continuing conversation on what anarchists have been saying

i realize that there is a common 'ethic', particularly strong on forums to label people as 'unreliable' on some basis or other, perhaps a single incident in their lives, and then to dismiss anything they have to say, on that basis, as if listeners are unable to make their own assessments of what is being said.

research into 'sacred geometry' as in 'alchemy' was something that Kepler and Newton delved into, which assisted them in the discoveries they made, which they presented in 'reduced form' and which furnish the foundations of modern astronomy. Kepler's three laws of planetary motion have a lot to do with alchemy (union of opposites) and Newton pivoted from those laws in formulating his three laws [he essentially re-developed them in linear Euclidian space based terms]. If randal carson was a druid priest, this would not detract from his design of stone-henge such that it celebrated the summer solstice and put people in touch with the epigenetic field of influence that we are all included in. One does not have to become a 'disciple' of the druid priest to enjoy his solstice parties.

what carson is investigating is the same 'deeper layer' that Ward Churchill is investigating when he refers to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as 'pushback' deriving from the manner in which Euro-American colonialism is conditioning our common living space, cultivating 'have' --- 'have-not' imbalances' with associated relational tensions that inductively actualize eruptions of violence such as 9/11. Indigenous anarchists, because their experience makes them highly conscious of living in this Euro-American colonizer conditioned relational tensional field, are quick to affirm Ward Churchill's view on 9/11, but those who profit from Euro-American colonialism are just as quick to limit their interpretation of the 9/11 attacks to simply binary moral judgement of the attackers, making them out to be 'independent beings' with their own internal jumpstart powers of authorship who are fully and SOLELY responsible for their eruptions of violence, meaning that there is no deeper layer and the shallow view of man in terms of 'independently existing ego-selves' and 'what we do' is 'all she wrote'.

Should we summarily dismiss the views of indigenous aboriginal 'savages' because they believe in the natural primacy of the deeper field of influence? David Bohm acknowledged that indigenous aboriginal languages, which are 'relational' rather than 'being-based', preserve the complex understandings that arise in modern physics, where noun-and-verb [being-based] languages fail to do so, and in fact 'trivialize' the relational complexity immanent in the physical reality of our actual experience. Is such summary dismissal of people based on the 'categories' we slot them into, not the product of Western inflated ego? The same reductionist thinking that depicts man as an 'independent being' and morally judges him on this basis, is the source of Western man's notional shrivelling of his 'big sagacity natural Self' down to a 'little sagacity ego-self' [Nietzsche].

No-one has to become a 'disciple' of Randal Carson to appreciate what he is saying about the problems with measuring CO2 in ice-cores due to gas losses during decompression [while bringing cores to the surface], and alternative CO2 measurement techniques which give much higher historical levels of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Carson's view that variation in cosmic rather than terrestrial influences on climate is shared by many of those investigators that have been put into the 'denier' category so that whatever they say can be summarily dismissed. Johannes Kepler would agree that the cosmos includes earth and planets as in an inhabitant-habitat non-duality and therefore, the 'terrestrial system' cannot be a system-in-itself [the notion that imputes the actions of the earth's inhabitants to be CAUSALLY MANIPULATING physical properties of the earth-system such as its surface temperature]. In other words, the terrestrial system is included in the cosmic system and only the cosmic system is physically real [the world is only given once] while the notion of a 'terrestrial system' is based only on 'appearances' in the manner of storm-cells in the atmosphere that get boiled up by solar irradiance. Analytical inquiry will superficially impute the development and behaviour to the relational features that boil up within the transforming relational continuum [the 'relational suprasystem'] to the relational features, just as in the systems theorist Russell Ackoff's example of the university in the relational suprasystem of 'community', making it appear as if the components and processes within the local university system are the source of the development and behaviour of the university-system and obscuring the physical reality wherein the epigenetic influence of the social dynamics in the relational suprasystem of community is inductively actualizing and shaping the emergence, development and behaviour of the university-system; i.e. the fact that analytical scientific inquiry can RE-PRESENT the university and/or the terrestrial system as a 'system-in-itself' [ignoring the predominating sourcing influence of the relational suprasystem it is included in] is nothing other than an illustration of the power of the word in constructing 'semantic realities' on the basis of our limited sense observing capabilities; i.e. the relational influence inherent in 'fields' non-local,non-visible and non-tangible, yet they are the deeper 'mother' of 'material dynamics' that are local, visible and material, but nevertheless 'secondary appearances' which noun-and-verb language-and-grammar can dress up to appear to be physically-real-in-themselves'.

“Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” — David Bohm
"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

Our intuition supports these observations by Bohm and Schroedinger, which are also implicit in much of what Randal Carson is saying. Western science and Western thinking has meanwhile locked on to the secondary appearances and is using noun-and-verb Indo-European/SCIENTIFIC language-and-grammar, to construct 'semantic realities' that elevate 'appearances' into an unnatural primacy over physical reality (the relational influence of field-dynamics). In other words;

“It is by logic we prove, it is by intuition that we invent. … Logic, therefore, remains barren unless fertilised by intuition.”- Henri Poincaré
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." --Alfred Einstein

"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"

If the world is complicated, why would simplicity of explanation be preferred? Why does simplicity guarantee truth? It doesn't; its a value that is simply a factor of playing the game. You can read more about ontology in WVO Quine's Ontological relativity, which makes the same point.

The question of Ockhams razor was already dulled by Duns Scotus (cf. the problem of universals). The question is exactly how much is necessary for explanation, and only a subjective answer can be given, or, at best, a subjective preference that passes off as objective and authoritative. Some people like "desert landscapes" for ontologies; others like complication; there is no noncircular way to decide which is correct.

someone's going in circles explaining not much besides they can play continuously with SVO linguistic orientation.


perhaps this rbs person has not heard of the logic of the inclusive third? the SVO structure of your framing leaves out negative causality, because space and time are fixed operation frameworks (read:non-actors) in such an orientation.

what place intuition for you?

Intuition has a lot of philosophical meaning. I don't know what you mean by the term; and I doubt ill be very helpful in answering your question. For instance, I might say, 'sensibility', 'impressions', the 'form of intuition' in Kant, or even that which is (somehow) in opposition to reason. I suspect you want that last answer. Are we saying then irrationality? Or is it more precise to irrationally say something more like intuition is "both irrationality and rationality" because it, too, doesn't satisfy the law of noncontradiction? Where do we start?

Are you saying that the property of being a non-actor, above, the property you attribute to space-time, is defined by the logic of both-and? Or do you mean this non-acting thing constitutes "individuals" in a way that makes them always and forever fail the test of non-contradition, that they "are" always thirds? Is everything really a third? Including the plenum? Or does the plenum have a fixed "non-acting" identity?

Surely you can see why this isn't "intuitive".

you make it sound as if 'civilization' and 'the results of civilization' are more than the constructed semantic realities that they actually are; e.g you say;

"HOW is it that your thinking differently has helped you evade the results of civilization? You obviously are just as much a part of the parasitism."

'Civilization is an illusion/delusion'. It is a hyped up package of being-based beliefs that makes Europeans believe they are better than 'primitive peoples' and that has them boasting about how they are constructing a wonderful new world in the Americas.while ignoring the wonderful established world they are, in same stroke, destroying.

in the relational mode of understanding, the binary opposites of construction and destruction do not exist, ... construction and destruction are not two separate processes, they are one which is known as 'relational transformation'. it is impossible to construct a house in the forest without, at the same time, destroying some forest; i.e. what is going on is 'relational transformation'. the biosphere persists as forms come and go within it, whether skyscrapers or dromedaries.

i do not buy into the being-based fictions of Western civilization. In my personal life, as with indigenous anarchists, I understand that I am included in a dynamic greater than myself; e.g. the farmer is not the being-based author of his production of wheat, but is the genetic expression of epigenetic inductive actualizing influence just as the wheat plant is. The farmer is not the being-based jumpstart author of 'his' wheat production [As Oklahoma farmers woke up to understand in the 1930s].

Politicians continue to preach the dream that a group of committed human beings can determine the future. Barack Obama has said that special human beings called 'Americans' can set the world on the right path;

“So I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. … “ --Barack Obama

That group of committed beings who believe that they could jumpstart author the future state of the world by eliminating evil and imposing good, ... screwed up. Now Donald Trump is coming in to 'clean up' and 'make America great again', ... possibly in an alliance with Russia oriented to 'the elimination of evil and the imposing of good'.

This is what happens when logic is put into an unnatural precedence over intuition. Intuition informs us that we are included in a world dynamic that is greater than ourselves. To believe that a group of committed believers in their own 'independent being' can determine the world dynamic is insane. Such actions can only engender unanticipated and unaddressed 'externalities' such as thinking in the logical terms of 'eliminating Saddam's regime' while intervening in a relational dynamic of unfathomable complexity and engendering ISIS and other unplanned 'externalities'. Science's claim is that being-based logic can engineer solutions to all your problems, ... got a headache? ... just take this scientifically developed and proven pill. What's that? ... it engendered all kinds of 'side-effects', ... the cure is worse than the illness? Logically speaking it was 'mission accomplished', your headache has been eliminated, Saddam has been eliminated, but the externalities engendered in the process overshadow the logical accomplishment.

We don't have to live in that illusion where science and logic is put into an unnatural precedence over intuition in constructing the popular 'semantic reality'. Sure we are included in the one world so we experience the transformation induced by such mistaken beliefs in the notional God-like doer-deed authorship powers of humans seen as 'independent beings'. But the way out of this mess is not by overthrowing one being-based insanity with another [i.e. assembling a group of committed revolutionary beings to determine a better future] but to suspend belief in a 'belief system' which stands or falls on the basis of people believing in it.

rbs makes no mention of how the combination of visual sensing and noun-and-verb language shape our 'operative reality'.

written comments are like m.c. escher’s drawing of a hand representing itself; i.e. writing jumpstarts meaning from its own content. it uses ‘being’ to do this; i.e. words as atoms of meaning, as in the Biblical “in the beginning was the word” (“IamthatIam” is the name of Jahweh).

indigenous oral tradition transports meaning in terms of the relational experience of the story-teller; i.e. experience of inclusion in a relational world that is the source of story-teller, a world of continual becoming;; ... a transforming relational continuum.

rbs accepts, without hesitation, the assumed ‘reality’ of the world seen through the subject/object split [isolating the observer from what he is observing [and the prejudices he imposes on what he is observing. rbs says;

“ ... seeing something requires a distinction; there is obviously a subject object split in all modes of epistemology.”.

epistemology defines what is ‘knowable’ while our experience opens up to influences that are unknowable [epigenetic influence immanent in the transforming relational continuum].

rbs makes the logical error of petitio principii in proving the existence of separate bodies by our ability to discern the difference between the bodies. this presupposes the ‘existence of bodies’ in the argument aimed to prove the existence of bodies;

““as I said, the position that bodies are distinct, that is really distinct, is roughly playing on everyday common conceptions. To say that this body is not that body is all that is meant, not that there are precise capacities to define where boundaries lie”

‘common conceptions’ are spread by language and noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar is based on ‘being’ and ‘subject-object splitting’. Why should we trust ‘common conceptions’ while living in a fucked up Western society and inquiring into where the fucked-upness is coming from? Common [mis]conceptions employed as foundational assumptions may be sourcing dysfunction. a common misconception is that 'matter' is primary and 'field' secondary, as if gravity were sourced by large accumulations of matter [newtonian view], rather than vice versa [modern physics view].

‘field’ is ‘everywhere at the same time’ and immanent in field is influence that is non-local, non-visible and non-material. we experience the warmth of solar irradiance and thermal fields. As Lamarck noted, fields are ‘les fluides incontenables’, “fluid-flows that can contain but which cannot themselves be contained”. we can experience the hair on our body ‘standing on end’ while in the warp of an electromagnetic field and we can experience the warming of our innards when included in a microwave field.

rbs falls into the cultural trap noted by McLuhan, in that our Western culture has shifted its cultural orientation to ‘visual space’ perception rather than ‘acoustic space’ perception, and the orienting of language to visual space [forms like ourselves perceived NOT as relational features in a flow but as objects out there in front of us]. In ‘acoustic space’ perception [acoustic space is ‘everywhere at the same time’ and includes relational forms]. as we know from acoustic space imaging and the biosonar of dolphins and whales, forms are relational; e.g. even thermal lenses show up as ‘objects’ in acoustic sensing and these acoustically-sensed 'forms' derive from thermal field relations within an unbounded fluid plenum.

the cohorts of visual space perception and noun-and-verb language give rise to a semantic concept of ‘reality’ that is radically reduced from the physical reality of our actual, relational, inclusional experience, and rbs appears to have fallen victim to the ‘common conception’ wherein one combines visual space perception of relational forms with noun-and-verb (being-based) language constructs to put together an ‘operative reality’ [yes, we can do this, but it is this radical reduction of our actual experience informed reality that is the source of Western social dysfunction]. rbs says;

“Everyday people do not experience the plenum; they experience already individuated bodies interacting, dynamically, first and foremost. I haven't experienced the plenum.”

overall, rbs’ comments ground ‘reality’ in ‘common conceptions’ that are articulated in being-based language-and-grammar and popularized in Western society. It is this logic-based semantic reality that politicians use to construct the being-based depictions of the world we live in that serves as an ‘operative reality’ to guide our behaviour. as believers in this pseudo-reality understand it, this world of material objects is a world we can reconfigure to make it more to our liking [e.g. we can eliminate unwanted objects with smart bombs and drones etc. as if they are ‘things-in-themselves’ that are situated within a non-participating empty-space 'operating theatre' rather than understanding these 'objects' are relational forms that are continually gathering and regathering within a relational space (a transforming relational continuum)].

rbs evidently trusts that it is safe to ground his/her understanding of the world in ‘what most people assume’ as if there is nothing wrong with the common assumptions of a [fucked up] culture. such a position forces us to look for the source of dysfunctions in our culture elsewhere than in its assumptions [which, as McLuhan points out, have been influenced by technologies such as the printing press and electronic communications].

for example, our Western assumptions would have it that the eruption of violence that manifests in the behaviour of a slave jumpstarts from the internal processes of the slave since ‘the common assumption of our culture’ is that the slave is an ‘independent being that is fully and solely responsible for his own behaviour’.

Our experience-based intuition, on the other hand, is screaming out to us that the eruption of violence is inductively actualized by relational-discrimination-based oppression imposed through our relations with one another and the habitat by the slave-master class; i.e. the aforementioned fucked-up thinking derives from the ‘independent being’ based assumptions of the Western culture which has us chasing after ‘phantoms’ [spectres, spooks, invisible source[ror]s] that notionally 'inhabit' 'independent beings', constituting a jumpstart source of criminality and terrorism, as if the 'epigenetic inductive actualizing influence of tensions from imbalances in the relational space we share inclusion in [elite/superior class --- inferior class relational discrimination sourced tensions] have nothing to do with it.

rbs sees no problem in grounding his worldview in the ‘common assumptions’ of the culture.

