TOTW: Principles vs. Outcomes

  • Posted on: 16 October 2017
  • By: @muse

Are anarchists too hung up on defining, elaborating, and enforcing anarchist principles, rather than focusing on what successfully accomplishes the outcomes they hope to achieve?

Consider an example that occurred during the heydey of Occupy, in which a working group emerged that proposed electing two delegates from each state state in the continental U.S. to send to Philadelphia on the fourth of July for the "National Convergence", with the expressed goal of publicly petitioning for a redress of grievances. That constitutional convention is a process outlined in the U.S. constitution that provides an opportunity to counter-hijack the system, to use its own merits to destroy it.

But the central Occupy group opposed it.

They released a statement the following day: “However, the group’s plan to select delegates representing each Congressional District to ratify a petition to present to the U.S. government while threatening to run candidates for positions in this corrupted system runs counter to OWS’ commitment to direct democracy, grassroots people power, and building a better society from the bottom up.”

Livestream provided a window into general assemblies at this time that dissipated into bickering over identity politics and broke off into insular groups in order to bypass the agreed-upon collective decision-making process. Is this a cost of a commitment to principles over outcomes?

Occupy had great momentum. People could have hijacked the political process in a way relatable to the public and provided working rapid protypes of the better world that was possible. It wasn’t about living in the park. It wasn’t about twinkling fingers as a form of decision making. It was about ending corruption, about sticking it in the craw of Wall Street. What happened instead was bickering over chosen tools and ideological purity.

In the last few TOTWs on this website, many words have been exchanged regarding what anarchism is (or isn't), what every anarchist should (or mustn't) do, about which perspectives and priorities are most important (and which are morally repulsive.

Even critical perspectives focus on the principles 'every anarchist needs to have' rather than the process or criteria by which we might evaluate whether those principles are any good. As suggested in one thoughtful post, 'The answer to covert intellectual leadership is for everyone to develop the ability to think critically and formulate their own ideas... Every anarchist needs to be able to suspend judgement and consider whether the facts fit several possible narratives... to interpret and understand other points of view on a deep level... to be able to conceptualise and process sensory information *from multiple points of view at once*... to perfect the art of thinking structurally - instead of morally - about social problems and their causes (e.g. radical criminology)... 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."

But is thinking critically enough? By what criteria should we evaluate whether our ideas are any good? How do we measure success? How can we tell whether what we're doing is furthering our goals versus enforcing narratives about what anarchism means, about what it is and it isn't, about who is or is not worthy of the title?



"Do not reduce your conduct to a principle, do not make your dutifulness
too perfect,or you will miss your end in life." Ch 6

this article reads as if there is such a thing as 'anarchists' as befits a noun-and-verb construct implying a thing with local agency animated by rational purpose. is there such a thing?

there are many who might be called 'anarchists' including those that call themselves 'anarchists' but is it not a mixed bag? 'anarchists' is a noun subject that sounds a lot like 'hells angels' or 'the mafia' in the manner it is used in this article;

By what criteria should we evaluate whether our ideas are any good? How do we measure success? How can we tell whether what we're doing is furthering our goals versus enforcing narratives about what anarchism means, about what it is and it isn't, about who is or is not worthy of the title?"

how do we assess the contribution of 'anarchist activity' as in OWS where there is a transformative event sourced by 'part time' anarchists who come out of the woodwork and disappear back into it?

Leo Tolstoy is an anarchist who never called himself one. his influence persists regardless of it not being the sort of influence that rallies together a band of people that bring about physical change through physical effort applied towards a set of commonly agreed goals and objectives. for tolstoy and perhaps for a fair number of anarchists, it is not about the destination but about the voyage; i.e. it is about our transforming the way we live together with one another. Such transformation is not even, necessarily, by example, but perhaps by sharing views, giving people a more revealing perspective into our society, and thus, into ourselves.

it is difficult, using the English language, to articulate what anarchism is, and to assess 'how it is doing'. in fact, 'is' and 'it' are 'being'-based words, and 'being'- based words urge us to think in terms of things-in-themselves with their own 'local agency'. how else could we speak about .furthering our goals?

If we can't agree about 'what anarchism means', does it make sense to put that question on the back-burner and move ahead with assessing how we are doing in "furthering our goals"?

maybe the focus should shift towards assessing; - 'how the way we live together with one another is transforming', ... and in that context, ... where 'anarchy' is becoming more or less of an apt descriptor, garnering insights on what to nurture from the former and what to beware of from the latter.
intuition often succeeds where rational purpose fails.

Yes, explaining the nature of things is difficult. Maybe even impossible. So I try not to get too hung up on it ;) and I don’t mind using colloquial descriptions of human behavior such as ‘a group of people with characteristics’ instead of ‘complex dynamical entropy-defying systems’.

I frequently witness people--social agents interacting with each other in an environment containing resources--exploiting the ephemeral nature of meaning in order to regulate social relationships into their desired patterns. We are charitable with meaning with those who we wish to form alliances and we obfuscate meaning with those we wish to exclude, and the loudest, most authoritarian voices rise to the top and impose top-down order (and, for some reason, always seem to be total assholes).

So by focusing on ‘principles’, on philosophizing about, e.g., whether a commitment to ‘grassroots organizing’ *is* anarchist or even *is* ideologically sound, without submitting that commitment to any sort of external validation (e.g., comparing grassroots organizing to capitalist free-market organizing), leaves room for social dynamics that are dictated by popularity rather than what’s actually effective.

So, I’m saying two things (maybe poorly): (1) focusing on principles is ineffective, and (2) focusing on principles is a tactic people use to regulate social dynamics

How else could we speak about furthering our goals? Another thing we want to avoid is optimizing some outcome without regard to how it impacts our subjective experience. That’s how you get paperclip universes ;) But I do think there is a lot of room to either (1) try shit and see how it turns out, or (2) look to existing examples where things have been tried, and iterate on them based on the results. Because no matter how sound your philosophy is, it’s impossible to predict what will happen when it is enacted in the real world, which--given that it’s impossible to perfectly specify the nature of things anyway--is more important to me.

as you say, rational plans fail because we design them in a simplified pseudo-world and then we try to apply them in the relationally complex real world, and secondly, we construct our logical plans so as to take our system from A to B by operating on A in such a manner as to take it to B, but we never really know A because relational complexes are full of tensions that defy analytical inquiry. That's why we can't predict earthquakes and avalanches and/or uprisings and genocides.

whatever we do on the basis of rational plans fails to comprehend the pattern of relational tensions in the social complex and fails to comprehend how the actions associated with the rational plans will transform the patterns of relational tensions.

The 'historical successes' of our society are marked be statues of generals and politicians, since success meant 'order' (stability) and 'efficiency' in the machinery of society [society viewed as machinery]. the minimization of relational tensions has never been the lead objective and tensions that manifest in protests and uprisings are seen as a disturbance interfering with the primary objective of efficiency and order in the mechanics of society.

anarchy is a relational dynamic wherein relational tensions are minimized (relational harmony is cultivated and sustained). this is a job for intuition linked with direct experience-based assessment of relational tensions [e.g. through community 'learning circles']. direction/management that puts the optimization of economic indicators into an unnatural primacy over minimization of relational tensions is the source of relational tensions.

> we construct our logical plans so as to take our system from A to B... but we never really know A because relational complexes are full of tensions that defy analytical inquiry.

I agree, which is why speculating about the nature of A is in many ways a waste of time. Why not implement A and see whether or not we are closer or further to B?

> anarchy is a relational dynamic wherein relational tensions are minimized (relational harmony is cultivated and sustained).

it isn't accomplishing this objective very well.

> this is a job for intuition linked with direct experience-based assessment of relational tensions [e.g. through community 'learning circles'].

Why is intuition better than, say, implementing your community circles in various forms and assessing whether tensions are reduced?

I think pitting reason against intuition in this particular discussion severely misses the mark. Both are introspective methods of inquiry that rely on subjective experience, and without being subjected to any sort of external validation (i.e., being implemented out in The Real World), are basically gossip.

i agree with you about just doing something 'on the front end' without overanalyzing it. i am talking about assessing the Real World dynamics that unfold in our initiatives.

when we do something as a group, it is pretty much inevitable that we come up with different views on how things are working and reason and intuition are two very different ways of resolving different views of the same dynamic. the standard way of reconciling views is with reason which tries to come up with the 'best view' where intuition may respect the differences in view;

A core tenet of Enlightenment thought was that our shared humanity, or a shared faculty called reason, could serve as an antidote to differences of opinion, a common ground that can function as the arbiter of different perspectives. Of course people disagree, but, the idea goes, through reason and argument they can come to see the truth. Nietzsche's philosophy, however, claims such ideals are philosophical illusions, wishful thinking, or at worst a covert way of imposing one's own view on everyone else under the pretense of rationality and truth.

intuition draws from relational experience while reason interprets data logically and literally. for example, if there is a protest and the protesters do some damage, reason assesses this as an incident-in-itself while intuition brings in relational context such as our experience based understanding that some of the protesters have been abused and stonewalled by the authorities for a long while so that the damage may have been induced by the same parties who are trying to attribute full and sole cause to the protesters. intuition can accept multiple conflicting views and move on from there.

intuition informs us that differences in view are natural and valid and we should respect them.

""The more eyes, different eyes, we know how to bring to bear on one and the same matter, that much more complete will our 'concept' of this matter, our 'objectivity' be." -- Nietzsche, 'Genealogy of Morality'

While I do find an obvious weakness in a focus on principles and theory (as opposed to practical problem solving and praxis), I wouldn't participate in, or endorse representative politics because it's simply not effective for achieving my goals. The issue is only coincidentally also about anarchist principles but it's beside the point.

Sending a few random, charismatic liberals from the general assemblies in to the centers of capitalist power with a list of demands would have helped legitimize the smokescreens of popular decision-making and changed little else.

I think we can agree that the relationship between representative politics and the vanguarding/hijacking of movements has been frequently observed, And I didn't mean to imply that the failure of Occupy was located in that decision (or that Occupy failed at all, because as far as I'm concerned it accomplished a lot).

What struck me at the time was that it seemed irrelevant whether the action 'ran counter' to their commitment to these principles, since the outcome would have basically been a large social gathering of people with similar interests and goals, an opportunity to pull (fun!) stunts and pranks that would have garnered media attention to the absolute hypocrisy of dramatically ritualizing a holiday about rebellion and a culture of protest while criminalizing real human beings who were actually engaging in it. And that would have been awesome.

And obviously discussion can be had about whether that is effective and to what end, but that's what I'm asking: Why is the question "does this match our principles" instead of "is this a good idea based on what will result"?

7:01 here: fair enough, I wrestled with that during/after occupy as well. The assemblies seemed to get uniformly paralyzed regardless of the issues of contention... And I've discussed with many folks whether that was because of inherent contradictions or a sort of political "immaturity" or something else.

I personally feel like general assemblies are lumbering, headless, zombie corpses of collective stupidity and liberal fallacy but that's just my opinion haha

My question is what's left of occupy and what can be done with it? I know our Network is still intact so there is an infrastructure left over from that activity. Is there any more potential there?

