TOTW: Intellectual Colonization

  • Posted on: 9 October 2017
  • By: SUDS

Actions speak louder than words. When the BP Corporation speaks of their commitment to oceans and wildlife we know how empty these inferences are because we know their actions speak a different truth.

Although a set definition of anarchist principles offer a guiding light to some, anarchism is typically viewed as an explicit rejection of homogeneity of definition and of the use of coercive force to organize action. Yet many experience a different truth, one in which anarchist principles are enforced by a select few. Is it possible for anarchist culture to exist without these colonialist tendencies?

For Bakunin, a sort of covert leadership was the answer. “If we are anarchists, by what right do we wish to and by what method can we influence the people? Rejecting any power, by what power or rather by what force shall we direct the people's revolution? An invisible force--recognized by no one, imposed by no one--through which the collective dictatorship of our organization will be all the mightier, the more it remains invisible and unacknowledged, the more it remains without any official legality and significance." Bakunin's June 2, 1870 letter to Nechayev

How, though, is this any different or better than explicit leadership? In fact, might this covert unspoken 'force' be even more insidious, resulting in 'in-groups' who are 'in' on these implicit norms and their enforcement, and those who are excluded (either by choice or through the will of the in-group) with no spoken rules or agreements to negotiate? If we are to oppose populism, vanguardism, and the unquestionable influence that Big Men have on our culture, then why is their persuasive clout given so much agency?

Our legends of large inclusive assemblies, structured by the 'invisible hand' of autonomous organization, rarely materialize, and when they do they have hardly stood the test of time. So frequently there are one or more Anarcho-Geppettos pulling the strings on what principles and narratives are appropriate and which are not.

As Bookchin put it in ‘Nationalism and the National Question’, “there is a need to achieve universality in order to abolish class society.” Who then, if not those with the most social capital, are to colonize our thoughts with their most moral conception of anarchy and society?

In Green Anarchy, Marcos Zapatista remarks that, “Colonialism is one of the many enemies we are fighting in this world and so long as North Americans reinforce colonial thought patterns in their ‘revolutionary’ struggles, they will never be on the side of any anti-colonial struggle anywhere. We in the Zapatista struggle have never asked anyone for unflinching, uncritical support.”

If we desire a homogenous definition of what it means to be anarchist and banish those whose influence opposes our own, are we not colonizing culture and thought? Is this not the gilded cage of mental slavery, wherein we insist that as long as we can live by a certain set of rules then we shall be welcome, but if we dream of something different then we must find somewhere else to call home?



I don't think a DESIRE for a homogenous definition of @ colonizes shit. In fact, "colonizes" is a frustrating word choice - a further stretch to an overused, margarine-word metaphor. And I suppose I could say some shit about "slavery" too, but I'll leave it.

Anarchy is not a home, it's a word. This totw essay plays at the emotions people have about history and what it means - arguably, following Perlman, already a dangerous activity that ought to be discouraged - and tries to elide this into a problem of political disagreement among people who associate positively with this word. It is a moral argument without ethical content, just a desired destination and an emotional strategy in play to convince a person like me to get there.

Obviously I'm being a hater. I think there is a problem with invisible dictatorship, and I'm generally pretty liberal about what people want to do with their time. Go ahead, indulge in... Adam Lanza fandom? (Srsly the worst article in Black Seed #5.) But hmm, depending on what it us, I think it is entirely appropriate to say, Maybe go somewhere else with that shit? Like a scat play party taking place in the living room of a collective house, so too do people feel about Atassa at bookfairs. Perhaps they are just PRUDES though, lol.

There are some people who want to be real rude about the definition of anarchy, also, to exclude (explicitly or not) anything they're not into, basically a "no true Scotsman" thing. But then there's also people striving to be accurate. It is a widespread fallacy to think words' semantic contents have fixed borders, but working within this fallacy, this is hardly morally objectionable. Personally speaking, it is very rare for me to say "you are not an anarchist", but I definitely raise my eyebrows when some people use that word for themselves, given what they're into (and this includes some crypto-Leninists fwiw, not just post-left types). It's like, you seem to be using that word because you want to recruit or you want to belong. Understandable, but why the fuck should I feel duty-bound to accommodate you?

EDIT: Writing comments in the morning on a smartphone is a bad idea. Edited for legibility this Thursday morning.

But I think mutual aid has to do with a level of shared oppression, atomization or precarity, you know... and being at least silently aware of it together. Of course nobody has to offer accomodation to anyone, tho that'd be nice in the cold winters for a few days
But helping people just due to their anarchist claims? That's weird. They'd be at the end of the line of broken derelict homeless dudes waiting to spend some time in my expensive loft. And anyways they're more fun people than those anarcho-leninist robots, even if weird or fucked up at times, but eh... the humanity lol.

so I don't know how to reply. My whole point is that anarchy is not a home... It's a word. Regarding actual homes, I think it'd be cool to be more accommodating, even to people who are a little fucked-up; my guess is that if more people did that, less people would be as fucked-up.

It's been an understatement for a long time in radical psychiatry that the crazies -at least many of them- have become so due to these invisible walls... often made concrete by actual doors and walls, yet are originally made of incommunications.

Fuckedupedness is a product of poor or dodged communications. People become of remain sane when they can measure and compare to others like equals.

Whoa did Shadowsmoke has the infamous Commenting Time Machine!? How come his comment came in just a few minutes back, when it was posted 1-2 days back?

I mispelled "about" and one sentence was completely out of whack, syntax-wise. It's because I'm a verified user.

The answer to leadership based on technical specialisms is skill-sharing.

The answer to covert intellectual leadership is for everyone to develop the ability to think critically and formulate their own ideas.

I'd advise people trying to *theorise* anarchist thought to look at Freire on cultural submersion, and the last part of Gramsci's Selections from the Prison Notebooks on this kind of thing. Also "Critical Thinking as an Anarchist Weapon", "Strip the Experts", and "Revolutionary Pleasure of Thinking for Yourself". And if you can manage it, Deleuze/Guattari on problem-fields, concepts, and nomad/royal sciences, and Korzybski or Postman/Weingartner on the difference between what people perceive and what people think. Read Hakim Bey on the source of values in chaos, in desire, and in altered consciousness. Add in Bonanno on propulsive desire and Stirner on wheels in the head, and maybe Barthes on myths, Boal's cops in the head, Vaneigem, and you've pretty much got an anarchist theory of critical thought.

Quick summary: if you aren't thinking for yourself, you're probably being manipulated by someone else who is. Everyday common sense is confused, contradictory, responds to right-wing dog-whistles, and is easily channelled by the media and politicians. Your average right-wing press reader thinks they're thinking for themselves but they're just jumping to conclusions they've been primed to reach. Autonomy is useless if we don't have our own projects and an ability to reconceptualise the outer world through them.

Every anarchist needs to be able to spot a moral panic, a wheel in the head, an order not to think, or a standard COIN media strategy, as easily as they can spot a police line forming, an undercover infiltrator, an alt-right troll, or a political takeover attempt.

Every anarchist needs to be able to suspend judgement and consider whether the facts fit several possible narratives.

Every anarchist needs the Geertzian skill to interpret and understand other points of view on a deep level - even when one rejects them.

Every anarchist needs to be able to conceptualise and process sensory information *from multiple points of view at once*.

Every anarchist needs the ability to process, and change their mind based on, empirical evidence, without uncritically worshipping science. This means being able to tell the extent to which a particular belief is an effect of sensory evidence and the extent to which prior schemas, fantasy-frames, axioms shape the ways the evidence is selected, generated, or interpreted (every item of knowledge is *both* to some extent). It does not help us to say "it's science so it's true", or to say "all mainstream knowledge is statist, racist, authoritarian, patriarchal, and therefore useless". Either leaves us trapped in common sense.

Every anarchist needs to perfect the art of thinking structurally - instead of morally - about social problems and their causes (e.g. radical criminology).

Every anarchist needs to be able to tell the difference between a latent common sense belief they haven't questioned, and an idpol or other politician telling them what their "real motives" or "real significance" is. (People from oppressed backgrounds have naive common sense assumptions as much as, if not more than, people from so-called privileged backgrounds).

If people have these abilities - it doesn't matter if there's an intellectual hierarchy, because they won't have any power. If people don't have these abilities - they're probably being manipulated.

Anarchism is (tendentially at least) a "conception of the world" in Gramsci's sense. It's an entire other way of seeing, a different problem-field from the mainstream (and also from Marxism and idpol). Anarchism starts from desire, or will, or autonomous subjectivity as the driving force of its conception of the world. This requires relating to one another horizontally, as rhizomes. Once someone's thinking (and reacting unconsciously) in terms of desire and rhizomes, responses to particular issues come pretty naturally. It becomes possible to feel micro-fascism as and when it appears, to feel autonomy and act towards it. It doesn't need a lot of theory - just a consistent sense of the point of focus and the forces arrayed against it. To be absolutely outside, or to move absolutely outside, what and *how* the system wants us to think.

Generally, people become anarchists because an intense, powerful experience - of a riot, say, or a festival or party, or a particularly inspiring piece of direct action - overrides the attachments which tie them to the status quo and its ways of generating meaning. Alternatively, people who have no existing attachments, who can't plug into the mainstream, are drawn to the rhizomes of anarchism. This is the first step. People already begin to process things through this new source of meaning - not through the system's meanings. But it's hard to move beyond the processes of statist thought which are present in so much of social life. It isn't some sad, traumatic "learning through discomfort" like idpols propose - it's more a matter of following through one's own desires and beliefs more consistently. Clearing out cops in the head. Anarchism is a type of inner desire which disperses power, which breaks the hold of the state, capital, "society" on the individual, the unique one, or on the flow of desire. But thought needs to follow from this desire. Too often, the internal managers and survival parts of the unconscious kick back into superego, statist, moral reactions even after the break is made. And the entire apparatus of repression and recuperation is designed to encourage this process.

Anarchist thought is thought which disperses power. It is dispersed thought. It is not the imposition of a blueprint, a *different* concentrated power (as most radical politics is). And it is not self-disempowerment (as Buddhism and postmodernism often are). It is thought - and desire, feeling, fantasy - which disperses, diffuses, decentralises power - which infrapolitically, micropolitically balances against any concentration of power, sabotages, subverts, exoduses, rages against it - which in its very structure as well as its content, saps power from centralising signifiers and places power in the zone of desire itself.

Anarchist thought starts from desire, the ego, the will, and favours diffuse or dispersed power for this reason. Thinking in terms of general social and moral categories is not thinking from desire. If one hears a story about a fugitive, and one's first thought is "what an awful thing he did", one is thinking from a state point of view. If one is first thinking about the state's technologies of capture and the will to escape, one is thinking from an anarchist point of view. If there's a spectacular mediatised terror event, and your first thought is about bad guys and victims, you're thinking like a state. If your first thought is about civil liberties and the global context of civil war and how to fight back against lockdowns, you're thinking like an anarchist. If there's a noisy party in your neighbourhood, and your first thought is "fucking cunts, how inconsiderate", you're thinking like a state. If your thought is, "different people have different desires, and the system makes them so hard to reconcile", you're thinking like an anarchist. If a state plans a ban on far-right protests, and your first reaction is "good, racism disgusts me", you're thinking like a state. If your first reaction is, "this is dangerous, it will be used against us next", you're thinking like an anarchist.

I know people with no theoretical training whatsoever, who seem to naturally think like anarchists - often because they're traumatised by authority, or they've lived in autonomous zones for a lot of their life. There are indigenous groups who are not anarchists, do not call themselves anarchists, yet in many ways think like an anarchist. There are people who are not anarchist, who are anti-anarchist, who think like anarchists to the extent that their own communities or networks or movements are pitted against the state. And there are people who claim to be anarchists, who *are* anarchists in most of their macro-politics, who do *not* think like anarchists, but rather, think like the mainstream. These people are incapable of revolution because of the cops and wheels in their heads. Ultimately a clever media strategy or a social crisis rigged the right way would be enough to get them acting like just another curtain-twitching Fox-viewer. I'd count most left-anarchists and idpols in this category. They could have a revolution, create no-go zones, and all the state would have to do is encourage some drug dealing or petty crime and they'd start acting like pigs. Because they care about spooks and morality, in-group and out-group, more than they care about dispersing power.

thecollective has been removing my 500-600 word comments [this one is 587 words], insisting that it is not on the grounds of their judgement of the quality, but on the grounds they're too long. are you part of the invisible leadership team that is colonizing anarchism?

where you say;

"Anarchist thought starts from desire, the ego, the will, and favours diffuse or dispersed power for this reason"

this is the typical view of science and rationality (rather than intuition) where the world dynamic is seen as emanating from a thousand local points of self-asserting genetic agency. your view of anarchist thought seems to retain the thousand points of locally asserting genetic agency and find quarrel only with political consolidation of people as atoms of creative force, as you imply occurs in the 'state'.

the state is like a large plantation that monopolizes access to essential resources of the land (through a hierarchy of privileged landowners and political cronies), in order to inductively actualize, orchestrate and shapes the lives of the unlanded and disopportunized, by holding out as a carrot that access to resources and and opportunity necessary to 'having a life' and to experiencing the inductive blossoming of one's creative potentials. This is where the state's soldiers come from who are 'loyal to the flag', who are called in or 'drafted' to fight wars in Vietnam. what is being 'called in' is the bond of loyalty and trust affirmed by a sworn 'oath of allegiance' in exchange for the 'privilege' of being allowed to 'reside' within the state/plantation, ... which colonizers issued in the wake of massive land grabs, displacing indigenous peoples and establishing a loyal 'settler' community said to be all 'free and equal brothers'.

burning all those oaths of loyalty that the state is holding and uses to keep the herd in line doesn't liberate the thousand points of genetic agency which can reconnect in rhizome fashion as some kind of common desire animated horizontal collective because it doesn't address the belief in land ownership wherein man sees himself as separate and apart from nature, and having his own genetic agency that he can apply to 'improving the land'.

it turns out that a man is not a single point of genetic agency whose "Anarchist thought starts from desire, the ego, the will, and favours diffuse or dispersed power for this reason" and who is fully and solely causally responsible for his own actions and achievements.

instead, man is a sailboater who derives his power and steerage from the relational dynamics he is situationally included in, where he is exposed to monopolized land ownership which is the equivalent of legally licencing the stealing of the wind from the sails of others, and becalming them, unless they agree to the indenturing of themselves and family members into serving as simple seamen on monopolist luxury schooners with a chance to improve one's 'living accommodations' up from bilge and steerage class through to cabin class with a shot for the privileged few, at first class.

man and land [inhabitant and habitat] are a nonduality. regarding them as two separate things with man depicted as a point of inside-outside asserting 'genetic agency' is the problem. man is nothing without being able to draw his power and steerage from the relational dynamics he is situationally included in. pulling out of the state and thinking in terms of horizontal rhizomes doesn't address Western man's dualist, local genetic agency-endowed thing-in-himself delusions

who's claiming desire, the ego or the will as local agencies?

Hey emile,

As "part of the invisible leadership colonizing anarchism" [sic] here is a reply to your 857 reply. The prior comment by @critic (not verified) 05:43 seems like a long thoughtful reflection on the TOTW (I haven't read it all yet). In your 587 word reply you pretty much rehash everything you've ever said on this website, perhaps not; but none-the-less, it is still a lot. I imagine the patient researcher could possibly go back into prior comments and find a lot of similarities in what you write. Did you listen to the ANEWS podcast editorial mostly about you (#31)? I think you have interesting things to say and I'm glad you're here, but you're complaining about things and taking shots at us for things we've already tried to speak with you about and find some alternatives, like the forums. Perhaps we should take your possible response there or via email if you'd like and keep the discussion more closely focused on the TOTW. thanx

- thecollective 1.8

No let's rather hear about what Emile has to say about the Fifth Lateran Ecumenical Council and its relations to the advent of Indigenous Anarchism TM in the light of doer-deed subset of non-relational plenums. Because of if it's from Emile, it is evermore relevant. Right, Emile?

relax a little.

just because the editor has all the power over what doesn't get said doesn't mean she has to use it. i lived in a country where the newsstand dealers got a long list from the government of things that had to be edited out of incoming newspapers and so they had to get busy with black felt pen markers as soon as the newpapers came in and it was an hour or two before the papers went on sale and then some pages were mostly blotches of black. it was a hell of a lot of work for the editors, but i wouldn't necessarily blame it on the writers.

in the case of my above comment on the TOTW, if you should read it, i point to the basic flaw in colonization that shows up in the John Gast 'American Progress' painting (commissioned by George Crofutt in1872) that thecollective used to introduce this TOTW. This same flaw carries on in @critic's comment that you describe as "a long thoughtful reflection".

The flaw is that European colonizers saw themselves as 'bringing progress' to a wild and primitive world when what was being brought in, instead, was the subsuming of intuitive reality with Western scientific reality. As Crofutt points out;

"“In her right hand she carries a book—common school—the emblem of education and the testimonial of our national enlightenment, while with the left hand she unfolds and stretches the slender wires of the telegraph, that are to flash intelligence throughout the land.” The Indians flee from progress, unable to adjust to the shifting tides of history. "

Scientific reality depicts man as an 'independent thing-in-himself driven and directed by his own internal agency (desire, ego, will). This abstract scientific view of man, an artefact of Euclidian space framing, is ably nailed by Nietzsche which is why I sometimes repeat his quotes. but @critic carries in the 'thing-in-himself' view of man, the basis of Gast's colonization painting eulogizing 'progress'.

"Anarchist thought starts from desire, the ego, the will, and favours diffuse or dispersed power for this reason"

Who gets to decide which reality we use for interpreting current affairs? 'realist' [duality and being based] or 'intuitive' [nonduality and relations based]? Thecollective critiques emile's "overly complex language". yes, of course, the scientific reality offers simpler and more concise semantics which are also more familiar and more popular, but scientific reality 'drops' the meat out of the relational message. i.e. relational space representations take more words;

“Finally, our Euclidean geometry is itself only a sort of convention of language; mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a [relational] non-Euclidean space which would be a guide less convenient than, but just as legitimate as, our ordinary space ; the enunciation would thus become much more complicated, but it would remain possible. ” – Henri Poincare, Science and Hypothesis

"much more complicated" translates into "many more words" which are meanwhile "just as legitimate".

as the APs seem to intuit, scientific 'progress' is a kind of Faustian bargain where man gets to ignore inhabitant-habitat nonduality and instead assume inhabitant-habitat duality; i.e. separateness of inhabitant and habitat so that the inhabitant can do whatever he wants without having to understand the impact on the habitat. in this scientific, dualist reality, we delude ourselves into believing our 'advances' are 'improving on nature'. DDT does get rid of mosquitoes and a bug-free environment is, in scientific reality, a sign of Western society's relentless march of progress.

Thecollective gives the nod to the 'realist' views of @critic and dismisses the 'intuitive' view of emile

Could there be a 'Realist' bias (intolerance) in Anarchistnews Editorial policy

Yes, my argument is for diffuse power, not for self-disempowering holism. Personally, I've always found Emile's repetitive reflections rather amusing and thought-provoking. But I can see why they annoy people. They are very, very repetitive. And very rarely engage directly with the topic at hand – aside from to say that anything differing from Emile's point of view repeats the same epistemic mistake.

>this is the typical view of science and rationality (rather than intuition) 

An expressionist-vitalist view is not at all a scientific-rational view. Desire and will are not rational.

>where the world dynamic is seen as emanating from a thousand local points of self-asserting genetic agency

Yes, that's pretty much what I believe. The thousand local points stem from a common flow of becoming, but they are differenciated, unique. They don't have a single flow behind them – if they did, there would not be antagonism among them.

>doesn't address the belief in land ownership wherein man sees himself as separate and apart from nature, and having his own genetic agency that he can apply to 'improving the land'.

I didn't say anything about land ownership. I didn't say that humans *alone* have creative force or desire. I think humans need a habitat, as do all living creatures. Humans can't be separated from land, air, water, nutrients, maybe even other humans, without disruptions appearing in their own lives and desires. Anarchy can only flourish in an abundant world where interrelation and play and creativity and the formation of human-nonhuman assemblages is deeply possible. The primitivist image of a 'wild' world is one of the clearest manifestations of such a possibility. Desire is more like intuition than it is like scientific knowledge.