“The position that I am defending has the novelty of being in line with most people assume.”

there is nothing 'novel' about herd beliefs and behaviours.

"rbs accepts, without hesitation, the assumed ‘reality’ of the world seen through the subject/object split [isolating the observer from what he is observing [and the prejudices he imposes on what he is observing. rbs says;

“ ... seeing something requires a distinction; there is obviously a subject object split in all modes of epistemology.”.

Surely you see that the latter doesn't demonstrate the former, especially the latter part about imposition. I never said that; anti-realism does that; the view that beings are already constituted independently is a realist position that, at best, stands back and lets beings be. This form of epistemology is not of the kind you say all epistemologies must be, "epistemology defines what is ‘knowable’"; on the contrary, phenomenology is an epistemic position that doesn't stipulate whats up in advance, but rather, opens itself to the disclosure of the object, or whats the same, "experience open[ing] up" to influences that are unknowable (the ding-an-sich). If you want to call these things [epigenetic influence immanent in the transforming relational continuum], rather than stemming from the thing in itself, the only merit is that the transformational posit is less of an ontological "burden", while posting beings per se (in themselves), neither violates the experiencer, nor the object being experienced. I trust you are competent enough to know that the continuum is just another higher order thing in itself. Obviously it cannot be known. Therefore, making a preferential distinction is just an aesthetic move. But I wonder if you even can say anything about "the immanent force", that it is immanent, say, and not transcendent, or whether, again, such is just preferential for ontological parsimony. We all have preferences, emile. I find desert landscapes to be rather boring.

I also didn't argue for the point, for existing bodies; I assumed it; that is, I take it as an obvious fact that there are perceptual differences between bodies, and that this presupposes the existence of distinct bodies. To doubt that is to make an effort to play Cartesian Skeptic language games, and I just don't think most people care to play them because it's utter non-natural nonsense to doubt the existence of bodies in our perceptual horizon.

You say:

"Why should we trust ‘common conceptions’ while living in a fucked up Western society and inquiring into where the fucked-upness is coming from? Common [mis]conceptions employed as foundational assumptions may be sourcing dysfunction. a common misconception is that 'matter' is primary and 'field' secondary, as if gravity were sourced by large accumulations of matter [newtonian view], rather than vice versa [modern physics view]."

We all know that this modern view was created to satisfy a set of problems in physics; but those problems have very little to do with how we tend to operate with vices rather than virtues. To say nothing of the fact that this is just one more western position in sheep's clothing, I think you miss the point. Everyday people aren't to blame simply because they use language in their operations; that's simply ridiculous. People are garbage because they have stupid material beliefs. A new language that obfuscates the point in some abstract theory of language seems hardly necessary. Again, I posit beings, trees, humans, animals, all on the same level. I don't ask weird theological questions about what's beyond them, immanently or transcendently, because obviously positing them as having interests is sufficient to talk with contempt towards the problem that is painfully obvious to everyone: White settler colonialism, which, as a post-structural concept, implicates any vices: Even damned domesticated animals and domesticated "indigenous folks".

A final comment on associating with herds. It strikes me as trivial in the context of epistemology to associate with common thinking. It just so happens to be the case that common people can trust their perceptions. That I was typing this moments ago, that you are reading this on a computer, or a print out, etc., As for trusting what common people value, I think its pretty plain that Nietzsche was correct to refer to herd morality as such. As for questioning what truth is--where these two come together--specifically N's opening question about valuing truth (BGE), I think we have pointed out sufficiently, agreeing with Nietzsche, that things themselves are actors in the stories we want to tell, negative forces that undermine our conceptions--not on the whole and for the most part in terms of correct fit or modelling physical properties, but surely in the respects that we value, in the respects that we take to be important in what we say that is nontrivial; in what we say beyond grasping copies of what we are talking about.

Everyday people can trust their perceptions because perception is veridical. Everyday people may have stupid values, and only sheep follow. Nietzsche makes people think about why they value truth, say, and once you've thought about it, and sussed out what you mean (Say by reading David Hume and William James), the trick is to not then become a mere follower of Nietzsche's values.

your comments on perception miss the point. you say;

it's utter non-natural nonsense to doubt the existence of bodies in our perceptual horizon. ... It just so happens to be the case that common people can trust their perceptions. ... Everyday people can trust their perceptions because perception is veridical."

all of this is going nowhere since bodies are 'appearances' which makes perception non-veridical, as in;

"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

there are no local bodies in a fluid dynamic, only 'appearances' as in the case of storm-cells in the atmosphere.

the assumption that the observer is disconnected from the bodies he is perceiving is also an unsupported by experience assumption: i.e. if the world is given only once as an all-including transforming relational continuum, then there is no way to split apart observer and observed [subject and object].

"“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.” – Erwin Schroedinger

you can avoid just about anything by a 'distinguo', by changing the subject and bringing in another and another and another academic premise on cognition, perception, epistemology, but they don't address [they simply avoid] dealing with schroedinger's point that our perceptions do not map directly into the 'real world' but into 'appearances'. as nietzsche says, our understanding of the forms we visually perceive are shaped by the psychological influence of noun-and-verb 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’

as in the korzybski-sapir-whorf hypothesis, the map is not the territory; i.e. the mapping between sensory perception and the world out there is non-veridical.

our experience is that using the sensory perception based map to direct our actions puts us at odds with the territory [Bohmian incoherence]. The 'body' that we perceive [e.g. Saddam's regime] looks like something local and material that we should be able to surgically 'take out'. But when we do take it out, the entire landscape is transformed; i.e. 'the relational medium' is the message, not the perceived bodies aka 'items of content'. this is as it is in a fluid continuum; i.e. relational features such as 'storm bodies' are 'appearances'. [perception is not veridical]

If you think perceptions are non-veridical, provide some examples of how one saw something and then had reason to doubt, and then demonstrate that this is the rule, not the exception, and we can discuss the rule. As it stands, we are engaging in distinct language games; for I don't know what you mean by appearance because by the way that it reads, you are making a Platonic argument in a Nietzschian register--which is more than ironic.

as in academia in general, you seem to employ rational theories to try to 'explain' or 'give meaning' to our 'perceptions'.

as Wittgenstein suggests, this is like 'approximating the surface of truth from the inside [from bits and pieces we 'know to be true']; a process that never gets there because one would have to know the full truth in advance in order to reconstruct it. The more feasible approach is by "proceeding from that which is obviously nonsense to that which is not so obviously nonsense" [Wittgenstein].

So, I am not convinced that continuing this dialogue with you can put us 'on the same page' since it strikes me that your inquiry is a rational process that seeks to reconstruct the full truth from things you 'know' to be true, while my inquiry is Wittgensteinian and based first on actual messy experience.

With respect to the many theories about perception, veridical and non-veridical, we would probably agree that our visual sensing is limited to a certain frequency range so that our senses are 'blind' to very small forms and very large forms' and thus our perception is playing with only half a deck. Furthermore, we seem to use 'categories' as an interface to a physical world that our sensing can probe only very incompletely.

"Interface Theory of Perception: The perceptions of an organism are a
user interface between that organism and the objective world" -- Donald D. Hoffman

As Hoffman points out, organisms perceive 'iconic forms' or 'categories' that guide their behaviour while hiding the full physical complexity of the world that lies beneath the icons. He compares this to the icons of the computer user interface which hide the complexity of the computer that lies beneath them.

This is where, for humans, language comes into play via the Korzybski-Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, since the Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar employs 'categories' based on 'common properties' while indigenous aboriginal languages do not, ... the difference in language architectures shaping, very differently, the operative realities of the two cultures [language and culture go together].

anyhow, Hoffman gives as an example, Australian 'jewel beetles' [Julodimorpha bakewelli] that were doing fine until people started throwing 'stubbies' (brown beer bottles) from their cars which the male beetles mistook for female beetles that seemed far more attractive than the 'real thing' and they commenced to expending all of their copulative energies on the smooth brown bodies of the stubbies whereupon they were devoured, genitalia first, by ants that had cottoned on to their aberrant behaviour, putting the jewel beetles on a path to extinction.

in the indigenous aboriginal language and culture, every form is seen as undergoing its own unique 'cosmic fetalization' so there is no such thing as a 'local thing-in-itself' definable by its 'common properties'. As with a storm-cell in the atmospheric flow-continuum, every 'form' is just the local manifestation of an inherently non-local relational phenomena. The physical reality is the relational complexity that lies beneath the locally manifesting 'icon' so that the icon gives us a way to relate to invisible relational complexity in the manner of the icons on a user interface. "Here comes a hurricane, let's get out of its way" The variations in solar irradiance cycles and planetary orbital wobbles and oscillating ice-age influence and climatic variation that are root sourcing the development and behaviour of the hurricane are the reality that our perceptions never get to reconstruct. We make use only of the 'icons' that hide the physical reality.

Perception is therefore non-veridical and employs the intermediation of 'categories' which lead the male jewel beet to humping 'stubbies' and white Euro-Americans to see Muslims as terrorist threats, black men as retarded crack-heads and native americans as lazy chugs.

In modern physics, each of us is a particular 'relationally complex feature' in the transforming relational continuum that is undergoing our own unique 'cosmic fetalization'. That is too much complexity to 'reach' [our senses are frequency-limited] and/or 'take in' 'all at once' so our perceptions employ a 'user interface' involving 'categories' that sit on top of all that complexity. Our experience based intuition informs us that the physically real world we are inclusions in does indeed involve unfathomable relational complexity, however, our perception employs a user interface that makes use of icons that give us a way to engage with that physically real complexity without having to 'know it' or 'reconstruct it' directly.

In other words, our visual perceptions are not direct perceptions of the physically real world, but as with our visual perception of the storm-cell in the atmospheric flow continuum, we perceive an icon that points to an underlying complexity that is beyond the reach of our sense perceptions,

so, 'as a rule', we perceive 'forms' that serve as icons in our user interfacing with the unfathomably complex physical reality and 'the map we make with these icons is 'not the territory''. As Korzybski, Whorf, Sapir, Bohm and Nietzsche further point out, the architecture of language influences the construction of these intermediary icons and the maps we make with them.


As I said before, we are speaking two different language games, and I just don't think seeing your point of view is beneficial or desirous.

What I do think is curious, however, is that your semiotic view at the end of your post, whereby you admit we "perceive an icon that points to an underlying complexity that is beyond the reach of our sense perceptions", seems to point in the direction of what Im saying. However, knowing the full truth before one can be certain that one knows the parts seems curiously out of touch with reality. It takes swallowing your position before that conclusion can be seen. But there is no prima facie reason to suppose that when I see a guitar, say, there is something beyond the sense impressions (the thing in itself) that would somehow invalidate the operative function that a guitar provides, as a tool; the guitar may very well disclose something more to the sense impression of it; but to say there is something beyond it (the really real) is evidently a non-starter. Perhaps, if you wish, you can demonstrate instances of how these "things" beyond our sense impressions have invalidated the veracity of the icons we perceive. And i hope you perceive the intended irony here... Seriously: What if there is nothing more to the symbol; what if the icon gives the symbol? You seem to suppose that it doesn't, which is a whole lot of table thumping. As I've said, you are playing epistemological skeptic games that are tiresome, counterintuitive, and very out of touch with common perceptions that do not lead, in themselves, to the conclusions you infer about them. The problems that we experience in the world can be tied, easily, to vices, and not without huge redescription to the way we commonly see the world; and even if we have to see it your way for some undisclosed reason, the metaphysics suggested above, say in the individuated substance theory of any of the post-franciscan medievalists, Ockham included, is sufficient to define intrinsic value.

you wrote;

"knowing the full truth before one can be certain that one knows the parts seems curiously out of touch with reality".

in the systems sciences, the point is made that every 'system' is included within a relational suprasystem [Ackoff], and that our understanding of the system must be grounded in our understanding of the relational suprasystem.

the example that Ackoff used to make this point was the 'university' [the 'system'] and the 'greater community in which the university is included' [the relational suprasystem].

in Ackoff's term, analytical inquiry into the 'system' must be grounded in 'synthetical inquiry into the 'suprasystem'. The general community is the source of the epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes genetic expression [the university]. if the inductive actualizing influence [in the suprasystem] that gathered the university into existence is not sustained, the university will go into decline. But it is perfectly possible to talk about the university as a 'thing-in-itself' [system in itself], discuss its departments, faculties, physical plant, staff, administration, as we might talk about the guitare and its parts and what they each do and how the 'system' that we call 'university' or 'guitar' works.

but every 'system' is included in a relational suprasystem that is the physically real world of our actual experience [the university and guitar as local material things-in-themselves are 'pragmatic idealizations'; i.e. they are not 'real']

the guitar could be an exhibit that is making the following point that a luthier is making;

"Sadly, the supply of the best woods used for guitar building has been greatly depleted from the world's forests."

The picture of a guitar might be posted alongside that of a pine beetle against a backdrop setting of severely diminished forest growth.

the point is that the local system we picture as a guitar [and/or university] is not 'really' a 'thing-in-itself', ... we just like to talk about it that way. the'local system' is a relational feature within a relational suprasystem. the local system (the guitar, the university) is NOT a 'real' thing-in-itself any more than a storm-cell in the relationally transforming atmosphere is. We can capture video footage of the university and all of its parts and processes and its operations as a 'system-thing-in-itself', but we can't see the epigenetic influence immanent in the larger community [relational suprasystem] that is inductively actualizing it.

Ackoff says, and I agree, 'analytical inquiry [understanding of the system] must be grounded in 'synthetical inquiry' ['synthetical inquiry' is to understand the relational suprasystem and how it is inductively actualizing the parts-based system-thing-in-itself].

you say;

"knowing the full truth before one can be certain that one knows the parts seems curiously out of touch with reality."

on the contrary, knowledge of the parts is 'pragmatic idealization' that should not be confused for 'reality'. it is not necessary [nor is it possible] to fully know the 'relational suprasystem', it is only necessary to know that the 'system' is a relational feature within the relational suprasystem. Without acknowledging this, the system will be notionally endowed with 'thing-in-itself' status.

"it is not necessary [nor is it possible] to fully know the 'relational suprasystem', it is only necessary to know that the 'system' is a relational feature within the relational suprasystem. Without acknowledging this, the system will be notionally endowed with 'thing-in-itself' status."

We can both agree, I think, that things in themselves cannot be known, by definition, give that these are prior and independent from experience (Kant's original meaning); and secondly, that there is a practical political difference between imposing onto something and letting that thing do its own thing, under minimal observation.

Above you used Wittgenstein to say that the whole must be known before one can understand the parts; and you confessed to being a Wittgensteinian, or whatever.

You seem to want to have it both ways when you say that it is impossible to fully know the suprasystem, and yet that is it necessary to know how this thing operates; that something belongs to it, as opposed to not at all. And yet this thing, that you claim to be incapable of knowing in total, and so, in any respects--by your Wittgensteinian language game--does all the work that you claim it does. It destabilizes identity; it produces essence as a third that is both A and not-A.