So you can't think of anything huh? That's embarrassing, no?

A pot luck in the park might be nice. There are new groups that have supplanted the occupy group like SURJ, Indivisible Collier, SWF Justice 4 All, Collier Freedom etc. Most struggles are centered around immigration and migrant workers.

Potlucks are nice and all ... Not very ambitious though.

That is the direction communities should be heading for regarding surpluses and reciprocal response to needs, including the sharing of labor as a non-currency exercise in the surplus distribution of socio-organic vitality on the libidinal ledger of social responsibility. Why is everyone still stuck in the 20th century for chrissakes I implore?

guess I don't see potlucks as significant enough for discussion here...

In other news, I wiped my ass with TP I stole from work the other day!!! who fucking cares?

Real philosophers prefer a bidet.

And a cheery bidet to you too!

than the political. Unfortunately it was people like Marx and Bakunin after 1845-48 who had this idea of post philosophical practicality driven by political 'material' change.

If anyone needs advice on how to compulsively attack a strawman, here's your boy ziggy!

It's all he knows how to do.

nietzsche points out that 'beings' are errors of grammar,while relational activity is the physical reality.

anarchy is a relational activity manifesting mutual aid without authoritarian structure.

politics is 'belief' in the causal determination of a desired future state by a group of 'beings' programmed with common rational purpose that go by the name [take your pick; socialists, communists, capitalists, anarchists].

politics is delusion. there are no such 'beings'. they do not exist! [there are only relational activities]. the result of the delusion known as 'politics' is 'incoherence' [Bohm]

>nietzsche points out that 'beings' are errors of grammar

Sauce or GTFO

“That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality …. is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and predicate not a great stupidity?” … “Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

Life is an illusion, a man's fate is a man's fate.

Get money, stay true, then when it comes time to man the barricades you can stand and deliver your payload. The valorisation process is paramount as apposed to production, but I don't do this for a living it's a form of life for me. Principles before personalities.

So what did you do today? I went to Taco Bell and listened to the hotwire and baked some cookies.

I think her idpol leftist weaknesses ruin some of her greater points(she's also wrong about Nietzsche) but she's alright.

There's so much there, I can't imagine anyone agreeing with everything on Contrapoints, to each his own.

What is happening, anarchists seem to have forgotten that organization of any sort quickly mutates into a managerial hierarchical distribution of power, which forms into a predictable pyramidal structure with those having the most information technology and dialectical versatility via rhetoric and propaganda techniques gaining ruler-ship? The non-dutiful individual, as Sir E points out, is the only consciousness capable of critical self-determinism in a world dominated by action groups, identity fashions of the lowest ideologically principled value systems, to the fanatical pseudo-religious hyper-liberal activist vigilante gangs. Individuals have forgotten what "individual" means, the capability to function in any environment, why, even within a society run by a Pol Pot leftist psychopath, the rugged individual would be carving out an existence deep in the mountainous jungles with a tribe of indigenous warriors, much in the way that Colonel Kurt, the last of the great individualists lived, independent and mighty,,,,yet humble and willing to accept that his time had come to relinquish the whole concept of social power.

What's happening? The wheel turns and eventually, the greedy oligarchs (usually their inbred, halfwit descendants) forget why they need to placate the masses and then it's time for another river of blood and the whole process starts over again.

Le Fools like you cultivate a sense of intellectual superiority to these dynamics, only to get crushed under the wheel, just the same as everyone else ;)

Seems that I am continue to be crushed beneath an overweight wheel-chair methinks,,,,*sigh*

If only ... You're awfully opinionated for a crushing injury. Usually they just scream or can't get their breath at all.

organization begins with the category-concept 'anarchists' since it promotes deliberately determined [positivist, constructivist] organization.

'anarchy' is where the participants in a relational social dynamic let the needs arising in their community dynamic inductively actualize member creative potentials. in this case, 'anarchy' is not seen as something determined by anarchists

that is, an anarchist is someone who allows his identity to be inductively actualized by needs arising in the relational community dynamics he is uniquely, situationally included in. in so doing, he honours his own [relational-situational] 'uniqueness'. and eschews membership in an 'anarchist herd'. and/or any other positivist constructivist herd-driven enterprise.

Individuated existentialist may work then, the doing is in the proving, as I have done ;)

You're thinking of math, this is shit-talk, which proves nothing and isn't much in the way of doing either!

As Einstein showed, 2+2=5 particularly in the nondualistic quantum field, but Einstein did not exist because the individual is a delusion produced as a simplifying product of scientific rational thought of what is in fact a storm-driven nondualistic energy process, but in any case as Nietzsche argued all are one in Yog-Sothoth, Yog-Sothoth is the gate, Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate, their hands are at your throats but ye see them not, their domain is yet one with your guarded threshold, separative reason is the reason carbon emissions rose by 4.1% last year, as predicted by Mach in 1924. Anarchy is the spontaneous nonlocal action of localities which do not exist through quantum enmeshment with other nonlocalities which do not exist, manifesting the singularity of universal field theory which will be manifested whether or not anarchy occurs, since it is a pre-existing truth at the scientific level. Rigid western dualistic ideas like 2+2=4 are the product of a colonial mindset which produces land ownership and the delusion that an individual can be free without oxygen. I fucked a sheep, I fucked a goat, I rammed my cock right down its throat, so fucking what you boring old fuck. A plane travelling at Mach 10 might hit Mach with a Mack truck in defiance of the realist delusion of nonsimultaneity of presence in different zones of spacetime. God is dead and Yog-Sothoth is pissing on his corpse, except for God as understood by Tolstoy whose radical nonduality is immune to Nietzsche's vorpal sword +5 because it is aware that the vorpal sword +5 is already included in the universal field and Nietzsche does not exist except as a bundle of energy caused by the surrounding universal field.

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn / Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn / Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn / Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
But now beneath the hunter's moon / their unleashing all but soon / Bright blue lighting fire up in room / their legions are ready to bring your doom!"

Maybe it's because I hang out with too many nihilists, but I don't think getting hung up on principals vs. outcomes is a problem for anarchists these days. If anything, we could use someone around to remind us that authority is the thing we don't like once in a while.

Ok, consider this a reminder: you despise coercive authority above all other human failings.

Footnote: the whole point of this TOTW is about pragmatism and getting results, as in principles shouldn't make that impossible. This isn't a "hang up" ... More like the whole point of holding any position at all.

I was responding to this: "Are anarchists too hung up on defining, elaborating, and enforcing anarchist principles..."

In any case, I was using "we" generously. Usually I'm the one doing the reminding.

In that case, I'm an asshole and withdraw my snark. Please ignore me and carry on!

We have three different issues in the topic I think.

1. Is it important to have critical thinking, as well as just acting?
2. Assuming the answer is “yes”, how do we know if our ideas are any good?
3. Again assuming we can answer 2, are anarchists too “purist” or “sectarian” about pursuing critical ideas in “impure” or insufficiently critical contexts?

The answer to 1) must be “yes” to some degree, because obviously it is possible to take direct action in ways which are outright reactionary – a racist pogrom for example. I guess for some people, feelings would guide them away from outright reactionary actions. But then the question is, whether their feelings can be manipulated. We have all seen the way other people's feelings and beliefs are manipulated by the media – for instance, how people can become convinced that frame-up victims are evil terrorists, that police brutality is just a response to “violent” protesters, that some protesters are just “thugs” hijacking protests with no political intent, that black people riot for no reason or because they're criminals or for “fun and profit”, etc. This isn't just bias on the part of the audience – it's a logical derivation from evidence presented by sources which in other cases are completely reliable. But the state and its allies find ways to mix in COIN bullshit with regular coverage so it seems plausible, and meshes with existing expectations. Most anarchists recognise the smears right away. People who've never been near a protest will fall for this. But the problem then is, how do we know whether we're also falling for, and even acting on, similar bullshit in other areas – which we aren't affected by, or don't know well enough? I've seen this for instance, in anarchist discussions of “crime” and deviance (from people who've never read radical criminology), discussions of Islam and of Islamic and other reactionary movements, simplistic views of “the people” or “the workers” (whether as useless sheeple or heroic radicals)... often anarchists are not yet up to the most basic levels of radical sociological thought. And of course, if people are thinking naively, they will act naively – for instance, I've seen anarchists (like IWCA) involved in crackdown pogroms, in moral regulation and suchlike. So, we need always to be aware that we might still have beliefs which – while well enough grounded in available evidence or experience – are nonetheless insufficient to what's happening at the event-level. We also have to be careful here, because this kind of awareness of possibly being fooled is often the wedge in the door that lets idpols in (you can't possibly understand a group's experience if you're not part of it, and therefore you have to believe and obey the claims made by the self-appointed representatives of the group), and also which lets in a kind of quietism (we can never have enough evidence to be sure we're doing the right thing, so we'd better never do anything, or at least, never do anything with full passionate commitment). The flaw in the idpol strategy, though, is that we also don't know whether *they* are accurately expressing the “experiences” of the entire group – and indeed, whether the entire group's experiences, were these able to be aggregated, are also affected by common sense, media pressures, misperceptions of various kinds.

However, anarchist commitment more often comes from action than theory. Involvement in emotionally intense, high-risk events tends to change people on a value-formative level. In practice, anarchist movements are held together more by these big events – eco-camps, summit protests, squatter riots or whatever – than they are by ideas. A revolt is a momentary exit from the dominant order, it provides an autonomous standpoint from which to see the system from the outside, and it breaks the spell of the systemic trance, making the system seem contingent – and therefore intolerable. The same thing can happen from other kinds of defiant actions, from overcoming fears to take part in sabotage for example, which makes the system feel less powerful than it did before. I think this is underestimated in left-anarchism and academic radicalism – the 'reversal of perspective', the ability to see from outside the system, to have an autonomous point of view, is absolutely vital to dissident identity-formation. Also, many people come to anarchism from bad experiences with authorities – from being bullied by parents, teachers, cops, screws, bosses and so on. They have a kneejerk anti-authoritarianism which comes from being traumatised by people in authority. Action produces an intuitive shift – but my suspicion is, that the intuitive shift and resultant intense connections are insufficient to shift all the ways in which people are affected by capitalist/statist common sense. It's necessary to build on the rupture – to “force” the worldview, as Badiou would say – to draw out its consequences in all the different spheres of life, so that it becomes an entire other way of seeing, thinking, feeling and living, and not just a momentary break in the totality.

With 2) there has to be a feedback process between assumptions and evidence, as well as awareness that the process is happening. People only “know” things (even “experience” things) based on existing categories which divide up the flow of the event-level world into distinct categories – and it's always possible to see things differently by drawing the lines differently. For example, I think idpols are wrong to bandwagon on the Weinstein expose by lumping together all the different kinds of things they classify as assault and harassment. As if a case like Weinstein, someone with a lot of power who uses this power to coerce and humiliate people, is comparable to a homeless alcoholic making an inappropriate comment or a person with mental health problems sending an angry tweet to a politician. Or even to someone who commits serious abuse, but does it in a context where they're also powerless and victimised. I think Weinstein belongs in a series with other kinds of authoritarian abuse – with police who beat people in custody, with screws who humiliate prisoners (strip searches for example), with bosses who bully workers. Today we hear a journalist who exposed corruption in Malta has been assassinated, this is a similar thing. And women who stand up to him belong in a category with people like Kevan Thakrar and John Bowden, who've stood up to the prison system and are persecuted for it, or even Albert Dryden or the kid who killed Anne Maguire, people who kill authority-figures who are bullying them, belong in the same series to some degree – then it would be subversive!