I don't see myself as a coloniser bringing a book to the natives. Far more, I see myself as someone who has been outside, trying to tell the people on the inside that the outside exists, when they don't want to hear it. If you've lived a lot of your life outside the system, you've experienced a lot of altered states of consciousness (whether from drugs, psychosis, meditation...), or your upbringing is radically non-western, then your intuitions may serve as an outside to the system. But this is not true for most people. Most people's intuitions – even indigenous people's intuitions, in contexts where they've been colonised – are heavily affected by the surrounding reality, i.e. by modern society. People will therefore *intuit* - not only deduce – that they are separate people, that nature is a pool of resources to be exploited (or a lingering threat), that power is necessary to tame a Hobbesian human nature, etc. Because intuitions, like beliefs, involve schemas and libidinal investments, and these are affected relationally. We can only intuit from our immediate surroundings – and these surroundings are alienated, separated, segregated, restricted in various ways. If I was born in prison and never left, my intuition would be that nothing exists but prison. I would only find an 'outside' to prison in books, or in dreams, or in desire. Sadly, most modern people have been incorporated as local hubs of the cybernetic machine, “intuitively” replicating the machine's patterns, for instance in the ressentiment which drives horizontal policing and purging.

The fight between postmodernity and science is a localised fight in academia. I've not seen much evidence that the common sense of the majority of bosses, pigs, screws, workers, peasants, oppressors or oppressed people, is an effect of Cartesian or Kantian reason, or of modern science. It is the designs of the powerful and the common sense of the oppressed which create social systems – not the arcane concerns of academics. Now, there may well be crudified versions of Kantian rationalism and positivist scientism in common sense – but not because everyone memorises Kant and Newton at the age of three. The process of diffusion is indirect, and often stems from living within systems which are constructed from rationalist assumptions – schools, factories, offices and so on. With the exception of newly colonised groups, people do not learn that modern reason is true in contrast to their own intuitions – they intuit that modern reason is true as a depiction of a modern reality which is the only reality they know, and which their intuitions can grasp. This is why someone can be a Buddhist or a Wiccan, and still be a pig or a stockbroker!

In terms of separation, I think the Buddhist/holist position is flawed because the experience of separation is fundamental to how living beings (not only humans) experience life. All sentient creatures have 'attention to life'. All sentient creatures desire, and resonate with some aspects of the total system and not others. If we don't recognise this, we suppress difference and turn it into sameness. A male hamster cannot share a confined space with another male hamster, or with a falcon – and this is not because a hamster has an evil ego which has separated itself from nature. A crocodile is part of the flow of nature, it is beautiful and has a right to exist in its own habitat, but I still don't want one in my bathtub, nor a scorpion in my bed, nor hemlock in my cup. I don't think this is alienation – and I don't think this kind of separation is unique to humans, let alone to modern humans. If 'improving the land' is a form of oppression (as the primitivists argue), then this is because it interferes with the autonomy and free expression of other differenciated living things – not because of separation.

Desire is always related to an “object” of desire – the “object” of desire can be another living thing – desire and its “object” form an assemblage – the self who desires is not the molar self or ego, but the molecular self – non-human creatures also have sentience, desire and will – the fusion of self and “object” in an assemblage is not the possession or control of “object” by self, but the formation of a new “machine” composed of the two. Still, desire selects. Humans require a habitat, like all animals – but not everything is habitat, we can't live without oxygen, we can't subsist on hemlock. Attention to life is a necessary part of life.

>instead, man is a sailboater who derives his power and steerage from the relational dynamics he is situationally included in

What this poststructuralist hypothesis cannot account for, is the fact that someone can be relationally enmeshed in a particular system and yet come to have desires, will, beliefs and libidinal structures counterposed to this system and radically exterior to it. Why someone can grow up in a statist society and yet become an anarchist, why someone can grow up in a capitalist society and yet become a socialist, why someone can grow up in an anthropocentric society and yet become a deep ecologist. It also does not account for the fact that the system can declare 2+2=5 – everyone can believe 2+2=5 – without 2+2 really equalling 5, without the practical consequences of 2+2=5 actually occurring. A society can all believe that the king can command the sea to stay back, and yet the sea will not stay back. To take a real example, you, Emile, have grown up in a society committed to the view that people are rational free-willed individuals, and yet you have come to reject this view. How is this possible, if you are simply an effect of the relations which constitute you? - - - The other problem with your ontology is that it is conservative. If we're just effects of our relations, and our relations are capitalist, statist, ecocidal, etc., then we can never be more than this. In a world controlled by an oppressive system, the radical move is NOT to submit to and abject oneself before the relational network which is captured by this system – it is, rather, to secede and go in exodus from this relational network so as to create the starting point for different relations. Parallel separative processes will be found wherever there is change in nature – for example, when a species evolves into a new ecological niche.

>doesn't address Western man's dualist, local genetic agency-endowed thing-in-himself delusions

I reject the idealist view that the world's problems stem from false beliefs held by “Western man”. For one thing, western people are too diverse to be subsumed in a single category in this way. For another, dualistic and separative beliefs are themselves effects of the relations in which western people are situated. They are widespread because they reflect the real relations people are in. The social organisation of life generates these so-called delusions, which are in fact accurate representations of a reality which is itself fundamentally distorted. You can't change the 'delusion' without changing the relations it makes sense of. Telling western people that they are not separate from nature, when they live their whole lives in concrete boxes separate from nature, is like telling someone in prison that they are free. There's no point appealing to a holism which is empirically nowhere to be found – no matter how true it ultimately is. All that is left – when people are in fact separated from the rest of nature by the dominant system – is the desire to form rhizomes with nature. And these people can find their way back to nature, back to any kind of relation outside the dominant system, only through the flows of desire, agency, will. Cutting down people's sense of agency, in a world where people are denied agency by the dominant system, undermines the only force which can drive people to resist the dominant system. In this context, undercutting human agency is hamstringing resistance. It's like telling a prisoner that the problem is their own sense of power, their desire to escape, their continued resistance to the screws. It may well be true that the existence of prisons and screws ultimately stems from a human desire for control – but this isn't going to help people resist, escape, or destroy prisons. The antidote to concentrated power is not self-disempowerment or generalised disempowerment. It is dispersed power. Dispersed power is the closest we can get, as beings endowed with attention-to-life, with the restoration of holism. The holistic network is itself nothing more than the accumulated dispersed agency of millions of electrons, bosons, molecules, animals, plants, planets... enmeshed and relating (or separating) at various different scales and levels, producing holism as an emergent effect.

The other thing here is, if you object so much to being censored, does this not reflect an ego and a desire to be recognised as right? If we are all part of a single holistic nature, and this nature is simply

If you really believe in holism, and reject “Western man's dualist, local genetic agency-endowed thing-in-himself delusions”, why does it matter whether your comments are published or not? Isn't this all just part of the flow of the whole? Why do you prefer your words to someone else's? Aren't they all just part of the same self-generating flow of textuality – so that your own rejection of my views, or the editors', is just another case of human egoist local genetic agency? And if so, doesn't this prove my point that a human life cannot exist without 'attention to life', without schiz as well as flux?

>yes, of course, the scientific reality offers simpler and more concise semantics which are also more familiar and more popular, but scientific reality 'drops' the meat out of the relational message

It would be interesting to test this against indigenous languages with relational structures. Yes, unfamiliar presentation takes more words. But, science is also known for its obscurity and jargon. I daresay most indigenous people speak pretty plainly, albeit in different languages. I don't think relational speech has to be complex. It might be worth looking into general semantics – that's basically relational speech done accessibly. Geertzian theory, by the way, is also relational. You're the one binarising simplistically into your own relationality versus a modernity you treat as all too monolithic.

Also, by the way – every indigenous society/group, current and past, had forms of local knowledge in relation to nature and the world. They are localised, situated, and relational, but they still involve concrete, more-or-less exact knowledge of the world. Example: the Piaroa have two groups of concepts, one of which encyclopedically registers all the animals and plants in their environment, the other of which provides the keys to shamanic manipulation of these elements. The Penan can name every insect and every plant in the rainforest they live in, far better than any scientist. Local knowledge is the power/knowledge equivalent of dispersed power. Indigenous people are nomad scientists. The modern/western deviation is not in trying to know, but in 'knowing' too mechanically and imprecisely.

i'm madly in love w you, @critic!

Continues into desire, ego and will as opposed to starts. Anarchy really is relational fine-tunement with the ways/taos of physical reality when you get right down to it.

The phrase 'Geertzian skill' confirms that all the best writers are @s

maybe people would define it these days as 'hyper-individualism' (based on self-identity?) has, more or less, killed off anarchy through 'intellectual colonisation.' Hardly anyone gives ground on this website for example. Unless, of course, this website is not an accurate perception of anarchy in the real world?

among other things. One of the active ingredients of anarchy(beyond society) can hardly kill off anarchy. Things related to reified attachments are the actual problem.

This website is actually the best online thing that anarchy in NA can hope to have, and I ain't kidding, but maybe am indeed an idiot. ;-)

But it was mostly neglected by waves of dogmatic anarchists who in real life are afraid or disdainful of any discussion with people who're not already their beloved and worshipped Friends, for whom it's no longer about ideas but those wearing these ideas like the latest cool-ass punk rock slogan on their t-shirts/caps. In other terms, this platform is very useful for people willing to exchange and discuss shit that's happening (or shit that's being discussed about shit that's happening).

As to your question, there cannot be ANY website whatsoever that's an accurate enough representation of anarchy in the real world...

...unless maybe you film or record it all and keep posting it on youtube, like some reality show. Which could be actually an interesting, grandiose idea that could get me into trouble if I'd do that.

But perhaps if done really well in obsessive respect to people's confidentiality, this could become something cool and not too punchable. Still that'd be more like a media project than a website in the conventional sense.

Not everywhere is as cliquey as Montreal fauve.

Scientific exactitude is the root to the psychology of conquest which permeates the Western mind. Uniformity and certainty have destroyed any possibility for an "adventure" into the field of spontaneous and individual curiosity and invention.

PS And this very scientific exactitude has made economics the dominant social pursuit, with its bonding to the economic rationalist interpretation of social harmony as being solely a Utopeanistic ledger balancing act, and discarding the more interesting analysis, the history of economics since the Industrial Revolution, which is ignored because it reveals the complete failure of all economic systems ever proposed, the greatest cover-up in parallel with the conquest of indigenous lands by colonialist corporatism. This all relates to the psychology of conquest, what was formerly in Stirner's time the individual self-knowledgeably connected to the extended community has been transformed into the Freudian Marxist selfish ego/id conformist social entity at the mercy of a fake democracy which no longer resembles the intelligent self-aware collective individual voice of the ancient Athenian variety. Sad,,,,,

If the only thing anarchists have on offer to the world is a fetishistic obsession with fascism, that's a problem. An imagination colonized and clouded. Perhaps fascism has won your imagination already...

There's no state solution, whether right or left. There's just a response by the state to manage perceptions, to help garner risk avoidance by whee power lies: the financial system.

Since that's too hard of a real problem to handle i guess leftists gotta blame their problems on an orange faced distraction...for being an orange faced distraction.

Then again, all they could offer by way off challenge to financial systems' power in 2011 was crab hand gestures...

The reactionary leftist anarchists' imagination is colonized by middle class liberal belief in nothing. A total fear in change, in offering some collective vision pf an alternative to this mess.

Official title on a local call sent by ARA on a mailing list. Just sayin.

that is not the implied "I am in fact a fascist."

I wouldn't use that rhetoric myself, but it's hardly... whatever you think it is. Especially considering "anti-fascist" is just a word and you can put whatever spin you want on it.

Why are some y'all so allergic to the label is what I want to know. I don't do any stereotypically anti-fascist stuff, really, and might even be a too-critical-of-everything bastard, but if someone asked me, "Are you anti-fascist?", I'd say, "Yeah, and also I breathe oxygen."

if we're really so Anti-fascist, then what the Fuck are we going to Do about it??
#punch-a-nazi ? lol
been doing that since preschool when they used to ruined muh sand-castles!

You changed your concern now, ya disingenuous fuck. There is no need to be "more". It can just be yes or no, without implying anything in particular... though maybe a few things in general.

It's really that the question of being either antifacist or not (hence being a fascist, or a synpathizer, or an enabler) sounds like the most childish, brutish categorization for throwing people into.

Am I against fascism? Duh... Like yeah!? But also I'm against tons of other tendencies that may or may not be related to fascism. I'm also against fucking elitist privileged liberals for whom all anarchists are good for is to serve them and keep them out of their orgies of whatever. I'm against noise and air pollution being forced like industrial vomit on me. I'm against fucking idiots on the mainstream radio playing us the shittiest braindead computer generated music like fucking Nazis would spray us with Zyklon B.

It's a not just about the fascist. And it doesn't take a PhD to get that.

It's the comic books one. I don't know, but maybe you'd appreciate for 'V for Vendetta' where I did not. But I would actually recommend 'The Invisibles'.

I'm serious. I think I prefer these literary-mythical takes more than almost any academic and/or strugglista theory.

And despite the superhero gloss, obvs both stories I mentioned are about much more interesting things than just saving the world.

I know this is from a different tendency but it really helps put our current situation in perspective.

Found another Anarchimal laying by the roadside. I also got stung by a bee today.
Here's the link to the album if you want to add to it.

i need to get out more,,, such cute little bears are all-too rare

The roads and pathways are abysmal for pedestrian traffic right now due to hurricane debris with some areas still impassable. I try to get out every day on my longboard or bike or at least play hacky sack in the yard, weather permitting of course. There are some nice public parks nearby which is one of the redeeming qualities of this area otherwise it's pretty boring around here most of the time. I go to the marches and rallies whenever possible which keeps me sociable and adds a little excitement to my life.

they had some "water is life" rallies where the local tribe got all dressed up and danced around for a few minutes but the god-damned socialists always take my picture and "keep an eye on me" . i been thinking to joining the local circus and try to do some skiing this winter...! also fun to do some iconoclastic propaganda / storytelling.

P.S a bee sting means good luck / blessings
This is an old one but a good one, I'm all about the butterfly effect so I actually think everything matters and my bee sting really itches.
This is an easy Qigong set and it's free and there's a video on the page to follow down toward the end.

Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: "The flag is moving."
The other said: "The wind is moving."
The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He told them: "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving."

Mumon's comment: The sixth patriarch said: "The wind is not moving, the flag is not moving. Mind is moving." What did he mean? If you understand this intimately, you will see the two monks there trying to buy iron and gaining gold. The sixth patriarch could not bear to see those two dull heads, so he made such a bargain.
Wind, flag, mind moves,
The same understanding.
When the mouth opens
All are wrong.

Ever heard of Erik Prince? He's got his own Freikorps, unlike that gay hipster clown.

woah emy can you reign it in there. Maybe give us an abridged version.

The only thing worse than Emile's posts is if you reply to them with another fucking essay about the inside of his ass. He retaliates with exponential growth of rambling, pedantic crap about how you're only taking issue because you haven't understood him and if you don't learn, then the thread collapses like a neutron star.


>As Emerson describes the organism, it is a VENT that transmits influence from the vast and universal to the point on which its genius can act. here you can picture a waterspout or tornado which is just that, an influxing-outfluxing that ‘appears’ to be a ‘thing-in-itself’ but is a relational feature in the transforming relational continuum

I think you're arguing against things I haven't said here. I don't object to your view that desiring selves are relational constructs – that desire emerges as schiz-flux. I object to your view that there is some determinate holistic level which substitutes for the agency of (molecular, non-integrated) localities. These are distinct propositions, and you're piggy-backing the latter on the former, and then accusing me of denying the former and arguing for it (a recurring problem when I attempt to dialogue with holists).

I would suggest that you are making at the molar level – the level of the universe, or the whole of existence – the same mistake you criticise others of making at a local level. The universe, the totality, the system, is also just an influxing-outfluxing that “appears” to be a “thing-in-itself” but is just a relational feature in the transforming relational continuum – a relational continuum in which the universe itself *has no agency*. Even if each local “being” simply fluxes based on its resonance (a very Deleuzian phrasing!), and does not exist as some kind of integrated totality (in Deleuzian terms: the “molar self” does not exist), it is still the case that these local forces flux in particular, non-integrated, outward-directed ways, and that they are distinct as well as continuous (a waterspout is not a tornado or vice-versa, even if neither of them is really “an” anything).

And the insight that there is a single universe which is simply channelled through each person is actually monotheist, not indigenous. Animists attribute separate souls, desires, wills to everything which exists – the sky, the earth, the rivers, each rock or tree or drop of water, even the Earth itself... but this is still dispersed agency. Animists and polytheists believe in a meta-divine realm, superior to the gods themselves, in which action (e.g. magic) is possible. Hence, even the laws of the gods are not absolute, they can be broken by someone who obtains the right esoteric knowledge. It is Christians and monotheists who believe that there is a single, unified universe and that the will of the unified universe (God and his plan) is both determinant and trumps individual wills.

>all power sourcing in nature is epigenetic [field-sourced], and all local sourcing of power is ‘schaumkommen’ (appearances)

OK, first off, “epigenetic” does not mean “field-sourced” (sourced in the totality) but “sourced outside the self” (in genetics: non-heritable, not determined by genes), and geneticists do not say “everything is epigenetic”. I also rather doubt your un-cited references to Einstein, Schroedinger and Mach would survive a few rounds with Alan Sokal; likely they are referring to the nature of things at the quantum level, not at the social level. Actually you seem rather closer to the position Bergson took in his infamous debate with Einstein. And, you can also be criticised for relying on the highest point of western science to ground your position, when you are also claiming to be radically outside western science, and that western science itself is based on an epistemic flaw. I've read a little quantum physics too, and my impression is that localised agency exists, even at the level of quantum particles – what appears to scientists as randomness, reflects some kind of variable uncaused process at the level of the individual subatomic particle (i.e. subatomic particles appear to have free will). There is no way to deterministically predict where a particular particle will hit a screen (for example) – patterns of regularity only emerge at an aggregate level (i.e. we know something like: if we fire six billion particles at a screen, thirty percent will hit at a certain point). This suggests to me that Deleuze and Guattari are right that causal agency or desire exists at the molecular level, not the holistic aggregate level.

I assume what you're actually saying here is that everything is deterministic (which by the way, positivists also believed, and so did Bakunin and Marx) and also that the totality is the level at which things are determined. On the first point – everything is determined, there's no free will - I have no idea whether that's true or not. There certainly isn't decisive scientific proof of this view, as you seem to imply. It seems to me that determinism entails a collapse of personal responsibility, but not necessarily a collapse of valuation of will or locality. It's quite possible to believe that whatever I happen to desire is the ultimate value for me, while also accepting that what I happen to desire is actually a determined effect of outer processes, and not a free choice (c.f. Blade Runner). It's also possible to distinguish things one really desires from things one is manipulated into doing by others (i.e. other localities), even if the things one really desires are also determined. On the second point, the real difficulty lies in specifying the totality and its attributes. No matter what level one takes as the level of the totality, it is always possible to posit a higher level (in set theory: to form a greater set). What's more, large parts of the totality are unobservable, and it is therefore impossible to test whether or not they have determining influences. It is possible to show that totalities (e.g. ecosystems) have properties (e.g. predictable patterns, changes in these patterns), but not that they have desire, will, or direction distinct from the properties of their “parts” (emergent properties of systems appear to emerge from aggregates of actions of agents/things within systems). If the totality has a will, then it is impossible to know what this will is. If the totality has a will, then likely all of us are valueless to it. If the totality has a will, then it is a split will, in which its different parts manifest different aspects, even if they balance into harmony in the end. And if the totality has a will, then this will *has to* find expression only through the differenciated, individual actions of the different “parts” of the totality – it can't be appealed to, over and above the parts.