You seem to have a hard time supposing that things in themselves exist, as substances, and yet this suprasystem thing that cannot be known in itself, is evidently a thing in itself, and it obviously exists. So you posit it. And then, finally, you leap in your argument saying that without this unknowable super-posit, everything else will have thing in itself status.

As I said above, it is unclear (therefore) whether the supra system is transcendent or immanent. If it is transcendent, it will be difficult to explain how it operates in doing all the work you want it to do; if it is immanent but unknowable then it will be difficult to demonstrate how it operates as well.

In any event, I think Kant's language is unfortunate and silly. Obviously the form of intuition imposed by the thinker in judgment is merely a way to avoid the chaos of Hume's skepticism; to given judgment a firm ground. The noumenal cannot be experienced; but our perceptions of the phenomenal are not fixed. These can grow, deepen, or we can leave things alone, without trying to constitute them as objects of knowledge. Whatever. And yet, I see you still playing this weird anti-realist game of trying to get to the bottom of what things are, not by way of how they independently operate, but rather as constituted by the impositions from the suprastructure, and the system. In short, you're doing western imperial science, and you like doing it.

As I've said, The ontological posit of the supra system of which the system is a part, and of which the members of that system are also a part, both of which are constituted by the unknowable supra system, is a posit that you think explains the instability of experience because you think the complexity of individuals requires an external cause, and not an internal one. I think my ontology is better off because it posits the complexity of individuals as internal to themselves, and it doesn't lose the trees for the forest, or the forest for the planet, or the planet for the solar system, or the universe for being, or whatever.

I have to be honest with you emile; I suspect that you have a lot riding on this project of yours, and I have tried to understand the leaps you make; but I think you are caught up in something you think is crazy important--like a new vegan in animal rights, or something. Maybe you should work on finding reasons for giving a shit about anything in the world of the supra system, given your assumption that the nihilist universe you are creating entails an indigenous ethic. A jump, surely, but maybe not. How is your narrative a warm ecofeminist position, and not a cold nihilist position?

yes, that is the logic of non-dualism; e.g. a relational pattern of 'circulating' in a fluid flow is perceived as a persisting local form 'in the flow'. that is, the whirlpool, A, in the fluid flow is, at the same time, the fluid flow. and so it is, as well, with matter and field. as Einstein observed, given matter-energy equivalence and the innate primacy of field over matter [matter is a condensate of field], we need only develop a theory for 'field'. we do not need a separate theory for matter. making material bodies primary is to make 'appearances' primary and to attribute action and results to 'appearances'.

your comments are always starting from the presumption of 'things' while totally ignoring (as if it didn't even exist) 'relational theory' (see wikipedia) which is alive and well in the world and is foundational to the worldviews of a number of philosophers and physicists, indigenous cultures, buddhists, taoists and vedics.

in relational theory, 'things' (forms) are 'appearances' that begin to exist when we 'measure them'.

what is the diameter of a hurricane? this question itself is a petitio principii, an error of logic because it presupposes that a hurricane is a local object of finite extent whose dimensions we can measure. it is by measuring the notional 'local object' that we come up with a 'common property' based definition of the hurricane as a local thing-in-itself. before we measured it, it was a relational pattern in the flow, excited into genetic expression by butterflies flapping their wings over Beijing or wherever.

in relational theory, people are vents that transmit influences from the nonlocal to the local. this means that individuals are not causally responsible for their actions and results. this means that individuals should neither be rewarded nor punished for their actions and results.

as nietzsche points out, we can neither identify the source of an action nor know its ultimate impact, so it makes no sense to attribute actions and results to particular people. Bohm says the same thing in his disputing of the causal model in 'the death of Lincoln [the cause could recede forever backwards into the history (of politics and technology etc.).

Western cultural conditioning elicits a kneejerk, summary dismissal of the non-dualist and beyond-good-and-evil perspectives of relational theory. it wants vengeance and retribution; i.e. faced with conflict and injury, it does not want to 'restore balance' and cultivate harmony as makes sense in relational theory.

so, sure, if the habitat is a flow [Relational theory], and if the inhabitants are relational features within the flow, and "the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" [Mach's principle], then we can see in this the logic of the included third [where A is an inhabitant and not A is the habitat so that A is at the same time not A]

this is where the relational mode of understanding can take us. the suprasystem [transforming relational continuum] is not a simple 'thing-in-itself' 'out there' that is unknowable because we are it and it are us.

How is your narrative a warm ecofeminist position, and not a cold scientific nihilist position?

Western culture has believed that there is 'truth' and logic/reason is all about 'truth'. if you can employ logic/reason to 'prove some proposition true' then people will trust in it because it has been proven true. meanwhile logic/reason is inherently subjective and incomplete and, yes, of course there are always 'alternative facts'.

the only way that the inherent subjectivity and incompleteness of logic/reason are overcome is by the principle of Lafontaine; "la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure" (the logic/reason of the strongest is always the best).

Experience-based intuition is the natural 'overseer' of the diverse multiplicity of 'proven truths' that are being politically promoted as 'operative realities' by some faction or other.

Western people are slowly coming around to Nietzsche's long standing position that 'logic/reason' is being put into an unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition.

The problem is that a view of 'what is going on' and 'what may become of us' can be constructed from 'inherently subjective and incomplete logical propositions' that people can be persuaded to 'believe' is 'the truth' [e.g. "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction"]. This proven-true logical proposition is accepted as an 'operative reality' that guides our individual and collective behaviours, and thus we 'intervene' [the 'pre-emptive strike'] so as to defuse the explosiveness of the situation.

Of course, the physically real world of our actual experience is nothing like the logical truth based scenarios we construct; i.e. the real world embodies unfathomable relational complexity, so our interventions engender 'externalities' such as as 'the rise of ISIS' which reduces rather than increases the 'in-control' based certainty our intervention was attempting to engineer.

today, journalists are arguing over "when does political spin become a 'lie'?" ... and whether it even matters as far as politics goes since "all politicians are liars". politicians [like Trump] who present, as 'the truth', what experts might call 'baldfaced lies' get public support because it disarms the experts whose power and influence derives from their supposedly having a better grasp of 'the truth'. but experts have been lackeys to lying politicians so what good is expert-validated 'truth'?

It's not like we are totally lost in lala land, ...our understanding can be grounded in experience. 'experience' is the 'currency of understanding' of indigenous anarchists and this is what is harvested in the'learning circle' approach.

By comparison, Western 'currency of understanding' is inherently subjective and incomplete 'logic/reason' based 'truths'. This currency is manipulated in political debating sessions where different truths are put into competition as in a horse race. The winning truth is established by the principle of Lafontaine, "the reasoning of the most powerful is always the best" ["la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure"]. The winning truths become the seedstock for the current 'operative reality' that becomes the basis for a roll-out of "intelligent" and purposeful actions that, given the truth of the anointed 'operative reality', will construct a desired future state [e.g. a world without Saddam's regime].

of course, the sparse, obsessive-compulsive space of our logical constructions is nothing like the relationally complex space of our actual experience, giving rise to the 'systems science's' expression; "operation successful, patient dies", which refers to the fact that an "efficient action" designed to change the model of a system, changes the environment that includes and is authoring such systems [i.e. the logical system model of Saddam's regime did not take into account that every system is included in a relational suprasystem; i.e. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.].

the voice of workers' experiences and the need for redistribution used to come through the 'unions' but worker voices lost their mouthpiece, setting up the conditions for a strongman like trump to pick up the missing mouthpiece role. see THE RISE OF AN AMERICAN "STRONGMAN" WAS PREDICTED IN 1998 -- 2/13/17

the bottom line is that Western culture has been operating on the false assumption that logical/reasoned 'truths' are maps of 'reality', which they are not; i.e. the map is not the territory (physical reality). Saddam's regime is to the volatile relational suprasystem it is included in, what a storm-cell is to the turbulence of atmospheric flow. To morally judge the regime as a 'thing-in-itself' and to commit to 'surgically remove it', is a joke. sure the logic supported truth is impeccable, however the logical element, the regime, is not a fixed identity thing as is assumed in logic, it is a relational feature within a relational flow. it is the genetic expression that is inductively actualized by the epigenetic influence of the relational suprasystem it is included in. To intervene to eliminate it is Quixotic 'tilting at windmills'.

If Emma Goldman's deep support for free speech was influenced by Nietzsche, the point is that free speech opens the way for input from actual experience, and not just for still more hairbrained conspiracy theories based on logic/reason as in the islamaphobia and xenophobia promotions of Trump.

the loss of the unions as the voice of worker experience was the loss of a global [transnational] voice in which redistribution of wealth was/is a global need. Trump has meanwhile picked up the missing mouthpiece role on a nationalist 'America First' basis, which is not exactly an IWW reinforcement; i.e. to leave the obscene global have--have-not wealth gap intact while boosting the standard of living of American workers at the expense of the workers of the rest of the world by putting the coercive might of the US behind aggressive US-First trade agreements.

btw. i am not interested in win/lose competitions.

every one of us has important experience and insights that are like fragments of a hologram that contain 'the whole in the part' which, when brought together, increase the resolving power of our understanding of the dynamic we share inclusion in. if we speak honestly, of course.

the muslim anarchist writer of this long essay is extremely well informed and the points he is making are right on target and evidently informed, to some degree, by the Qur'an. the more i read, the more i see this as an amazing document that needs to be given a committed, thorough and thoughtful read (which will take some time).

he keeps coming back around to the key question;

"how are we going to reconceive our relationship to land through decolonization and reindigenization and beyond our individualist sense of ‘self’ and our exploitative relationships with each other?

that is the key question, and he has prepared the ground for it better than anything i've ever read on anarchistnews. he sounds like a muslim subcommandante marcos.

"I’m a self-identifying Muslim anarchist, ... That said just because you’re a Muslim and/or anarchist doesn’t make you a part of my communities, my decolonized and reindigenized Ummah, as much as it’s the coherent and consistent set of ethics and politics that should’ve arrived with an identity irrespective of what that identity is."

my comment re the need for an organizing principle that maps between what we have today and the decolonization and re-indigenization that needs to happen still stands [i.e. our use of predicative rather than impredicative logic and the need to correct this],

i don't know if the Qur'an implies the same dualist human-versus-nature split as the Bible (Genesis), which sets up 'land ownership'. maybe it doesn't?

Is there anything in Islamic socio-political tradition like the thoughts of Locke in Western socio-political tradition?

"God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it to them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and the rational (and labour was to be his title to it)" -- John Locke, 1690

["The role of labour in transforming nature into property was a task commanded by God, and such godly behaviour then resulted in entitlement to property]

" ... God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man ... to subdue the earth, i.e., improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to the command of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him." -- John Locke, 1690,

this traditional view led Churchill to say;

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place.” — Churchill’s testimony to the Peel Commission (1937) on a Jewish Homeland in Palestine

and, Ayn Rand to say;

"“They [the indians] had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you are a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn’t know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. . . .Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it’s great that some of them did.” — Ayn Rand

evidently, according to this essay, Islam escaped this notion that nature was beneath man and the man who cultivated it was 'entitled' to it;

" Islam came not only to represent a formidable competitor to Western Christianity[lxx], but a late challenger of it. When Muslims are commanded with “conserving,” and “sharing natural resources,” in their communal caretaking as collective Khalifahs (used in the plural form in the Qur’an), with all ‘property’ or Mulk belonging to the Creator (altogether transforming meanings and manifestations of what constitutes ‘private’ and public’ spaces and property). And hence the infinite responsibility and obligation of Muslims to collectively, spiritually, not “damage, abuse or distort nature in any materialist, utilitarian, way,” and therefore our requirement to learn how to “treat the land and its resources with kindness,” and without excessiveness or israf, given that “all natural resources (as water etc)” belong to our communities, if not to be shared with others, and not merely left in the possession of benevolent Kingdom Sheikhs and corporations for that matter (Ammar, 2001: 202; Barghouti, 2008; Hodgson, 1974; Bamyeh, 2010).

ok, this is not about 'religion' but about understanding that Islam does not have the same concept of 'property' that has risen to dominance in Western society.

Great essay, Muslim anarchist, thank you!

now, let's look at the 'organizing principle' [impredicative logic in place of predicative logic] inherent in decolonizing and re-indigenizing.

"man produces wheat" and all similar semantic predicative constructs are 'errors of grammar', which, as Nietzsche points out, are anthropomorphisms born of man's ego [the source of the concept of 'being'].

other exemplars of this 'double error' which imputes 'being' to relational features within a relational activity continuum, and then imputes magical [God-like] powers to the imagined 'being', depicting the 'being' as the 'author' of the relational activity that is the subjective and incomplete object of our observing interest, are;

"the sovereign state produces goods and services"

"the corporation produces goods and services".

instead of acknowledging human activity as whorls within the flow [transforming relational continuum], the mental picture is of a swarm of lilliputian human-"beings", coming together under the direction of a central controlling authority that organizes them as if 'part[icipant]s in an 'independent' machine that spins straw into gold [amplifies the value of what it touches, ... the value as determined by what humans are willing to give for it; i.e. packaging fresh mountain ice-melt runoff in plastic bottles gives an 'added value' to water measurable in human-gerbil-cage rotations [labour-wage currency].

all of these semantic, human doer-deed subject-and-predicate constructs are convenient, economy-of-thought delivering con-jobs [Mach]. confusing them for 'reality' is a 'great stupidity' [Nietzsche].

"“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

let's face it, the concept of 'human ownership' of natural land is a throwback to Genesis 1:28 and the Lockeian conception of nature as a chaotic realm full of uncertainties and dangerous threats that is worse than worthless unless 'tamed' by humans and made to perform in an economic-value-adding [human-benefitting] manner.

this imagined human-authored enslaving and taming of nature that claims to make something wild and unpredictable into something predictable and useful is schizophrenic since man is included in nature. such action is therefore 'self-enslavement' that recalls the Christian 'penance' ritual of 'whipping oneself' in order to get oneself to 'conform' to self-imposed enslaving and taming of all inhabitants of the common living space in which one is oneself included.

it appears as if the above muslim anarchist perspective is not contaminated by this 'strange loop' self-enslaving symmetry that characterizes the now globalized Euro-American colonizing venture.

Full text of "The Anarchist Library: Mohamed Jean Veneuse Anarca-Islam a4"

Anarca-Islam (2009 thesis by Mohamed Jean Veneuse submitted at Queens University)

* * * here's a few excerpts * * *


As an anarchist and a Muslim, I have witnessed troubled times as a result of extreme divisions that exist between these two identities and communities. To minimize these divisions, I argue for an anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian Islam, an ‘anarca-Islam’, that disrupts two commonly held beliefs: one, that Islam is necessarily authoritarian and capitalist; two, that anarchism is necessarily anti-religious. From this position I offer ‘anarca-Islam’ which I believe can help open-minded (non-essentialist/non-dogmatic) Muslims and anarchists to better understand each other, and therefore to more effectively collaborate in the context of what Richard JF Day has called the ’newest’ social movements." --Mohamed Jean Veneuse

I begin by establishing Anarca-Islam 's resistance to authoritarian practices at the micro level through micro-anti-authoritarian concepts and practices extracted from Islam, i.e. Shura, Ijma and Maslaha. I then show how it is possible to resist authoritarian practices at the macro level, such as institutionalized religion and the modern state. I offer an alternative rereading of the classical interpretation of the Islamic concept Khilafah, Islamic state. I thereafter address the 'authority' of Prophet Muhammad and God. In the end, I will have constructed an anti-authoritarian Islam through Anarca-Islam's resistance to authoritarian practices.