Similarly the category “crime” is a bad series, what Bergson calls an “idee mixee”, because it includes a whole range of phenomena which are bioenergetically different, sociologically different, causally different, politically different – from mass murder to shoplifting, from racist attacks to anti-racist self-defence, from recreational drug use affecting no-one to companies polluting rivers, from top-down domestic violence to bottom-up wildcat strikes... and at the same time, not grouping like with like, not grouping pat-downs with muggings, arrests with abductions, imprisonment with hostage-taking. But people think, feel, experience and react based on these “idee mixee” - even some anarchists!

On 3), yes, I think anarchists tend to be too purist, too prone to snipe at positive developments rather than get involved or cheer them on, too prone to ruin common efforts by bickering with one another or with non-anarchists. I think there's a reason for this, which is that many people come to anarchism through disillusionment with liberalism or socialism, and there's a recurring tendency for other movements to betray anarchists during or after common struggles. But there's often a failure to see movements bioenergetically or sociologically, in terms of their component energies and directions of movement – to instead apply rigid ideological categories of one form or another. And related to this, there's a lack of perspective 1) on how to shift movements in an anarchist direction and 2) on how to draw people into anarchism, how to “recruit”. We need to find ways to reach out to dissatisfied people, people with anarchist sentiments, and encourage them the rest of the way to anarchism – the same way the far-right or the Islamists do (though without the dishonesty). We need to find ways to draw “regular” people into anarchist forms of organising, and not just stop with the fetish of “community”, but actually turn them into anarchists – the way the Panthers did with the breakfast program, the way Hamas do in the Gaza Strip. We need to find anarchist ways of meeting everyday needs – everything from encrypted communications and torrenting, to urban gardening and micro-energy generation – but also to use these anarchist structures to draw more people into anarchism, into the entire other way of thinking, feeling and living. We need to find ways to talk to kids in gangs, to shift the gangs in anarchist directions; and ways to introduce anarchy as a lived alternative for the global surplus population. Too much of the anarcho-community stuff that goes on today, either starts from the view that the community is already nascently anarchist, or that the community knows better than the anarchists. It doesn't start with a transformative goal, and therefore, it slips into reformism and charity-work. For me it's about creating and taking part in mixed contexts, but in such a way that anarchist propulsive affect (as Bonanno calls it) drives the process.

Some interesting texts on this topic:

>We are charitable with meaning with those who we wish to form alliances and we obfuscate meaning with those we wish to exclude, and the loudest, most authoritarian voices rise to the top and impose top-down order (and, for some reason, always seem to be total assholes).
>So, I’m saying two things (maybe poorly): (1) focusing on principles is ineffective, and (2) focusing on principles is a tactic people use to regulate social dynamics (@muse)

The appeal to principles is certainly used in this way: to monopolise discursive power. Often there is a split between the “subject of enunciation” and the “subject of the statement” about principles: the loudest voices will be those with a perfect party line, but unable to follow it themselves. Their purity in words often covers up the gap between the words and their actual practice – the practice is authoritarian, but the words are anti-authoritarian. I feel this happens most often when words are vague. However, the appeal to principles also occurs for a number of other reasons: to protect against political manipulators who will redefine words to suit them, to protect against an empty instrumentalism of “it-works” which can turn into pragmatic realism and thus into adaptation to the prevailing reality, to create or sharpen a division between a distinct anarchist commitment or worldview and a wider society defined in antagonism to it, and to offset the drift away from radical positions arising from dominant social pressures (to insulate the localised system from the wider system so to speak). I feel it's very, very important to have principles – in the sense of a Nietzschean ethos, not a Kantian commandment.

>The 'historical successes' of our society

Speak for yourself, Emile. It's not *my* society.

>anarchy is a relational dynamic wherein relational tensions are minimized (relational harmony is cultivated and sustained)

Cart before horse. A peaceful anarchist society might well be a society which minimises relational tensions and cultivates and sustains harmony (it might also be a balance of diffuse powers). However, achieving anarchy requires the most extreme relational tension with the currently-dominant models of social organisation – models which are *incapable* of coexisting harmoniously with other beings, which are turned against relational harmony so drastically as to undermine it at every turn. Seeking to minimise relational tensions with pigs, screws and oil companies is capitulation.

there are two basic ways of seeing 'the conflicted community'

1. a community as a relational matrix divided against itself

2. two or more fixed identity factions adding up to one community.

in the peacemaker approach of indigenous anarchism, one shakes hands with the devil and seeks relational transformation as a means of rising above warring factions.; the option 1 view.

identifying people by category and getting retina scans and drones ready for a program of purification or factional cleansing is putting the cart before the horse [the idea of anarchy is to let relations transform in order to sustain harmony in the relational matrix]

"Seeking to minimise relational tensions with pigs, screws and oil companies is capitulation."

pre-emptive identity fixing is certainly not my idea of anarchy.

So your idea of anarchy is minimising relational tensions with pigs?

That's a great cartoon!

the fallacy is the 'nero fiddled while rome burned' fallacy [To occupy oneself with unimportant matters and neglect priorities during a crisis].

the patient is in crisis when he has a clostridium difficile infection [the source of acute colonitis]. emergency action in fhe form of administering one anti-biotic after another to kill this so-called 'anti-biotic resistant, virulent, lethal' pathogen. after 12-18 months, the patient dies. tens of thousands of people are still departing every year in this manner in the US alone.

as the chinese [Traditional Chinese Medicine] knew a thousand years ago, illness is often deficiency induced and the technique of FMT was used to cure such infections in the digestive tract; i.e. the proliferation of c.difficile arises from imbalance in the digestive tract bacterial flora, in the modern era, due to the administering of an anti-biotic, often as a precautionary measure in association with minor surgery etc. an infusion of balanced bacterial flora will re-establish environmental conditions in which c. difficile no longer proliferates. the cure is effectively 100% (90 - 100% figures are often quoted but the small percentage of non-cures arises from other complicating factors).

while FMT is slowly gaining acceptance, thousands continue to die unnecessarily because modern medical science is 'allopathic' and orients to fighting off pathogens. governments are the same. they see angry protesters as pathogens and send in the riot police and military.. they do not see that they (the governments) are the problem by protecting imbalances which are the source of deficiencies that are inductively actualizing the attacking protesters.

Oriental M.D.s who philosophized about epigenetic-genetic nonduality and FMT infusions and tried to intervene, questioning whether c.difficile should be conceived of as 'things-in-themselves-with their own internal genetic agency, were summarily dismissed since there was no time for fiddling around while defending against the attack of pathogens. first priority was eliminate the pathogens, to smoke them out track them down, round them up and after that, one could take the time to philosophize.

governments are now gearing up with CCTV and face recognition technology to keep a big brother eye on everyone continuously, and thus be in a position to track down, round up and neutralize protesters and their fellow travelers, to prevent such pathogens from building up strength and generating serious illness in society. drones are one of the new neutralizing technologies, so society will soon be in a much better position to launch emergency counter-offences against pathogens that disrupt the smooth functioning of our society.

the fallacy is that, in the physical reality of our actual experience, it is not the case that pathogens and their actions and deeds are the emanations of things-in-themselves with their own internal genetic agency; instead, so-called 'pathogens' and their actions and deeds are inductively actualized by epigenetic influence. this is always the case in nature; i.e. 'field and matter are a nonduality'.

the basic psychological problem here which is at the bottom of this popular fallacy is that it is common for people to want to 'put the fire out first' and philosophize later. the job of the police and secret service is to track down, round up, and neutralize potential disturbers of the peace, pre-emptively. in hospitals, maintenance squads are disinfecting everything to eliminate all presence of c.difficile which medical science claims are virulent and lethal pathogens, as they appear to be to patients with deficiencies in their digestive tract floral assemblages. strangely enough, doctors, nurses, visitors and hospital workers are not effected by these 'virulent and lethal c.difficile pathogens'. but there's no time to meditate and ponder on that till after we deal with the emergencies of fighting off pathogen attacks.

the collateral damage to the body from using new experimental anti-biotics to counter-attack the c.difficile pathogen often ends up killing the patient. the operation to exterminate the c.difficile is successful,, however, the patient dies.

the collateral damage to the body of our community, from using riot police and other new technologies to counter-attack disturbers may play out similarly; i.e.. operation disturber-elimination succeeds, patient dies.

as protests (lthat manifest as rebellion and terrorism) increase, people clamor for more police and more anti-biotics, failing to acknowledge that rebellion is epigenetically induced (community-induced).

but, never mind, we must not waste time and resources on meditation and philosophizing while rome burns.

You're missing the point of the cartoon. The main point is, this guy thinks he's addressing the root causes of oppression by changing his state of mind and connecting to the holistic quantum level where we're all one. But this isn't doing anything to stop the devastation around him. It isn't restoring the real energy field to a holistic or balanced state because the actual process of energetic imbalance isn't in the guy's head to begin with.

your interpretation of the cartoon is from the perspective of scientific dualism. the joke seen that way is an 'insider joke' for scientific dualists.

my point was that the joke embodied a popular fallacy enjoyed and taken to be true by 'scientific dualists' which celebrates the stupidity of those who believe in mind and matter nonduality.

for all those who buy into scientific dualism, the individual's 'mind' is the product of his material body as in neuroscience TED talk in last week's TOTW pointed to by @critic,

in this video, the human and his neural system is analyzed as if it is a thing-in-itself independent of the transforming relational continuum in which it is a relational feature; i.e. in systems sciences terms, 'independent of the relational suprasystem in which it is included'.

schroedinger's nondualist view would say that consciousness is connected to 'field' so that a change in consciousness would at the same time transform material dynamics by way of 'field' which is everywhere-at-the-same-time, material dynamics being secondary phenomena. As he points out, 'consciousness' is not the same as 'thought'; i.e. consciousness associates with our raw experiencing of the world, as in the prelingual experience of the infant.

'field' is the invisible influence that associates with the continually transforming plenum/habitat that we are included in. just because it looks as if consciousness and material dynamics are mutually exclusive, how could they be in a world that is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum wherein 'field' and 'matter' are a nonduality?

i gave a couple of examples of the 'fallacy' of the assumption of the disconnect of consciousness and material dynamics. here's another; on the day after 9/11, native american spokesperson Ward Churchill said the following.