I believe that systems theory is partly an illusion, closely connected to cybernetics. It is derived from the axiom: if two things relate or influence one another, treat them as part of a greater whole (a system). This is confusing, because antagonistic agencies can produce systemic effects. For example, two adversaries in war, or in class struggle, or in predator-prey relations, produce observable regularities at the level of opportunity-structure and the balance of power – but the opportunity-structure or balance of power has no agency, no mind, no desire, no will of its own. The fact of relation does not prove symbiosis. And this illusion expresses itself politically in cybernetic systems theory or network theory as a way of analysing markets and economies (instead of a class struggle or social war model), and consensus models of society such as Durkheim's and Parsons', which attribute social reality to social facts.

The bigger political problem here is: how do we tell the real holistic totality, the totality of the universe, the divine realm, nature, from the very real (but localised) system of capitalism and “civilisation”, which poses as a closed, total, cybernetic system and which in fact constructs the overwhelming majority of things the overwhelming majority of people experience? How are we to prevent holism from folding reality back onto civilisation, as the only totality we have every known?

> i am saying that scientific reality starts with appearances and constructs semantic realities by imputing ‘being’ to those ‘appearances’. therefore, scientific reality is working on the level of ‘symptoms’
>Only one of these views is affirmed by the physical reality of our experience; i.e. ‘intuitive reality’.

Science starts by *looking* (see Foucault, Order of Things). Life starts by *doing*, or perhaps by feeling, or by playing. What is only an appearance at the level of the gaze – of what is seen – is a lived reality at the level of doing.

Intuition also looks very different, depending whether you are looking or doing.

>‘will’ is just a word that is needed in the wake of semantically reifying an ‘appearance’ and portraying it as a ‘thing-in-itself’

You're citing Nietzsche here. Doesn't Nietzsche also value the “will to power”? Doesn't he keep talking about “will”, even though it's inadequate to the quantum event-level and he knows it? … Nietzsche knows there isn't “really” a Cartesian subject, but he keeps using the word “will” as a placeholder for the subpersonal and transpersonal flows of desire which fill the place of what quantitative science cannot see. As does Stirner. As does Deleuze. As do I. Stirner describes the will in terms of a self-creating “nothing” (devoid of determinate substance) which constantly recreates itself. Deleuze and Guattari distinguish real molecular processes of becoming (process, flow) from apparent molar being. It's the same ontology. But none of Stirner, Deleuze, Nietzsche, or myself believe that the whole is somehow more real or more determinant.

>in other words, we are each uniquely, situationally included in a transforming relational continuum.

This is one of these claims which is true in a sense, but also misleading. To say that coloniser and colonised, or predator and prey, or statist and anarchist are “situationally included in a transforming relational continuum” may be true on a quantum level, but it's not true on a survival level or a political level. It implies a consensus, an integration, an inclusion in something common, when in fact there is conflict, there is a situational balance of power which results from forces pulling in different directions (and it matters not a jot here whether the forces have a common source and/or whether they “really exist” on a quantum level).

By analogy, the laws of Newtonian physics do not cease to apply because they are localised in reference to quantum physics.

>Yes, I repeat this because the assumption of Darwinism is incorporated in all kinds of comments where ‘identity’ is used, so that when it is used, i need to point it out and show how relational identity makes more sense.
>As Emerson says in ‘The Method of Nature’, the epigenetic influence not only inhabits the organism, it engenders it

You haven't answered my question.

If relational identity makes more sense, then why is there deviance? Why is it not possible to relationally reconstruct *absolutely anything* into *absolutely anything else*, by *absolutely any means*? Why, for instance, can't the king hold back the tides by command, or a government stamp out “crime”, or a behaviourist automatically remold an anarchist into a statist? Why can't a society which believes in reified beings condition *you*, emile, into holding this belief, when the whole relational system you live in is rigged towards it? Why when two children are subject to the same parenting methods, the same schools, the same police intimidation, does one of them become an anarchist rebel and the other become an abject docile slave to capital, or a pig, or a Nazi?

Also, I'm sure I don't need to explain the political dangers of politicians, scientists, ideologues, believing they can – and should be able to – remold anyone and anything into whatever forms they prefer, based on their intuitions of what the holistic level needs.

>your views continually drop back to a dependency on dualist being
>i am not going to repeat this on every occasion that you fall into the trap of intellectualizing ‘appearances’ for ‘things-in-themselves’,

Words seem to have personal meanings for you, but I doubt my position is “dualist”. However, it can be argued that the structure of language is dualistic (every word is defined relative to another word which it excludes), and therefore, every view expressed in language falls back on dualist being. For example, when you distinguish between dualistic and (presumably) monistic or relational thought, this distinction is itself a dualism. Or when you keep talking about “I” and “you”, or “emile” and “you”.

You are *diagnosing* me as wrong, not explaining why I'm wrong. You're sure what things “really are” (holistic determining totality), you're sticking labels on me because I disagree with this view and therefore deny reality as you see it, but you aren't explaining why I'm wrong (in relation to the particular issues I'm raising). Hence, you are failing to show that the things you take as appearances *are* in fact appearances (you aren't getting further than “Einstein says so” or “if you disagree with me, you're a western coloniser”, or shifting the relationship from dialogue to teacher-pupil or therapist-patient) but begging the question, acting superior on the basis that you know the answer and I'm denying it, and therefore you need to point out that I'm falling into the trap you've pre-theorised as a means to classify what you disagree with. What you aren't doing here – and this is telling – is entering into a relational flux with what is other to yourself, engaging with it to form a new assemblage or at least to situate where the difference is. You're reducing a newly-encountered otherness to an introjected image of a favoured Other which is already part of your inner landscape. And this is a performative contradiction.

>calling attention to this requires a lot of repetition since ‘being’ is used

I saw an “is” there.

You seem to want to get rid of separative speech. I think separative speech is important to theorise and talk about conflict, and forces pulling in different directions – because the flow of becoming is localised as well as relational. But, suppose you don't want separative speech. Why not rewrite language even further, to eliminate or reframe the terms you don't like? What would this look like in practice?

For instance – I'm quite open to the idea that each of us is not really an “I” - that each of us has an unconscious, that we're different people at different times and so on – but how can we have a conversation between two opposing views without using “I” and “you”, or “@critic” and “emile”, or some other separative terms? Would we say, “the social text generated position A at point X, and the position B at point Y, which intersect antagonistically at point Z”?

Tearing-down is not enough. One test of your philosophy is whether it would be able to actually describe all of social and scientific life, without remaining parasitic on dualisms, identity, etc. And whether the descriptions it yields would *work* (pragmatically, as a way of experiencing/as meaningful, etc).

>your statement makes out that humans, land, air, water, nutrients, ... are all separate things when the source of the separation is the defining of separate words

Still doesn't explain why this experience of being a separate thing is also there for hamsters, i.e. why a male hamster cannot share an enclosure with another male hamster, or a falcon.

>‘improving the land’ is a nonsense statement given inhabitant-habitat nondualism

Objecting to “improving the land”, or to some particular change in the land (say, bulldozing everything and building a factory), is also a nonsense position given inhabitant-habitat nondualism. If there is no separation between self-who-colonises and nature/Other-which-is-colonised, then Custer bulldozing the forests and slaughtering the natives is no different from Custer squeezing his own spots. Rape is no different from masturbation – it's just the totality pleasuring itself. This is why holism often ends in dictatorship by those who claim to know the whole. Deny all separation and you deny all boundaries, and all value specific to each locality. You end up with generalised rightslessness – of humans, of animals, of plants, of ecosystems. “All is one in Yog-Sothoth”.

One cannot own the land, in the Lockean sense, because the land is not an object, it has spirit. This is the usual indigenous position. However, one can “own” the land in a Stirnerian, Guattarian or Proudhonian sense – one can form an assemblage with a particular piece of land in such a way that it becomes an existential territory, fuse with its spirit in the creation of new assemblages - and humans are by no means the only animals which do this (birds' nests, spiders' webs, beavers' dams...) When a Tlingit carpenter carves a kayak, he sees himself as working *with* the spirit of the tree, for instance by cutting with rather than against the grain, to create something which is at once himself and the tree. This is a very Stirnerian intuition.

>The ‘symmetry’ suggested by dualism is one wherein the relational continuum gathers within itself relational forms called ‘humans’ that are so smart that they overcome their inclusion within the evolving continuum, get outside and take control of it and achieve domination over their own continuing evolution

There is nothing in quantum physics which says that humans can or can't change particular aspects of reality. It's an axiomatic point that humans can't get outside the entire continuum, but it's not an axiomatic point that the continuum has any particular directionality which humans cannot escape. By the same token, whether or not Katrina flattens New Orleans is not a question of whether or not Katrina exists as a distinct entity separate from the entire continuum. Katrina can be nonexistent except as a convenient reification of relational processes, and still flatten New Orleans. Katrina can be nonexistent except as a convenient reification, and be stopped by humans who are also nonexistent except as convenient reifications from flattening New Orleans, without this meaning anything about the existence or nonexistence of either humans or hurricanes. Whether colonisers can or can't successfully decimate the Amazon and replace it with palm-oil plantations, has absolutely nothing to do with whether things are really distinct or just relational. A coloniser can turn around and say: yes I'm just a relational bundle of temporary forces, yes there's no manifest destiny, but at the moment, what this relational bundle of temporary forces is doing is cutting down the rainforest. What then?

>where one ‘rises to the occasion’ as in answering the call of the wild/nature, ... or ‘genetic’ (locally point-sourced) where the ‘central authority’ seated within the individual ‘seeks to possess or achieve’ something ‘out there’

Consider a third option. Since there is no integrated self but only a process of schiz-flux, desire neither responds to a molar call outside itself (dualism dominated by the Other) nor seeks to impose itself (dualism dominated by the self), but simply flows in a series of resonances and non-resonances (fluxes and schizzes) with whatever other processes/”things” it happens to encounter or connect with, leading to a transpersonal flow of desire which connects inhabitant and habitat in localised, partial assemblages.

In any case, we're drifting off-topic. We're meant to be talking about intellectual colonisation and how to escape it. And perhaps, anarchist pedagogies. So, Emile, presumably you take dualism, localised agency, and modern reason as intellectual colonisation. How do we escape them? How do we help others to escape them? What might a decolonising pedagogy entail? Do we need to get rid of intellectual leaders to decolonise ourselves, or do we need some kind of guru who can point us to the anarchic nature of being? And, having decided that the world is holistic and we have no localised agency, how do we act on this *politically* (if at all), without falling back into acting as if we are localised agents? Are we just meant to sit back and let the totality do its thing? Or are we to act somehow as conduits for the totality, while recognising our own powerlessness?

The reality you are facing is: most people accept dualistic thought. Most people are also not anarchists. Maybe these people don't exist as distinct things or identities. Maybe they're just local torsions of the general flow. Still, the general flow is blocked, turned against itself. It's alienated from itself at these particular localities. What can be done about this? Not just here – not just arguing with me, or other anarchists – but at all the other local nodes which manifest as consumers, bigots, pigs, etc?

@critic has the most convincing arguments against emile I have yet encountered.

I agree, but ultimately don't we have emile to thank. Aside: thank you emile

*facepalm* Emile's arguments were never "convincing" if you're familiar with how rhetoric works. He just derails every discussion with his text walls, whether it's bad faith or compulsive mental disorder with a heaping serving of hubris, who fucking cares?

If you're taken in by his prattle, it betrays a vulnerability to repetition in your thinking. Most thinking people can switch between these different modes of thought without beating the dead horse as he loves to do.

If you required this careful explanation of his bullshit, thank this critic with the limitless patience.

and we all win in the end

Have not come at him from a well thought out way as described above. If you are on the panpsychic side of things(which I am) then there is a lot about emile's views that are agreeable. I can also agree with what acritic is saying as well. There's nothing in his argument that is not amendable to a Taoist or Heraclitian panpsychic/sentient framework.

Yes ... That's what I said. Emile's critics tend to dismiss him because he's terrible at good-faith discussion. Why exactly that is, is the only interesting thing about him to me. Is he trolling? Or is it all just compulsive hippy ego-babble? Leaning towards the latter.

I find hippy ego-babbling actually fun and rare these days, but irl only. In comment sections it is just causing a useless pain of having to sniff through the crap for 1-2 honest comments. But i think Emile knows that too and may be on a personal war against honesty as well... What else.

hello @critic,

you say;

So, Emile, presumably you take dualism, localised agency, and modern reason as intellectual colonisation. How do we escape them? How do we help others to escape them? What might a decolonising pedagogy entail?

yes, you catch my drift correctly in that i do feel as if belief in dualism, localized agency and modern reason are symptoms of intellectual colonizing. i agree with those who believe that we are doing it to ourselves with noun-and-verb language-and-grammar [whorf, nietzsche, bohm, peat etc.]. 'science' is the carrier of that trio (belief in dualism, localized agency and modern reason). and, our culture 'got science' because it was built into our language.

it's really some pedagogy of 'unlearning' that seems to be the need, if that makes sense (its kind of like 're-wilding').

western culture was more intuitive originally and then we dumbed ourselves down with noun-and-verb language and science which could have stayed just a useful support tool but we have elevated it into an unnatural primacy over intuition. we need to restore intuition to its natural primacy over science.

quite a few people have been suggesting that; e.g. nietzsche, tolstoy, bohm. bohm has said that we need to develop a new relational language.

it's evident that there's no widespread agreement on the problem with language and the 'scientific reality' it traps us in. you and i don't agree on it.

meanwhile, the relevant writings, like tolstoy's, continue to be read and re-read, and his message is clear;

But science nowadays no longer serves the general welfare: it has become, like the religions of old, a ‘superstition’. The ‘business’ of science, Tolstoy writes, is now to conceal existing reality: its aim ..... "is to maintain superstition and deception among the people and thus hinder the progress of humanity towards truth and welfare"

and some people do take notice;

" Tolstoy may have been a crusty, guilt-ridden, sexist and somewhat cranky old soul, but in the present state of manifest crisis — if you look beyond your own backyard — there really is no alternative to the kind of anarchism he espoused and tried to articulate. As Sampson says ‘We simply cannot afford to go on ignoring Tolstoy’s message’." -- Brian Morris

as we go deeper into the 'post-truth' and 'fake-news' and 'identity politics' etc. era, and as the collapse in the belief in 'objective reality' 'finishes' and 'perspectivism' is acknowledged, writings like Tolstoy's, which are 'out there' on the back-burner, may catch fire and an intellectual decolonizing pedagogy could be defined as one that helps to fuel that fire.

many people have difficulty understanding Tolstoy's views on anarchy which are coming from the same place as emile's and which contradict @critic's theory of a thousand points of free-will-driven power..

@critic is hoodwinked by the vision of individuals as 'independent beings with free will'. this is the view that comes to us not only from religion but from science.

for those that believe this will believe that they are the full and sole source[ror]s of their own actions and accomplishments.

"Tolstoy argues that the primary function of science is to hoodwink people, to make them feel they are free when they are not, that the state exists for the good of the people when in reality it is a form of violence that upholds ‘monetary’ exploitation. Science, like art, is as necessary to humans, Tolstoy suggests, as food and drink, and has always been a part of human existence, helping us to understand the world in which we live. But science nowadays no longer serves the general welfare: it has become, like the religions of old, a ‘superstition’. The ‘business’ of science, Tolstoy writes, is now to conceal existing reality: its aim
.... is to maintain superstition and deception among the people and thus hinder the progress of humanity towards truth and welfare"
See 'Tolstoy and Anarchism'

Tolstoy understood, As Machians in his era understood, epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression'. In other words, 'property' [the energy-charged plenum] is the source not only of the power to accomplish that manifests through men, but is the source of man.

Nietzsche also pointed this out in his critique of 'scientific reality'. it is the 'little sagacity ego-self' that allows science to hoodwink us.

so long as we believe in this view of man as an independently-existing thing-in-itself driven and directed by internal scientific thinking capability and free will, ... portraying us as the full and sole source of our own actions and accomplishments, we are fucked. @critic's theory falls for that 'superstition'.

I don't see an 'independent beings with free will' in his thought process. He's taking an up the middle approach to the question of free will vs determinism which is what I take. There is no single stream of determinism or island free will but more of a void where will based assemblages of determination take place. As Epictetus would say, there are things I can control and things that I cannot. That's right up there with Stirner and Nietzsche.

is where the alienation lies. "Will" is only a word and an assemblage is only an abstraction of actual, pre-symbolic relations. One's idiosyncratic identification of a specific moment in lived experience as containing "will", is the resultant of infinite relations that happen to be culminating at that moment, including your consciousness. The actual relational net of pre-symbolic experience is extracting (i.e. producing) behaviour. For many, because of how we were conditioned in this world, the relational net also produces thought, though thought is not necessary for action. If one see's danger they often act without thought. Behaviour is produced with or without thought because the relational net is all that there is. When behaviour comes to be without thought, without self-conception, it can flow freely from the creative nothing; as in those moments of total immersion in life (e.g. loss of self while playing music or playing a sport or taking drugs or meditating (though, imho, the meditation experience is diminished from active self-less consciousness)). When there is pure action "will" is not; when there is "will" there is illusion.

since field is primary, relational influence is primary as in the transforming relational continuum.

in my view, these sort of things are made more difficult to understand without acknowledging 'inductive influence' [purely relational influence]. if one acknowledges that epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression then 'will' is not needed. if space is an energy-charged plenum whose epigenetic influence is actualizing the relational forms that gather within it, we do not have to say, 'the sunflower turns its head towards the east to catch more of the sun's irradiance, implying that plant behaviour is directed by their 'internal intelligence and will' aka 'rational purpose'.

e.g.; plant biologists affirm the intelligence and will of plants in order to 'match their observations of plant and ecosystem behaviours' in David Suzuki's 'Nature of Things' production 'Smarty Plants'. They do this even without having a clue as to where the equipment responsible such intelligence would reside within the plant, since the plant doesn't have a brain or even a central nervous system.

"• Did you know that all plants forage for food in much the same way as a bear or a squirrel?
• Did you know that plants, like animals, can sense when they’re under attack and can actually defend themselves?
• Did you know that some plants can “tag” insects for predation?
• Did you know that the roots of an Eastern European invader called Spotted Knapweed can capture and hold territory by waging chemical war on other plants?
• Did you know that a plant that grows on the shores of the Great Lakes can identify its relatives and even help them out?
• Did you know that some plants can tell which insect is eating it by the chemicals in the insect’s saliva?
• Did you know that plants emit a chemical scream for help when they’re under stress, and that other plants can listen in on their SOS messages?
• Did you know that “mother” trees can actually nurture their young?

As Nietzsche says, our mistake is to start with our own ego to endow ourselves with 'being' and 'rational purpose' (will) and then we leverage that in the construction of a general (anthropomorphic) 'scientific reality'.

If we were to acknowledge that 'epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression' as in field-matter nonduality, then we wouldn't have to portray the world dynamic in terms of a thousand points of local agency.notionally driven by 'will' or 'rational purpose', including plants and cells and genes, personifying them on the basis of our ego view of ourselves.

First, thanks to emile and @critic for the interesting exchange, though I think some talking past one another has occurred.

emile, I don't think you've answered the basic question about dualism, nondualism, or the possibility of a third, both/and sort of position that recognizes inclusion in the whole at the same time as the possibility of meaningful localized agency (which seems to be @critic's perspective): if all apparent beings are merely hypostasized appearances, how is it possible to speak meaningfully of, say, ecocide and slavery and make value judgements against these conditions (i.e., why shouldn't any assemblage be as meaningful and valuable as any other assemblage?), how has it come to pass that there has been such distortion and alienation from the perspective recognizing the transforming relational activity continuum, and how could one meaningfully and coherently call for what seems necessarily to be a willed, deliberated, desired PERSONAL CHANGE in that perspective?

I've enjoyed your writings, emile, but you seem to be responding to @critic by just doubling-down and reasserting your position rather than engaging with the specifics. Isn't a sort of dialectical monist perspective possible that recognizes the individual's always-already inclusion in a relational whole while also recognizing that that individual makes meaningful existential choices by acting as a particularized, always-transforming locality of agency in the whole that is acting from its unique perspective? Even in your power boat vs. sailboat metaphor, emile, doesn't the sailor have some agency in the situation, even though they are largely being buffeted by the wind, waves, and currents? Consider the German proverb "You can't control the wind, but you can adjust your sails".