1. A Summary of the Thesis
In this thesis, I offered an anarchic interpretation of Islam and an Islamic interpretation of anarchism by identifying anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist
resonance between Islam and anarchism. ...

... In chapter one, I talked about how Muslims in the West are facing dichotomous representations of terrorism and oppression, Fundamentalism and Orientalism. I explored these representations as abstractions, but then brought them closer to home by demonstrating their existence on an everyday level by discussing specific examples of racist and Islamophobic incidents at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada in 2009. I then claimed that 9/11, better than the first Gulf War, acted as the mask donned by the West for perfecting its 'neo-colonial and neo-imperial' entry into and exit out of Muslim life and resources under the name of freedom and in the face of what a few Muslims in the name of Islam had done. Islam and Muslims because of 9/11 have indefinitely become the ideal candidates handpicked by the West as the enemy after the Cold War, with the war on terror as a war on ghosts.

... Instead of being led by the majority, Muslim anarchists have chosen not to retreat. They did not become paralyzed and complacent as a result of the damaging representations. Instead, they understood their standing(s) and positioning (s) as political subjects in the West, whether they like it or not, post 9/11. They chose to never again become "subjects of the signifier [, subjects of Western representations, and]. . . [of] Knowledge, Power, Money" (Guattari, 1984: 143). And based on that choice, Muslim anarchists acted by engaging internally in "molecular revolutions" (Guattari and Sutton, 2005: 65), as well as externally by creating new aesthetic, cultural and ethico-political Islamic territories of reference with respect to anarchism through literature.

In this light, Muslim anarchists have creatively envisioned and pragmatically embodied a unique formula in reinvigorating Islamic life in the West. This has come at a cost of their ostracization by the dogmatic and essentialist majority of constituents constituting the two communities these Muslim anarchists belong to. This ostracization is the price 2 paid for their simultaneous allegiance to Islam and anarchism. There is always going to be a price exacted for inventing anything new and, for now, the cost is ostracization and the lack of community. Like the Holy Koran says: "Verily, God does not change people's condition until they change their inner selves" (Chapter 13, The Chapter of 'The Thunder': Verse 11).

... ... For now Muslim anarchists are destined to be ostracized and 'othered' exponentially beyond the 'othering' the average Western Muslim faces as a result of the West's representations of them. Muslim anarchists have no community. That is the cost however of the (re) invigoration of Islam and that is now being driven forth by these Muslim anarchists and their helpless falling in love with anarchism, its currents and its commitments. Commitments, which I proved in this thesis, were once Islamic but unfortunately have been abundantly dismissed or forgotten by the majority of Western Muslims, let alone most Muslims worldwide.

... Nearing the end where the end is just the beginning of another end, because the end can only mean that I would have to just begin again and again, my silence has been temporarily broken and I feel incredibly lonely. From here on in, the ethical and political anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist responsibilities I discussed will not and cannot allow me to hesitate anymore before the cynicism of Muslims, anarchists and anyone else who says that "things are as they are because there is no other way" (Freire, 1998: 101-104). And although Freire is writing about a different topic, in a different time and context, I believe his words are relevant here. Just as Freire notes, with respect to faith, I cannot "see how . . . [Muslims] who so live their faith could negate" the rights of anarchists who do not want to have faith (Friere, 1998: 101-104). Even if that means that they do not want to have faith in their selves or the ideals they espouse. In the same way Muslims cannot be rejected by anarchists for having faith because "being in faith means moving, engaging in different forms of action coherent with that faith . . .to engage in action that reaffirms it and never action that negates it" (Friere, 1998: 101-104). Negating faith is not "being without it, but rather contradicting it through acts" (Friere, 1998: 101-104). Not "having faith is both a possibility and right of human beings, who cease to be human if they are denied their freedom to believe or not to believe" (Friere, 1998: 104). Having faith and believing never was and never will be "the problem; the problem is claiming to have it and, at the same, contradicting it in action" (Friere, 1998: 104). Taking on a name, Muslim and anarchist, will never be what it is about. It is about the set of commitments that should have arrived by taking on those significrs. Besides that, one is always destined in the shadow of the name. Let me also note that lonely is not being alone. The former denotes is a state of catatonic loneliness' a neuroticism, revolving around the absence of a profound connection with another like a friend, a community or a lover without having to stutter or talk to this other. That is, the incessant yearning for communication through an aesthetic meditative type of silence, as opposed to moving one's tongue or speaking to the 'other'. That is loneliness. Everyone should be fine being alone. No one should be fine being lonely. And the pain I feel is worse than Ovid, an ostracized poet two millennia ago, who wrote in Tristia, describing "the cultural hostility. . . alienation. . . [and] bodily pain that reflect his mental anguish" as an immigrant (Hron, 2009: 33): "I often weep when writing so. . .teardrops overflow to wet the page [and] cold sorrow drops in the heart like rain. . .as [every waking moment] old fresh wounds feel fresh again" (Hron, 2009: 33). But in my case and beyond using Ovid's words, I cannot even begin to describe my pain and in a language, English, that is not mine to begin with. I cannot begin to describe, when I am left feeling every time like "a sufferer try[ing] to describe a pain. . . and then language runs dry" (Woolf, 1926: 84), as described in Virginia Woolf 's essay On Being III (1926) and Elaine Scarry's The Body of Pain (1987) when it comes to the ineffability of translating pain through language and especially in English. English will never be my mother tongue, Arabic.

* * *

The suggestion in Mohammed Jean Veneuse's thesis is that Islam was essentially 'anarchist' in its original intent, which got subverted along the way by popular [mis-] interpretations.

Whether or not one buys into that thesis, the author's investigative trail is a very interesting trail for the reader to travel as it exposes so many of the errors and weaknesses of Euro-American colonialism and authoritarianism, and in particular by 'belief' in political and religious theory;

"This piece fundamentally argues that ‘Ideologies’ and ‘pure politics’ relating to romanticized notions of ‘community’, ‘self’, ‘resistance’ and so-called ‘revolutions’, do not exist. That all there is are consistent ethical-political principles and practices binding us in relation to each other as a species and non-human life."

As far as 'loneliness' goes, the author articulates very well how it feels for an 'anarchist' to be situated within a sea of "sociability" that one cannot engage with since the popular premises of the collective render many/most participants deaf and blind to anarchist premises. the natural desire for engaging, in this case, is blocked in that it comes with the requirement of having to betray one's self and one's own understanding and authenticity if one wishes to partake of that so-satisfying cameraderie of spontaneous engaging with the everyday social collective on matters of import.

I am curious as to why and how the writing style changed so much from the academic thesis style to his 2017 essay style. perhaps the author could comment on that.

you ask;

emile, why do you keep going with the long form comment to critique when thecollective continually moves your longer posts to the forum?


the works of mach, nietzsche, bohm, and other 'relational' philosophical investigators, including mohamed jean veneuse are 'nuanced' and the best way to show and share this, in my view, is to include excerpts from their work which show the nuance. if i were only to mention an author such as nietzsche, and then myself explain what nietzsche is all about, it is my nuance that is being presented rather than his.

this destruction of relational nuance is chronic in this forum and in Western discourse in general; for example, anonymous 02/25/2017 - 13:58 summarily dismisses the relational views of muslim anarchist jean veneuse with blanket statements about Islam delivered in a Donald Trump i-am-the-source-of-ultimate-truth manner; i.e. he says;

"Islam was authoritarian from the very start. The idea to have some guru telling people how to think, and basically becoming their religious/ideological warlord, then being followed upon by several long lineages of caliphates, imams and muftis... Anarchism? Where?

this is typical. the muslim is thus stereotyped as an automaton with a memory stick plugged into his left or right ear'ole with the latest authoritative interpretation of the Koran downloaded on it.

mjv says;

"Furthermore, God [the Koran] advocates that Muslims neither dogmatically accept nor rely upon a Muj’tah’id‘s [scholar's] interpretation of the Koran. Muslims are not to take ijtihad [independent interpretive judgements] for granted. God even vows to guide Muslims in explaining the Koran. That is, God vows to support and enlighten any Muslim who engages and struggles with the Koran and not only Muj’tah’ideen. As God says in the Koran: “We explain the signs in detail for those who reflect” (Chapter 10: Chapter of ‘Yunus’: Verse 24). God’s insistence that capable Muslims use ijtihad as a mechanism to re-interpret Islamic principles in accordance with their spatial, temporal, political, and social conditions and circumstances highlights the relative ease which ijtihad offers and brings for Islamic practice. In fact, God expects differences in Islamic principles due to the practice of ijtihad in different spatial, temporal, political, and social circumstances. Below are two Koranic verses that address this matter:

the nuance that gets stripped out by anonymous 02/25/2017 - 13:58, and by common practice, is the understanding that epigenetic influence inductively actualizes assertive actions. this nuance pervades the views of relational philosophers like Mach, Nietzsche, Bohm, Schroedinger, ... and Jean Veneuse. the individual may have a memory stick for Islam in his left ear-ole, one for anarchism in his right ear-ole and one for hedonism stuck up his butt, and it is still going to be the 'situation' that prevails by inductively actualizing the individual's assertive potentials. the associated 'action' or 'genetic expression' will typically be interpreted as internal intention driven. no matter that the slave-master abuses and taunts the slave to the point of inductively actualizing violent potentials in the slave, the violent attack on the slave-master will be interpreted by forensic science as being jumpstart-driven by the slave's malicious intention-to-harm. [inductive influence is impossible in the Euclidian space-framed protocols of science and rationality].

there is no meaningful, generic, intention-driven 'doer-deed' description of a muslim. as mjv observes;

"Muslims use ijtihad as a mechanism to re-interpret Islamic principles in accordance with their spatial, temporal, political, and social conditions and circumstances [assertive action is inductively actualized and shaped by situational influence]

i include nuanced comments like that one by mjv because the standard practice is to describe adherents of Islam, Anarchism, Terrorism etc. in one-sided, intention-driven, 'doer-deed' terms, as if it were NOT true that epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.

the forensic scientist does not see the actions of the 9/ll operatives as being inductively actualized by relational tensions between colonial settlers and indigenous peoples that are sourced by colonization. science and rationality depict the 9/11 actions as jumpstarting from the evil intentions of 'independent beings' [colonizers and their settlers are 'innocent']. but decolonization and re-indigenization as per mjv and other relationists derive from the nuanced understanding that epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression, as in the case of the 9/11 attacks.

those who see no need for nuanced understanding wherein epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression, and are happy with KISS reductions to intention-driven doer-deed depictions, may see the nuanced comments as unnecessary 'walls of text'.

Wait... Why do I have this sudden impression that the true reason why Thecollective has not banning Emile or deleting (some of) his comments was simply because they make you laugh your ass off? Makes sense... Perhaps you guys aren't complete absolute malevolence after all!

"oppression" is a kind of 'field influence' wherein some are 'inflated' which 'deflates' the others. the Oscars are a good example. the 'academy' sponsors a mutual admiration sub-society that takes on an unnatural precedence over a mutual support society. This is like elitist CEOs who 'vote up' their own shares and revalue their exclusive crony collective; i.e. the artist community co-creates an exclusive celebrity elite that vote up its own share values, creating a highly differentiated class structure. the God-like 'stars' at the top inspires those climbing the ladder 'far below them' (who may have equal talent but not 'celebrity status'). inventing Gods is the problem here.

defining 'racism' as not enough blacks in an elitist God-group is ass-backwards. it is like 'not enough female CEOs'. we all know that white CEOs promoting their own share values has been a problem that smacks of 'white male supremacy' so the solution of supremacy (hierarchy) is not to try to 'give it more balanced representation', but to suspend the creating of supremacist structures.

mohamed jean veneuse 'covers' this 'micro-fascism' that is internal 'in us' rather than 'out there' in his 'On the Delusion ... ' essay. It is about the celebrity spectacle wherein people voluntarily 'deflate themselves' to inflate a celebrity elite to 'God-like' status; i.e. if God doesn't exist, then Western society is going to 'magically' invent Gods. As Thomas Mann said in 'Mario and the Magician', on the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1920s;

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

Speaking of symmetries of power, the 'Great Spirit' is an immanent influence, not a 'God'. 'Desire' is an immanent 'epigenetic' influence we experience, that inductively orchestrates and shapes our individual and collective behaviour (e.g. the jazz group). the well-being of the jazz group dynamic is NOT the 'sum of the parts', that is a reductionist view that we impose because it is 'convenient' in that it delivers 'economy of thought' and simplifies discourse (avoids the real world relational complexities of our actual physical experience).

This year, more blacks as God-like celebrities, next year, more Indians and Mexicans. Same for CEOs. Equality in this sense means equal opportunity to share in the obscenely inflated upside of radical hierarchical 'celebrity' inequality which could not exist without its conjugate obscenely deflated downside. When the talented artist goes from 'an unknown' to God-like celebrity status, is it a sudden burst of improved talent that propels her into elitist orbit, or is it just the fickle, wandering spotlight of mass attention, the artefact of a crowd dynamic that makes RECOGNITION 'go viral'? is the CEO 'really' one thousand times more worthy and capable than those in the next lower hierarchical level, or does the elevating of worker to CEO depend on something other than 'talent'?

NO, NO, the admirers of the elite CEOs and Celebrities will say, in any case, ... do not take these Gods away because they are my raison d'être, they are my hope for myself, for my future, ... they are my inspiration, my American-dream. Don't you know; ... "You gotta have a dream, if you don't have a dream, How you gonna have a dream come true?"

How many equally deserving and talented artists and equally deserving and talented workers are going to have their dream of God-like, elitist-class celebrity status come true? How many will 'win the lottery', 'strike it rich' etc? Why should our social organizing give 'Gods' and 'elitist hierarchies' such a core role? as mjv suggests, we have a lesser, micro-fascist ethic in us as well as a higher ethic,

"the word or term for desire in Islam and in Arabic is raghba, and is ongoing and continuous, distinct from pleasure, shahwa, commonly associated with having a ‘lustful or illicit appetite’ and that is temporal"

Nietzsche calls these different ethics; 'the greater sagacity of the natural Self' (spiritual Self) and the 'lesser sagacity of the ego-self' (material self).

Western society puts the material self into an unnatural primacy over the spiritual self; shahwa over raghba; e.g. 'love is not 'ongoing desire' but 'getting laid'.

The 'uebermensch' is not a 'superman' in a material sense, but one who keeps the ethic of raghba in a persisting precedence over shahwa, ... the greater sagacity of the natural Self over the lesser sagacity of the ego-self, ... Brahman over Atman.