"“Looking back, it will seem to future generations inexplicable why Americans were unable on their own, and in time to save themselves, to accept a rule of nature so basic that it could be mouthed by an actor, Lawrence Fishburn, in a movie, The Cotton Club.
“You’ve got to learn, ” the line went, “that when you push people around, some people push back.”
As they should. … As they must. … And as they undoubtedly will.
There is justice in such symmetry”. — Ward Churchill, 9/12/2001

that message is implicitly nondualist,

'scientific dualism' doesn't hear that nondualist message that implies an interdependent web-of-life because scientific dualism portrays humans as independently-existing things-in-themselves who are fully and solely responsible for their own actions and deeds.

as people do 'get it' [the nondualist mode of understanding], they realize that "it takes a whole global community to raise a terrorist" and this is a shift in consciousness that alters behaviour in such a manner as transforms the relational social dynamic. if city hall 'got it'; i.e. that the behaviour of the protesters was inductively actualized by the overall relational community dynamic that they [city hall] were influencing, this would transform the relational social dynamics of the community.

we're all capable of meditating on 'being one with everything'. Tolstoy calls it 'love' and 'God' which is the 'all' that we are included in. We all have the capacity for nondualism and dualism, but the joke is set up by the 'identity politics' of portraying the meditator as a new age idiot [perhaps french] trying to impress the fox (fox symbolizes cleverness and wisdom) who 'walks away from the new age idiot's invitation to meditate with him'.

if it had been a chainsawing logger who was meditating on the stump in the clear-cut, there would be no joke. it would imply a shift in consciousness. his one-with-everything meditating would bring to his consciousness his interdependence with trees (lungs of the planet) and would imply cessation of his clear-cutting. so that the joke is not really about laughable and self-serving philosophical errors made by non-scientific thinkers, it is perhaps? about scientific dualists making fun of people who see the world in an unrealistic, unscientific way; i.e. it has the aroma of 'identity politics'.

i recognize that the popular view is to take away the simple first impression. the cartoonist presumably wants to stimulate real physical action to address the assault on the environment. just like the government puts first priority on addressing the physical aspect of terrorism, even though it may be consciousness where the first priority attention is needed. likewise the people trying to shut down logging operations may be consuming forest products that are creating the demand, as is often the case with oil company protests.

bleep bloop! I am a bot that summarizes emile's posts when they exceed 234562730 words. For your convenience, here's a summary of the above comment:

the joke seen that way is an 'insider joke' for scientific dualists.

your interpretation of the cartoon is from the perspective of scientific dualism.

my point was that the joke embodied a popular fallacy enjoyed and taken to be true by 'scientific dualists' which celebrates the stupidity of those who believe in mind and matter nonduality.

schroedinger's nondualist view would say that consciousness is connected to 'field' so that a change in consciousness would at the same time transform material dynamics by way of 'field' which is everywhere-at-the-same-time, material dynamics being secondary phenomena.

i recognize that the popular view is to take away the simple first impression.

Too proletarian and simplistic for his grandiose, golden mind.

but how about changing what's going on 'in here'?

is that 'too complicated'?

maybe the ego won't stand for it.

'my way or the highway', black or white, winner or loser, are binary

and binary is as simple and clean as it gets

ask trump or any other crypto-fascist

The distinction between "out there" and "in here" is dualistic scientific thinking.

The idea that what's "in here" can be changed without a prior shift in what's "out there" involves a belief in localised genetic agency, when in fact there is only the universal energy field and local effects as always epigenetic. What's going on "in here" does not exist as a separate being, it's something we talk about as a separate being because of engrained dualistic-scientific ways of speaking, and as a simplification, similar to attributing agency to a storm. In fact a storm does not have genetic agency but is a product of epigenetic agency outside itself.

Changing what's going on "in here", through an act of individual agency, is impossible because what's going on "in here" doesn't really exist and is epigenetically generated.

Your move, asshole.

The binary is related to the irreconcilable differences existing in folk because they have not been shown how to think and feel for themselves and their neighbors including animals. Their "ego" is still steeped in the primeval superstitious realm of gods and demons and has not attained a self-awareness of the "owness" of ones ideas and how they relate to those other living beings which share this world with us. I was shocked to see a fisherman say as he cleaned the innards of a still living fish out of the knife slash in its stomach " We'll just scoop this crap out " !! Little did he realize that he had just torn the soul out of a beautiful animal. The indigenous would pray and treat the fish with dignity before eating it,,,,,,

You're chasing your tale here, just ride the wave.

He seems immune to most stuff. Kinda like arguing with a cracked record.

How comes everyone else can see his contradictions, but he can't see them himself?

There is no contradiction, emile has a language for discoursing about nondual concepts, like a finger pointing at the moon. Cops make rebels and rebels make cops. The TAZ and anti police aggro are two aspects of autonomous activity, if we make a TAZ and there's no heat do we really need to go looking for a fight with the cops or can we just enjoy each other's company? Of course if the cops come knocking we'll throw down because that's how we do.

categories are a language game that makes 'genesis' appear to be 'real'

epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression. genesis is a secondary phenomenon. the flower is not pulled into blossom without the field.

epigenetic influence [ambient environmental influence] inductively actualizes, orchestrates and shapes the child's development. the child may have creative potentials that answer the call of the community of a need for peace-keepers. it takes a whole community to raise a child [epigenetic influence induces genetic expression (child development)].

as Tolstoy observed, imbalance in 'property' in the community is the source of those who have monopolized property, extorting labours and otherwise enslaving those holding the short straw.

in the community dynamic, instead of need-induced mutual aid transpiring DIRECTLY within the relational social dynamic, money becomes a mediating device which breaks apart the natural-forming empathic teamwork of mutual aid, and substitutes a system wherein those with need must come up with 'finances' to employ mercenaries. Everybody becomes mercenaries, including peace-keepers.

community councils hire mercenary peace-keepers to protect the citizen's well-being (and property-wealth).

as property wealth imbalance continues to grow, relational tension/gradient continue to build between peasants and landlords or in general between 'haves' and 'have-nots', requiring peace-keeper interventions

the rising wealth imbalance continues to become the source of extortion and enslavement of the have-nots by the haves. as in a capacitor, the insulation between the have-not (electrons) side and the have (electron) side is put under stress to the limit of breakdown where imbalance is resolvable through short circuit and meltdown.

the imbalance is the source of relational tensions and conflict. the citizens all have a responsibility to resolve the imbalance and they all have influence (a vote) on resolving the imbalance and associated relational tensions which stresses the insulating peace-keepers who are granted exceptional powers to do violence to protect against meltdown [exceptional powers that can corrupt].

it takes a whole community to raise a nasty pig.

meanwhile, a majority of people in the community believe in thing-in-itself driven genesis. they support giving huge amounts of money to 'special people' who can 'get things done' 'for the benefit of all'. however, production is not given away but sold, funneling more money to haves and increasing the imbalance and the associated extortion of labours and enslavement, increasing tensions on the insulation.

thus, it takes a whole community of stupid capitalists to raise a nasty pig. a pig is not a 'thing-in-itself'.

the source of violence is not generated within the pig but vents through him; i.e. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you about the ontological status of pigs, where they come from, or what their relationship to "society" is. I asked whether your idea of anarchy involve minimising relational tensions with pigs?

you're still using the word 'pig' as a fixed identity thing-in-itself. relational tensions can be reduced by letting fixed identities float. underneath, we are all brothers. my idea of anarchy involves minimizing relational tensions by letting fixed identities float, ... no assuming that the proletariat has to hold on to its identity while getting on top of and dictating to (ex-)management, ...the fixed identity divisions have to go.

I give this essay an F-minus for not answering the question.

Now since you cannot get off the irrelevant side-question of things-in-themselves vs energy fields (which is absolutely immaterial to my original question), let's rephrase in energy-speak.

Does your version of anarchy entail reducing relational tension between the anarchist-zone-of-energy within the holistic quantum field (including its epigenetic precursors) and the pig-zone-of-energy within the holistic quantum field (including its epigenetic precursors)?

So, yes, you believe that anarchy entails reducing relational tension with pigs.

What on earth makes you think that pigs (or pig-energy-clusters and their epigenetic precursors) will become any less rigid in their fixed identities, just because anarchists become less rigid in their fixed identities?

You're shooting at yourself and not the enemy with all this ego-dissolution bullshit. Tearing down your own fixed identity, while the enemies keep their fixed identity, is a quick way to give the enemy all the power.

The experience of the dissolution of fixed identities is most intense in a riot, when the cityscape is transformed, anything seems possible, police no longer have power, people are no longer docile and fearful, self and other in the crowd are blurred together, nobody knows or cares who's left, post-left, eco, anarchist, black, white, female, male, bystanders and marginalised people are drawn in by the sheer euphoria of the moment... Pigs exist to stop this, to bring it back to "fixed identities" through fear and trauma. You're right that it's not the individual pig, it's an entire social pig-complex that's epigenetically produced the individual pig. But this epigenetic pig-complex exists to keep the fixed identities and their epigenetic causal logics (fear, scarcity, docility, trauma, norms, property...) in place. It's the crystallisation at one point of all these social logics in which the processes of becoming and floating are turned against themselves and turned into blockages and thus into fixed identities. If you refuse the relational tension with these processes of blockage, you refuse the process of becoming-free, becoming-flow, becoming-not-an-identity-in-itself at the level of the epigenetic energy field.

All you can do is try (unsuccessfully) to break down the blockage *in your own head*, and hope against hope that this internal self-transformation will somehow resonate through the social field and affect all the pigs and other blockages... not realising that this contradicts your entire theory, that the epigenetic forces of a blocked energy-field on a social level keep epigenetically determining you, and that the way you drone on about nondualistic thought at the level of identity is done *at the level of form*, at the level of enunciation, in a way which precisely *reflects* these blockages.

Big, Trump-like dualisms with anger and hostility attached.

Good nondualistic thought versus bad dualistic thought.

Good quantum-energetic-relational-holisms versus bad fixed identities.

Good idealist-relational explanations versus bad realist explanations.

Good indigenous versus bad colonialists.

Good quantum field theory versus bad classical field theory.

Good correct scientific perspectives versus bad delusions.

Good Emile text-walls versus bad "realist" opponents who need to be turned into Emile-clones or stamped out.

All the time, good versus bad, good versus bad, dualisms and more dualisms all the way down. And behind it all, Emile's ego - grandiose and humble at the same time.

Which just proves, in your own practice, that we cannot make change by breaking down fixed identities *in our heads*, but only by breaking down fixed power-structures *in the world*.

In any fixed singular sense, that's something of a platonic-socractic trap of thinking. There 1st person and 3rd person will and representation. Changing minds and behaviors on a 3rd person level can certainly help when it comes to a more general existing anarchy, but 1st personal relations should still be the default. Like Gel said, within a TAZ you usually defend you don't attack. Stirner's idea of insurrection was ultimately a sort of relational individual insulation if you recall.

Now Emile seems to feel butthurt with our use of the "pig" identifier... Color me amazed.

Pigs primarily serve a function of modern power. If you erode the toxic relations that create the need for the police function cops go away. The idea of a war with them or hating them(as opposed to the function) for its own sake is wasted energy. They also do serve complicated tensions that most humans are unfit to solve as of now. Think of those freaky Florida stories of some son decapitating his mother. Guess who gets called for that.

And who gets called when it's the pigs who brutally kill, abduct or rape people? Saint Black!?