That is how I have read, say, Lao Tzu and Stirner. In the Tao Te Ching, "Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations." - so, yes, by taking a step back from the self we can see "the mystery" (the unfathomable transforming relational continuum) and our inclusion in it, but, existentially and phenomenally ("ever desiring"), we live our lives as individuals making choices based on our perspective and values. It seems like both parts of this dialectic are meaningful.

I would greatly appreciate, emile, a response to these questions that does not an argumentum ad nauseam - I don't mean that in a nasty way, but only as a frank observation that that is how your last post reads in response to @critic.

Trust him. He's doing his best to keep it short but language itself is to blame!

hi Nyarlathotep,

i like the patient tone of your comment and question.

i have answered you twice and both times my comments have been erased.

it takes some words, because there is a lot of water that has passed under the bridge as we, as a culture, have made assumptions built on top of assumptions and thus the words and phrases in our modern popular discourse 'assume a lot'; i.e. we do not start from basic inquiry into how the world works. for example, on the question of 'local agency'.

the assumption in science was that matter was 'basic' and 'real' (not just 'appearance' as in a concentration of energy within 'field'). and because we could see that 'matter moved'. to explain this, we chose (newton and others in science chose) a tautology wherein 'force' was responsible for making matter move (F=ma). since motion seemed to come from the outside sometimes and sometimes from the inside of things, like 'organisms', it was assumed that forces could come from external or internal sources. if something local moved, then we assumed that the forces were local too. no 'action at a distance' although that was a paradox that emerged in the case of matter that was moved by 'the force of gravity'. then along came faraday and others and said that matter was NOT a primary reality but a secondary effect of 'field'. in faraday's words;

“Fields of force are the primary reality, and ‘matter’ a secondary or derived phenomenon” —Michael Faraday"

all 'local agency' thus became 'appearances' and since field is everywhere at the same time and inductively actualizes the genesis of matter and material dynamics'. we can this in the case of storm-cells in turbulent flow-fields. it appears as if the cells are 'things-in-themselves' and are the source of local agency that is 'causally responsible' for actions and deeds, like the destruction of New Orleans.

but that is the 'old view'. today, we know that the world is field and that it is everywhere at the same time and that 'things moving' is the old view or 'old reality' which i call 'scientific reality' because it is still used today in our rational thinking and 'mainstream science'. and of course, it is effectively 'built in' to noun-and-verb language because such language orients us to speaking in terms of 'local things' and THEIR development (as if they can develop 'on their own') and THEIR movement, actions and deeds (as if THEY can author THEIR OWN movement, action and accomplishments).

ok, as mach says, this is a convenient way to organize our observations (of appearances) because it delivers 'economy of thought', ... but as he adds, lets not confuse this semantic reality construction for 'physical reality'.

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

If we want to get closer to physical reality as we understand it in our 'upgrade' from 'matter and force' to 'field', we have to acknowledge that there is no 'motion' (motion implies 'things moving') and there is no 'interaction' (there are no separate things), there is only 'relational transformation' within the transforming relational continuum.

so taking another look at Katrina the hurricane we can say that there are transformative processes in nature which are animating the transformation relational continuum. but we can see how notionally imputing 'being' to the local 'feature' (appearance) and intellectually endowing the feature with its own local agency is a compact way of talking about it without having to include the overall context, which is impossible (the overall context is the transforming relational continuum which consciousnesses that are finite don't have enough time to assimilate..

so, Tolstoy sees this and applies it to the worker and the landlord; i.e. he sees that the worker, like Katrina, is included in the land (the plenum, the field) and he can see that the worker is being put in a box or cage, which would be like putting Katrina in a box. she can't 'have a life' in there because SHE IS THE PLENUM at the same time as she is a relational form within it. [as in Schroedingers Brahman=Atman nonduality]. The experience of being included in and 'made out of' 'field' is referred to as 'spirituality' by Tolstoy and by indigenous aboriginals and others. 'Spirituality' or 'field' is the primary reality and the material world of 'appearances' is, as Faraday says; "A secondary or derived phenomenon".

So, my task boils down to finding the words to 'transpose' from a 'scientific reality' in which duality, local agency and 'standard logic' is taken to be adequate to capture the phenomenal world, to a relational world in which 'field' is primary.This takes more words; e.g.

The colonizing settlers claim that they have constructed a wonderful new world in North America while the colonized indigenous peoples claim that the colonizers have destroyed a wonderful established world on Turtle Island. This appears to be an unresolvable paradox in the material view,, however, in the 'field' ('relational') view, there is no such thing as 'construction' nor is there 'destruction', there is only 'relational transformation'.

If we were speaking a relational language, the understanding of being included within an interdependent web-of-life where inhabitant-habitat nonduality prevails would be implicit. But in the noun-and-verb language we are using, it is very difficult and one has to repeatedly insert qualifiers and reminders to keep the reader from slipping back into the deep cultural ruts where we automatically assume dualism, local agency and modern scientific reasoning.

in answer to your question about individuals having 'local agency' 'even though we are included in the whole' implies 'duality' (one thing is included in another thing). if a colonized indigenous person is induced into rebellion after 500 years of his family and people being colonized, is his agency 'local' or 'nonlocal'? if it 'bottoms out in the 'rational purpose' of an 'independent material thing-in-itself, this is one sense of 'local agency' and if it is blowthrough from nonlocal relational dynamics that vents through a relational form, this is a very different sense. which one are you thinking of?


Hi Emile, and everyone!

>I don't see an 'independent beings with free will' in his thought process. He's taking an up the middle approach to the question of free will vs determinism which is what I take. There is no single stream of determinism or island free will but more of a void where will based assemblages of determination take place.

Yeah, pretty much. And it's pretty basic Stirner. Has Emile read Stirner? I daresay his allergy to words like “ego”, “desire” and “will” make Stirner sound unattractive to him. To the uneducated, Stirner sounds a bit like Kant. Because they both speak German-Idealist-ese. But Stirner isn't using these words in the sense that Kant uses them.

I think Bergson's/Deleuze's image of humans as points where the actual and the virtual intersect (the experience of consciousness/free will as the point of combination of present/actual and past/virtual fields) is pretty accurate.

>“Fields of force are the primary reality, and ‘matter’ a secondary or derived phenomenon” —Michael Faraday"

That's also Deleuze's view, and probably Stirner's. However, fields of force are also localised. For example, the orbit of Jupiter is not affected by the price of Starbuck's coffee, or vice-versa, even though neither orbits nor prices are autopoietic or self-wilful on the part of the objects. A group of people can isolate themselves from “society” provided they find a sufficiently remote location with a sufficiently survivable habitat. The laws of Newtonian physics or Euclidean geometry still apply provided we're dealing with a certain type of object (in fact, no-one has yet found a non-Euclidean geometric field). Desire (and will, as projectile desire) is the localisation of force at the level of the unique-one and its existential territory. The totality is a kaleidoscope of moving localities and fields of force which are potentially connected, but also differenciated and constantly fusing and splitting, fluxing and schizzing.

>'epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression'

I'm not sure what that is meant to mean, but it sounds like you're saying that what happens is just a mixture of biological determinants and social/ecological determinants. Which is basically a positivist point of view. And incompatible with quantum physics. Even a strict determinist these days has to take randomness into account.

>we do not have to say, 'the sunflower turns its head towards the east to catch more of the sun's irradiance, implying that plant behaviour is directed by their 'internal intelligence and will' aka 'rational purpose'.

An *indigenous* conception says exactly that (aka animism). The river drowns someone because the river-spirit is angry, and it is angry because it was disrespected (or just because river-spirits are like that). I think for Korzybski this would be really objectionable, intensional thought (in fact he picks on “primitive” thought a lot), but I see it more as a sense of the virtual – the zone of desire occupied by the plant, the way in which the plant resonates, its leitmotif, its existential territory, its refrain.

On the other hand, the idea of “behaviour” is a reifying effect of the pseudo-objective gaze of scientific observers. It's pig-speak. Compliance, anti-social behaviour, behaviour modification, badly behaved children. The observer only recognises “behaviour” because it is all the scientist can see, because the scientist is outside the sunflower looking in. But is reality limited to what scientists can see as outsiders looking in? We don't know what it's like to be a sunflower. But we know what it's like to be a human (well, to be this particular human at this particular time), and we know our own inner lives are richer than the “behaviours” inferred by pigs and planners. There is no such thing as “behaviour”, only action motivated by desire or resonance.

>@critic is hoodwinked by the vision of individuals as 'independent beings with free will'. this is the view that comes to us not only from religion but from science.

First Emile tells us that quantum physics proves that we are not independent beings with free will. Now he tells us that science hoodwinks us into believing we are independent beings with free will. Has he changed his mind? Or does he have no idea what he's talking about?

>for those that believe this will believe that they are the full and sole source[ror]s of their own actions and accomplishments.

When did I say this?

I believe the totality is differenciated; that events are not simply a unitary God playing with itself. Quite how you've got from that to “full and sole source of one's own actions” is beyond me.

Guess what? People who believe in rigid binaries often simplify reality so that it fits into the two options they recognise. Usually, one of these is absolutely good and is their own position, and the other is absolutely evil. Everything which is not their own dogma is lumped into the absolutely evil category.

>so long as we believe in this view of man as an independently-existing thing-in-itself driven and directed by internal scientific thinking capability and free will, ... portraying us as the full and sole source of our own actions and accomplishments, we are fucked. @critic's theory falls for that 'superstition'.

I don't see a lot of evidence for that conclusion. Just a lot of question-begging rhetoric and empty assertion.

You still haven't explained how your holism can account for 1) difference, 2) antagonism, 3) deviance from socially-determined patterns, 4) resonance and the need of living organisms for habitat.

>western culture was more intuitive originally and then we dumbed ourselves down with noun-and-verb language and science

Question: why did “we” do this?

I don't buy the idea that people were living happily in an intuitive reality and just woke up one day and decided they were going to start denying everything they knew, inventing nonexistent subjects, and ruining everything. Especially if humans don't really have agency at all, and are just products of relations: how on earth could these powerless humans suddenly have the power to fuck the world up, once they started seeing things wrongly? Doesn't that hypothesis require the very kind of autopoietic localised agency which Emile's theory posits does not exist?

I find it more likely that modern thought is a side-effect of modern forms of power, that it's the type of thought which is necessary when some people are trying to surveil and control other people (and nature).

>But in the noun-and-verb language we are using, it is very difficult and one has to repeatedly insert qualifiers and reminders to keep the reader from slipping back into the deep cultural ruts where we automatically assume dualism, local agency and modern scientific reasoning

Difficult language requires deciphering by the ego/intellect/reason, and thus serves to enhance its role. Why not simply invent different language which doesn't require such terms? We see the beginnings of this in Deleuzian thought – Guattari's Schizoanalytic Cartographies for example. We might, for instance, stop talking about cause-effect and instead talk about resonance (“the sunflower-event actualises a resonant affect towards the sun”, “an anger-affect actualises at the evental site of @critic through the nonharmonious juxtaposition of the discourse actualised at the Emile-event site with continuous resonances established at the @critic event site”)... hard work in everyday situations but very practical in social sciences and humanities. Or else, use the qualifiers only when they are absolutely necessary. Redefine the everyday words in ways which render them simplifications which already entail the event-level (“the name Emile refers to a noncontinuous evental-site with observable continuity but which is in fact interrelated to surrounding elements and in constant flux... despite its appearance of relation-resistant, flux-resistant rigidity”). But you're still going to need localising language to say anything substantive at all. “The universe universes itself” or “the universe happens once more” is not exactly a suitable substitute for the various “scientific” formulations.

I think one of the easiest things we can do, to talk more relationally, is to avoid sweeping generalisations. That is: to avoid claims about categories of things which are premised on the intension of the category, rather than being falsifiable claims about the observable members of a set. What I like about Korzybski is, what he really cares about isn't the continuous nature of reality, it's the fact that everything at the event-level is unique and distinct (a haecceity Deleuze would say). So he doesn't like big sweeping categories and generalisations. One of his big ideas is that things with the same name (two cats, two Americans, “myself” at two different times...) are actually separate events at the event-level. They have nothing necessarily to do with each other (contingently they might). Observers have picked some attribute which joins them together. The extension cannot – must not – be reduced to the intension, to the attributes one can infer about the class of objects/events. This throws abstract nouns into question as an aspect of language. Every claim is partial and relative because it might be false, the same as in empiricism. When someone says “Emile likes shrooms” then this might be wrong because Emile1 at 3am yesterday eating shrooms is not Emile2 at 7pm today, he's a different object, he might have changed. Similarly with “men like football” or “dogs have four legs”. There's a gap between the statement and its “truth” which arises because of an excess of the event-level over what each of us, at this particular moment, can sense, perceive, and say.

And this is what poststructuralism does wrong, most of the time. It uses lots of big, swingeing, general concepts which it makes big absolute claims about. “The subject”, “identity”, “modernity”, “modern reason”, “western reason”, “science”, “whiteness”, “the racialised gendered subject”. It acts like we can make big general claims which are absolutely true, such as “the subject is an effect of western reason” or “the racialised gendered subject is traumatised by the operations of coloniality” or “the symbolic is always haunted by the Real”, and it doesn't recognise the gap between the claim and the extensional series covered by each of these names (if there even is a series – some of their words are buzzwords, or radically undefined), or even the possibility that it might be wrong, its statements might be false. When really there is no “the” anything, in terms of big general categories, there's an extensional series of subjects which are all different, an extensional series of scientific claims which are all different, an extensional series of white people who are all different, and the only thing holding them together is that someone's stuck the same label on them.

Hence why I prefer Stirner and Deleuze... for Stirner, all those big generalising categories and the claims which stem from them are “spooks”, forms of alienation; for Deleuze, they are molar aggregates which do not capture the molecular flows of desire.

>whether it's bad faith or compulsive mental disorder
>Is he trolling? Or is it all just compulsive hippy ego-babble? 

It's part of the theory, I think. I know a few holists (mostly bastard love-children of Derrida buggering the Buddha) and they all argue the same way. Repetitive, closed-minded, avoidant of the content and objections others raise, always interpellating their 'other' as the ignorant non-woke puppet of western reason who's still inside the Matrix and refuses to see it (at least Emile doesn't add in the accusations that we're therefore racist and sexist, like most of them do). Why do they do this? The trouble is, they think any recourse to evidence or reason is a ploy, an unfair move. Everything which comes from the senses or thought is a delusion. You can't argue or dialogue with them, without them seeing “modern reason” (because... well... you're having to advance arguments or evidence), and starting to argue against the fact that you're arguing (rather than the content of your arguments). So, whatever you argue, they just throw back, that's modern reason again, that's modern reason again. So, where does valid knowledge come from? Intuition. But intuition is incommunicable. The moment we try to communicate intuition, we're back with language, concepts, descriptions, separate objects and so on. The way they bridge this in practice is a flow of empty language accountable to nothing but itself, which slides around, captures, ignores, mischaracterises everything it comes up against, and which attempts to “point to” the absent unsayable ineffable jouissance at the heart of their thought (negative theology is the model). Frustrating others' egos is also part of the exercise, since the ego is the enemy and the origin of all oppression. One of the contradictions of the discourse is that, in spite of itself, it also argues and it also binarises and it usually insists on “these exact words” as the naming of the unnamable and attacking any alternative naming (example: becoming is desire) as a ruse of ego. When they do this, the unnamable ends up, functionally, as just another named object (which is how they can have a dogmatic rigid worldview while also claiming utter humility, anti-essentialism and so on). Having read Hakim Bey on the shamanic trace, I suspect this is how mystical experiences are reified into religious doctrines. Oh, and they also have a loophole where they get to be annoying and self-contradictory because 1) they're disrupting, transgressing, poking holes in language and 2) we can't stay constantly in awareness of the relational nature of existence, so we're allowed to slip back into ordinary “scientific” thought most of the time (which also means that, politically, they usually end up reformist at best). c.f. “strategic essentialism”.

Very well done! I suppose my issue with these pseudo-mystics is only when they choose to take up so much space, rambling about their pet theories when my only interest in anarchist theory is for practical problem solving.

Anyway, that was a checkmate IMHO. Emile argues in circles and uses rhetorical trickery couched in his text walls, like we've been saying for years.

In 5 years or so reading emile I have to see someone take him on substantially until @critic who's arguments(in addition to not being one of the bottle per anews commenters) I find very convincing. Unlike emile's haters he actually takes emile's arguments seriously and agrees with much of the points I do. A lot of Es haters also do have a lot of western baggage riddled assumptions which are not helpful to any kind of living breathing anarchy. This causes me to agree more than I disagree with him.

So now somebody has held your hand and carefully explained exactly how he's full of shit. Next comes the realization that most of Emile's "haters" had a point all along.

They've had years to do this and didn't. I suspect it's because 1) emile was right about their flawed Western assumptions and 2) They never had half of his intellectual acumen to do what @critic is now doing. That and personal putdown after putdown.

Y'all were dicks to Emile, usually quite unnecessarily.

When he glorified Nelson Mandela or talked some nonsense about rape, rip him up, obviously. But otherwise, don't pile on. No fucking need, especially given mod policy.

Anyway, Zigs: consider the possibility that no one cared to engage with Emile. To be sure, I could not have engaged with the ideas nearly as well as @critic, but I have other interests, y'know? I think you should consider abandoning a self-conception as better/smarter than most other people, and consider the possibility why you, an unpopular internet person, want to defend another unpopular internet person. My theory: it's your solidarious instinct, which you would be better off embracing since you're a lowly social animal like the rest of us.

Holists are fucking infuriating to discuss things with. Emile is pretty typical of how they argue/dialogue/proselytise IMO, albeit he's an extreme case (and most of the others I've met are also into idpol and poststructuralism, so their holism is a lot more weaponised as a tool of career advancement). But what's equally annoying is, they're often right about some stuff, and the stuff they're right about gets ignored because of they way they troll the fuck out of everyone. They're trying to bring us all into a unified holistic consciousness, but the way they do it polarises and reproduces dualisms, or even causes a backlash. I think the way it works is, they think the way to bring about holism is to attack (or at least not indulge) others' egos (in the sense of cogito, thinking-self), but attacking others' egos triggers defensive reactions which cause people to buckle down around more one-dimensional ideas than they had to begin with. It provokes others into being exactly the intolerant realists it said they were to begin with! Which serves the holists' egos/superegos, which are actually structured around living in a Manichean world of holists vs dualists (I know, it makes no logical sense because a Manichean world is by definition dualistic... it must create an emotional Nash equilibrium though, because they get very stuck in it, it "works" as a form-of-life). But of course, this leaves behind it a trail of polarised realists who are now a bit, or a lot, less tolerant of holism than they were before (once bitten twice shy). Kinda like how feminists trolling gamers created a trail of angry misogynists. And this is the opposite of actually realising holistic awareness: it entrenches dualistic consciousness because it acts-out the dualistic aspect of the holist's own personality. As "Unidentified" said earlier, holistic intuition tends to happen when people aren't ego-fixated (in the Freudian sense), when they're totally immersed in the moment. Bergson describes it as extension or relaxation, as opposed to contraction... the more relaxed people are, the less focused they are on survival-based "attention to life" and the more they're open to holistic awareness.