As Jalaludin Rumi wrote;

"Love dogs"
One night a man was crying,
Allah! Allah!
His lips grew sweet with the praising,
until a cynic said,
"So! I have heard you
calling out, but have you ever
gotten any response?"
The man had no answer to that.
He quit praying and fell into a confused sleep.
He dreamed he saw Khidr, the guide of souls,
in a thick, green foliage.
"Why did you stop praising?"
"Because I've never heard anything back."
"This longing
you express is the return message."
The grief you cry out from
draws you toward union.
Your pure sadness
that wants help
is the secret cup.
Listen to the moan of a dog for its master.
That whining is the connection.
There are love dogs
no one knows the names of.
Give your life
to be one of them.”

epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.

in an indigenous or zapatista view of the world as in modern physics, people are included in nature and it is the overall dynamic of the habitat that sources the dynamics of the inhabitants. in other words, 'what things do' is NOT 'locally sourced' by logical 'subjects' that we construct by semantically fragmenting the unbounded relational dynamic. this fragmenting into local sources is achieved semantically, by imputing 'being' plus subject-and-predicate actions to locally observed relational forms and features. inventing name-labels for inherently relational activities such as 'the united states' is not capturing 'physical reality' but is constructing a LOGICAL SEMANTIC REALITY constituted by notional 'independent material things' and 'what these independent material things are doing'.

instead of acknowledging that 'relations are in a natural primacy over things', colonizer/settler society turns everything on its head and declares 'things', the artefacts of semantic constructions, to have precedence over relations'.

imagine how the 'indigenous' mixed in with a group of 'settlers' feel about this situation. the settlers believe that they are the source of their own actions and that by coordinating their actions, they can construct a desired future. this is a linear, logical view wherein the determinative actions and results are seen to jumpstart from 'independent beings' and 'independent nations' and THEIR actions [these people are ego-directed].

because the settlers are employing the logical linear model wherein 'what things do determines the future' and denying their own inclusion within a common transforming relational continuum, they are screwing things up by engendering 'externalities' that they don't anticipate [eliminate Saddam and engender ISIS in the process] because logical models are inherently subjective and incomplete and do not address the relational complexity in the physical world of our actual experience.

from the point of view of the indigenous people, the settlers are arrogant, egotistical crazies for believing that they are 'independent beings' with their own internal process sourced [God-like] powers of authoring actions and results. [no point in going into binary win/lose competition with them]

meanwhile, the indigenous peoples interspersed within the settlers are very conscious of being included within a global relational dynamic which means they are conscious of how their actions are mutually influencing one another and the land in which all share inclusion; i.e. they are conscious of everyone being included within ONE relationally transforming habitat/plenum.

because settlers believe that results can be traced back to causal authoring sources, they are always pointing accusing fingers at one another [binary polarization]. colonizing powers that create conditions in the middle east that spawn terrorist pushback will point the finger at those through whom the relational tensions are venting, ... tensions that they, the colonizers, have authored. meanwhile colonizer/setter logic and morality imputes 'independent being' to all forms so that the ventors of colonizer sourced tensions are held to be fully and solely responsible for their own actions and results.

the indigenous do not buy into this 'independent being' abstraction, nor the logical 'semantic realities' built upon it [in a relational world, restorative justice makes sense, NOT moral judgement-based retributive justice based on the binaries of 'good' and 'evil', 'innocent' and 'guilty'.

indigenous anarchists like the zapatistas do not see themselves as 'the good' in a binary war between 'good' and 'evil' but rather as the sane in a world dominated by the insane [those who confuse binary logical abstraction ('is' or 'is not', 'true' or 'false', 'good' or 'evil') for 'reality'].

those with the worldview of indigenous anarchists [there is nothing stopping settlers from switching to this 'natural' view] may use binary logic as a support tool, without letting the tool run away with the workman as has happened in the colonizer/settler society [confusing pragmatic idealization for reality].

"the map is not the territory" [korzybski, whorf, sapir] i.e. the world mapped out in terms of 'independent material entities' that are purported to be the jumpstart authors of actions and results that are determinative of the future state of affairs is an over-simplistic, convenient, economy-of-thought-delivering logical map that obscures the physically real RELATIONAL source of dynamics wherein non-local, non-visible, non-material epigenetic ('field') influence arising within the transforming relational continuum is inductively actualizing local, visible, material genetic expression.

the map is binary, the territory is relational. employing the map as the 'operative reality' is the source of 'incoherence' and unaddressed 'externalities'.

the lived experience of struggle in the Western religious and scientific tradition is 'binary' because of culture conditioned worldview, not because it is 'binary' in the physical reality of our actual experience. The individual who experiences a real-life struggle is free to conceive of it in binary 'self' and 'other' terms. e.g. 'Darwinism' sees the individual as developing within a binary, dualist inhabitant-habitat 'struggle for existence';

"Nothing is easier than to admit in words the truth of the universal struggle for life, or more difficult - at least I have found it so - than constantly to bear this conclusion in mind. Yet unless it be thoroughly engrained in the mind, I am convinced that the whole economy of nature, with every fact on distribution, rarity, abundance, extinction, and variation, will be dimly seen or quite misunderstood." -- Charles Darwin, ' On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'

Lamarck, on the other hand, sees the sourcing of the evolution of forms in terms of the relational influence of 'les fluides incontenables' (epigenetic field influence) that are outside-inwardly 'exciting' the inside-outward actualizing of bioforms, a general world dynamic affirmed by Nietzsche, Bohm and by indigenous peoples.

is 'struggle' a dynamic interaction between two mutually opposing things as in self-other as a duality? or, is 'struggle' the experience of trying to sustain balance within a web of relational interdependencies. the participating acrobats that are co-forming a 'human pyramid' might say; "it was a struggle for us to sustain balance in a web/matrix with so many relational interdependencies, but we did it".

that is, indigenous peoples understand life as deriving from a web of mutually supportive [ecosystemic] relations, not as colonizer/settler society sees it, as deriving from a binary, dualist 'struggle' of a rugged, independent individual seedling locked in battle with a violent, chaotic and unruly 'nature'.

in other words, discussions of the relation of 'self-and-other' and whether it is dualist (binary) or non-dualist (relational) remain very important for all of us experiencing 'struggle'.

the difference is a 'culture-making' difference that leads in the dualist (binary logical) case of colonizer/settler society to simple 'good' and 'evil' narratives with a corresponding 'moral judgement based retributive sense of justice', and in the non-dualist (relational) case of indigenous peoples [including zapatistas] to an understanding of inclusion in a mutual influencing web of interdependent relations and a corresponding, 'beyond good and evil', non-retributive sense of justice that seeks the continual restoring of relational balance and harmony.

the colonizer/settler society conditions the minds of upcoming generations so as to entrench the binary dualist view of self and other as the operative reality; i.e. an operative reality that captures observations and experiences in terms of simple good and evil narratives and applies a moral judgement based retributive justice to the 'self' that forensic science identifies as the full and sole jumpstart source of an 'evil action', rendering all others 'innocent'.

not only has this colonizer/settler binary-logical paradigm been imposed voluntarily by colonizer/settler parents on their children, it has been imposed on indigenous children against the will of their indigenous parents in widespread and century/s-long programs of cultural genocide; e.g;

For over a century, the central goals of Canada's Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments,; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal peoples to cease to exist as distinct, legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada. The establishment and operation of residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as "cultural genocide". -- opening paragraph of 'Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada'

to suggest that dwelling on philosophical issues concerning anarchist self-and-other relations is a distraction from 'getting on with the job of dealing with actually experienced struggle' avoids the question of the very different physical world dynamics that may arise from such philosophical introspection.

binary struggle would pit two cultures against each other in a win/lose competition for 'survival of the fittest'.

relational struggle would orient to finding a way to transform relations so as to sustain balance harmony within a complex web of mutually interdependent relations.

which struggle are we 'actually experiencing'?

[this depends on how we understand the relationship of 'self' and 'other']

truth and falsehood are a tautology like all binary opposite pairs starting with the 'is' and 'is not' tautology.

is it 'true'; i.e. 'is it a fact' that 'the United States' exists? because the peoples living in the lands where 'the United States' was 'declared to exist', claim that its existence is just a rumour started by colonial settlers and perpetuated by the threat of violence to naysayers by those for whom such subjectively contrived imagining is convenient and self-serving.

facts exist only by virtue of human agreement, and as we well know, humans can agree on a lot of bullshit dressed up as 'fact'; e.g. the 'existence of a sovereign state', the birth of an island, Surtsey, ... a 'terrorist attack'.

is it a fact that 'terrorists attacked the World Trade Center towers' on 9/11, 2001?

such a 'fact' depends upon a lot of messy underpinnings yet it ends up 'sounding very certain', perhaps by so many people agreeing that 'that's a fact'. one assumption in its messy underpinnings is the assumption that 'the present depends only on the immediate past'. Crime scene investigation and forensic science in general rests dependently on this assumption, which makes messy things very certain; i.e. if the Hatfields and McCoys are in an ongoing conflict that has been going on for generations, it is easier, when a Hatfield kills a McCoy, to assume that the present depends only on the immediate past so that we can forget about the reality of longstanding antagonism contributing to a present event and investigate the 'present event' as if it were a 'thing-in-itself'. Likewise, even though colonizer oppression has for centuries been inductively actualizing colonized peoples' violent 'pushback', by assuming that a particular eruption of violence depended only on the immediate past, we can construct the certain fact that 'terrorists' caused the 9/11 death and destruction of innocent colonizer citizens when colonizer-oppressed colonized peoples everywhere knew damn well that the colonizers were not only NOT innocent but were the deeper source of the violence.

see 'how language is shaping the political facts'

forensic scientists and their crime-scene investigation will come up with the logic-based claim, based on the assumption that 'the present depends only on the immediate past', that 19 hijackers were fully and solely responsible for the 9/11 death and destruction.

you say;

"As for all of you who don't believe that it is possible to examine a situation and arrive at something that at least approaches the truth, then what are you left with?Do you deny there are facts? If there are no truths,then there are no falsehoods.If you don't try to make a distinction between the two,then you are living in the land of the lost."

I would say that those who believe in the existence of 'facts' are living in the land of the lost, which is otherwise known as 'Western civilization'.

you say; "examine a situation"? how much of a situation? should we examine three McCoys and two Hatfields back, or constrain our examination on the basis that 'the present depends only on the immediate past' so as to remove the messiness and manufacture some 'certainty'? As Nietzsche observes;

“How false is the supposition that an action must depend upon what has preceded it in consciousness ! And morality has been measured in the light of this supposition, as also criminality. . . . The value of an action must be judged by its results, say the utilitarians: to measure it according to its origin involves the impossibility of knowing that origin. But do we know its results ? Five stages ahead, perhaps. Who can tell what an action provokes and sets in motion ? As a stimulus ? As the spark which fires a powder-magazine ? Utilitarians are simpletons —“
“The re-establishment of “Nature”: 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’

among those who don't want to examine the situation of 9/11 as an 'event-in-itself' in the quest of 'arriving at something close to the truth', are 'indigenous anarchists' who understand implicitly what Nietzsche is saying about the subjectiveness and incompleteness of rationality and moral judgement. the approach of indigenous anarchism is to 'forget the facts' and move forward on the basis of restoring and sustaining balance and harmony in the relational social dynamic. this approach is called 'Restorative Justice'. it could put a lot of CSI professionals and lawyers out of work.

facts are 'crisp semantic propositions' extracted from an innately messy/uncertain relational world, whose certainty is established by agreement. non-humans do not need facts or certainty [nature is inherently uncertain]. in fact, non-civilized humans do not need facts or certainty.

civilized humans who believe in facts divide themselves against their brothers on the basis of their respective interpretive versions of 'the facts'. 'facts' are the currency of political alignments, and in this sense, 'science' is political; e.g. agreement on 'anthropogenic global warming', Darwinism, the 'Big Bang', HIV causes AIDS, mental disorder as biochemically sourced (rather than socially/relationally induced), the benefits of GMO foods etc.

re the issue of what the facts mean; e.g. in politics there is agreement that 'terrorism is a fact' and American politicians (except maybe Trump) profess to believe that the US is an innocent victim of terrorism. Russian politicians like Putin believe that terrorism is pushback against colonialism/imperialism which requires a ruthlessness in response [including torture] that will 'show who is boss'. [Imperialism is 'pragmatic' in a Darwinian sense].

Trump sees it the same way [i.e. that "the US is NOT innocent"] so it is only natural for Trump and Putin to form an alliance to keep the colonized peoples of the world 'behaving' as they should [subserviently].

Neoliberal economic globalization puts private interests before nationalist/imperialist interests and since that is eroding the greatness of the Russian and American Empires, it must be stopped. Facts are by agreement while interpretations formed by 'connecting the facts' differently are the source of disagreement.

"A fact, or datum, by itself is essentially meaningless; it is only the interpretation assigned to it that has significance" -- Robert Rosen

It is an [agreed by many] 'fact' that dissidents are disturbing the peace and productivity of society. One may assign the interpretation that dissident activism is (a), an intolerable disturbance of the peace and threat to authoritarian social structure that must be exterminated, or (b), that dissident activism is the natural fuel of evolution of the relational dynamics of society.

There are no 'absolute truths' at the bottom of this messiness to give it a stable foundation. See 'The Post-Truth Era of Trump is Just What Nietzsche Predicted'

More junk science from emile.

the anthropocentric concept of 'people producing things' derives from noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar. The intellectual morass of obscure, awkward and unnatural definitions of socio-economic people-organizing such as capitalism, socialism, market socialism and libertarianism given in this article rest dependently on the abstract concept of people as 'independent beings'. 'production' is then defined as something that 'people author' and the different socio-economic organizing categories derive from different ways of assigning attribution and value to the 'source[ror]s of production. these divisions into differing ways that PEOPLE can/should organize would lead to the same debates whether PEOPLE were living ON the earth, ON the moon, ON mars or ON a space station because capitalism, socialism and libertarianism are like GOVERNMENT that is BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND OF THE PEOPLE.

In other words, these socio-economic organizing schemes; capitalism, socialism, libertarianism, ... are ANTHROPOMORPHISMS.

indigenous anarchism, on the other hand, does not have the concept of people authored production, yet indigenous aboriginal peoples developed non-hierarchical and non-patriarchal and non-anthropocentric community dynamics which worked amazingly well without regulatory bureaucracy and impressed the founding fathers of the United States as well as European intellectuals such as Marx and Engels.

That is, indigenous anarchism is NOT a PEOPLE-CENTRIC organizing scheme; i.e. it is NOT a method of GOVERNING that is OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE. It is a RELATIONAL method of organizing that acknowledges humans are NOT 'independent beings' but relational features within an all-inclusive transforming relational continuum, and thus that humans are NOT the jumpstart authors of 'production' of anything. human farmers do NOT 'produce wheat', that is a semantic construct that is convenient because it delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach].

in the indigenous anarchist worldview, people acknowledge their inclusion in nature (the land) and thus they are not 'the producers of food' or anything else. to put a value on 'their labour' by portraying 'labour' as the 'source of production' is 'a great stupidity' in the indigenous aboriginal view, just as 'subject and predicate' constructs in general are 'a great stupidity' in the worldview of Nietzsche.