"Who is guarding the guards?"

is a very old question, dating back to Cicero,

but there are those like you who still didn't get the memo.

And who gets called when a demented redneck on ice and acid mounts a dead catholic priest in the local Mall? It sure ain't gonna be a GLT dressed in gossamer lace and chiffon,,,,,,,,

Duhh, you think I don't understand the problem of their existence??? I'm talking about the complications that they currently take care of which current humans are not exactly configured to take care of in their absence outside of some off localities.

We all have a 'peacemaker' in us that is inductively actualized when relational dynamics in our matrix of friends and family get tensioned and conflicts start to erupt.

Our intervention is generally without moral judgement and acknowledges that 'shit happens'.

But unlike indigenous anarchist communities, Western civilization injected the mediating of 'laws' that prohibit certain behaviours. the 'pigs' are the muscle behind the law and courts give the laws teeth.

landlords use monopolization of the common living space and associated control over access to essential resources, to choke down the access as a means of extorting labours from the peasants seeking access. whenever they choke it down too much, this inductively actualizes peasant revolt.

although the revolting of the peasants was only the symptom of a deeper root source wherein epigenetic influence was inductively actualizing this genetic expression (the peasant revolt), the lawmakers decided to model the peasants as 'independent things-in-themselves';

"“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.” – Vatican Archives, The Catholic Catechism.

this was a declaration of blindness of the law-based community, to the extortion (an inductively actualizing influence) of those with property monopolies.

"To the anarchist Lao-tzu, government, with its "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox," was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and "more to be feared than fierce tigers. .. After referring to the common experience of mankind with government, Lao-tzu came to this incisive conclusion: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished…. The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

so, if we want to see the 'pigs' as independent 'things-in-themselves' who are fully and solely causally responsible for their own actions and deeds, ... we are repeating the argument of the lawmakers in their declaration of blindness to epigenetic inductive actualizing influence in the case of the peasants in revolt which led to the implementing of law-based society.

bleep bloop! I am a bot that summarizes emile's posts when they exceed 538253 words. For your convenience, here's a summary of the above comment:

This freedom characterizes properly human acts.

whenever they choke it down too much, this inductively actualizes peasant revolt.

We all have a 'peacemaker' in us that is inductively actualized when relational dynamics in our matrix of friends and family get tensioned and conflicts start to erupt.

Our intervention is generally without moral judgement and acknowledges that 'shit happens'.

this was a declaration of blindness of the law-based community, to the extortion (an inductively actualizing influence) of those with property monopolies.

so, if we want to see the 'pigs' as independent 'things-in-themselves' who are fully and solely causally responsible for their own actions and deeds, ... we are repeating the argument of the lawmakers in their declaration of blindness to epigenetic inductive actualizing influence in the case of the peasants in revolt which led to the implementing of law-based society.

>We all have a 'peacemaker' in us that is inductively actualized when relational dynamics in our matrix of friends and family get tensioned and conflicts start to erupt.
Our intervention is generally without moral judgement and acknowledges that 'shit happens'.

Some of us do. A lot of people who've grown up in an intolerant securitised culture don't. Call-out culture and zero tolerance seem to come naturally to most people born after 2000. Your essentialising about human nature and what “people” are like just proves that your supposed nondualism is full of shit.

Most people also have an inner warrior who kicks back when someone tries to take away their freedom or tell them what to do (c.f. reactance theory). And they also have a herd instinct which causes them to rally to “their own” when they're getting some cocktail of threat-perception and oxytocin. Not everyone has all of them. Some people have more of one and less of another.

>But unlike indigenous anarchist communities, Western civilization injected the mediating of 'laws' that prohibit certain behaviours

First off it wasn't just “western civilisation”, this is a ridiculous binary where there's only good indigenous vs bad western and nothing else. The first code of laws was probably in Babylon, and they also appeared in China, Mesoamerica and Egypt. By the way, laws seem to have existed without centralised lawmaking/enforcing functions in a number of societies (ancient Ireland, Somalia...) and police as a distinct institution only appeared with the Napoleonic conquests, circa 1800. The whole process of emergence is hard to map, but there seem to be transitions of the type bandit → warlord → lord/king → lawgiver, transitions of the type custom/mysticism/shamanism → specialised priest/monk → divine law (often veiling the “way”) → secular law, and transitions of the type band/affinity-group loyalty → customary obligation → customary/common law → state law. There's cases where law is the voluntary regularisation of formerly arbitrary rule, and cases where it is forced on arbitrary rulers as a restriction of their power. It wasn't suddenly dreamed up by Descartes and Kant and then imposed as a delusion by European armies. The fact that you simplify complex empirical issues down to a Tumblr-esque catchphrase binary is proof that *you* are caught in dualistic thinking, far more than those you denounce as “scientific dualists”.

I share your critique of the ideas of law/crime and deviance, I can also point to a lot of evidence that law and prohibition actually cause/increase the things they try to suppress, but your crude simplifications and rigid reductionism to your own problematic annoy me. Better a critical pig than a pig-stupid anarchist.

>whenever they choke it down too much, this inductively actualizes peasant revolt.

So we're allowed to revolt against pigs as long as the forces they express are inductively actualising revolt?

>you want to hold 'pigs' causally responsible for their actions?

No. And ditto rapists, Nazis, etc. Look up Stirner's distinctions between enemies and criminals. There is no right to justice, punishment or accountability, but there's an in-situ right to self-defence and, in a context where someone's imposing a spook-driven relation on others, a right to social war. There's nothing to be gained by hunting down some guy who was a pig 10 years ago and locking him up somewhere. But if they're smashing up someone's squat or beating people up in the streets, anarchists shouldn't be expected to “reduce relational tensions”. Where the pig is a vector for spooks and reactive energies, “reducing relational tensions” aids these energies.

By the way, you should research the Deleuzian concept of “univocal” and “biunivocal” forces. This captures precisely what you're failing to understand. The biunivocal forces are not simply misperceptions of the univocal forces, they are parts of the univocal force turned against itself – at the quantum/energetic level. A conflict between a univocal force and a biunivocal force IS NOT DUALISM in the scientific/rational sense.

I think another of the problems here is: people are talking as if there's either just “self” and “world” as separate entities, or else there's some continuity in which the self and its “thoughts” and “behaviours” are the same as the world or continuous with it. What's missing here is the idea of the unconscious. The recognition that there are localised field-forces which are not the “conscious self” but are not just socially observed “behaviours” or social effects either. Something can be a self-generating localised energy-source with “will” in a sense, without being fully, causally and morally responsible as a conscious agent reducible to whatever image people have of the rational subject.

By the way, power-balancing through revenge and raiding, the maintenance of diffuse power (Clastres' “society against the state”) through intergroup power-balancing and power dispersal, and reconciliation procedures based on the assumption that no-agreement leads to social war are very common in the ethnographic record, look at the Berber/Tamazight, Somalis, Guarani, Yanomami, Penan, most Papuan peoples, etc.

1. ‘We don’t all have a peace-maker in us’. Ok, ‘how about’ ‘many of us do’ or ‘it is not an unfamiliar experience to see...’

My aim was not to reduce every individual to a simple model, it was just to provide context for how relational tensions can inductively actualize ‘peacemaker’ activity. this is an epigenetic view rather than viewing peacemakers as acting out of their own ‘genetic agency’. when people participate in emotionally connected web of relations, imbalances in the web can source peace-making actions. It is there in nature generally but gets distorted by the practice of hiring mercenaries who act out of a sense of loyalty to their employers and mercenary comrades.

2. ‘It wasn’t just Western civilization that used mediating laws’. Fine, how many civilizations that did it was not the point. The point was that laws obscure ‘inductive influence’ such as where landlords extort labours from peasants since laws orient to assertive behaviours only. This makes the extortion invisible to law-based mediating of relational tensions and their associated conflicts.

3. ‘So we’re allowed to revolt against pigs’. This spurious comment has nothing whatsoever to do with my point which was that control over access to essential resources is the source of real, physical inductive extorting influence
4. ‘you want to hold pigs causally responsible’. Ok, looks like you and i are partly on the same page here as in the natural action of in-situ defence. My question was rhetorical since many people are shooting ‘pigs’ in the street because they are people wearing ‘pigs’ uniforms.

Where you say;

“But if they're smashing up someone's squat or beating people up in the streets, anarchists shouldn't be expected to “reduce relational tensions”

Of course not. That notion did not come from me. What I said was;

“this [reducing relational tensions] is a job for intuition linked with direct experience-based assessment of relational tensions [e.g. through community 'learning circles'] .

This is tied to Nietzsche’s point;

“As Nietzsche saw it, once we realise that the idea of an absolute, objective truth is a philosophical hoax, the only alternative is a position called "perspectivism" – the idea there is no one objective way the world is, only perspectives on what the world is like.

this is clear without having to resort to Deleuzian jargon which you claim resolves your misunderstanding of what I was saying.

5. Something can be a self-generating localised energy-source with “will” in a sense, without being fully, causally and morally responsible as a conscious agent reducible to whatever image people have of the rational subject.

Is that you, @critic? In any case, that ‘middle ground theory’ appears to be an ‘epicycle’ that is invented to fill in a gap in an inadequate theory that one would like to see survive in spite of its basic failure in addressing field-matter nonduality which ‘does away’ with local genetic agency. ‘will’ is pure invention, as Nietzsche says, to preserve the concept of ‘local agency’ associated with 'local being'.

6. ‘By the way, power-balancing through revenge and raiding’ . ‘Power’ is not ‘positive’ where field-matter nonduality prevails; i.e. power is not a commodity that can be traded in. As Nietzsche points out, ‘power’ in a world where matter is non-primary becomes ‘will to power’. Instead of ‘centres of power’ there are centres of ‘will to power’. For example, the peasants in revolt have ‘will to power’ that manifests in their attempt to re-assimilate the lands [in centres of power] that have been taken from them.

In the world’s transforming from a world with dispersed population to locally populated centres to a world in which there is diversity that tends towards covering the world, we might speak of a process of ‘diffusion’ involving both endosmosis and exosmosis in a nonduality. exosmosis would be the expansion outward from power centres and endosmosis would be will-to-power animated. many-to-one convergence of refugees on germany would be endosmosis while the one-to-many diaspora of syrians would be exosmosis. these are not two separate movements but a nonduality with endosmosis [epigenesis] being in a natural primacy over exosmosis [genesis]. In storm-cell formation, many-to-one convergence into a 'sink' and one-to-many divergence out from a 'source' ('spring') are a nonduality with 'sink' in a natural precedence over source.