The word "ego" is so confusing these days. Stirner used it before it became common currency, and it was an ironic riff on Feuerbach if I understand rightly (in Feuerbach, an "egoist" is someone who doesn't do what's required by universal moral duty). In Freudian terms, the Stirnerian ego is not so much an ego as a projectile self-aware id. But, between Freud and the later idea of the "Cartesian ego", it's come in everyday language to refer specifically to the "managing" part of the self, the part which predicts, controls, plans, deduces (or sometimes the 'persona', the socially-presented fake self). It's a necessary part of the self, and it's there in indigenous societies too (the rigorous local knowledge of the local environment for example), but it's not meant to be running the operation, it's not meant to be controlling the self, it's a secondary means-ends assemblage in service to ends which come from outside it (if it controls the self then we're instantly inside Max Weber's paradox of instrumentalism without a goal). But IMO manager-egos tend to be overdeveloped in modern/capitalist societies (not of course in every individual), they tend to run the self in many cases, and the effects of this are pretty harmful - repression of desire especially, and arguably certain kinds of aggressivity as well (dig beneath the idpol rhetoric about toxic masculinity and so on, and basically they're talking about overdeveloped manager-egos). But it's not just some delusion, history isn't some idealist fable gone wrong, people don't just "misunderstand" the role of the manager-ego and overdevelop it, and it's not just cultural "conditioning" either. The manager-ego is stimulated in response to survival problem-solving, and it's overdeveloped because implied threats to survival (often very well-concealed) are pervasive in modern culture (notice how animals develop greater anxiety and reactivity after trauma - it's a parallel phenomenon I believe). The current precarity-disposability-democide regime leads to an affective association of underperformance with death - so most people are roughly in the situation of the experimental "executive monkeys". Manager-egos are overdeveloped because they're needed to survive, or to perform, in modern families, schools, work, prisons, markets, and so on. (They break down to the extent that we're able to live our lives in anarchic, wild spaces). Of course, since most of them are overdeveloped, and having an underdeveloped one often leads to social failure, an overdeveloped manager-ego is normalised in bourgeois psychology. And most people are also coming into anarchism with overdeveloped manager-egos, and anarchism doesn't know how to redirect these, and certain visions of anarchism actually seem to start out as a democratic equality of manager-egos cooperating for mutual benefit or competing to disperse their power (which could never happen because anarchism leads to extension-relaxation which leads to weaker manager-egos). I think the tendencies are always there to counterbalance these problems: project-focus, intense fusional energy from emotive events such as protests, altered consciousness, direct horizontal connection... but often the egos are stronger, because the energies which reinforce the manager-ego bioenergy complex are more powerful than those which produce energetic extension/relaxation (and this gets us back to the question of decolonising education: how to create bioenergetic loci for the latter not the former). Also, along with the problem of overdeveloped egos, there's also the problem of superegos - parts of the ego split against the ego which gain satisfaction mainly by frustrating the ego, by turning it against itself (so now the ego is focused on defeating the ego). Historically, this is the terrain of religion and anti-sexual ideology, but now, it's focused on self-frustration, unlearning, generalised shame/guilt/responsibility, management of anger and other destabilising emotions. This is what I see recurring in a lot of the communitarian holistic stuff which is flying around today. In this worldview, the ego is evil, it's narcissistic, it's abusive, it's modern and colonial and racist, it needs to be bashed down and destroyed - and who's gonna do the destroying? - the superego. And it's why paradoxically, the assault on the ego is strengthening the ego. Because superego is an ego variant, it's an internally split ego, it's the ego turned against itself. And holism has been conscripted into this project in a kind of neo-Confucian synthesis which perfectly suits the new (maybe soon-to-be Sinocentric?) neoliberal order: an affective project of passivity, deference, etiquette and shame.

And this is ruining the PR appeal for us Stirnerians, Deleuzians, Nietzscheans, immediatists, etc - a bit the same job Stalinism did on anarcho-communism. The "right" ideas are captured and attached to the "wrong" purposes, and thereby undermine their own "rightness". Relational epistemology might well be right scientifically, and useful politically, and the basis for bolo'bolo or something similar. But IMO people are gonna keep rejecting relational epistemology if it's pre-packaged with rejection of desire, and (coercive) self-dissolution. Worldviews aren't usually just straight right or wrong, they make sense of aspects of reality, and someone trying to strip that sense away and plunge you into an existential abyss is gonna provoke resistance. Doubly so if the holist isn't engaging with the criticisms (convincing others that they're right and the holist is acting in bad faith). Triply so if the holist seems to be talking nonsense (whether they really are, or not). The way you do it, IMO, is the way Vaneigem does it, the way Hakim Bey does it, the way Nietzsche does it. A subtle seduction into a bigger world where joy is possible, and meaning is still possible. Something which doesn't bash down the manager-ego but undercuts it - appeals to the repressed parts - and at the same time offers something to the manager-ego, recognises it's doing an important job. Even someone like Marshall Rosenberg or Thich Nhat Hanh - and sure, there's superego in these works - know not to go around bashing manager-egos over the head, in fact quite the opposite, they exude calm, indulgence, and that's what gets under the manager-ego's defences.

hello again @critic,

to begin with, i’m not sure on what basis you put me into a category called ‘holists’; i.e. you write;

>whether it's bad faith or compulsive mental disorder
>Is he trolling? Or is it all just compulsive hippy ego-babble?
It's part of the theory, I think. I know a few holists (mostly bastard love-children of Derrida buggering the Buddha) and they all argue the same way. Repetitive, closed-minded, avoidant of the content and objections others raise, always interpellating their 'other' as the ignorant non-woke puppet of western reason who's still inside the Matrix and refuses to see it (at least Emile doesn't add in the accusations that we're therefore racist and sexist, like most of them do). Why do they do this? The trouble is, they think any recourse to evidence or reason is a ploy, an unfair move.

overall, you misinterpret almost all of my statements. i don’t have any problem with stirner but nietzsche makes more sense to me because he grounds his understanding in overall evolution which adds a lot of depth/context to what he is saying. as for sir einzige’s point about my misinterpreting you , in that you were NOT making the assumption that the individual is an independent thing-in-himself with free will, ... i see that you are holding out for this middle ground, which to me makes no sense and seems like playing two theories against one another, as i mentioned with the example of the farmer who attributes his wheat production to his own efforts in good times and blames ‘external influences’ in bad times, which allows him to preserve the notion that he is causally responsible for his wheat production.

my point is that you can prove anything by pulling out this theory when you need it [determinism] and pulling out the other contrary theory [will-directed local agency] when you need it.

as for my views, they are not nearly so complex as you make them out to be, and I will comment on a number of things that you have said where you contradict something i have expressed, or where you ‘get me wrong’ and/or ‘misrepresent’what i was saying.

1. ”>“Fields of force are the primary reality, and ‘matter’ a secondary or derived phenomenon” —Michael Faraday"
However, fields of force are also localised. For example, the orbit of Jupiter is not affected by the price of Starbuck's coffee, or vice-versa

when faraday (and emile) refer to ‘field’, this is a reference to an overall ‘field theory’ as Einstein and others speak of it, where space [the universe] is wave-energy charged and is ‘everywhere at the same time’. the ‘old’ field theory such as Newton’s gravity field was a mathematical contrivance where one divided space up into euclidian pixels and calculated the force of gravity at each location (as needed) by integrating the influence of mass in the region, using newton’s two-body law of gravitational attraction [which assumed that gravity came from matter, rather than matter coming from gravity].

Also, Jupiter wasn’t always here and won’t always be here because it is a dimple in the overall field that is in the process of being recycled like all matter [matter is non eternal and is equivalent to energy].

2. . A group of people can isolate themselves from “society” provided they find a sufficiently remote location with a sufficiently survivable habitat
Desire (and will, as projectile desire) is the localisation of force at the level of the unique-one and its existential territory. The totality is a kaleidoscope of moving localities and fields of force which are potentially connected, but also differenciated and constantly fusing and splitting, fluxing and schizzing.

Ok, i have no idea what you are talking about here, but just to say that it has nothing to do with ‘field’ of Schroedinger or Einstein, Bohm et al.

3. >'epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression'
I'm not sure what that is meant to mean

as Mach points out, science [dualist, being-based science] ignores inductive influence and goes with a purely mechanical model based on matter and force. if we understand phenomena starting from a base of ‘matter’ and the actions and interactions of material entities, thing appear to be positively-causally ‘generated’ [genetic expression] in an empty, non-influencing space. when field is primary, the genetic expression is not self-actualizing but inductively actualized by the epigenetic influence immanent in the field. In fluid dynamics, pressure the thermal fields will inductively actualize storms; i.e. the animating source is not ‘inside the storm’ but lies in the flow-field which ‘pulls forth’ the development of the relational feature. in a community, relational tensions can induce ‘uprisings’ or ‘rebellion’. rebellion is inductively actualized. the state will use simple science to say that rebellions are caused by rebels, which ignores their role. Western justice and forensic science assumes that rebellions are caused by rebels that are independent things-in-themselves who are fully and solely causally responsible for their actions.

4. >we do not have to say, 'the sunflower turns its head towards the east to catch more of the sun's irradiance, implying that plant behaviour is directed by their 'internal intelligence and will' aka 'rational purpose'.
An *indigenous* conception says exactly that (aka animism).

Absolutely NOT. Animism would have it that everything is inhabited by ‘spirit’ or ‘the Great spirit’, even rocks. this is in figurative agreement with modern physics [see ‘Blackfoot Physics’ and Bohm’s meetings with native american elders].

My very different point on plant behaviour was that science uses anthropomorphism to explain complex cooperation among plants and other organisms with ecosystems; i.e. biological scientists portray plants as ‘independent things-in-themselves’ with behaviours directed by their own internal intelligent ‘will’.

5. First Emile tells us that quantum physics proves that we are not independent beings with free will. Now he tells us that science hoodwinks us into believing we are independent beings with free will. Has he changed his mind? Or does he have no idea what he's talking about?

I thought I made it clear, evidently not, that when I speak of ‘science’, I am speaking of ‘mainstream science’, the science we get from noun-and-verb language [Whorf]; i.e. ‘dualist, being-based science’ that we use in our everyday rational thinking.

Modern physics points to field-matter nonduality; i.e. where matter is to field as a resonance feature like a hurricane is the flow it is included in. It is the flow-field at the same time as it is the feature (whorl) in the field. in this view, there is nothing that is ‘independent’ nor equipped with ‘free will’. the concept of an independent thing-itself with free-will is convenient but highly oversimplified abstraction that can be useful; e.g. it is useful to say ‘Katrina is heading for New Orleans, you’d better evacuate’. More comprehensively, there are many transformative processes in nature including fluid turbulence.

6. “I believe the totality is differenciated; that events are not simply a unitary God playing with itself. Quite how you've got from that to “full and sole source of one's own actions” is beyond me.”

The concept of a universe as an energy-charged plenum or ‘field’ is that it is an evolving fluid, or ‘turbulence’ that induces within itself a diversity of relational forms [as in a fluid dynamic]. This is described by way of the bootstrap model where a community of diverse forms will inductively actualize new forms and the evolved community will inductively actualize new forms and so on as in ‘evolution’ [Lamarckian style].

My reference to “full and sole source of one's own actions” was pointing to an individual with local will-directed agency’. I see that you have a schema for a ‘middle ground’ which, as I say, seems to me to fall into a known misuse of logic where two conflicting theories are employed by referring to one [determinism] under one set of circumstances and to the other [free will] under a different set of circumstances, giving the illusion of a viable ‘middle ground’.

7. “Guess what? People who believe in rigid binaries often simplify reality so that it fits into the two options they recognise. Usually, one of these is absolutely good and is their own position, and the other is absolutely evil. Everything which is not their own dogma is lumped into the absolutely evil category.”

If you are referring to me, I have made it clear that we all have the option to employ two realities (a) intuitive reality which is nondualist and relational and (b) scientific reality which is dualist and being-based. The example of the ecosystem is a case in point. In the field-based view (a), relations are in a natural primacy over the things in the ecosystem which means that the participating forms in the ecosystem are inductively actualized by the complex of relational influences they are situationally included in. This is sometimes referred to as development spurred on by a ‘niche’ where the ‘niche’ is like an opportunity that forms within the confluence of various relational dynamics in a community of things. The development of the thing in the niche is inductively actualized by the epigenetic influence aka ‘the niche’. In the (b) view which is orthodox science, the ecosystem is understand as a diverse collection of different organism that are ‘cooperating’ in a highly intelligent and purposeful fashion (anthropomorphism).

You can see that while it is easier to talk in terms of Katrina as if she were a self-actualizing thing-in-herself even though ‘she’ is an inductively actualized relational form-in-the-flow [inductive actualizing influence is not visible], so it is easier to talk about the ecosystem in terms of the participating organisms and what they do as if they were self-actualizing things-in-themselves, even though it is the confluence of relational influences that is inductively actualizing them.

There are two modes of understanding or conceptualizing reality here that are available to all of us. the (b) mode (scientific reality) s the easiest to talk about while the (a) mode (intuitive reality) is harder because the noun-and-verb architecture of language is tailored for scientific reality [science comes from the noun-and-verb language architecture [Whorf, McLuhan].

8. “>so long as we believe in this view of man as an independently-existing thing-in-itself driven and directed by internal scientific thinking capability and free will, ... portraying us as the full and sole source of our own actions and accomplishments, we are fucked. @critic's theory falls for that 'superstition'.
I don't see a lot of evidence for that conclusion. Just a lot of question-begging rhetoric and empty assertion.”

This conclusion, that we are fucked, is well expressed by Tolstoy in the paper in the anarchist archives by Brian Morris. The (b) is what is making slaves of us and is supporting a system of justice that finds always against any rebel, even a rebelling slave, because the exploitation of the slave is by withholding access to life’s essentials which is not a positive causal action but a negative causal (inductive) influence that justice is blind to. i think tolstoy tells a very clear story of how we are fucked by enforcing the (b) view of people as ‘independent things-in-themselves’.

the fact that you don’t see it, implicitly suggests that your theorizing is (b) based.

9. “You still haven't explained how your holism can account for 1) difference, 2) antagonism, 3) deviance from socially-determined patterns, 4) resonance and the need of living organisms for habitat.

First, I don’t like the word ‘holism’ because it refers to too many things which are nothing like what I am talking about.

There is nothing in the physical reality of our experience that cannot be explained by the (a) intuitive reality (nondual, relational) view that is explained by the (b) scientific reality.. It differs from the (b) scientific reality (dualist, being-based) view in one way, and that is that ‘relations’ are in a natural primacy over ‘things-in-themselves’. Thus the Saddam Hussein regime in the (a) view would be a relational feature or resonance feature within the global relational social dynamics rather than a ‘thing-in-itself’. Thus, to speak of eliminating it would make no sense because it is a relational complex that is unseparated from the global relational complex. bodies are moving in and out of this relational structure called ‘Saddam’s regime’ on a continuing basis, by appointment, by assassination, by local purges. like an 300 year old village or like the roman empire, the thing is continually rebuilding itself thanks to a complex of relational influences and the material structure is secondary. as with the ecosystem, it is easier to talk about it in terms of the ‘incumbents’ and ‘what they do’ which gives it a sense of ‘being’ when it is instead a relational complex. By treating Saddam’s regime as a ‘thing-in-itself’ and undertaking to eliminate it, such intervention in the (a) view would to amount to bashing in the relational complex which would give rise to more than an elimination of the incumbents; it would be seen in the (b) view as engendering unanticipated externalities like the rise of ISIS.

The point is that the (a) reality will manifest everything the (b) reality manifests, the difference being that the (a) reality understands that the material structures are secondary rather than primary. The relational complex is primary but it is not visible.

10. “>western culture was more intuitive originally and then we dumbed ourselves down with noun-and-verb language and science
Question: why did “we” do this?
I don't buy the idea that people were living happily in an intuitive reality and just woke up one day and decided they were going to start denying everything they knew, inventing nonexistent subjects, and ruining everything.

As Whorf and McLuhan have pointed out, we didn’t always have alphabetic languages which build meaning from pure abstract phonemes until about 1000 BCE, thanks to the Phoenicians and then the Greeks. These languages were invented for their utility to merchants and traders for dealing with inventory and transactions. Their advent marked the shift of stewardship of language from the priests and shamans concerned with ‘spiritual affairs’ to traders with their ‘business affairs’.

As McLuhan points out, this shifted us from perceiving the world in ‘acoustic space’ [everywhere at the same time volumetric ] terms to ‘visual space’ [flat panels out there in front of us] terms. as this shift got entrenched, our acoustic space perception has atrophied [McLuhan].

Gradually, we get to the point noted by Emerson where the tool ran away with the workman, the human with the divine. By that Emerson means we reduced ourselves to ‘doers of deeds’ from ‘agents of relational transformation’. The spiritual or field aspect that had been in a natural primacy over the material aspect was displaced, and the material aspect elevated into an unnatural primacy over the intuitive. The energy-charged relational plenum disappeared from view [from intuitive awareness], leaving only material objects in empty euclidian space.

i don't know if this confirms for you that i am in the holist category that you speak of, but i am curious about your comments in categorizing me as such, ... whether these were 'comments to the audience' to influence their views of me, or comments directed to me in regard to my views and approach..

I criticized emile at the beginning of his appearance on @news, as did several others. I took his comments seriously in good faith at face value. But then I realized emile never took onboard anyone's criticism of him, and he never addressed his interlocutor's points adequately, he just kept rambling on and on about the same things in the same way as if his points had never been challenged, or skewered (like his citing a whole panoply of 19th century Western scientists to argue that Western science was His text walls were shorter back then, it took a few years to reach the point of 10,000 word essays. yet no matter how long his essays got, he never made any more sense.

Ziggy has selective memory if he thinks no one has ever made convincing critiques of emile's writings before.. But I do agree @critic's criticisms are very good, and are certainly the best recent ones.

But it's still about playing the game of measuring dicks on the table. Apparently @critic does a good point while showing he's got a 12 inch sausage... which makes one or two visitors suddenly love him for some reason, but a small dick like me will be asking you and others: what's the use/meaning of this bickering, or can we just move beyond this childish rooster fight?

not sure how i stumbled into the forum for discussing whose ideas one should believe in.

"Discuss" being the operative word.

I'm not quite sure how we can "discuss ideas" without "discussing whose ideas one should believe in". Unless perhaps if we replace people ("whose ideas") with abstract assemblages of ideas (holism vs dualism vs expressionism, theism vs atheism etc), or else taking all ideas as equal and equally true (which you definitely don't).

Still waiting for answers on how holism can account for difference, antagonism, deviance, and quantum randomness btw.

maybe that a sound abstract-holism is necessarily be grounded in the absolute nihilism so that nothing is random and everything is sacred, or vice-versa?
what are we discussing again ?

if einstein had the sexual manners of weinstein would you pull relativity from the bookshelves?

one's personal experience is the sole source of truth [Montaigne, Poincare]. Majorities have no monopoly on the truth [Giordano Bruno].

holism is your word, not mine.

the understanding that 'field' is primary and 'matter' secondary within a field-matter nonduality opens the way to a more comprehensive understanding of all natural phenomena for everyone and anyone. the phenomena of our experience including antagonism, differentiation etc. don't go away, they are seen in a new, more comprehensive light. i.e;

“… the division into matter and field is, after the recognition of the equivalence of mass and energy, something artificial and not clearly defined. Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? What impresses our senses as matter is really a great concentration of energy into a comparatively small space. We could regard matter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong. In this way a new philosophical background could be created. ... There would be no place, in our new physics, for both field and matter, field being the only reality. ... To use a comparison, we could say that creating a new theory is not like destroying an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting point and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles of our adventurous way up.” — Einstein and Infeld, ‘Evolution of Physics’

The understanding or 'idea' that field-matter nonduality opens up a portal into more comprehensive understanding [in an (a) nondual, relational, intuitive reality] of the same phenomena we were previously understanding [in a (b) dual, being-based scientific reality] is the idea that i have been writing about in @news for years. this idea does not depend on me or my good or bad habits. this idea is testable by anyone through their own experience and intuition; i.e. from your own experience you can 'test' whether there are two 'levels of comprehensiveness' as to the 'source of rebellion'; i.e. where rebellion may be seen [first view] as deriving simply from the internal 'will' of a person as an independent thing-in-himself as western justice and forensic science would have it, ... and/or [second view] where rebellion derives from relational tensions that develop, and continually accumulate/concentrate to some limit of tolerance at which point these spring-loaded relational tensions discharge in a violent release that seeks relational reconfiguration that will lower tensions [e.g. between serfs and landlords].

one's own experience is the test for whether both of these views [which Nietzsche calls in Also Sprach Zarathustra; (a) 'the bigger sagacity (intuition) natural Self based view' and (b) 'the little sagacity (rationality) ego-self based view'] are possible.and whether (a) corresponds to personal physical experience and (b) corresponds to 'appearances' that give us a basis for simplistic but pragmatic dualist being-based idealizations that people can have 'in common' [as an 'objective reality']

Tolstoy's experiential inquiry into social conflict exposed these nestings of major (a) and minor (b) views, and this was the basis of his 'anarchism' since it induces the shifting of 'operative reality' up from (b) scientific reality to (a) intuitive reality and so 'let go' of managing everything on the basis of rational and moral judgements as in (b) he could then see scientific reality as a small, simple material-being based PRAGMATIC IDEALIZATION of a far more relationally complex unfolding wherein the actions of the individual are inductively actualized by the vast complex of relational dynamics the individual is situationally included in. this encouraged him to abandon his former mode of 'chasing down symptoms' and trying to eliminate them [as in revolution] and to instead resume the cultivating, restoring and sustaining of balance and harmony in the relational social dynamic.

anybody in this forum can poll their own personal experience to see whether "this idea" of two nested levels of reality is affirmed in their own experience. they don't have to listen to emile or to @critic or to sir einzige or to le way or wait for a 'concensus' to build, ... "one's own personal experience is the sole source of truth" not the utterings of some guru or expert or political faction anointed by a vocal or a silent majority.