The three sisters of the Iroquois (sister bean, sister corn and sister squash) were planted together as a circle of interdependencies involving mutual giving and receiving, ... all of this being included in the circular embrace of 'father sky and mother earth'.

Man is included in this web-of-life; ... he did not create it and he cannot dominate and control it [colonize it] as the Western culture teaches its children to believe.

In 'Blackfoot physics' as in modern physics, the world given only once [subject and object are one], as a transforming relational continuum.

In this non-hierarchical (indigenous anarchist) worldview, epigenetic [field] influence inductively actualizes genetic expression [material production]. 'production' is 'appearances' while relational dynamics [non-local, non-visible and non-material] and their inductive field of influence are the primary physical reality, as affirmed also in modern physics ['field' influence, which is non-local, non-visible, non-material is in a natural primacy over 'matter' and 'material dynamics' which are local, visible and tangible].

'People' are NOT the authoring source of 'production' in this worldview; ... 'people' are agents of transformation that 'operate' from within the transforming relational continuum. people do not 'sit on top of the earth as separate things-in-themselves and jumpstart the production of houses etc. construction and destruction are not absolute actions-in-themselves, it is impossible to construct a house in the forest without destroying some forest. there are stumps where trees were taken for lumber, quarries where stones were take for foundations; i.e. people are agents of relational transformation and it is only noun-and-verb, subject and predicate 'semantic reality' that depicts humans as jumpstart authors or Ayn Randian fountainheads of material production.

So, no, ... 'labour' is not given credit for authoring 'production' in the indigenous anarchist socio-economic community, the land is given credit for authoring plants and humans alike. Unlike the picture of man preached by Western religions and Western science, humans, in the indigenous anarchist worldview, are not regarded as 'beings' equipped with God-like internal powers for the jumpstart production of things that prance about and construct stuff 'on top of the world'. As in Emerson's vision of man, humans are NOT things-in-themselves that causally author the production of stuff, but vents that transmit influences from the vast and universal to the point on which their genius can act [agents of transformation that are included within the transforming relational continuum].

The various definitions of capitalism, socialism, market socialism and libertarianism provided in the feature article are all based on a worldview in which humans are 'independent beings' who are deemed fully and solely responsible for their own actions and results, such as; 'production'. This view dates back to the Christian Church and to Newtonian science. Some would attribute 'production' to 'man's intelligence' so that white European knowledge and creative intellect are deemed the primary source that powers production while the 'menial labours' of indigenous peoples and other 'inferior species' are seen as consumable resources/commodities like stone and lumber [colonized resources used in extracting more valuable colonized resources]. Western political divisions, capitalism, socialism, libertarianism, derive from ego-based pissing contests that argue over who should get what share of the credit for; 'the production of wealth'.

There is no such concept as 'the production of wealth by humans' in indigenous anarchism and therefore no need for endless debate and warring over 'which humans or which human actions' deserve most credit for the 'production of wealth'. Churchill would kick the Palestinians off the land and move in Jewish people on the grounds of their superior capacities to 'make the desert bloom' [produce wealth]. Ayn Rand and most Europeans would do the same to the indigenous peoples of the world, since the latter show up as having 'inferior wealth producing capabilities.

It is not hard to see why many 'settlers' are moving towards 'de-colonizing' and 're-indigenizing' THEMSELVES. In the process, they get rid of the abstract concept of 'humans producing stuff' [the artefact of noun-and-verb based 'semantic reality constructions] and instead of 'organizing themselves' into a machine-like community that lives ON the earth or ON the moon or ON mars or ON a space station and that jumpstart authors production anywhere, ... they organize by way of a establishing relations with the world they are included IN. Instead of celebrating their notional 'independent thing-in-itself status' and 'competitive winner' status, they celebrate their interdependencies based on mutual giving and taking relations; i.e. with the three sisters, with their brothers, the rivers, lakes and oceanic waterways, within the embrace of father sky with mother earth.

as long as Western society has no interest in understanding the reality-shaping influence of language [e.g. as separates 'human inhabitants' from 'habitat' and leads to the notion of human-sourced production of wealth], the in-relational-harmony-and-balance-within-nature kind of community that is accessible to indigenous anarchists will remain inaccessible to capitalists, socialists, libertarians and non-indigenous anarchists [anarchists who have not yet decolonized and re-indigenized themselves].

aragorn's discussions on this podcast orient to 'anarchists' as if we know they exist even though we are still in the process of exploring 'what they are'. e.g. after discussing how east bay anarchists 'despise one another', how long he, or ariel 'have been anarchists', how 'anarchists come in 57 varieties' and how we define some of them, ... one gets the foggy impression that 'anarchists' are people that reject the way that society is 'currently being run' and have various ideas about 'how it should be run'.

rational scientific inquiry assumes that there is an 'objective reality' out there that puts us on the same page [our difference is purported to lie in our different theories about how to deal with it], and this appears to be an implicit assumption in aragorn's discussion of anarchists and anarchy.

the 'bar is being raised' in our general inquiry into 'the way that society is 'currently being run' and 'how it should be run' in the so-called 'post-truth' era in that we can no longer assume that there is an 'objective reality' out there that we can critically analyze and propose renovations to. Instead, the sort of questions that Nietzsche has raised and which are currently coming to the fore, as in 'the Post-Truth Era of Trump' concerning the fact that each of us may have our own subjective reality, there being no 'objective reality' that keeps us 'on the same page'.

This means that we can't blame the way that society is working on the socio-economic system [capitalism] and portray 'the fix' in terms of implementing a new/revised system [socialism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism].

That is, rational analysis assumes that there is an objective world out there that is explainable in terms of the actions of causal agents, so that if there are problems with how things are working, this must be due to problems coming from the actions of the causal agents. since we assume that these causal agents are 'independent beings' with their own internal process driven actions that they are fully and solely responsible for, ... we can isolate the source of problems to the 'socio-economic operating theory' that is directing their behaviour.

The ballgame totally changes in a 'post-truth' world where the source of the problem shifts from the 'socio-economic program' that individuals are employing, to subjective differences in how people interpret 'what is going on out there'.

"A core tenet of Enlightenment thought was that our shared humanity, or a shared faculty called reason, could serve as an antidote to differences of opinion, a common ground that can function as the arbiter of different perspectives. Of course people disagree, but, the idea goes, through reason and argument they can come to see the truth. Nietzsche’s philosophy, however, claims such ideals are philosophical illusions, wishful thinking, or at worst a covert way of imposing one’s own view on everyone else under the pretence of rationality and truth.
For Nietzsche, each perspective on the world will have certain things it assumes are non-negotiable – “facts” or “truths” if you like. Pointing to them won’t have much of an effect in changing the opinion of someone who occupies a different perspective. Sure enough, Trump’s supporters were apparently unperturbed by his poor performance under the scrutiny of fact-checkers associated with the mainstream and/or liberal media. These forces they saw as irretrievably anti-Trump in their perspective, with their own agenda and biases; their claims about the truth, therefore, could be dismissed no matter what evidence they cited." -- Alexis Papazoglou

Reason [forensic science and logic] tells us that the 9/11 hijackers were responsible for the death and destruction on 9/11. Intuition tells us that centuries of Euro-American colonizer abuse of colonized peoples cultivated relation tensions that sourced this and other eruptions of violence. More generally, intuition tells us that the authority that stone-walls dissident minorities and implements zero-tolerance programs to apprehend, prosecute and punish those that are 'pushing back' against authoritarian oppression, may amplify relational tensions and increase, rather than eliminate dissonance.

Logic and reason are themselves inherently subjective and incomplete. Western reason and moral judgement based justice is thus; "a covert way of imposing one’s own view on everyone else under the pretence of rationality and truth".

“How false is the supposition that an action must depend upon what has preceded it in consciousness ! And morality has been measured in the light of this supposition, as also criminality. . ." -- Nietzsche, on 'Morality' and 'Herd Behaviour' in 'The Will to Power'.

If we let our media spotlight stealthily wander around in the transforming relational continuum without a peep and then make great commotion as it comes to rest on the slave as he strikes the slave-master, ... the slave having been pushed round for so long that the growing relational stress has reached and exceeded the limits of his tolerance, ... we now have media capture of an 'objective truth' that will allow forensic science to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the slave is fully and solely responsible for the injury suffered by the slave-master.

Whoever is steering the media spotlight around within the transforming relational continuum can select and feature the 'events' or 'bits of objective truth' they would like to build their logical narratives around.

Is it time, as Nietzsche suggests, for a 'transvaluation' of our most important values such as we ascribe to 'reason' and 'morality' [that Western society and its language have put into an unnatural precedence over 'intuition' and 'relational balance and harmony']?

The point is that Aragorn's 'what is anarchism' podcast perpetuates a logic and reason based view of society in terms of 'independent beings' whose actions are internally driven by different theory-modules; 'capitalism', 'socialism', 'libertarianism' etc. which need to be recalled and re-fitted with one or other new modules such as 'anarcho-communism', 'anarcho-collectivism', 'anarcho-feminism', 'insurrectionary anarchism', 'eco-anarchism', 'anarcho-primitivism' etc.

This 'Euclidian' view where 'objective truth' rules, ... totally misses the point. What we experience derives from the relational influences in which we are situationally included. Our inhabitant dynamics are conditioning the dynamics of our common living space (habitat) at the same time as the dynamics of our habitat are conditioning our inhabitant dynamics.

If our neighbour digs down and intercepts our common aquifer so that our well runs dry, ... if they dispose of their wastes in the upstream reaches of the river that irrigates our fields, and if they put their stinkiest manure piles where the prevailing winds will take the fumes through our kitchen and eating areas, then it is a case of "the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- Mach's principle. In this relational space of our actual experience, causal responsibility is laundered out while some consistently draw the long straw and leave the short straw for others.

My points;

1. Aragorn's 'what is anarchism' review is the same old reason and logic based analysis which contends that rational theory is the source of the problem and that revised theory will be the source of the solution. NOT SO.

2. The jig is up and reason and objective truth are being exposed as;

"a covert way of imposing one’s own view on everyone else under the pretence of rationality and truth."

3. There is no longer any point in us being bound to accept 'the truth'; i.e. there is no such thing. Meanwhile, it would be a mistake to buy into our own subjective perspective;

"But if we really are living in Nietzsche’s post-truth times, we can’t rest within our own perspective, assured that, in the absence of an objective truth, our truth will do. Listening to the other side and taking it into account – seeing the world through as many eyes as possible – is now more important than ever."

I imagine that if the Axis had won there would be a colony on the moon, a sustainable global population of about one billion people and an environment devoid of the mass extinction rates we are experiencing now. Something resembling Huxley's Brave New World, but where all the races not of Nordic descent form the bulk of a serf class or else hiding in the remote wildernesses, the savages, the last races to escape any form of indoctrination. The orthodox Jews, ironically the purist white race due to their adherence to endogamy over the millennia, would be conducting a terrorist war of their own against the Axis, analogous to the fanaticism of the Sicarii rebels during the occupation of Judea by the Romans. Other indigenous races would also be conducting hit and run tactics if the terrain permitted, or else protected by the enormity of their isolation, possibly living a relatively secretive and simple existence. In plain terms, a global totalitarian industrial feudal kingdom lorded over by an aristocracy controlling the only arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and worshiping the substituted god of Hitler, analogous to the Maoist cult, North Korea's Kim Il-sung, and the capitalist mercantile drone worker President FDR.

TheCollective, can you please fucking do something about this Nazi-sympathizing piece of shit? You know he's so easily identifiable behind the pseudonyms he's been swapping over the years. At least focusing on remove his comments, like the obvious Neonazi propaganda above, would be much appreciated.

I know it must be a pain to deal with mosquitoes all year round...

If you had a smidgen of analytical acumen you would know that my above comment is actually anti-Nazi, the hypothetical state of the environment I imagined in the future merely introduced the topic of efficiency of management in the production and utilization of resources and populations and in no may inferred that these favorable outcomes could by applied to any ideological and cultural functions, which I in fact scathingly attacked. I am an empirical realist and creative surrealist, nothing more.

As philosophers have pointed out, when we remove all forms of being, the Western mind sees what remains as 'nothing', bringing on a mood of 'nihilism' and despair, while the Eastern mind sees what remains as 'everything'; i.e. the infinite potentiality of the pregnant plenum (field) also known as 'creative nothingness'.

The collapse of hard, factual 'truth' is the collapse of 'the centre', the admission that, although language and grammar represents 'Katrina' as a thing-in-herself that is responsible for a violent attack on New Orleans, 'she' has no centre because she is an epigenetically induced relational feature within a transforming relational plenum.

The dividing of the world up into many 'independent things' NOT deriving from and animated by the relational field of influence they are included in, was solved by Western man by putting 'Gods' inside these things [see William Blake's 'Marriage of Heaven and Hell']. Nietzsche's 'God is dead' implies that this is an anthropomorphism born of man's ego. We have imputed God power to the centre of ourselves and to the centre of all things, doing away with the relational [epigenetic] origins of things and their development and behaviour.

The destructive storminess of global terrorism has no centre, it is epigenetically induced. It has been convenient to impute a 'centre' of 'being' to it, and noun-and-verb language-and-grammar are great at doing this. If terrorism didn't have a central source, how could we chase it down and eliminate it? It is easier to think of it as having a centre that sources its behaviour so that we can 'get to the bottom of it', otherwise it takes on the form of a misty or mystic field of dark relational tensions. Invoking the notion of a central source allows the depicting of the storm-cell as a destructive inhabitant that attacks the passive habitat. Reason and morality have been working together to help us pinpoint the "true" sourcing centres of good and bad actions and results, giving a sense of 'reality' to 'production' and 'destruction' that we employ in our semantic reality constructions that eclipses our understanding of dynamics in non-dual terms of relational transformation.

We are culturally forbidden to see cornucopian fountainheads of production as epigenetically induced with Trump-like figures at the centre of them exposed as 'figureheads' rather than authoring sources. The hopscotching of CEOs from the eye of one storm-centre to the next would then be seen NOT as what sources and sustains the storms, but more like a hot-tub tour for figureheads.

The role of the figurehead is to convince everyone of the 'independent being' of the storm-cell and to sustain the memory of its proud history of jumpstart centre-driven production. The 'figurehead' in semiotics is the 'signifier'. That which is signified by the signifier could be a storm-cell, a relational feature in the transforming relational continuum [the plenum of infinite potentials], or it could be a local, material structure in the void of space. That is, the figurehead or signifier that speaks from the 'centre' can be seen as a source [producer of stuff], a sink [destroyer of stuff], and as a non-dual sink-source [a standing wave resonance or agent of transformation such as a convection cell in a flow].

