the matrix of collection-distribution nexa to the subject-verb-predicate 'producer product' formulation. Once we adopt the producer-product view, we can't see the collection-dissemination nexa for the boss-man, slave-master, landlord etc, ... just as we couldn't see the flowers for the bee. thus we attribute the product to the 'internal potentials' in the producer.

the western culture brings up its/our kids with this same understanding; i.e. we say that 'everyone is equal' and the bossman's kids or the slave-masters kids are taught that they have 'productive potentials' which can make them 'superior product-producers'. this view eclipses the matrix of collection-distribution nexa and credits the internal potentials of the 'producer' as being the source of 'what is produced'.

why is this? it is because scientific models do not acknowledge 'induction' as in the inductive influence of a collection basin which involves a matrix of collection-distribution nexa. in the case of the bee and or the river, the matrix of collection/distribution nexa is the real physical dynamic and the source of the power of the river (and the bossman, slave-master, bee etc.) we use subject-verb-predicate constructs to reduce this to producer-product formulations, so that the 'producer' is credited with authorship of the product. e.g. the river is credited with the power to carve out canyons, ... but the opposite is true. the collection basin (the canyon) induces the forming of collection-distribution nexa (runoff rivulets into streams, streams into rivers). that is, the canyon (collection basin) creates the river. the inductive force (the need for food, clothing and shelter) creates the bossman. but when we look backwards to inquire into the source of the 'producer-product power' we see only the producer-product dualism and impute his 'internal potentials' as the source of his productive power. just as we can't see the flowers for the bee, ... we can't see the diverse collection-distribution nexa for the 'producer'.

when the white slave-master's kids grow up, it turns out that they have superior producer-product powers to their slave kid 'peers'. we say that this producer-product power comes from the internal potentials of the producer. we say that the producer-product power of the bee comes from the bee's internal potentials. we can't see the flowers [the matrix of collection-distribution nexa] for the bee. by the same token, we can't see the matrix of collection-distribution nexa for the bossman's child and/or the slave-master's child. We see only the producer-product dualism if we inquire into the source so we assume that the producer's internal potentials are the source of 'his superior producer-product power'.

does the river have the assertive producer-product power to carve out the valley (collection basin) or does the collection basin (valley) have the inductive power to create the river?

does the macho inhabitant have the assertive producer-product power to manipulate the habitat [aka inhabitant collective] or does the habitat [aka inhabitant collective] have the inductive power to create the macho inhabitant? Nietzsche and Lamarck contend that the latter is the physical reality, as does the 'relations-are-all-there-is' view of modern physics, while Darwin opts for the former. The greater the inductive force [the more concave the collection basin and/or the more hungry and desperate the slaves] the more powerful the slave-master in his producer-product capacities. i.e. bosses do not create employment, unemployment (impoverishment) produces bosses.

as long as the Western people collective continue to believe in the producer-product model of dynamics, which is the translation of subject-verb-predicate constructs, we will make ourselves captive to the delusion that the producers are the authors of production.
Submitted by emile on Mon, 08/24/2015 - 23:05

ugh. formatting. very

ugh. formatting. very difficult to digest in this format.

at least have comments submitted by in bold or something, and have a link to OG article at the very top comment.

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.