... which i patiently wrote a reply to, but I think it's gone now.

Replying anyway...

>i see that you are holding out for this middle ground, which to me makes no sense and seems like playing two theories against one another, as i mentioned with the example of the farmer who attributes his wheat production to his own efforts in good times and blames ‘external influences’ in bad times

I understand your concern here – and this tends to be what happens if someone adopts a style of empiricism where free will and determinism both exist and are “factors” (though I'm not sure it's actually incoherent: consider if the farmer has limited power within a localised field of control, and crop failure is due to a greater power – in that case he is causally responsible for a successful crop, and arguably also responsible for failure due to not exerting his power, but he is not responsible for being overwhelmed by a greater power outside his control).

But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is: everything is energy, energy has a propulsive or operative force within it, energy (nodes/bundles of energy) will move towards things it resonates with and away from things which repulse it, some energies form assemblages and others do not. All that “really exists” is energy, but energy is differenciated and localised as well as continuous and potentially interrelating. The “virtual” is the domain of images or structures towards which energies “act”, with or without intentional agency, and which are “actualised” in particular worldly arrangements of energy. This means, in a sense, that I don't believe in either free will or determinism. I believe in a kind of immanent propulsive force which expresses itself in action in the world (without necessarily having a directive intent; I believe intent is either rationalisation or means-ends channelling towards ends external to it). Energy has “force” or “desire” or “will”, but not free self-determining will in the Kantian sense. This situation of immanent propulsive force is the relevant force whether or not the farmer has a good harvest.

>when faraday (and emile) refer to ‘field’, this is a reference to an overall ‘field theory’ as Einstein and others speak of it, where space [the universe] is wave-energy charged and is ‘everywhere at the same time

In physics, quantum field theory retains the principle of locality, although experiments seem to preclude retaining both locality and realism (local realism). The main problem for local realism is quantum entanglement (apparent influence of one particle on another across distance). Einstein always continued to believe in local realism. Other quantum physicists have formulated different ways of accounting for quantum entanglement. The most conventional interpretation is the Copenhagen interpretation, which maintains that wavefunctions do not “exist” in a realist sense and “do not exist” prior to measurement. Because the wavefunction does not exist in a realist sense, quantum entanglement does not violate locality (as constructed in classical field theory). The Bohm interpretation is closer to the Emile interpretation in that it is impossible to know the trajectory of a quantum particle without knowing the physical state of the entire universe. However, the Emile spin is certainly excessive over the evidence. Quantum theories are ways of explaining observed or inferred properties of subatomic particles. Like all scientific theories, its validity is premised on its fit with the observed data. Classical field theory continues to apply at a molar level, because it also continues to fit with the observed data.

Quite how we get molar entities compatible with local realism yet which are composed of particles governed by laws incompatible with local realism, I don't know, and I doubt anybody knows. Scientific theories are instrumental and inductive, they're designed to conceptualise the observed data, they're not designed to provide ultimate meaning. Anyway... suffice to say that quantum entanglement means that a subatomic particle on Jupiter may be affected by a subatomic particle in New York, but it doesn't mean that Jupiter's orbit and Starbucks' prices have any relationship.

>Also, Jupiter wasn’t always here and won’t always be here because it is a dimple in the overall field that is in the process of being recycled like all matter

Not relevant. If/when Jupiter ceases to exist as a localised bundle of energy/matter, this will (barring further processes outside our knowledge) occur because of the influence of local forces compatible with classical field theory (most likely the sun changing state, although you can insert any number of Death Stars, asteroids, HAARP devices, and interstellar yo momma jokes without changing this).

>2. . A group of people can isolate themselves from “society” provided they find a sufficiently remote location with a sufficiently survivable habitat
>Ok, i have no idea what you are talking about here, but just to say that it has nothing to do with ‘field’ of Schroedinger or Einstein, Bohm et al.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with quantum field theory because human bodies and ecosystems are molar entities which obey the laws of classical field theory – even though they're ultimately composed of bits of energy which doesn't. But it has a lot to do with anarchism, holism, education and social change. Whereas quantum field theory most likely doesn't. A group of quantum particles couldn't run off to a sufficiently remote/survivable locale because (on Bohm's reading) they might still be enmeshed with other non-local particles. But a bunch of humans or antelope or robots could, because they're still inside classical field theory. Forces which impact on each other only locally, at speed of light or less, and where the connectedness and power of localised forces over each other are therefore relative, contestable, and come down to power (or attraction). Vulnerable to forces which are locally present, and to the lingering impact of forces which have already impacted them, but not automatically enmeshed with all other forces all the time (not that quantum particles are always enmeshed either). Hence the continued usefulness of concepts like individual, habitat, will, desire, power, social war, exodus, autonomy, and so on. An individual is a local field. A social milieu is a local field. An ecosystem is a local field. It doesn't matter all that much whether the forces exerted in each local field really have “free will” or if they're impelled more-or-less deterministically by their properties as objects and the forces exerted upon them. They're analytically separable, and this is vital to any kind of political, social or ecological action.

>In fluid dynamics, pressure the thermal fields will inductively actualize storms; i.e. the animating source is not ‘inside the storm’ but lies in the flow-field which ‘pulls forth’ the development of the relational feature. in a community, relational tensions can induce ‘uprisings’ or ‘rebellion’. rebellion is inductively actualized. the state will use simple science to say that rebellions are caused by rebels, which ignores their role. 

Okay, but we're still within classical field theory here. Local forces produce effects on objects, which are misperceived as simple expressions of the force of the object. And, of course there are cases where people misattribute socially-caused reactions as self-willed actions (the Libet experiments for example, and just-world fallacy experiments). This doesn't mean there are no self-willed actions, and especially, it doesn't mean that there are no processes which result partially or wholly from the force of a particular localised object/event. If someone throws a brick, does it fall back to earth because the brick is heavy or because the earth exerts gravitational force? It's a relation of forces, but it makes no sense without taking the brick's mass into account. What sense does it make to say “the field is primary”, as if the universe is imply willing the brick down to earth?

By the way, Mach is a phenomenologist. Similar to Korzybski and Geertz. He believes that science is a way of describing sensations rather than external reality. “Nature exists once only. Our schematic mental imitation alone produces like events.” (Mach) I don't know where you've got the idea that Mach was a holist. Perhaps because of his principle that “absolute space and time” should be replaced by overall states of the universe?

>The (b) is what is making slaves of us and is supporting a system of justice that finds always against any rebel, even a rebelling slave, because the exploitation of the slave is by withholding access to life’s essentials which is not a positive causal action but a negative causal (inductive) influence that justice is blind to.

If people who believe in independent individuals actually believed that people are absolutely free from all physical and material needs, this argument makes sense. But as far as I know, nobody believes that. Marxists, and I daresay most social anarchists, believe that access to life's essentials is a fundamental right of everyone, and a precondition for living freely. Some liberals also believe that people have some kind of subsistence rights. Those who don't believe in subsistence rights, believe that people still have choice even when they have to work to survive, or choose between working and stealing. I agree with you that this is a pretty empty vision of “freedom”. But it doesn't really have much to do with free will vs determinism. Free will doesn't mean that people can choose not to starve. It might mean people can choose to deliberately starve themselves – and there are plenty of cases where people have refused to eat, for inner reasons (whether these are free-will or compulsion or balance of forces) – hunger strikers, fasting saints, anorexics. For that matter, there are lots of people who kill themselves, even though it makes no sense in survival terms. Still... I'm not sure what your kind of strong determinism means for resistance. Are we meant to just sit around and wait for the external forces to provide the pull factors which coalesce a movement?

Also you're mixing up a whole load of different issues here. Your original point about being ecologically “fucked” because of enclosing and over-exploiting land (destroying the habitat of the species) is very different from your current point that people need certain physical goods to live. And both points, in fact, confirm my original argument about the importance of locality of forces when dealing with human- or global-scale issues. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (big bangs/black holes/antimatter etc aside); the subatomic particles composing humans or antelope or blades of grass are not affected by the depletion of resources or the availability of food, as particles they simply shift location and form, and they are still part of the field they were always part of. The “we” in “we're fucked” is necessarily something other than the totality of subatomic particles. It's humans, or living things, or the earth as an ecosystem.

You're trying to derive an ethic of responsibility (we're responsible to prevent others from starving, whether or not we have any blame for the fact that they're starving) from quantum field theory, and this doesn't really work. Because if quantum field theory applies at a molar level, then 1) humans can't starve, they just change form, 2) humans as individuals don't exist, therefore can't matter, therefore there's no reason to stop people starving, and 3) there is no “self” who can be responsible for stopping others from starving, the supposed self's supposed actions are just so many effects of determinant forces within the wider field, and if these forces don't impel the self to feed others (or itself), this is no more of a problem than the fact that they don't impel rocks or horses to do so. You're requiring a responsible self which has many of the traits of the ego you reject, while attaching it incoherently to an ontology which requires that no such self exists.

Now, if you weren't saying that people's *bad ideas* cause them (as actors) to irresponsibly exploit others, but rather, that the *balance of forces in the world* is arranged in such a way that some exploit others, and that humans as localised nodes of force can exist force (based on their own desires/inner forces) to alter the balance of forces to some degree, then you'd have a theory which worked.

>the fact that you don’t see it, implicitly suggests that your theorizing is (b) based.

The fact that I don't believe the statement “belief X causes consequence Y” does not entail that I believe in belief X.

>Thus the Saddam Hussein regime in the (a) view would be a relational feature or resonance feature within the global relational social dynamics rather than a ‘thing-in-itself’. Thus, to speak of eliminating it would make no sense because it is a relational complex that is unseparated from the global relational complex. 

Yeah... your test of a) vs b) is again not a test of your views versus mine, because mine is a middle ground and not a b). Here, you're proving my point that the a) view is unsatisfactory because it cannot account for observed changes, differences, antagonisms, deviance, etc. The localised arrangement of forces in Iraq after the US invasion was different from the arrangement of forces under the Saddam regime – different in ways that Iraq in 1988 was not different from Iraq in 1989. The porosity of boundaries does not change that. The difference between the Saddam regime at time 1 and time 2 does not change that. The fact that the US regime overestimated the importance of the regime as a determinant force in the society does not change that. The fact that the invasion had unseen consequences (which, by the way, were predicted by many people) does not change that. The invasion really did produce observable changes, and these changes are inexplicable on your a) model. Similarly, the fact that the American state invaded Iraq, and not Sudan, led to changes which happened in Iraq, and not in Sudan. The change in organisation in Iraq led to profits for oil companies which were not happening under the previous organisation. The a) account cannot account for the differences in pre- and post-invasion Iraq because on the a) model as you've formulated it, the localised assemblage the invasion destroyed never existed. The b) model can explain the differences between pre- and post-invasion Iraq but has difficulty dealing with the unobservable forces happening below the surface (e.g. why “the same” Mubarak regime was stable at point A and unstable at point B). My model can account for both, because it refers to forces but they are localisable.

>As Whorf and McLuhan have pointed out, we didn’t always have alphabetic languages which build meaning from pure abstract phonemes until about 1000 BCE, thanks to the Phoenicians and then the Greeks. These languages were invented for their utility to merchants and traders for dealing with inventory and transactions. Their advent marked the shift of stewardship of language from the priests and shamans concerned with ‘spiritual affairs’ to traders with their ‘business affairs’.

OK, so alphabetic language is an effect of the hegemony of proto-capitalists rather than priests and shamans. Of course, capitalists will reproduce a language which is suited to their role. Trying to change the language by calling it “delusional” is pointless. It isn't delusional, it's a reflection of the worldview of a particular ruling class (which happens to be destroying the planet). The point isn't to change the superstructure and magic away all the effects of capitalism. The point is to smash capitalism itself – to disrupt, break, destroy or exodus from the structures which give bankers the power to create language.

thanks, @critic, for clarifying your ‘axioms’. i can now see where your ‘middle ground’ theory is coming from. and, it is evident that your axioms clash with mine.

the determinism vs freewill parodox and the nature-nurture paradox and the lesser jihad vs greater jihad paradox all deal with how to ‘reconcile’ the influence of external system dynamics with the influence of internal system dynamics.

schroedinger handles this with ‘nonduality’ as in indigenous anarchism where the individual is the community at the same time as he is included in the community. this is also the solution that is implicit in ‘bootstrap theory’ (Geoffrey Chew). local agency, in this nondualist view, is ‘appearances’. the primary reality is the field dynamic which is purely relational and essentially nonlocal. for example, rebellion is where a community is ‘divided against itself’; i.e. where relational tensions develop within the collective that pull the community apart. there is only the ‘appearance’ of ‘two separate factions’ and this is secondary to the primary reality wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing this genetic expression as in a community-constituent [inhabitant-habitat] nonduality..

primary reality is thus ‘invisible’ in this nondual resolving of outer and inner influence while material appearance is a secondary phenomena.

ok, i can see that your ‘middle ground’ solution to reconcile outer influence with inner influence preserves, by endowing energy with local agency, preserves local agency without introducing nonduality; i.e.;

“Energy has “force” or “desire” or “will”, but not free self-determining will in the Kantian sense.
...”energy has a propulsive or operative force within it, energy (nodes/bundles of energy) will move towards things it resonates with and away from things which repulse it, some energies form assemblages and others do not. All that “really exists” is energy, but energy is differenciated and localised as well as continuous and potentially interrelating.”
“An individual is a local field. A social milieu is a local field. An ecosystem is a local field. It doesn't matter all that much whether the forces exerted in each local field really have “free will” or if they're impelled more-or-less deterministically by their properties as objects and the forces exerted upon them. They're analytically separable, and this is vital to any kind of political, social or ecological action.”

these are new axioms which go beyond the axioms that ‘relational theorists’ like Mach, Bohm and Schroedinger (and emile) are working with; i.e. these axioms include Schroedinger’s subject-object nonduality wherein we acknowledge that the relational dynamics we are observing ‘out there’ include us, the observer.'in here'.

“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

Another basic axiom comes with ‘relativity’. relativity implies ‘non-locality’;

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

A world in continual flux further implies that ‘relations’ are primary and that there is no ‘local agency;

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


We start with the sense that there is an outside world and there is an inside world and the problem is to reconcile the two worlds. The reconciling that I am working with is ‘non-duality’ a la Schroedinger and Heraclitus which claims that the inside is, at the same time, the outside [think stormcell and turbulence].

Hodos ano kato (ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω), “the upward-downward path.” are simultaneous opposites, the source of “hidden harmony”. There is a harmony in the bending back (παλίντροπος palintropos) as in the case of the bow and the lyre. – from Heraclitus

The condition of harmony (love) is where we reconcile our inner world with our outer world [the storm cell is pure relational inner-outer resonance].

Your middle ground approach to reconciling the inner world and outer world makes different axiomatic assumptions [endowing energy with local agency] which preserves the local material observations as ‘real’ while in nonduality, they are secondary phenomena, appearances that we clothe in pragmatic idealizations to construct 'scientific semantic realities.'.

The scientific semantic realities we are constructing ignore the primacy of epigenetic influence [field over matter] and thus the mistaken 'belief' in 'scientific semantic realities’, as if they were capturing the physical reality of our actual experience [they do NOT], is what Tolstoy and Nietzsche and others have tuned into as the source of authoritarianism and chronic social dysfunction.

there is nothing in my life experience that will affirm the notion that energy has local agency, but my life experience does affirm that 'everything is in flux' and correspondingly [since that flux is experienced as a transforming relational continum] that 'relations are in a natural primacy over things'

"The present 'human condition' could be described biologically as damaged gene expression (in terms of brain development). This involves extensive epigenetic damage. Epigenetic material sits atop the genes and controls their expression. It is inherited, and changes far more rapidly than core genetic material (the genome itself). Epigenetic material probably has a lot to do with critical effect periods for normal gene expression. Epigenetic damage is reparable in a single lifetime probably to the degree that the critical effect period for the particular genes involved is not rigid." . . .

"How all this pans out in terms of the vastly complex neural architecture of 100 billion brain cells and all their axons (interconnections) is virtually incomprehensible. As one neuroscientist put it: 'We do not even understand the brain of a fly.' "
(ed. - never mind all the gene systems and subsystems).

. . . "We don't need to understand all this anyway. All we need to understand is how normal human young grow up. This is what enables normal human gene expression." ("Normal" here refers to hunter-gatherer-permaculturist humans - i.e. how our evolution designed us to live.) All of this is from my book - INTO EDEN: Elements of Emancipation.

Some additional notes here: "The children who'd experienced chronic childhood stress showed epigenetic changes in almost 3000 sites on their DNA, and on all 23 chromosomes - altering how appropriately they would be able to respond to and rebound from future stressors." (Joan Kaufman, director of Child and Adolescent Research and Education program, Yale School of Medicine, cited in Childhood Disrupted, by Donna Jackson Nakazawa, 2015) It should be noted here that the "normals" used as the control sample in this genetic study were ALSO damaged compared to hunter-gatherer-permaculturist humans, just not as badly damaged as the sample from chronically disturbed childhoods (by the highly debased standards of Late Capitalism). Read the chapter How Normal Human Young Grow Up in my book, pg. 31-35.

If I say "regenerating normal human life", few people would have a clue what I'm talking about. But if I say "reverting to savagery", most people would have a clue - but a really shallow and highly distorted one.

i see some interesting symmetries in your book.

as you imply, symmetries usually come in a mix, as certain redneck symmetries may come mixed with racism etc. so that there is the everpresent risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

your comments on epigenetics in evolution even though constrained to the material aspect i find interesting. [my view would be that the material epigenetic and genetic structures are secondary phenomena]. and likewise your comment on `work`;

"In an essay Bob Black wrote, titled The Abolition of Work, he said something like this: When creation is reduced to production, recreation is reduced to convalescence. Dead on.
But is work inherently forced productivity, alienated labor, under conditions of economic slavery/exploitation? I’d provisionally define work as anything requiring effort that contributes to the well-being of others."

also you comment on land and God, which sounds like Tolstoy's symmetries.

“We want Eden back. We love the back woods for good reason. The Land must be returned to the People so that the People can return to God. This will require the direct expropriation of logging corporations, railroads, utilities, mining corporations, big agribusiness, wealthy individuals, and the (capitalist) State. None of these oligarchs created the Land – God did.”

Do you mean 'God' in the sense that Tolstoy uses the word;

"That eternal spirit proceeding from the infinite, is the origin of all and is what we call God.” --- “God therefore as “that whole of which we acknowledge ourselves to be a part” – Tolstoy

I am just wondering because, together, your three comments could be interpreted in a nondual sense akin to Tolstoy's nonduality; i.e. 'regenerating normal human life' could have the alternative meaning; 'regenerating the nondual Self'.

I think that's important in this case similarly to the learning/education distinction. Labour is connected to well being(1st person and 3rd) not work. Same goes for learning whereas education is the 3rd person alienating affair.