Never thought I'd see Emile criticise someone for using jargon. LMAO

This is the comments section of an obscure website, or a rarified atmosphere in cyberspace. Luckily I still have the cash flow and liesure time in this world to make a few comments here and there. Even if I had to use the public computers at the library I still might check out @news and make a few comments sometimes. TracFone sells decent smartphones cheap ( I recommend the ZTE Citrine) and there's free WiFi around town so to me the barriers to entry are fairly low.

the world dynamic is not shaped the way it is by the actions of humans. lying beneath the actions of people are their beliefs. politicians appeal to our beliefs when they raise the battle cry warning that the commies are coming to get us, and if we don't get over to the indo-china penisula, there will be bleedin reds spurting out of that penisula and splattering all over.

sure the farming family might have been for the most part minding their own business and doing their productive work and not having much good to say about gatherings of philosophers who were able to bullshit with one another all the time instead of being out in the fields, .. . isn't there always an 'i'm all right jack' segment? ... ... but then the draft comes and their boys are being pulled out of the fields and sent back to them in coffins and they are powerless to stop it, and it looks as if the cute little kids fresh out of diapers would soon be shovelled into the same political-military-industrial meat grinder and that those little guys too would soon have the chance to be heroes and martyrs with all the parades, bands and flag-flying, ... with anthem-singing ceremonies celebrating their courage and their loyalty to the political system and its ideologies and beliefs, operationized to secure everyone's well-being and safety.

maybe those who commit their savings to spending time trying to bring about needed change in the belief system are where they need to be, building some invisible dykes, at least, to hold back a stampede into the same old politician shepherded ruts.

maybe those who don't have the patience to work on the frustrating but necessary job of helping to rehabilitate a sick belief system should finance a guaranteed wage plan for anarchist news discussion participants. this would allow more grass roots participation through 'sponsorship'.

the field inductively actualizes the genetic expression. is this a mountain i see before me, declared to be so by the name 'Everest', the one and only 'Everest' or am i looking at nondual topographical interplay between lithosphere and atmosphere?

when relational tensions rise between landlords and peasants, i see 'pigs' popping up everywhere. is this 'pig' i see in front of me a 'real pig-in-itself' or is it an artefact of the nondual interplay within a community divided against itself. i notice that when relational tensions decline, the ratio of pigs to populace declines. evidently many of the pigs have resumed non-pig identities. conversely, when relational tensions rise, the ratio of pigs to populace increases [e.g. to 1 pig in 10 people, in Belfast at the height of relational tensions]. evidently, many non-pigs become pigs.

modern physics says that 'relations are all there is' and that things are 'appearances'. so, maybe newton 'was' wrong when he established 'science' on the basis of fixed identity things. maybe schroedinger was right in saying that things are only 'appearances' and that we can't establish 'what things are' by measuring their local properties. there is no boundary between one mountain and the next and there is no storm-cell defined by measuring the limits of its spatial extension; i.e. at 50 miles from the inferred 'centre' of this induced feature, WE [the observer/s] get to the point that WE can no longer DISCERN its presence with OUR vision and OUR tactility [induced relational forms are like that; i.e. they are not 'things-in-themselves' or 'inhabitants separate from the habitat' but inhabitant-habitat nondualities].

The day after we make a 'Declaration of Independence' and assign a fixed identity, thing-in-itself label, a spokesperson for the 'new thing' can start using the first person; 'We are the world's best and last hope for the promotion of good and elimination of evil in the world'. The day before, they were a nonduality in the manner of a swirl of people, a relational form in a global relational turbulence. Does a relational pattern in a global crowd [the 'crowd' being not a 'thing-in-itself but a continually rising and falling cycle of emergence and submergence] 'really' become an 'independently-existing thing-in-itself', notionally asserting itself from out of its own (notional) 'internal genetic agency'? Or is that a purely semantically constructed illusion, or at best, a 'pragmatic idealization?

Are 'pigs' the source of tensioned relations or are tensioned relations the source of 'pigs', or is this NOT a semantically-contrived duality that offers itself to EITHER/OR binary logic? Maybe 'relations' are the source of 'pigs' within an inhabitant-habitat nonduality?

Maybe Darwin screwed things up and Lamarck was right, as Schroedinger convincingly argues in 'What is Life?'. Maybe epigenetic influence in the relational dynamics of community inductively actualizes the emergence of 'pigs'. Maybe 'pigs' are not 'things-in-themselves' that can be 'reproduced'.

Erich Jantsch, Austrian physicist and author of 'Design for Evolution' had it right. He compared classic stories of two people and how their response to finding themselves in a new environment were opposites in their symmetry; Robinson Crusoe tried to turn a South Pacific paradise Island into a replica of England; i.e. his colonizer 'rape-culture' imposed everything it already knew on its new environment, it made the new environment dance to his tune in a benevolent master-slave dualist sense, as in Genesis 1:28. Suzanne de la Pacifique, by contrast, let herself be transformed by her new environment. She was a 'romantic' and she learned new dance-steps that put her in harmony with the lead of the not-previously known, exotic and mysterious habitat, ... not in a slave-to-master dualist sense, but in an inhabitant-habitat nonduality sense.

Suzanne let the 'in here' and the 'out there' dance together as a nonduality.

Robinson Crusoe already knew 'the better ways' because he came from 'the civilized world' and so he sought, as colonizers do, to civilize the new wild world he had 'discovered'. The creatures of the wild resist being 'civilized' or 'domesticated' but that is only because they are ignorant of the virtues of civilization and it is a Christian's duty to overcome this resistance and impose civilization, and certainly not be 'seduced' into the wild natural ways of the uncivilized and thus trash eons of 'progress' that have given rise to 'civilization'.

Darwin saw evolution as a struggle with Nature, where 'genetic agency', in asserting itself, met with resistance from the environment that it had to overcome and this struggle shaped the development of forms. New forms grew out of the dualist encounter of the actualizing inhabitant and the resisting habitat.

Lamarck saw evolution in terms of inductive influence that pulled new forms out of new forms out of new forms in an uninterrupted flow of becoming, much as with storms in turbulent flow. Like Suzanne who was not a fascist colonizer who had come to rape and impose herself on her new environment, the evolving forms of Lamarck were accepting invitations to dance new dances and to transcend oneself in the process. She accepted the invitations to participate in what felt natural to her and held firm in not complying with what did not. The process was one of habitat-inductance and inhabitant reluctance, ... putting the brakes on, as @critic mentioned in a recent comment of new biological findings.

What else would we expect in a symmetry wherein the relational influence of 'field' is in a natural primacy over 'matter', within a nonduality where 'matter' appears to be 'stuff-in-itself' but is just 'schaumkommen', a local concentration of 'field', like a storm-cell appears to be a 'thing-in-itself' but is just a local concentration of the 'flow' it is included in; i.e. there is no 'inhabitant-habitat duality', only 'inhabitant-habitat nonduality'.

Think about these alternative views of evolution;

1. Lamarck: habitat induction moderated by inhabitant reluctance. The habitat is what is evolving as a fluid plenum that gathers forms within itself.

2. Darwin: inhabitant actualization opposed by habitat resistance. The 'winning' inhabitants prevail/persist leading to a diverse multiplicity of things-in-themselves' running around in a void space [the void, an absolute space and absolute time reference frame' is a necessary idealization to ensure logical agreement with the 'declaration of independent existence' of the 'things-in-themselves'].

Maybe the proliferation of 'pigs' derives from deficiency associated with imbalance in the relational dynamics of the overall populace. Maybe 'pigs' are a secondary phenomenon, kind of like 'rebels' that proliferate during 'rebellion'. Are there really things-in-themselves called 'rebels' or are such 'beings' merely an 'error of grammar'. As Nietzsche says, we use noun-and-verb language to take an activity that is purely 'relational' and because we like to blame activities on 'things' aka 'causal agents', we invent a 'being' to play the phantom role of a local causal agent with its own internal 'genetic agency' to become the notional author of the activity;

" “Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531"

colonization is a rapist ethic that insists on keeping what is 'in here' fixed and imposing it on whatever is 'out there'. Western society is a colonizer society that buys into the Darwinian model of 'inhabitant actualization' struggling against 'habitat resistance' which is a belief in 'raping whatever you encounter'. The 'ego' is the 'parking gear' that protects the 'in here' from being moved by the 'out there' as it strives to refashion the 'out there' so as to put it in agreement with itself.

fascists are self-interest driven rapists. socialists are fascists with altruistic motives (raping for the general good).

both are too full of themselves and thus too busy asserting themselves to attune to the seductive call of the relational dynamics of the full natural habitat in which they are situationally included.

indigenous anarchists attune to the inductive influence of the relational dynamics of the full natural habitat they are included in while 'relaxing the brake of reluctance' where resonant opportunity offers itself.

the 'as the world burns' cartoon 'sells' the colonist rapist ethic by appealing to the 'ego' of the reader that will have him say to himself; 'we fuckin know what's right and it's up to us to make that fuckin happen, and we need to stop meditatin, get our ass off the couch and fuckin shut down all the bullshit that's going on around here!.

are you a 'pig' sir? no, i'm a rebel.

bleep bloop! I am a bot that summarizes emile's posts when they exceed 647225 words. For your convenience, here's a summary of the above comment:

the field inductively actualizes the genetic expression.

when relational tensions rise between landlords and peasants, i see 'pigs' popping up everywhere.

there is no 'inhabitant-habitat duality', only 'inhabitant-habitat nonduality'.

i notice that when relational tensions decline, the ratio of pigs to populace declines.

is this 'pig' i see in front of me a 'real pig-in-itself' or is it an artefact of the nondual interplay within a community divided against itself.

at 50 miles from the inferred 'centre' of this induced feature, WE [the observer/s] get to the point that WE can no longer DISCERN its presence with OUR vision and OUR tactility [induced relational forms are like that; i.e.

Lamarck: habitat induction moderated by inhabitant reluctance.

I genuinely appreciated the compassion of the 2 cops who helped me after I came off my bike,,,,,,There is not enough grace in the world, so there,,,,,,

Yeah, they can be really nice if they have you down as a "victim" or a "regular citizen", especially if you aren't black or visibly subcultural. In COIN doctrine it's called "hearts and minds", and they're actually trained in this jeckyll-and-hyde mindset. Also, most psychopaths are capable of superficial charm, and of exceptional courage - they might not care about a baby drowning but they're the first to dive into floodwater to look like a hero, because they have almost no fear or anxiety. Also I'm sure there's people in the police who hate their jobs and mitigate the worst excesses as best they can. I still wouldn't trust them on the other side of a social revolt though.

A serial-killer hitch-hiker gets a ride and kills the driver, so all hitch-hikers are psychopathic killers is what you are saying? I would argue that the entire Western mindset is trained in the jeckyll-and-hyde mindset by way of the Freudian concept of psychic duality. Jung to a degree elaborated and extended the theory somewhat, atleast with a multi-faceted personality archetypal model. Their failure was that they assumed consciousness came after language and ignored the glaring evidence of logical semantics and the interpretation of experience into solely sensual and non-grammatical signals in the early development of the human brain. Thus the endless discontent and Western social revolutionary historical narrative playing out at this very moment. By hating any member of a collective social system is a futile venting reflex which achieves nothing what so ever in the big picture. Self awareness and knowledge is far more useful than throwing rocks at spooks.