One of the quantum physics consistent models of a particle is toroidal flow where the flow-lines of field-influence form a converging sink into the entrance hole of the doughnut form and a diverging source out of the exit hole, the doughnut form being purely relational. This is a 'standing-wave' resonance structure within the energy-charged plenum, in Eastern thought, within the emptiness of infinite potentiality.

These symmetries can constitute an alternative way of understanding 'reality' wherein 'materiality' is continually emerging from the creative emptiness of space, consistent with relativity;

" Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept “empty space” loses its meaning. " -- Einstein, 'Relativity'

"Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves." -- David Bohm

The collapse of belief in the 'centre' in the case of the political leader aka 'central governing authority' is currently being seen in terms of faulty incumbents, rather than a failure of the concept of centre-driven dynamics, but the 'writing is on the wall clouds', so to speak.

Anarchists and other dissidents know full well that the news is 'fake-news'. The news is a way of 'constructing reality' using 'events'. 'Events' do not have any reality of their own in a world of flux (a transforming relational continuum), but they can be captured in a visual record, such as the slave striking the slave-master. As Nietzsche says, we can't know the influences giving rise to the 'event' [Derrida's « différance » comes in here] nor the ultimate impact of the event. We can use a visual record to construct a logical reality; NEWS: "Slave Strikes Slave-Master." Logic is inherently subjective and incomplete; i.e. 'events' are inherently subjective and incomplete. Fact-checking does nothing to overcome this.

What we are distracted by with Trump is what we call 'his lies'. Since 'lies', are taken to be 'wrong' and 'bad', the logical implication is that there are 'truths', which are 'right' and 'good'. But there are no truths.

What we call 'truths' are 'events' that we can capture in visual records, such as video-footage that shows that 'the slave struck the slave-master'. Media is 'fake news' because it puts together 'events' which are 'true' [affirmed by a visual record] into a logical narrative tailored to fit the needs of the news readership; e.g. "The colonizers constructed a wonderful new world in America". This is put into history books and taught to settler children and become 'The Lies my Teacher Told Me'.

Of course, the colonized indigenous aboriginals could likewise put together a visual record affirmed, event-based narrative that establishes that "The colonizers destroyed a wonderful established world on Turtle Island". Everything in these narratives is backed up by visual records, but this is still 'fake-news'.

The news is consistent across a culture since it must sell copy and the dominant culture may not, for example, want to be reminded what they are doing to minorities such as blacks and indians'. "Fact-checking" the reporting on events that go into the news does nothing to guard against bias infused by selective exclusion of events [violence against minorities etc.].

Therefore the news is fake-news and its consistency across thousands of newspapers, radio stations and televised reports does not mean that there is an objective truth out there that everyone is homing in on. The consistency derives from the popular needs of the people and culture, not from any [non-existent] 'objective truth'.

How does one break the 'fake-news' stranglehold? One way is to make up false logical propositions that cater to popular needs that are not backed up by visual records, as Trump does [voter fraud in the millions etc.]. This news may 'sell more copy' than the mainstream fake-news is selling because it appeals to cynics who have lost faith in the mainstream news media (a growing proportion of the overall population).

Meanwhile, the fake-news mainstream media cry 'foul' because they have had the monopoly rights on lying, and did so often in the noble cause of national and cultural image management. But the jig is up because it is becoming clear that it is what people want to see and hear that sells news copy, and if the visual records backing up the truth promoted by newsmakers like Trump never come, it is not a big deal.

science is fake-news since it, too, builds narratives based on 'events'. A visual record can be captured which affirms the logical proposition that "DDT kills mosquitoes". But, since all logical propositions are inherently subjective and incomplete, interventions based on logical propositions engender 'externalities'. [interventions take place NOT in logical space but in the relational space of our actual, physical experience]. the benefits of science are thus radically anthropocentric.

Like fake-news in general, science reports on events that the dominant subscriber group want to hear; i.e. in the case of science, this is humans. Science is fake-news constructed to please human subscribers. If you are a digestive tract bacterium or an endangered species, science news with its reports on wonderful new discoveries and technologies beneficial to mankind will be transparently 'fake-news' like the colonizer fake-news that reported on 'constructing a wonderful new world in America, without reporting on how such actions were, at the same time, destroying a wonderful established world on Turtle Island. Science is fake-news biased to please the dominant subscribers.

Trump's contribution to understanding the world we live in, is his intuition and experimental proof that establishes that many people, including himself, let what they 'would like to hear' [i.e. their own biases] define what is newsworthy.

Andrew Sayer in 'Why We Can't Afford the Rich' argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.

The Western cultural tradition is to respect people who are successful in business, which means that they are winners in win/lose investment competition. They can prove the truth of the proposition that 'they are the authors of their own earnings' by visual records that show the documents and the signing of their acquisition of investments [the 'purchase' event] and the later signing of their sales of investments [the 'sales event'] and we can construct a logical narrative based on these two 'events' which attributes 'earnings' to the investor. Thus it is possible that the investor's earned income is unearned income" [a truth based on logical contradiction].

The investor is neverthelessl celebrated as a 'successful business person' and a 'winner' and thus an important 'contributor' to the community who people may elect as their representative in government because of their productive skills, their know-how in managing financial affairs and their overall 'winner' gestalt.

Socio-economic theories of 'trickle-down' economics would have government reduce taxes on these 'winners' and shift the burden to the 'losers' who aren't nearly as 'successful' (e.g. labourers) so that the winners will have the capital at their disposal to invest and to reap gains that will trickle down and benefit everyone, including the labourers.

The 'truths' employed here are used to construct a narrative wherein 'unearned income' is dressed up and passed off as 'earned income'; i.e. the banknotes used to spend unearned income are no different from the banknotes used to spend earned income.

earning unearned income is like investing in toll booths on bridges without having to use any of the revenues to maintain the bridge. It is parasitic and unsustainable.

But, it is also based on what modern society takes to be 'the truth' that supports 'win/lose competition' and celebrates, rewards and gives elite status and privileges to 'winners'.

if you look closely, you will see the basic flaw is in the inherent subjectivity and incompleteness of logic, and 'logic' is what enables us to break the relational continuum down into local-in-space-and-time 'events' or 'transactions' such as 'purchase' and/or 'sale' (buy low, sell high).

in science, we build models by assuming that 'the present depends only on the immediate past' so that the injury to the slave-master that shows up in the present must be due to the visually affirmed-as-true 'event' in which the slave slugged him, and science sees no need to investigate the progressive development of the phenomenon looking for influences from the remote past that might be influencing what unfolds in the present. the witnesses brought in by forensic science will affirm, as 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth', that 'the slave is guilty of the offense of injuring the innocent slave-master victim'. this 'doer' - 'done-to' ['guilty-offender' - 'innocent-victim'] symmetry is a logical tautology that derives from the foundational assumption in science that "the present depends only on the immediate past."

'as water is to a fish', so it is with science and its Euclidian operating theatre; i.e. there is no way that the fish could execute its acrobatic manoeuvres and feeding transactions without the traction and viscosity of the fluid medium it is included in. the fish does not live in a vacuum as logic does.

the same is true for man [space is not empty, it is full]. The transforming relational continuum is that fluid medium which is 'dropped out' by the process of 'differentiation' used to create an 'event'. 'events' are logic-based 'semantic realities' that are radical reductions of the physical reality of our actual experience of situational inclusion within the transforming relational continuum.

Subtracting the business person's 'sales revenues' from his/her purchase costs and finding a positive gain, does not imply that the business person is the author of the gain. One must look beyond vacuum-packed logic to the relational dynamics that the business person is situationally included in to understand the gain. The same as in the case of the guilty offender (slave) assaulting an innocent victim (slave-master).

Ways of Life 3: Indigenous Anarchism

In literally every debate about communism or anarchism in the Western world, we run into the same repeated sentiment: “It works only in theory or in small scale, but practically impossible for large societies, without becoming authoritarian nightmares”. But the existence of these indigenous egalitarian democratic syndicates with “citizens” numbering in the millions, and the fact that they have functioned very well for longer than anyone can remember, is clear evidence to the contrary.

The connection between 'indigenous anarchism' and 'modern physics' is also well established.

The point has been made that the simple being-based structure of Indo-European languages leads directly to hierarchical thinking and hierarchical structures while cultures with relational languages do not trap themselves inside a semantic reality where reason and binary (moral) judgements are put into an unnatural primacy over intuition (understanding from relational experience) and 'relational harmonizing'. Would you disagree with these findings of David Bohm as presented in 'Blackfoot Physics'?

“The problem with English is that when it tries to grapple with abstractions and categories it tends to trap the mind into believing that such categories have an equal status with tangible objects [relational complexes]. Algonquin languages, being for the ear, deal in vibrations [waves] in which each word is related directly, not only to process of thought, but also to the animating energies of the universe.
[in modern physics] It is impossible to separate a phenomenon from the context in which it is observed. Categories no longer exist in the absence of contexts.
Within Indigenous science, context is always important. Nothing is abstract since all things happen within a landscape and by virtue of a web of interrelationships. The tendency to collect things into categories does not exist within the thought and language of, for example, Algonquin speakers.
This leads to a profoundly different way of approaching and thinking about the world. For, in the absence of categories, each thing is mentally experienced on its own merits, and for what it actually is. Rather than indulging in comparison or judgment, Indigenous speakers attempt to enter into relationship with them.
What is needed, Bohm argued in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, is a new sort of language, one based on processes and activity, transformation and change, rather than on the interactions of stable objects. Bohm called this hypothetical language the “rheomode.” It is based primarily on verbs and on grammatical structures deriving from verbs. Such a language, Bohm argued, is perfectly adapted to a reality of enfolding and unfolding matter and thought.
David Bohm had not known when he wrote of that concept that such a language is not just a physicist’s hypothesis. It actually exists. The language of the Algonquin peoples was developed by the ancestors specifically to deal with subtle matters of reality, society, thought, and spirituality.
A few months before his death, Bohm met with a number of Algonkian speakers and was struck by the perfect bridge between their language and worldview and his own exploratory philosophy. What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” – F. David Peat, ‘Blackfoot Physics’

What exactly is the problem you are having with 'indigenous anarchism'?

"[...]only he understands."

please quit with the Othering.

he's definitely not the only non-dualist anarchist here.

i'd really pause and think about the implications of driving wedges between/using divide and conquer with commentors and how it will play out for years to come.

Emile has introduced some very relevant concepts relating to anarch consciousness and is being as concise as possible considering the complexity of the content, and that it is being explained in layman's terminology, since most who visit this site are in need of a broader conceptual palette other than the post-Marxist one they put all their eggs into, if you know what I mean.

you're right. it was an inappropriate dig. the dig should have been more along the lines of romanticizing the Other. or, explaining the indigenous to themselves.
there is no attempt to drive wedges, there is frustration with emile's insistence on his way as the only way. it's also nice that you think there is a "years to come." good to know.

does genetic heredity preclude one's developing a dualistic or categorical worldview which perhaps arises even without foreign influence? who's intuition isn't epistemically the only way, for them, anyways…
if relations are all there is, if rationality is illusory;
then the world is one (only)
and the indigenous way is unconditional dynamism -not subject to any other ordinance- ;
this is anarchy.
of course it's romantic to expound on such ekstasis, on the intangible symbiosis which binds and molds matter.

please explain what you got against romanticism and where do you see emile's establishing of an Other?
and how well will your taking-digs (from an authorized position over "community") promote a non-sectarian environment for discussion, going forward, please?

as indigenous peoples say, the oral medium allows us to understand by way of 'waves' and the vibrations are part of the message [the acoustic wave medium is the message]. this may be what is going on but it is easy to listen to voices that are sharing ideas with the listener as if we are in the room with them; i.e. there is a sense of community.

naturally, the 'sharing back' is bit more difficult since it is 'out of joint' and in visual text rather than in acoustic wave media,...anyhow;

the portland anarchist road care initiative is interesting not simply because it is a 'positive' rather than 'negative' initiative but also (moreso) because it is epigenetic inductive actualization sourcing genetic expression. this is the source of organization in indigenous 'anarchist' community. the needs as arise in the matrix of relational dynamics we are included in are the organizing influence that shapes our assertive actions, not some intellectually debated yang-driven plans, goals, objectives that are always finalized by the principle; "la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure" . that is the significance in the symmetry of 'holes-that-need-filling' (creative nothings), as in the 'yin/yang' symmetry of 'non-dualism'.

Our authoritarian structures come from dualist science/reason that splits apart yin/yang, gets rid of yin, and goes solely with 'yang'. this is where 'organizing' is restructured around notional 'things-in-themselves' and we get 'road and bridge maintenance'. As systems sciences pioneer Russell Ackoff points out, before the road was a road [before the system was defined] it was a twinkle in the community's eye [it was a need in the relational suprasystem it is included in] and it is this continuing twinkle in the community's eye that is it's raison d’être and inductive actualizer, orchestrator and shaper.

immanent in the portland anarchists PARC initiative is the continuing twinkle in the community's eye that is the inductive actualizer, orchestrator and shaper and THAT is where 'community direct action' comes from. sure, they called their actions 'road care' but in the derridean sense of différance [age old ethic of cultivating safe passage within the relational dynamics of community], rather than in the 'fixed identity' sense of “this is my job, assigned to me by the chain-of-command with responsibilities and standards of practice clearly defined by the authorities i am committed to serving".

once the epigenetic yin influence is out of the way [the so-called 'banishment of the goddess'], everything must be structured in a purely one-sided yang sense. the relational suprasystem whose needs inductively actualize the precipitating of 'genetic expression' (the local, material road system in this case) goes missing from the picture, and all we can see is 'the road and bridge maintenance department' along with a lot of blueprints and engineering specifications manuals that have replaced the twinkle in the community's eye. PARC is a resurrection of the twinkle.

Another point of 'system symmetry' arises in Aragorn's reading on 'class wars'. it is not realistic to say that the value of the production of wage labourers is "much greater than the pittance they are paid".

as indigenous anarchists understand, humans do not 'produce' anything. that is just the dualist 'yang' view after we get rid of 'yin' in the non-dualist yin/yang of nature. humans are included within the relational suprasystem which is the source, not of 'production' but of 'transformation' which is a production/destruction non-duality. production is just the yang aspect of a yin/yang destruction/production non-duality. it is impossible to produce without destroying. one can't construct a house in the forest without destroying some forest.

if people were to come to believe that 'production' on its own was possible and that the world, nature, was NOT a yin/yang production/destruction non-duality, then the one-sided orientation to production and continual growth would have such a system 'feeding on its own guts'.

our language is confusing our thoughts, actions and organizing, isn't it? what's that, 'shut up, you're interrupting our dialogue'?