Tolstoy's anarchism understands God as 'everything including us' and the symmetry is one where everything (God) is inductively actualizing 'things' in the everything. Since the 'all' is sacred, the things must respect their brothers with whom they share the experience of being 'pulled up' together. Being pulled up together is a relational dynamic that is the source of 'situations' which arise uniquely and personally for each and every 'thing' [relational form in the fluid evolving all]. Tolstoy's affirmation that 'God is love' is the answer to how an inside-outwards asserting human engages with the unfolding relational situation he finds himself uniquely 'situated' within; i.e. our actions can be inductively shaped by the cultivating of harmony and resonance in our 'actualizing' which is not 'self-actualizing' coming from internal 'local agency' aka 'will' or 'intention' or 'independent self-interest', but from creative potentials inductively pulled into blossom by the unfolding relational dynamical situation in search of resonance.

The problem as is evident in starting our inquiry from this Tolstoyan model is that the semantic 'scientific' realities we build with language, re-interprets this worldview wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression [situation-induced blossoming of creative potentials as in an inhabitant-habitat nonduality], in terms of local agency implanted (notionally) in each and every relational form [nonduality]. the nonduality disappears in this semantic, scientific reality, and the onus is placed upon each form, now seen as an independent thing-it-self with its own local agency, to become the full and sole source of its own actions and accomplishments.

this is what we (western culture folks) teach our children and this is what gives us the understanding that we must 'work' to provide for our own needs.

as vygotsky says in 'thought and language', this sort of education screws the child up because in his continuing 'socialization' it is the situations he finds himself in that must intuitively stir his creative potentials, and he must not take a generalized knowledge that halfway fits and hammer that square peg into the round hole of the unfolding situation; i.e education must be by situational learning in which prior knowledge [called 'scientific concepts' by vygotsky] is secondary and merely a rough supporting tool. the unfolding situations are the inductive source of the evolution of the scientific concepts. vygotsky describes the relation between spontaneously induced conceptualizing and non-spontaneous scientific structured concepts as one system (i.e. as a non-duality) and critiques western educators and their leader Piaget, for conceiving of spontaneous concept formation and structured concept formation as two separate processes and then reasoning that the scientific concepts should prevail in education since everyone knows that some super intelligent people come up with great scientific concepts that each child, with whatever IQ cannot be expected to come up with. Education, in this case, becomes one of stuffing the best 'solutions' into the child seen as an independent thing-in-itself driven by its own local agency and in need of internal knowledge to direct its own actions in the course of working to provide for its own needs. the superior scientific concepts thus serve as a supply of square pegs that the individual will be hammering into the unique and particular relational dynamical situations that unfold with the individual in them. This process of education cripples the child's natural intuitive capacities for the spontaneous inductive actualizing of creative potentials.

'work' emerges in the context of the needs arising by way of unfolding relational dynamical situations; "it takes a whole community to raise a productive member". in other words the worker is to the relational dynamics of the community as a storm-cell is to the flow that it is situationally included in; ... they are a nonduality. to split them apart and to treat them arithmetically as in 'the sum of the work of the members of the community adds up to a total that matches the sum of the needs of the community. the monetary system is made possible by this dualist thinking and the whole mess becomes money-driven machinery. the inductive influence, formerly coming through the unfolding social relational situation, is now coming from the inductive influence of the need for money by the individual, to fuel his 'local agency'. specialization of workers makes workers into a set of square pegs that bash solutions into round holes with no-one to deal with the full relational complexity of he situational need, only a procession of one specialist after another, as is evident in modern medical science.

what is screwing us up is the reduction to scientific semantic reality IN THE MIND; i.e. the reduction of nonduality to duality. which recasts epigenetic inductive actualizing influence [situation-induced agency] in the energy-charged plenum in the emperor-scientist's new clothes of 'local genetic agency' notionally residing in each independent thing-in-itself, human, plant, animal and directed by internal 'rational will; i.e. having us see each organism as pursuing its own self-interest in a space that is not 'God' or sacred or 'the whole thing of which we are a part,, but the emptiness of the euclidian measuring/reference frame.

>It's not only important, it's key to what is screwing us up
>what is screwing us up is the reduction to scientific semantic reality IN THE MIND

I think we're all agreed (at least the people who've posted) that forced work, mass production, capitalism, ecocide, mass schooling, consumerism, profit-motive, capitalist agriculture, square pegs in round holes, overly rigid thinking, lives devoid of subjective meaning, are bad. Most of us agree they're connected in some way to each other. But Emile makes two contentious claims. Firstly he wants to say that all belief in localised agency is also bad. Secondly he wants to say that this belief in localised agency is the root of all the other bad stuff – it's not just an effect of capitalism, civilisation, or one of the other problems. So, the root cause is *mental*. It's a delusion which generates all the other problems.

A first problem with this. If the cause of real fucked-up-ness in the real event-level reality is caused by delusions inside minds, this means that minds are real. It means that minds, or people motivated by minds, are capable of local agency. But if minds are capable of local agency, this means that the bad/false belief (localised agency) must be true. If, on the other hand, Emile is right that localised agency does not exist, then localised agency cannot possibly be the source of fucked-up-ness, the same way as Hurricane Katrina doesn't have an agency which does anything, but is a simplifying abstraction from the effects of external energy-flows. If Emile's ontology is right, then fucked-up ideas in individual minds do not exist in themselves, but rather, are effects of wider arrangements of energy-flows at the social or ecological model, which push or pull “minds” in particular directions. But for Emile's ontology to be right, his politics must be wrong – and vice-versa.

A second problem. Emile gives us a massive outpouring of rhetoric and jouissance and barely-veiled anger to back up his assertion that dualistic/localised thinking is the root of all the other problems – much of which is actually anger directed at things everyone here objects to. But rhetoric, jouissance and anger are not enough to convince anyone else – sorry, to shift other localised energy flows – in the directions Emile wants (or the directions the energies at the Emile-point pull towards, or *appear* to pull towards... as I've said before, the Emile-energies seem divided to me, there is a dualist Emile of the enunciation hiding behind the nondualist Emile of the statement). The trouble with asserting “such-and-such is the root cause of all the other stuff that's fucking the world up” is: how do we prove it? How do you *know* this is the root level and the other levels are effects? Emile says the root level is dualistic consciousness... Marx says the root level is capitalism... Zerzan says the root level is civilisation... Clastres says the root level is the state... the Buddha says the root level is clinging, grasping, not being in the moment... Stirner says the root level is spooks... Bey says the root level is Spectacle, or the image-trance... Deleuze says the root level is the alienation of desire, or the capture of desire. How do we know who's right? And, if dualistic thinking/asking who's right is part of the problem (or as Emile says, the root level of the problem), how can we even ask the questions which lead us to the conclusion that Emile's claim is right?

Emile *asserts* but cannot *prove* that the ideational level (dualistic thought) is the determinant, last-instance level. Even though this assertion actually contradicts his insistence that everything is part of a single energy-field. He similarly *asserts* but *cannot prove* that foragers have, or had in the past, an entirely non-dualistic worldview which does not maintain any kind of local agency to things, people, particular spirits, or nodes of energy. I've read enough anthropology to know he's making this up, for example see on the Nayaka of India, low-tech anarchistic foragers, whose view of agency is that each person is an autonomous node, that a community is a temporary node which is also an autonomous node on a higher scale, and that these nodes periodically coalesce and drift apart like pools of rainwater. The forest is a good nurturing mother, but it also contains spirits of the dead which have a distinct, malevolent agency. This is not a view of a single all-encompassing field-agency, a view which I believe appears in history only with the rise of Christianity. He mentions Blackfoot Physics which looks intriguing but I haven't read; but I would note that the Blackfoot have been long-colonised and the account is being written by a white physicist with a pre-existing holistic bias. The author Peat, by the way, believes that human agency is possible, but that people are too quick to jump to conclusions – he therefore calls for an approach which suspends judgement and allows uncertainty so a more complete view can emerge, and which prefers repeated small-scale actions to single large actions. That looks very much like localised agency to me.

Emile's right about a lot of things. Humans are evolved to live as foragers. We need more freedom, less work (abolish work), and a richer habitat than modernity can give us. Statism and modernity have made things worse in a lot of ways, not only for humans but for the whole planet. But, we don't really know how to become foragers again, or something similar. We don't even know why some people stopped being foragers to begin with. We don't know if the scarcity mentality came before or after the appearance of material scarcity. But the problem today is as much material (sorry... problem of distribution of energy in the energy-field) as it is mental or ideological. But we know that ruptures in the real relational field produce ruptures in the mental field, and these are not simply “delusions” as Emile likes to maintain. The same things happen to the Bushmen, the Kayapo, the Sea Gypsies when they're forcibly settled as happened to the Native Americans and the Aborigines, and before that, to Europeans and Chinese. This book review is interesting in this regard:

In my view, we don't just need to see things differently – there's no striking at a single root which will bring down the whole tree – we need to live differently across a wide scope of aspects of life, and this requires rearranging (initially on a micro scale) how we get our food, housing, health and wellbeing, warding-off the power of the state, forming affinities which are not just contractual relations... This involves, precisely, *breaking with* the communities and assemblages in which the system tries to enmesh us, resisting them in big ways, resisting them in small ways, or just making them irrelevant and powerless. The Sea Gypsies of Thailand, the Tikopians, and wild animals such as elephants, can sense when a hurricane or a tsunami is coming. They sail out of range, hide in the caves, run to the hills. Emile is like a King Canute who can see the tsunami coming, but stands on the beach yelling, “don't run, you have no local agency to run, we and the tsunami are part of the one universal quantum field, we are co-constituted with the tsunami, if we flee it then we are separating ourselves and that's what causes all these deaths!!!” And of course, Emile and those who listen to him are smashed to pieces by the waves, and return to the great flow of energy, along with the strong dualist thinkers who couldn't see it coming – while the middle-ground people ran for the hills or hid in caves or built a sea-wall or sailed out of range, along with the elephants and the Sea Gypsies.

>he must not take a generalized knowledge that halfway fits and hammer that square peg into the round hole of the unfolding situation; i.e education must be by situational learning in which prior knowledge [called 'scientific concepts' by vygotsky] is secondary and merely a rough supporting tool. the unfolding situations are the inductive source of the evolution of the scientific concepts

That's pretty much identical to the Deleuzian view, to Postman and Weingartner's view, to Geertz's view, to Matza's naturalistic sociology, even to English empiricism in its classical form. This kind of feedback between “theory” and “data” has nothing in particular to do with nondualism or holism.

>and critiques western educators and their leader Piaget, for conceiving of spontaneous concept formation and structured concept formation as two separate processes and then reasoning that the scientific concepts should prevail in education 

That focus on “banking” education, on stuffing children full of facts and explanations through top-down didactic methods, is actually no longer the mainstream. It's still common in “Third World” countries and poor schools with badly-trained teachers, but the neoliberal model is that education is about inculcating “competencies” or “skills”, and remoulding people's attributes and attitudes. The view of “competencies” is intensely vocational, but often includes ecological and systems-theoretical elements. Have a look at this for example:
Conceptually this is very Emile-like, but it deploys ideas of systems-level thinking, ecology, nonduality etc in a manner completely compatible with neoliberalism – as ways of developing agency for flexible management in a cybernetically complex world. This is the cutting-edge of today's capitalism: what Jameson calls the technological sublime. The capitalist system itself experienced as the all-encompassing totality within which the individual is just a computerised cog, or does not even “exist”, is simply a function of system-relations.

>in other words the worker is to the relational dynamics of the community as a storm-cell is to the flow that it is situationally included in

Yeah... but, no. Here's the problem: you're leaping from “we're all part of a continuous field of energy at a quantum level” to “we're all part of a single social community”. And that doesn't work. A social community (if it exists at all) is a localised system to which classical field theory applies. Or possibly, it's a metastasis like Emile claims the Saddam regime was – it only looks like a whole. So Emile restores at the aggregate level, in terms of the delusion of “the community”, the same error, the same reifying thought which he denounces at the level of the “individual”. And in capitalist language, “the community” means “society”, and “society” means “the nation”, and “the nation” means an integrated politico-economic unit under the control of the capitalists. So we see outpourings about “community cohesion”, “community policing”, “community justice”, “social inclusion”, “social stability”, “social integration”, and they're all just so many tricks of the existing ruling groups to dominate everyone else. Worse: they involve a proactive denial that most people in capitalist society have absolutely no direct relation to one another at all; their relations to one another are mediated by capital, by commodities, and by the Spectacle. By pretending we're all inside something which doesn't even exist - “the community” - it also prevents our seeing and theorising the real relations we are in, which are (among other things) relations of social war, relations of exclusion, relations of autonomy and self-exclusion, relations of inclusion on adverse terms, threats of exclusion, possibilities of autonomy and delinking, possibilities of horizontal relations which do not yet exist. The real “community” is the cybernetic network of capital, and the revolutionary move is to destroy it or to leave it. In replicating the fantasy of a “community” which constitutes the individual, Emile reproduces the duty to self-include in the networks of capital. And this piggybacks in on an ontological claim that individuals are effects of a wider field of energies. A claim which is, perhaps, true, but not in the sense meant. Individuals are effects of localised fields of force such as their immediate families and other life-experiences, of the food they eat, the air they breathe, the voluntary networks they create, and part of this is always their structure of resonance and repulsion, the fact that they are pulled by desire towards one thing or relation, and away from another. And in place of this, Emile puts the imperative that all are pulled – must be pulled – towards the unitary pole of “community”, which is to say, the cybernetic network, the nation-state, capital. But some are repulsed, or pulled in other ways, just as the storm pushes away some air, drops trees to the ground, or brushes past some locations without touching them.

Is Redpanther Emile? Attack of the Clones? Or just a sad wank? Dammit, Emile pussy-licking himself is even more desperate than hugboxes pussy-licking one another.

>This will require the direct expropriation of logging corporations, railroads, utilities, mining corporations, big agribusiness, wealthy individuals, and the (capitalist) State.

About fucking time.

But, doesn't the expropriation of bosses require localised agency on the part of workers?

And doesn't that require dualism (or at least, separate localised agencies within the wider field)? Workers against bosses, peasants against landlords, rich versus poor, society versus the state... In Deleuzo-Nietzschean terms we might say: in a world where active forces are overrun by reactive forces (which are active forces turned against themselves), it is paradoxically necessary to separate from reactive forces so as to restore the power of active forces, and decompose the reactive forces. For example – to drive out the timber plantation company to restore wilderness, or Mapuche habitat. But, this is necessarily a move within classical field theory – a move which separates one agency from another, even if *ultimately* reactive force is simply nondualistic force turned against itself in a particular locality.

Having trolled this place for years, I can offer that redpanther is a recent arrival who seems relatively legit. Always on about their land project and how they lived in a truck while saving up the money. Dicky for you badkitty! Bootstraps and bushcraft and stuff!

OK, suggestions for decolonising education.

School is shit. Schools in ex-colonies are shitter than usual. Expanded education in the Third World often means authoritarian (and sometimes sexually abusive) teachers, under-resourced schools, irrelevant and colonising content, and rapid filtering-out of the poor by means such as dress codes, bribes and additional tuition. Schooling will not save the world.

Capitalist and statist education generally uses three models, all of them bad: 1) classical model, education as provision of superior knowledge and culture, civilising the wild child, instilling national culture, sit down, shut up and absorb; 2) competency model, education as behaviourist, mainly skills training, everything is a "competency", teaching maths and art as if they're vocational courses; 3) liberal model, education is development of a fully-rounded modern subject, indoctrinated in the basics but then free to elaborate on them. 3) is the least-worst. There's a few different critical approaches but most of them are either Leninist or idpol. Critical approaches usually seek to promote 'social change' by raising people's consciousness - this can be more or less directive. IMO an anarchist pedagogy would focus on the free learning process of a student acting on desire, but most critical approaches try to mould people in line with the teacher's model of false/true consciousness or social responsibility. Most of the people claiming to offer decolonising or indigenous pedagogies are either offering traditional schooling with an indigenous content, or idpol education-through-shaming (c.f. 'pedagogies of discomfort'). There's an assimilationist project at the root of liberal integrationism - empowering the top 10% or 1% in each minority to act as intermediaries regulating the rest, while presenting this as decolonisation. It's not - decolonisation is deschooling.

Some bits and bobs I've heard of, which could maybe be refunctioned for anarchist use:

Mitra model
This is one of the best up-and-coming approaches, and I like the fact that children are working on their own interests. Basically if you put a computer in a hole-in-the-wall, kids will use it spontaneously - and this has educational implications. However, the model is neoliberal/competency-based.

I kinda like it. Encourages visibility of multiple perspectives. Obviously would need tweaking for anarchist use. I like how it gets people asking *themselves* the questions, though it can turn into a pile-on if there's not enough group diversity. It was invented by a radical who's spun off into idpol, and hijacked by a bunch of liberals in the school sector, but it would be useful to reconfigure for community use.

Traditional Roma childcare? See Shunear chapter:
Looks pretty anarchist, although the gender roles are a problem. I wonder if this might be what education in a nomadic anarchist society looks like.

Illich's learning webs?
Probably inspired the skill-share approach. They seem perfect for the online era - I'm surprised more hasn't been done with Illich's work.

Skill-shares a la Trapese Collective?
This is the usual model I've seen used in anarchist spaces, it works for sharing simple practical skills, not so sure with complex stuff or critical perspectives... also can reproduce teacher/student dynamics if there's informal hierarchies already. It's certainly more inclusive than school or university, but I sometimes wonder if facilitators/teachers understand complications in terms of existing skill levels and special needs. Still, one of my favourites.

Wandering Teachers model?
Authoritarian-left in origin, but basically it's peer-to-peer skill-share on a massive scale (focused on language/literacy learning). Recently used effectively in Venezuela and Bolivia. Would it be usable with anarchist direct action skills (for the wider community)? What about more critical/philosophical topics? I'm really not sure - but it would be an interesting experiment.

Postman and Weingartner?
Stems from Korzybski's pedagogy, I think we can learn a lot from this - particularly for generating thought-provoking workshops and suchlike (why are so many workshops at anarchist events still lecture-from-the-front plus questions, like an academic conference?) May have been partly recuperated in neoliberal pedagogy.

Keeping children away from schools is generally for the best! But, obviously depends a lot on the parents. Authoritarian or overstressed parents lead to bad homeschooling. Difficult to implement in working-class communities because of time scarcity. Would it be possible to design community-based group homeschooling for poor communities?

Theatre of the Oppressed/Rainbow of Desire?
Designed as theatre but clearly pedagogical as well. Theatre of the Oppressed is for using to conscientise oppressed people and work through different responses to oppression. Rainbow of Desire is less well-known but more appropriate for work in America and Europe - it's directed at fighting "cops in the head". I think Rainbow of Desire would work very well in US anarchist contexts.

I'd say the approach is libertarian Reichean anarcho-communist. Perhaps too much like a traditional school, but democratised? Still, the ideas of studying what you want and accountable teachers seem good.

Designed as therapy rather than pedagogy, but clearly has body-pedagogy elements. c.f.:
Reichean theory is basically anarchist (disinhibition of desire, weakening of superego, breaking down character-armour, gaining enjoyment through fulfilling activity and consensual sex) though sometimes rather reductive in its assumptions. Inspired Neill and others.

Environmental education, forest schools etc?
Great idea, and works well in practice - but part-recuperated by the third way these days. Needs consciousness raising elements to not just be "woke boy scouts". In my experience, most kids take to outdoor play/craft pretty spontaneously, but tend to poke each other with pointy sticks. Getting them off their iPhones can also be a problem.

Freire and his spinoffs
Very commonly used in Latin America. Leninist-inspired, but dialogical. Freire's method taught literacy to adults via encouraging autonomous statements using relevant material - the ability to "speak one's own word" is central. There's more directive and more dialogical variants. I've found it hard to find info on how it's done in Latin America today - it's used by a lot of the big movements such as MST. I wonder if it could be used to teach anarchist perspectives to kids or adult learners wrapped-up with literacy, and/or if it could be modified to teach critical theory accessibly (by plugging it into everyday realities).

Institutional Pedagogy:
Hard to find anything out about it, Guattari was involved, it looks like a cross between Situationism and Freire.