PS Also. harking back to emile's commentary on semantics and languages significance in forming the individuals interpretation of reality and their place within it, ones cosmology etc, the Western use of pronouns and the values attached to them has redefined modern individualism, it is now the ego based "I", it has become in this 21st century the self-absorbed narcissistic stereotypical consumerist slave individual who has no community, no longer the connected self-aware individual who associated with other unique and diversely talented individuals to form TAZs or other creative and harmonious communities. The archetypes now are the insulated urban dwellers who are strangers to their neighbors, the substance addicted alienated fringe-dwellers, the elitist managerial class in their gated communities, the forgotten aged crowded into nursing homes which resemble concentration camps, the hedonistic hipsters on sensual rollercoasters heading nowhere, the ressentiment afflicted activist venting on the impregnable fortress walls of the oppressor,,,,,,,no, no, no! *sigh*, when the answer lies within the mind of the brilliant existential nihilist living next door,,,,,,

i love you, and i would let you borrow my copy of Badiou's The Communist Hypothesis anytime you want.

I am an existentialist and not a fan of stale and worn-out ideologies,,,,,

He's really annoyed this time, isn't he? Does he write more stuff, the more triggered he gets?

>maybe those who don't have the patience to work on the frustrating but necessary job of helping to rehabilitate a sick belief system

The problem is not to *rehabilitate* capitalism/civilisation – that's the bosses' fucking job.

The problem is not to change *belief systems* as if the self is an independent causal agent which is causally responsible for its actions! - but to change *the actual arrangement of energetic forces and distributions of power* (in the productive/creative/desiring, as well as the potential-to-dominate sense).

Trying to change capitalism/civilisation by changing “belief system” is like trying to stop hurricane damage by explaining to the hurricane that it's not an ontological thing-in-itself.

>when relational tensions rise, the ratio of pigs to populace increases 

When pigs are expelled from an area completely, the ratio of pigs to populace decreases to zero.

Pigs are not eliminated when there is no overt social struggle, because relational tension – and the resultant need to “pacify” the occupied population – is inbuilt in capitalism/civilisation as an internal contradiction. Responding by acting pacified, by reducing relational tension, may or may not reduce the outward visibility of pigs, but it does not eliminate pigs or the forces which give rise to them. In fact it encourages the persistence of pigs by reproducing the internally-split balance of social forces which produces them.

>modern physics says that 'relations are all there is' and that things are 'appearances'

*At the quantum level*. Modern physics has never said that the principles of localism and realism have ceased applying at the level of molar objects, or that molar objects are simply “appearances”.

>Maybe Darwin screwed things up and Lamarck was right

Lamarck believed that, if someone cut off their own leg, and then had children, the children would be born with only one leg. That's observably false.

Neither of them was right. Bergson was right. Life expands and differenciates (produces new differences) through a flow of elan vital or life-force, which stems from the univocal energy of the universe, but constantly reproduces itself (can only reproduce itself) as localised manifestations of force with their own life-energy.

>Suzanne de la Pacifique, by contrast, let herself be transformed by her new environment

Fine if she's moving to a desert island. Not so fine if she's moved into a pig-infested capitalist society. By letting herself be transformed by her new environment, she would herself become capitalistic, piggish, “civilised”. And of course she would come to see herself as a thing-in-itself with localised causal agency, because this is a belief characteristic of – and necessary to flourish in – the environment in which she now lives. Paradoxically, one can let oneself be transformed by a biunivocal environment only by becoming oneself biunivocal, separated, reified.

>She accepted the invitations to participate in what felt natural to her and held firm in not complying with what did not

If you're adapting to a new environment, these adaptations or self-transformations will not feel natural. There's going to be “habitat resistance”.

>colonization is a rapist ethic that insists on keeping what is 'in here' fixed and imposing it on whatever is 'out there'.

Rape is sex without consent. Consent is a matter of “personal boundaries”. The concept of rape makes no sense unless people are in some sense separate localised agents with a capacity, and a right, to exert will (to say “no”, and not simply transform in line with their environment). If people do not have localised energy, and a rape is a localised effect of epigenetic coalescences of forces, then the victim/survivor's resistance to rape, and indeed, the very emotions of trauma and post-traumatic stress themselves, the very fact that rape is usually traumatic, are delusional dualistic assertions of a fictional individuality.

I don't need to remind you that rape can be “justified” holistically, either via situational determinism (the rapist is simply pulled-into the act by the victim/survivor's “seduction”) or via community norms (sex with one's husband is compulsory in order to maintain the natural balance of social reproduction in line with a structurally balanced distribution of alliances among clans and bloodlines). Alternatively, it can be dismissed on the basis that people are not truly impermeable, and therefore, a penis entering a body is no different from the light-waves and dust particles and sub-atomic particles which constantly enter and pass through bodies. If these arguments seem repulsive (and to me they do), this is either because one still believes in some sense in localised force and agency, or because one has an empathetic response to the emotions associated with trauma and PTS – which are demonstrably grounded in the experience of oneself as a distinct localised agency which seeks to avoid powerlessness and death.

If you want to say that rape is a bad thing, without saying that it is “caused by” individual rapists or by distinct social groups with distinct beliefs, you're going to need something like the univocal-biunivocal or active-reactive distinction (i.e. theorise the existence of a localised “bad” energy resulting from a localised distortion of the overall energy-field, at an energetic and not just an imaginary level).

>The 'ego' is the 'parking gear' that protects the 'in here' from being moved by the 'out there' as it strives to refashion the 'out there' so as to put it in agreement with itself.

Yes, and it's absolutely necessary. In a capitalist, statist society, letting oneself be refashioned into agreement with the “out there” entails conforming to all the logics you're objecting to. And in the case of rape, letting oneself be refashioned into agreement with the “out there” (in effect: responding to the rape as if it were consensual sex, not valuing “personal boundaries”) means adapting one's own sexual desires and expectations to those of the rapist. You aren't going to wriggle out of this one – because whether you use your ego to resist the capitalist 'environment', or passively allow yourself to be refashioned by it and hence refashioned into the dualism characteristic of the environment, you'll end up an egoistic “dualist” either way.

I should add, by the way, that passive openness to being refashioned by the latest shifts in world markets, consumption and labour demand is *exactly what neoliberalism wants from us*.

>both are too full of themselves and thus too busy asserting themselves to attune to the seductive call of the relational dynamics of the full natural habitat in which they are situationally included.

You're too full of yourself to realise that something you don't agree with might not be exactly the same as the shadow-image you've formed of your adversary. A shadow-image which, by the way, is so tied-up with your own psyche and self-definition that it's inside you, and you carry it wherever you go, and project it onto whoever disagrees with you.

The arrogance of your assumption that you can simplistically see and diagnose others' inner life is proof of the dualistic simplicity of your basic ontology, and your lack of any viable conception of the unconscious.

Enjoy your walk back from the respawn point this time, n00b. Owned.

i am assuming that my comments irritate you so you drafted a long ad hominem in the form of a pseudo-comment.

Well, another series of comments which ends up being an attempt to debunk emile.

fellow sure takes their place. that said, i've actually learned a thing or two, so thanks to those who have engaged with them.

as to the actual topic:

what can you say? we are currently living through what can only be described as an apocalypse. latest great news is that 75 % of insects have disappeared in the last 23 years. I'm not really a nihilistic type, but you know things being what they are: who cares? The platform won't save us, the riot won't, nothing apparently will.

There are 7+billion people on this world. What difference will a couple of radicals or horizontal posturing do, really? It seems more like we are part and parcel of the industrial civilization's last gasp of carnivalesque extravagance.

It is strange living through times where all our references,standards and what have you are made obsolete. All came from a culture and a context which still had a vision of tomorrow, or at least a reasonable expectation of tomorrow.

So do whatever, throw some molotovs, grow a garden, have ontological discussions online. It doesn't matter any more. We are fucked, and all is fucked. Google it if you are the type who need a footnote to validate a thought.

Lady Fortune is our only friend these days, so figure out how to hedge your bets, all else seems more like a delusion/hypocrisy.

Maybe the cosmic joke of life has yet another surprise in store. Who knows? Just do what you enjoy, live like you would like to live, make as few compromises as possible. I guess that is the lesson of harsher regimes and times: Life life standing. Go out in a fire. The rest is just curiosities we can ponder over a beer or a spliff.

……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
……….”…\………. _.·´

I was a Jehovah's Witness kid and people have been predicting the end of the world to me all my life and I'm still here and so is the world. So what makes you think this is the end time for a planet that is billions of years old? Every generation has it's prophets of doom. I'm not refuting the science. The earth has been through many changes and life has adapted to survive or perished. Why should this era be any different?

Three things:
1. I don't think the OP means to say the world is ending or that life is, but that the seventh mass extinction is likely to involve the extinction, or at least mass die-off, of humans.

2. I get tired of this "People have been predicting the end times forever, so we can't take it seriously." Religious proclamations of doom are *not* analogous to empirical studies on and predictions of the collapse of the biosphere - they are qualitatively different.

3. On the other hand, weren't many previous prophets of doom at least partially correct in that their particular civilizations did collapse? The difference is that now, more than ever, a great many humans are so deskilled, ignorant, and dependent that they lack the basic survival skills to live outside of their civilizations.

So the world isn't ending, it's the end of the world as we know it. I do care about life and I wish there was something I could do about it (maybe there is). I read DEW (Decisive Ecological Warfare) so I am aware of some of the more radical ideas for saving the world but I'm not sure if I can manage it. Thanks for sharing though, it's nice to know some people still care, that's why I come to this website. At least we can fight the zombie apocalypse together.

2.Your boys in science are being more rational then empirical with their predictions. Being empirical is observing consequences not making modeled predictions. People like Ehrlich and others like him from the 70s have just as much egg on their face as Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't understand that the physical world is not a singular model but an unfolding of many things that do not equate to a linear modality. All that we can say with things like Right Whale die offs and insect extinctions is that things are transforming. There is no collapse until things ACTUALLY collapse.

3.Which prophets got it right? It's usually the case that when it does happen it involves a variable that the pessimists do not see coming. Humans are indeed deskilled which sucks but the trade off is that machineological solvents put out fires in very sophisticated ways especially in a digital information age where you have MANY highly intelligent human inputs around the world something lacking in, say, Easter Island. I'm not saying this because I'm an optimist btw, fact is that this digital information animal has become VERY good at solving these problems which unfortunately means more leviathan history and civilization to come for some time at least.

As a side note to gel ironically my father was a Witness, he got egg on his face several times before he gave up the faith. Scientists in the ecochamber have thus far not gotten the message of their own failed predictions past.

I certainly trust scientific observations more than predictions based on Bible prophecy. I know the ice caps are melting, species are disappearing and temperatures are rising. I live 4.7 feet above sea level in the sub-tropics and took a direct hit from a major hurricane recently so I definitely stand to lose from climate change and sea level rise. At high tide the water backs up into the bar ditch in my front yard and there are saltwater fish living in there. I don't miss the militancy of the JW church with all it's meetings, field service, indoctrination and internal discipline. I would like to see the global system of production and distribution owned by all the people of the earth, and it's commodities distributed equally in an ecologically sustainable system.