Chuck Berry's passing also signals the demise of the 20th century left/right binary Western Weltanschauung and its satellite antagonist the Western anarchist tendency,,,,,,,,,,

'true and false' belong to cartesian/euclidian space, an intellectual contrivance that notionally (conceptually) splits material bodies and space into two, mutually exclusive 'logical elements'.

in the relational space of our actual physical experience, epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.

that is, according to our understanding of the physical world, "field" is in a natural primacy over "matter" [matter is a condensate of field] so that "matter" and "material dynamics' are NOT the primary physical reality, but they are the prominent "visible" phenomena.

if we employ the cartesian framework to reify relational forms and endow them with 'independent being' based 'identities' [back-filled by measured "local properties"], then epigenetic influence disappears [NOT FROM OUR EXPERIENCE BUT FROM OUR INTELLECTUAL BEING-BASED MODELS].

we then 'pick up on' the incomplete visual data of "material dynamics" using noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar to 're-present' [intellectually re-constitute] the beyond-visible, non-local, non-material relational dynamics of our physical experience, ... in the stilted, reductionist, mechanical terms of positive constructivist actions of these fixed "identity" beings, as if they and their actions were 'real' and as if they were deterministically authoring 'the social dynamic'.

there is no 'social dynamic' separate from the world dynamic. the notion of 'independent beings' with fixed 'identities' defined in terms of their 'local properties' is 'pragmatic idealization' which departs radically from the physical reality of our actual relational experience within the transforming relational continuum [the energy-charged field-plenum which is the source of everything, including ourselves, as Bohm puts it].

so yes, you are correct; i.e. our portrayals of human society are framed in euclidian space which imputes 'independent being', fixed local 'identity' and mechanically structured deterministic dynamics to relational forms.

This 'being-base' reality is idealization that is impossible in the physical reality of our actual relational experience. There is no reason why 'ants' and other 'lesser forms' could or would use it as their primary reference. The 'worker bee' is not inculcated with self-awareness of his 'identity' and inviolable 'role play' by the bee culture and its authorities, nor do bees call 911 if the hive is attacked because the police bees have been given the responsibility for mobilizing to quell disturbances.

the field of epigenetic influence inductively actualizes the diversity of forms on the basis of 'from each according to its creative potentials; ... to each according to its needs'. situational influence is primary and 'intention-driven action' is only how 'inductively actualized creative expression' 'appears'.

Science's habit of imputing a social dynamic to insects and animals is 'anthropomorphism' born of convenience and 'economy of thought'; i.e. an 'intellectual go-by', a 'map that is not the territory'.

what i am saying is that the 'being-based social dynamic' is a "semantic reality" 'construction' that plays out in our intellect but not in our actual experience. The divergence between intellectual [semantic] 'reality' and experienced physical reality engenders 'incoherence' in that there is always a gap between the logical and the experienced result [Bohm].

There should be no surprise that we BOTH: 'plan and accomplish 'the elimination of Saddam' AND we; 'experience 'the rise of ISIS', because of this gap that comes from using "being"-based intellectual models as if they captured the physical reality of our actual experience, which they do not.

PARC is sincere in their efforts and their stated defenses of the “action” seem to only make things worse:
“By creating structures to serve the same purpose as state structures, such as our organization, we have the ability to show that government is not necessary for society to function, that we can have a truly free and liberated society.”

what confuses the issue is that there is a non-dualist understanding of PARC's action as well as the standard dualist view and only the latter is explicitly articulable. When PARC opens their mouth to explain what they are doing, they use dualist constructs and trip over their own tongues.

in the non-dualist mode our direct action is epigenetically induced. a hole or need opens up and many of us in the community simultaneously move to fill it. organization manifests in the manner of everyone bringing something to build a newly wed couple a house to live in. there are no deliberate structures or deliberate plans of action in epigenetic, inductively actualized relational 'direct action' dynamics.

however, the excluded observer such as a reporter covering the event will describe the action in terms of 'who is participating and what they are doing'. the source of the action has now shifted from the need-that-induces, to the participants and their actions. this is the same shift in animating influence that associates with replacing the non-Euclidian (relational) space convention with the Euclidian space convention. In non-Euclidian space, movement is relative to the transforming relational configuration; i.e. there is no fixed frame as is necessary to describe the dynamics in terms of 'absolute motion' as when we speak in terms of 'people' and 'what they are doing'.

PARC's mistake is to try to describe 'what happened' in terms of 'what they are doing', which obscured the epigenetic inductive sourcing of the direct action.

In those cultures where the community gets together to build a young newly married couple a house, or to replace a house that has burned down, the 'creative nothing' (the need that inductively orchestrates) is the source of direct action and organization. language that describes this in terms of 'what things do' makes it appear that the organization is coming from the intellectual decisions of the people. obviously this would not be the case with animals in such mutually supportive dynamics but it is not so obviously NOT the case with humans because of our convention of modeling humans as 'independent beings with internal intellect-driven actions'; i.e. as programmable robots.

humans activities are often orchestrated by 'needs' that open up within the family or community, and they can be done 'on the fly' without talk and intellectual structuring.

"They were upright and correct without knowing that to be so was righteous. They loved one another without knowing that to do so was benevolence. They were sincere without knowing that to do so was loyalty. They kept their promises without knowing that to do so was to be in good faith. They helped one another without thought of giving or receiving gifts. Thus their actions left no trace and we have no records of their affairs' (Chuang Tzu, Ch. XII)

the growth of urban or industrialized lands is exactly reciprocally complemented by the reduction of rural or undeveloped lands. what is 'real' is the space on the surface of the earth which is undergoing continual-in-the-now transformation. ''town' and 'country' are just words the observer uses to name the dappled pattern that shows up on the surface of that transforming relational space. The dappled patterns implying spatially pervasive transformation are not 'real things-in-themselves' that 'scale up' or 'grow'. we may say 'Katrina' (the storm-cell) is growing larger and stronger (is scaling up) but this is the observer imposing his fixed-identity word-labels on different types of texture that show up on the observable surface of a transforming relational plenum. the non-storm-textured plenum shrinks in reciprocally complementary lockstep with the growth of the storm-textured plenum; i.e. we are looking at relational spatial transformation [that is the physical reality of our actual experience] and NOT 'fixed identity things-in-themselves that grow and shrink' [that is a convenient, economy of thought-delivering, 'semantic reality'].

The 'growth' of Napoleon's armies was by way of pissed-off locals across Europe, casting off the colours of their local 'rulers' and donning the colours of Napoleon. That is not 'growth' but 'transformation' [in nature, creation and annihilation are the non-duality of 'relational transformation']

The necessary condition for the concept of 'growth' to APPEAR to 'work' so that we believe this is what is 'really going on', is the semantic imposing of 'fixed identity'. The relational feature we call storm-cell and the transforming atmospheric flow-plenum are a non-duality. solar irradiance and thermal fields induce transformation of the atmosphere-plenum. this transformation is pervasive but human observer vision is constrained to the surficial and thus the observer sees 'boils' and uses language to assign word-labels like Katrina to them which 'fix their identity' as notional 'things-in-themselves'. We use 'fixed identity as things-in-themselves' to construct 'semantic realities' such as 'Katrina is growing larger and stronger'. No more relational transformation on our mental radar screens, only 'things-in-themselves-that-are-doing-stuff'.

Aspiring revolutionary movements dream of scale-up that will come when they show their colours in fullblown attack, liberating the oppressed peoples who will immediately don their colours aka join their ranks [this is the 'dream' as in Bay of Pigs]. In the physical reality of our actual experience, there is no 'real' scale-up or growth because there are no 'real' fixed identity things-in-themselves. that is, the notion of scale-up is an artefact of imputing 'fixed thing-in-itself identity' to something as blurry, even, as 'anarchism'. anarchism is 'blurry' because it is a way of relating, an inhabitant-habitat non-duality, not a fixed identity 'thing-in-itself' that waxes/grows and wanes/shrinks 'over time'. An anarchist can't step into the same social flow twice, because that social flow is not the same social flow and because the anarchist is not the same anarchist.

yes, deconstructions of superficially simple concepts such as 'scale-up', smooth metal that was formerly coinage before the fine print wore off, .. does take more words.

"What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins." -- Nietzsche

culture is language, and language, culture

any group of people can assemble a set of words and definitions that willing participants can agree on the meaning of, as in 'sovereigntism'. the semantic reality they construct can be used as an operative reality to shape their behaviours. they become [see themselves as] a system-in-itself thanks to this language-game.

this 'system-in-itself' is an intellectual reality; i.e. 'semantic realities' are not physical realities. if the language-game-group aka 'culture' continue to believe in the system they are in, they will continue to use it to direct their behaviour, whether defending and promoting the 'Kingdom of Ralph' or whatever their language game would have them do.

Every one of these 'semantic systems-in-itself' is included within a real physical suprasystem. Ackoff's example is 'academia' or 'the university'. It is not a physically real thing-in-itself, but a relational activity within a community. The people in the community in the valley in the biosphere etc. could run the university from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. as a secondary activity to participating in family and community dynamics etc.

The example makes clear that the university is 'an activity' rather than a 'thing'. you cannot park it in a large garage and bring it out when you need it because it 'DOES NOT EXIST AS A PHYSICAL THING IN ITSELF'. It is an activity defined by words and terms agreed upon by those who like the idea, and who climb into it like a group of people who climb into and animate a dragon costume. They go home at night and the dragon costume is left behind like an empty snakeskin. It is convenient to signify relational activities as things because it delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach]. noun-and-verb language-and-grammar delivers so much 'economy of thought' it drops out the relational essence of its own message.

There are NO closed systems [system-in-themselves] in the physically real world. There are NO 'cultures' as 'things-in-themselves' in the physically real world. That is Nietzsche's point, we take an activity like 'schooling' and by a double error in grammar, we (a) impute thing-in-itself being to it and invent the noun 'school', and then, using it in subject-verb constructs we; (b) impute to the 'school' thing-in-itself, the God-like jumpstart powers to 'school people'. The relational activity that is the real authoring source is subsumed by a monty python cartoon of a long line-up of students whose craniums flip open as they pass under a schooling feed pipe and get an infusion of schooling.

There is an inversion in the direction things move here. As Ackoff points out, the activity of schooling is inductively actualized within the relational dynamics of community before we ever invent the subject name 'school'. Everything in the physically real world is animated by epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes genetic expression such as the activity we call 'schooling'. How about 'Americaning'? 'Americaning' is another language game activity played within the physically real global relational suprasystem. It played by all those who agree to accept the language-game terms and are given game-play memberships.

That is, sovereigntists are of a culture category that agree on symbols and definitions and construct a 'semantic reality' that they use as an 'operative reality'. This process is generally available to us. Try it! It is how mafia's etc. form. Once you have a group that agrees on terms and definitions and constructs its own 'semantic reality', it can be used as an operative reality that directs individual and group behaviour. It is a pattern of activity like a flash-mob, not a fixed identity thing-in-itself, but it is included within a physical reality ["relational suprasystem"], which is Ackoff's point.

You can have a 'school' within a 'mafia' or a 'mafia' within a 'school' since these are relational activity patterns and NOT physical things-in-themselves. They come alive like a dragon costume, they are not 'the dragon'. The whirlpool's form persists, waxing and waning with the intensity of the activity passing through it, like the ancient village market as generation after generation flows through it. The map is not the territory.

'Systems' [cultures] are relational activities in the flow, NOT physically real. What is physically real is "the world given only once, as a transforming relational continuum". There are no real, physical systems driven by human things-in-themselves that 'produce results'. That is a Hobbesian/Lockean illusion born from Genesis 1:28.

Western society is notable for constructing semantic realities and confusing them for physical reality. Saddam Hussein's regime was not a 'thing-in-itself', ... it was a culture, a language-game sourcing a particular pattern of relational dynamics. It was mistaken for a 'thing-in-itself' by other 'language-game-playing groups, among which, 'Americans'. It was no coincidence that the relational activity pattern that referred to itself as 'Americans' mistook an activity pattern called 'Saddam's regime' for a 'real thing-in-itself' since they first mistook their own language-game-playing activity pattern for a 'thing-in-itself';

“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 reason why there is a huge disconnect between the plans of groups that believe themselves to be 'real systems' and what is happening to us in our actual physical experience is captured in John Lennon's aphorism;

"Life is what happens to us while we are busy making other plans"

In other words, our planned and predicted results from our 'systems' that we proudly take credit for, are not 'reality'. The regime of Saddam Hussein was a pattern of relational activity within the relational suprasystem. It was not a 'thing' with Saddam's head on the body of it. The 'elimination of Saddam' was impossible because there was "nothing" there, only a relational activity pattern hatched by a language game. The figurehead was eliminated on the belief that it was a fountainhead, and the eliminatory intervention, in physical reality, transformed the relational patterns in a manner described as 'the rise of ISIS'.

every culture and subculture [e.g. punk] and commercial enterprise and sovereign state that one cares to name is a language game. every one of them engenders 'externalities' because they are language-group-games that assume a 'semantic reality' that is nothing like the physical reality of their/our actual experience. [they induce an intellectual disconnect from physical reality]. The 'objectives' of 'systems', being 'logical', are often achieved, like the elimination of Saddam, but none of the system objectives refer to the physical reality of our actual experience. A system whose objective is the elimination of a notional local, visible, material system-in-itself, when that system is, in physical reality, a relational activity within a transforming relational continuum, is the source of 'incoherence'. The local, visible, material aspect is extinguished while the underlying relational tensions [root source] persists, morphing into new local, visible, material features.

It is entirely feasible that a powerful language-game promoter could pre-empt the Saddam cultural language-game-play, swapping it out for another without physically changing out any of the game-playing members; i.e. by changing out the semantic 'operative reality'.

Software revolutions are less bloody than hardware revolutions and cultures are inherently software rather than hardware based.

Sure, it would be nice if there really were 'systems' that we humans would be in control of that generate results according to our plans and desires, rather than systems as 'pseudo-realities' that come from 'dreaming together' [as a language-game-playing culture] The 'reality' is, meanwhile;

"Life is what happens to us while we are busy making other plans"

anarchists believed in a society without authorities. to attain this, they consequently needed to overthrow the prevailing late nineteenth century social and political machine.this led to 2 styles for the Dissertation Help UK of anarchists, firstly,individuals who produced propaganda of the word, which includes prince peter kropotkin, a famous russian anarchistic.

I thought, let's have a look at this thread, skimmed through, thought fuck it... what's the point. Although, I have to say this is typical of Virtual Anarchism in that this is what VA looks like. We could call it WA as in Waffle Anarchism. Can you imagine Capitalists talking talking talking capitalism? No, the Capitalists actually get on and do it in the real world AND at the keyboard. But they know owning the physical world is where their wealth aka power truly resides.

Too complicated to be symbolised through words. It just cannot be done yet people continue to try! Keep rolling that rock up that hill.

This is the best thing and will lead to some of the best results for the people. It will not only help you make the proper decisions, but will also help you create the best opportunities for yourself. uk dissertation
.This will ensure that you make the best decisions and then generate the best results.

anarchists believed in a society without authorities. to attain this, they consequently needed to overthrow the prevailing late nineteenth century social and political machine.this led to 2 styles for the dissertation service uk of anarchists, firstly,individuals who produced propaganda of the word, which includes prince peter kropotkin, a famous russian anarchistic.

I know you're an advertising spambot, but please don't bump Emile. He's annoying enough as it is.

Trust me - bumping Emile will lose you business.