Feminist consciousness-raising
Very effective for producing paradigm shifts through conceptualisation of everyday experience. There's proposals to use something similar in relation to precarity. Would it work with anarchist issues more broadly? e.g. start from experiences with authority, or capitalism. Main downside: it's time-consuming and requires a regular commitment (usually weekly for about 2 years) - not great for an unstable constituency with precarious work.

I would add to it the yeshiva style. It's probably appropriate only in the context of closed groups, who are interested already in commitment and further study of a particular "tradition". Basically, study with others, and ask others who are more learned for their insights. Have a debate about small details of things. Find friends to hang out with and continue nerding about these questions with them.

A friend of mine is a rabbi now, and did a little workshop on "anarchism and Judaism" that included the likes of my goyische self. The methodology better than the content, and actually so much better than the expert-shares-wisdom style.

>yeshiva style

Sounds very like grad-school reading groups. I've seen this kind of model used effectively in anarchist circles. Main difficulties: massive differences in interest, knowledge, commitment, or speaking confidence levels. Still, works OK mostly.


Yeah I wasn't sure what to say as I don't know the exact methods. You may actually find something similar in MST schools in Brazil. Agreed, the three/four goals (non-authoritarian/creative, preparing for wider society, inclusive) don't mesh well. I'm inclined to drop the wider society bit - ideally anarchists will spend their whole lives in anarchist countercultures. Inclusive may not be as hard as you'd think. As the Mitra case shows, feral/street children take to anarchic education pretty spontaneously. From what I've seen of anarchist youth projects, the difficulty is rather more the culture clash between anarchists and feral kids - and also the danger that educating them is making them more (rather than less) civilised. Maybe should also mention the Peckham Health Project in this context. Colin Ward discusses it in Anarchy in Action, and basically it takes six months for the dynamics with the children to change - up to this point, expect to be trolled to death.

>And normal humans ("savages") don't have school AT ALL.
They do, however, become highly competent at many skills, have far healthier social relations, and a far deeper (experiential) spiritual foundation

We know. They don't spend all day trolling on here, either.

I mentioned the traditional Roma/Gypsy approach which is probably closest to a US/European context, but there's lots of studies of traditional learning in indigenous societies (e.g. Bolin's "Growing Up in a Culture of Respect" on Andean culture) and it's often quite similar to the Roma approach - lots of play-learning and apprenticeship learning, children are "mini-adults" with freedom and responsibility, the culture is "learnt" from the entire fabric of the society, children "learn" mainly by playing a junior part in the crafts/skills they play in later life. It's a lot better than schools, though it doesn't work well with differentiated social roles, it relies on ascriptive roles (which restrict freedom somewhat) and if the culture is inegalitarian, so is the teaching. This site is also useful: the childcare/teaching/learning practices are actually rather diverse. The Ladakhis seem pretty Emile-friendly. Or Tahiti if we're being mean. Notice the huge range of views on spirituality and free will/determinism - the Piaroa believe in free will and responsibility, the Tahitians believe individuals possess no power, etc. I think Bushmen, !Kung, and Nayaka are closest to what European or American anarchists would end up like.

I would say that I am to education what Bob Black is to work. I want it disowned and and dissolved. Abolished if you will. For me much of radical education talks about everything but education itself which I regard as a despisable development within humanity.

Down to the etymology(reared herded learning) and the existential definitions education has to go as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad that you're talking about this though as I regard further maturation of radical discussions on education as one of the next big things for the 21st century(let's face it the work/worker thing has dried up and education critique is sorely lacking in radical discussion). If you recall this was a major point of interest for Max Stirner in his seminal essay 'The False Principle of our Education'. The logical updated conclusion to his project I would argue is the ending of education. I myself am a big fan of Mitra's model. I would go beyond him over 9000 and into super saiyan territory by introducing anarchy, lawlessness, selfhood and chaos into the mix. Mitra himself(as great as his models have been) is essentially captive by this totality. When you truly take the leash off of Mitra's kids what you have is learning unbound, what I would call neotenous knowledge. Such such self-driven "personalist" learning is simply unworkable to the inherent mediations and structures of any curriculated learning system. There is also master apprentice which I regard as legitimate but separate from societally structured learning(education).

There's also the other problem that at some point there's going to have to be the behavioral rise of unruly children and adolescents. Essentially the adult radicals who mean well are necessary for now but they are essentially what John Brown was to the Negroes. There needs to be the rise of a juvenile delinquent insurgent behavioral type with just enough of an analysis that it does not stifle any natural behavioral oppositional defiance. Adults for the most part have been retarded by education and work. It would make for some novel insurgency that would put far more of a scare into the social order then anything going back to 1968 or 1886. It probably won't end leviathan, history and civilization but it could one hell of a ride to watch or be part of.

This is where something like the 'pro-revolution'(insurrection in this case) concept that Monsieur DuPont envisages makes sense as only a specific age group can put this into motion. What agents of anarchy can do in the meantime is deface the hell out of the idea of education and help provide a spark.

Largely agreed here... Though, I think there's a lot of work to be done in creating materials which popularise anarchism among juvenile delinquents/feral children. The kids I used to know from the local anarchist project have got a very healthy kneejerk anti-authoritarianism and an almost Clastrean sensitivity to honour and power-dispersion, they were more anarchist than the anarchists in some ways, but they've also picked up a lot of gangsta-consumerist and scarcity-thought ideas and attachments - struggle to survive, abuse or be abused, my gang/ethnic group right or wrong, will do anything for money, goal in life is to get rich or die trying, machismo among the boys and manipulativeness among the girls, "respecting" anyone who's strong and who bullies others, exploiting or trolling anyone who isn't, often with a fair dose of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia thrown in for good measure. Very recognisable if you've ever listened to gangsta rap, it's a similar collection of attachments (though some of them had actually picked up Third Way power-moves very early in life - crybullying, alleging racism/sexism, threatening to make false accusations, and saying things that stayed just the right side of wherever they thought the line was for the other person - I reckon that's the schools' contribution). They're getting most of their ideas from media and families more than school, or else spinning it off from their own situations of scarcity and violence, but there's a lot of ressentiment and status-competition getting mixed-in with the anarchic drives. Their first instinct interacting with one another is to jockey for primacy, their first instinct interacting with adults is "what can we get from them" or attention seeking/"boundary testing", which generally has a che vuoi character - getting recognition as a subject. When they're dealing with an adult who refuses to act as an authority figure, they push and push to see what it takes to get a reaction. It all makes it very hard to engage them in horizontal voluntary projects even when it's in their interests. Play sessions will descend into racially-inflected gang wars, gardening into soil-throwing or pointy sticks, all the while trying to capture pieces of the collective pie (e.g. steal the most valuable toys) and competing with each other for attention and notoriety (not all the time, but some of the time). They don't just resist cooperation, they seem not to have spontaneous desires beyond survival and status, or it takes a lot to draw them out - post-traumatic anhedonia I guess. The people who bring out the best in them seem rather paradoxically to be middle-aged hippy women with a calm authoritative presence but no aura of threat. Also, if they're well-fed, have something to do, have a bit of adult attention, and there's no need to compete, they kinda turn back into regular kids. Or, well, more like anarchists' kids at least. Which kinda fits with what came out of the Peckham Health Project - it takes awhile for them to adjust to abundance, and in the first stage, this will consist of running amok to test whether it's real.

Stirner on education is a strange read... you know he was also a teacher? It's pretty hard to imagine. And, a real shame he didn't leave a more systematic description of his methods. But, there are continuities of Stirner's ideas with the geisteswissenschaft/bildung tradition in Germany which is actually pretty mainstream there, and which is more liberal than classical in many ways (and there's similarities of Stirner on education with people like Postman and Weingartner, and Freire). Bildung as self-actualisation, character-formation, or acculturation is certainly broader than the US, French, or British ideas of education, as it focuses on creating an autonomous type of human being (not just a docile citizen, or a knowledge-bank or a skilled worker), though usually it takes the "building autonomy on the base of tradition" approach. There's strong Romantic influences, and c.f. also Steiner-Waldorf, Weber's and Heidegger's critiques of modernity, etc. In "Ego" Stirner has an account of three stages of maturation - young children are trapped in hedonism and therefore responsive to incentives and deterrents, youths develop "ideas" (spooks) which allow them to overcome these kinds of reward/punishment power systems, and a fully developed adult becomes a Unique One, so that overcoming spooks is the main problem. Because it's a maturational series, this might have authoritarian implications along the general lines of "building autonomy on the base of tradition", i.e. people have to pass through the suppression of hedonism by spooks to get to the spook-free Unique one later. I've always struggled to pin down the exact ways a Unique One differs from a hedonist, though I get the feeling a Unique One has more of a persistent ethos, and a sensitivity to power and honour (not just pleasure). I wonder in neoliberalism if people mostly remain stuck at the hedonism level, since the system today seems to rely on incentive-structures more than on spooks. And the question, "how do we get directly from hedonism to Unique Ones" is a different question to "how do we get from spook-ridden to Unique One".

Certainly insurgent adolescents are a necessary but not sufficient ingredient to at least putting a halt to this order of things. I'm not one to make the mistake of not seeing flaws like was the case for women and blacks before them. Like you describe there are a variety of tendencies and in some cases you might even get Lord of the Flies type failures.

In regards to the Max, I think he was good for his time on the education question. I think if you adjust his ideas for radical inflation you get something far beyond the contradictory ideas of free minds in an educational setting. Honestly to me it's equivalent to the incongruence of free labour and workers councils and syndicates. Stirner's dialectical idea of child to youth to adult needs to be deconstructed for sure though there is some basic descriptive truth to it. There are similarities to Nietzsche's 3 metamorphoses though in Fred's case there is a full circle return to the child via a behavioral syntheses of adult and child with an orientational mode of active forgetting. Stirner(who I overall like more then Nietzsche) is weaker in this area of post dialectical and post critical behavior. It's why they make for a good intellectual fusion. I do recall that Stirner sees the unique on as having child like aspects so I think he is partially there anyway. I think going beyond Mitra's model via children taking the reigns of learning and keeping it playful and personal without a built up or legacy ridden power-knowledge apparatus could be a means of active self-aware forgetting.

Good work but you left over the obvious... Francisco Ferrer's Modern School, that was perhaps the first serious attempt at education without predetermined structures in Europe. It got recuperated by liberal reformists, and Ferrer was a liberal on the political side of things, yet his educational approach was radically new even by today's standards. Closest thing you got today are the Montessori schools, but they are still somewhat limited in their approach and also serving privileged families. I know the platformists like to mention him but I don't think they really have a clue as to why his approach was really revolutionary.

I find it to be a complex issue to be able to have both at the same time... of having (1) a non-authoritarian school which makes kids become actually intelligent and creative, (2) making this school give a social edge to the kids when thet get to face society and its higher education, and (3) having it accessible to all people, no matter their social status or privilege.

And normal humans ("savages") don't have school AT ALL.
They do, however, become highly competent at many skills, have far healthier social relations, and a far deeper (experiential) spiritual foundation. There is NO SUCH THING as low-skill laborers in normal human societies. The human brain shrank 20% with the advent of agriculture and economic slavery.

I don't believe that a quantitative relationship exists between brain size and consciousness, the awareness as perceived as an "is now" phenomenon is adequate, thus, yes, the healthier social relations and deeper experiencial spiritual foundation you mention is the essential quality for existence to be a completed condition.

No quantitative relation: pigeons are smarter than cows. What we usually call "intelligence" is mainly neocortex functioning and therefore specific to certain species, but "consciousness" is a bit of a mystery to scientists. What people experience as "free will" might actually be the operation of the anterior cingulate cortex, which isn't actually a decision-making node at all, but which operates as a kind of emergency brake. I saw this the other day:
and I'm not sure if it supports Emile's arguments or not. It does on the level that it's suggesting that we're just energy, and consciousness is in a sense a delusion. But it's also saying that consciousness is an effect of life, of the will to live, which is very much Bergson's point. I'm not sure which part of the brain, if any, is involved in Emile's version of "intuition". In Bergson's work, animals definitely have intuition (in fact intuition = instinct and reaches its height in ants). We know, however, what effects particular kinds of altered consciousness (drugs, meditation, psychosis...) have on brain structure/chemicals (or in the case of psychosis, perhaps, what brain structure they reflect). Most of them just mess with neurotransmitters. I'd guess Emile's "intuition" is closest to LSD, ayahuasca or ecstasy experiences. LSD isn't well-understood but seems to increase communication between brain regions dealing with inner and outer sensory processing, which presumably creates the "one with the universe" feeling. It might also make inner mental processing directly visible. Ecstasy releases a bunch of serotonin at once, causing sudden relaxation. Ayahuasca hyperactivates the neocortex (thinking part), and also activates the amygdala (fight-flight and compassion) and the insula (connection between emotions and decision-making), and deactivates the default mode network (which when overactive causes fear/depression etc). So, micro-dosing everyone might actually lead to intuitive consciousness as the natural state... in theory.

now we're getting somewhere [although the TED talk has everything upside down in first assuming the independent thing-in-itself 'being' of the biological human organism]..

the influence of field is inductive. inductive influence is the primary influence in nature. when our canoe slips into the current our creative engaging with the unfolding relational situation develops in terms of using our paddle to 'put on the brake'. the same is true for the use of the rudder [in conjuction the keel which is also a 'brake'] in sailboating.

the excluded voyeur observer will say; 'you were going really fast, and i saw you put the pedal to the metal and skoot by that other canoer [sailboater].

that's how easy it is to invert the natural order of things' with noun-and-verb language, re-interpretating a situation wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression so that it appears to the mind [listening to oneself talk] that the entire relational dynamic is generated by the local agency of independent things-in-themselves, like the different canoe paddlers and/or sailboaters.

having done both, my experiences have included feeling shit-scared and 'out of control' and looking for braking power that is greater than the winds and currents i am included in which are the source of 'my local agency'. it is cold at night in the desert, and when i get up in the morning, my body starts to warm up nicely, but, ... hey, ... wait a minute, ... where are you taking me, epigenetic influence, ... 120, 125 degrees fahrenheit, ...i don't want to stay with you on this, but my brakes are water brakes and i have run out of water...

understanding that is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence is also known as intuition. for scientific thinking types who believe that the organism is an independent thing-in-itself, there is this mysterious thing called 'instinct' that is 'inherited' or, maybe not, because it is in all creatures, and it does stuff like direct the behaviour of a migrating reindeer, telling it to head towards the nearest pole in summer and head away from the nearest pole in winter.

in the real world of experience based intuition, nature is our provider and if we fall off the teat and experience an empty stomach, we are not animated by the 'locally asserting agency' of 'the empty stomach'; it is the full teats out there that inductively actualize our repetitive drawing on them. the diver down 20 feet whose lungs have used up their load of oxygen understands intuitively where to go to get a refill; that silvery surface that tinfoils over the big oxygen teat attracts like hell. so, in the inductive view of nature vis a vis the reindeer, nature keeps dropping tasty lichens in front of the reindeer and the reindeer follows the trail of fresh lichens exposed by the receding snowcover and when tide turns and the snowcover advances the still uncovered lichens which have continued to develop, inductively actualize the reindeer's movement away from the poles.

the concept of 'instinct', meanwhile, is attached to the rational mind as a special sort of direction-giver to the rational mind.

there is no rational mind in the world understood as epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression. the rational mind was invented by priest-scientists, as follow;

Fritz: I agree with you, Igor, that we should give separate names to relational forms in the flow and then we can use those names as subjects in noun-and-verb sentence structures to create a semantic reality in terms of a diverse multiplicity of self-actualized organisms animated by their own local agency that are fully and solely causally responsible for their own actions and accomplishments.

Igor: Ok, we'll go with it then, but then we'll have to explain where the source of animation is because we have pulled the relational forms out of the flow which was inductively actualizing them.

Fritz: How 'bout we give them some internal drivers and directors, like 'will' and 'instinct' along with a central processing unit that is capable of reviewing sensory inputs, making interpretations and decisions and directing the limbs of the thing-in-itself. this can be the new animating sourcing for the now-independent things-in-themselves.

Igor: yes, that catches a lot of the action in the pre-divided relational dynamics of the flow, but what about all the stuff that is 'involuntary' or non-will based, like the hard-on and the migration of reindeer?

Pierre: why don't we just give it a name, like 'instinct', just as we did with the different creatures, man, and bear, because words seem to have a power of their own to make us think of them as having their own local causal agency. who caused this hard-on to happen? ... 'instinct' caused it to happen.

Fritz: Yes, yes, yes, ... that way, we can cover everything in terms of being driven by local agency inside the organisms which now go by names we have given them to establish their own independent thing-in-itself identity, liberating them from the relational dynamic wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression.

* * *

Ok, if we go back to the TED talk on the brain, we hear that ‘reality’ is manufactured from brain constructed hallucinations, that become reality only by consensus, by our agreeing on the meaning of the hallucinations. this makes ‘reality’ dependent on rational process and upon language, since we come to ‘agreement’ through the use of language. there is lots of politics there as to ‘what is real’ or what is ‘imagination’ and closure comes by the principle of Lafontaine; “La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’.

The ‘reality’ that the TED talk orator is talking about is ‘scientific reality’.

In fact, the whole presentation is based in ‘scientific reality’ and it cites Darwinian evolution which is local agency driven (reproduction with random chance variation) and not Lamarckian (epigenetic (field) inductive actualizing, orchestrating and shaping of relational forms).

That is, the TED talk presents a ‘local agency-driven’ model of the biological organism, kind of like an ‘urban’ model or ‘workplace’ model where everything is positively-causally driven as in machinery, which is basically what is presented; i.e. a biological machine organism. Meanwhile, if we are alone in the forest,, or in Red Panther’s or @critic’s savage, pre-symbolic experiential situation, we skip the rational agreement process: “Is that bear something that is going to hurt us? Should we do a pre-emptive strike and kill it before it can injure or kill us?” Such processes elicit different answers depending on how many of us there are and whether we figure we can overpower the thing. If we are on our own, we may have to respect the power of the grizzly and learn how to live together with him in a common space. If we grow to respect the bear, when a crowd of 100 more humans comes into the bush from the city and wants to kill the bear so that it won’t be a threat to the kids or to mothers and adults, we may not fall into line with them and agree with the collective ‘best guess’ at what is reality.

In other words, the TED talk is talking about the ‘rational’ or ‘scientific reality’ which is radically unlike the ‘intuitive reality’ since the intuitive reality is presymbolic and therefore non-rational or arational or irrational, deriving directly from inhabitant-habitat nondual experiencing, as in the example of reindeer migration.

This explains why we do not have to impute ‘rational purpose’ to explain the effective ‘reality’ that plants are responding to. They are relational forms [like us as well] that are inductively actualized, shaped and orchestrated by the relational dynamics they are situationally included in.

The TED talk is addressing ‘scientific reality’ which is a semantically constructed being-based pseudo-reality that is fine-tuned by thought-and-language based discussion and agreement. This ‘scientific reality’ is, as Nietzsche has pointed out, been elevated (by Western culture) into an unnatural primacy over ‘intuitive reality’ which is nondual-relations based, presymbolic and available to all of us right here and now. There is a ‘noble savage’ in all of us whose understanding of self and world transcends rational ‘consensus best guess assessments’, so if one remains grounded in one’s noble savage self, if a group who has agreed as to what you are approach you and stomp their feet and make faces and tell you are a dumb n****r, you can intuit that that is a ‘controlled hallucination’ on their part that forms from their agreement.

I expected your Westernized quantitative neuron-counting analysis to be equated to an equally ambiguous concept such as "intelligence" from you, sprouting from your a neo-colonialist industrial cosmology,,,,,,*sigh*

Make way for the ultra mega liberalism of all things alternative,,,,and its a supra wall of critical text for 7 billion homogenized clones to rap their empty heads around,,,,,

You are seriously overestimating the size of this site's readership.

Meanwhile: positive suggestions please? Or are you one of the human extinction lot?

Existentialist nihilists are the least colonized thinkers presently inhabiting the known universe,,,,,


Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.