Scientists have no way of knowing where these feed back loops are going for sure. Also I don't want a system of equal distribution. The combination of system and equal should scare any true anarchic mind. Let there be panarchy when it comes to general 3rd person reality thanks.

extinctions are 'things that have gone missing' like the lost isle of Atlantis. things just go 'out of sight'. the concept of 'extinction' is pragmatic idealization, not physical reality.

the biosphere stays the same size in spite of 'mass extinctions' etc. and we see new forms emerging all the time. when things die off, as in a forest fire, new things rise up because the transformed environment now gives more support to other things that were formerly deprived of nutrients; e.g. the canopy of the rainforest eats up all the solar irradiation, starving out those forms trying to grow on the forest floor. in other words:

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

if we assumed the biosphere was like an energy-charged turbulence with forms continually gathering and being regathered, as was the view of Heraclitus and as is affirmed in modern physics, then 'extinctions' and 'creations' are not a duality but a nonduality called 'transformation'. instead of an empty euclidian space populated by things-in-themselves with some 'popping out of existence' while others are 'popping into existence', the space of the biosphere can be understood as NOT EMPTY but an energy-charged fullness/plenum that is undergoing continual transformation that is the source of everything.

if we want to understand the evolution of the biosphere as a kind of Gaian ecosystem, rather than the 'evolution of independent things-in-themselves' then we have to understand their mutual aid relations, their interdependent relational web, the understanding of which demands our knowledge of all participants and how they help each other out to make viability-as-mutual-aid-group possible where individual viability would be impossible.

unfortunately, we are a bit short on information;

“Most of the world's species remain undiscovered by science. Biologists have described and classified 1.7 million plants and animals as of 2010, less than one-quarter of the total species estimated in the world. Scientists figure there are still over five million species waiting to be found.
About four million insects have not yet been examined and named. Another half million spiders and their relatives are still unidentified. Plus hundreds of thousands of aquatic creatures, ranging from snails to sponges, remain mysterious.
There are still nearly one-fifth of vascular plants left to discover, not including an unknown number of plant algae species. While scientists have documented nearly all the coniferous plants, these make up a tiny fraction of all plant species. Thousands of the world's flower, fern and moss species are new to science and have yet to be recorded.”

watching for extinctions is a bit anal retentive, it is like the guy who sits down every night with newspaper obituary page on the left and the telephone book on the right, crossing out the telephone book entries corresponding to the deceased, but having a gap in this tracking system due to the new little ones not yet having acquired telephones, or having opted for cells).

also, what would it have been like to be around at the end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago during meteor collisions and volcanic events where it has been estimated that 75% of species living on the earth "went extinct"? evidently, the biosphere can be pretty resilient. of course, that's not much consolation for the larger dinosaurs who had to go down coughing and hacking in all that volcanic dust.

for indigenous anarchists who ground their 'self' in the 'all' [the web-of-life], their ancestors include all species and their descendents likewise [the relational web-of-life is the greater reality, not the 'parts']. the "extinction" of humans in their case would be a sentimental loss but not 'the end of the world'.

Cause this ain't a millenarian vision. It ain't a justification for righteous living. I won't answer for tomorrow, cause it will happen as it will. Just consider the fact of what have happened to the potential of evolution through the species loss over the last couple of hundred years. We got plastic in all drinking water, in sea salt. Forests are disappearing like never before, the permafrost is thawing, icecaps melting. 90 % of our cultivated crops are extinct. Acidification of the oceans. Millions are dying of pollution every day (that's just counting human bodies). We have a civilization which survive on the very same mechanism which exterminates earth. It is an equation which doesn't add up. Add to that the debris of a industrial system in collapse. So, again, what tomorrow holds no one knows. What is quite clear though is that this shit is getting foul, and doing so fast. Our ancestors might have thought the world to be bleak in the midst of turmoil and social upheaval. But they had the luxury of a world (a living eco system that is) which still would function. We don't.

many people in our 'Western culture' (or whatever you want to call the globally popular/dominant culture) are irritated by the invoking of modern physics mode of understanding and/or indigenous aboriginal anarchist mode of understanding wherein 'field' is primary and 'matter' is 'appearances' [Faraday, Mach, Bohm, Schroedinger].

one thing about it that pisses people off is that it debunks the physical reality of 'being' and thus it does away with 'local agency', 'personal power', the notion of causal responsibility [there goes personal accomplishments whether commendable or reprehensible]. that is, it says that 'epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression'. the storm-cell is not the source of its own development and it is not a local agency driven doer-of-deed, what we see is a relational form, variations in the relational structure of space. the flow goes on and it gathers and regathers forms within itself.

now, all of those fellows admit that the concept of 'things' and their 'local agency', which are 'pragmatic idealizations' that we attach to the relational forms are convenient and thought-economical [Mach], but they also warn that the semantic reality we construct with them must not be confused for the physical reality of our actual experience. with 'being' and 'local agency' and noun-and-verb language we can construct 'scientific realities' of all kinds of flavours. this is what politics is all about. people argue about which of these 'scientific realities' is 'the real one' and we vote on it and elect a leader who heads up all kinds of institutions and military who are instructed to employ the chosen 'scientific reality' as the 'operative reality' and behave as if it were.

each individual is, by the same token, believing that they are independent things-in-themselves with their own local agency that are fully and solely causally responsible for their own actions and deeds. this semantic scientific reality is 'talked up' as if it were 'reality', ... but all the while, things are changing in an unanticipated way. it seems that all our actions engender unanticipated 'externalities. when we eliminate saddam, ISIS rises up. it is like chasing a snake that lies under the rug. we stamp on the rug over here and the lump under the rug reappears over there. and the collateral damage keeps mounting and it becomes the dominant development rather than our careful calculated plans for bringing out a desired 'tomorrow'.

well, according to the modern physics understandings of the aforementioned, there are no 'extinctions' and there is no 'tomorrow' because in a world where relations are primary and 'being' is 'appearance', there can only be transforming-in-the-continuing-'now'.

this feeling of nihilism, of a coming apocalypse, that man is on the way to 'extinction' rests dependently on the concept of 'being' and 'time' [change as in 'progression'].

of course that is the popular 'pragmatic idealization' but it is just a semantically contrived idealization'.

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

We all have access to two realities and what is popularly construed as reality is the (b) reality;

(a) physically experienced intuitive reality, and,

(b) the semantically constructed 'scientific reality' (convenient, thought-economical pragmatic idealization based on things and their causal actions and deeds).

when we experience the lurching of the space we are included in, as the Titanic we are a passenger on strikes the icy flank of a giant berg and we begin our descent to the bottom, we get the feeling that our own 'local being' and our 'local agency' is being exposed as something secondary and the primary influence is a type of influence that we are included in, that is bigger than us, ... that we are not in control of. this influence was always there but we chose to employ the (b) scientific reality as our operative reality.which elevated (unnaturally) secondary relational forms to 'primary' status, notionally equipping them with their own local agency and semantically constructing 'scientific' dualist, being based doer-deed realities on that basis.

in the (a) experience-based intuitive reality, there is no being, no extinctions, no time-based progressive change of the state of the world [as a being thing] that is headed for some sort of desirable or undesirable 'tomorrow'. there is only the transforming-in-the-now relational continuum or 'plenum' that includes us and everything.

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

this feeling of foreboding, that we are fucked, is coming from the collapse of our belief in 'being', and with it, the collapse of our belief that 'we were in control' and we were 'capable of improving the world' and were moving everything towards a better and brighter tomorrow, thanks to our human smarts. of course, the better and brighter tomorrow was according to our human values and we never included the welfare of insects in our construction plans.

we not only believed that humans are separate and apart from nature, but that we are capable of improving it;

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

this vision of man being able to improve on nature, which indigenous peoples laughed at [how can we buy and sell the sky] is established inside the semantic scientific reality which, while convenient pragmatic idealization, is far from the physical reality of our action experience [our experience-based intuitive reality].

belief in this vision is what is 'collapsing', and about time!

the coming apocalypse is the coming extinction of man. of course, this is happening within reality (b), so what is really going on is the collapse of a misplace BELIEF in reality (b) as 'reality'. all is not lost. we still have reality (a) which is the primary physical reality of our actual experience and not the (b) reality which is a semantic construction based on language and thought. When we are in the ballroom of the Titanic talking about we are going to accomplish tomorrow and next year, ... and we feel the lurch of this whole euclidian frame whose absolute fixedness we have been assuming, which houses our thing-based actions, deeds and projections thereof, it 'gets our attention'.

all of the unanticipated externalities we have been engendering along with our successful works of scientifically planned cause-effect engineering are rising up to become a greater reality than our scientifically planned improvements of the world. our (b) realities are having increasingly severe credibility issues. if we listen carefully, we can hear the laughter of those old 'indians' who were asking 'how can you buy and sell the sky'?

the feeling of 'we are fucked' is on target, but only for the 'we' of the (b) reality where the little sagacity dualist, being-based 'ego-self' is put into an unnatural primacy over the bigger sagacity nondualist, relational 'natural Self' [Nietzsche, Also Sprach Zarathustra].

>there are no 'extinctions' and there is no 'tomorrow'
>the feeling of 'we are fucked' is on target, but only for the 'we' of the (b) reality where the little sagacity dualist, being-based 'ego-self'

Yeah, that really helps us get out of this mess. Global extinction doesn't matter because it isn't real at the quantum level.

Thanks Emile. Keep proving your irrelevance!

science starts its inquiry by assuming the existence of 'things-in-themselves' which we know is a mistake.

relations are in a natural primacy over things; i.e. field (relational influence) is primary and matter is a secondary phenomenon (variations in the relational structure of field)

ecosystem relations give rise to ecosystem forms like whales

we get attached to whales because they are our size and impressively larger even. plus they are amazingly empathic and have a temperament that is like a nice big friendly, caring human. they are not like smallpox bacteria whose extinction we are working on since there is no place for nasty things like that, or roaches or rats in our ecosystem; ... we have 'exterminators' to deal with those things.

nature IS amazing but we are not thinking about phytoplankton when we are whale-watching.

science has developed a statistical technique for defining 'existence' of 'things-in-themselves called 'categorization' which avoids having to understand a thing as a relational complex.

one gathers up a number of the forms in question and tabulates what properties they have in common. in this way, one can define the 'existence' [category membership] of a thing on the basis of its common properties and bypass the relations that are the real definers. thanks to this technique, if you see a black man coming towards you, you can know him instantly by downloading a list of common properties. science likes to call a spade a spade..

this is an error of logic called 'petitio principii'; i.e. we had to presume the existence of the thing in order to gather up members of the set to get their common properties which will now define their existence as a member of the category. still, it is the very foundation of mainstream biological science. darwinism is all about things-in-themselves and their 'reproduction'. the epigenetic influence of phytoplankton and plankton that source fish, seals and whales doesn't come into the discussion on reproduction with random chance variation of whales. as evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould brought forth in his book 'Full House', critiquing natural selection by using the metaphor of baseball's hitting and fielding. we keep track of scores by hitting results without acknowledging the primary role of fielding as modulating the rise and fall of hitters [his example spoke of the 'extinction' of the .400 hitter which could have been due to fielding [hitting and fielding are a nonduality so their influence cannot be measured separately].

a whale may be inherently dependent on fish or other sea creature nurturances which are dependent on plankton which are dependent on phytoplankton but its scientific identity as a thing-in-itself bypasses all that stuff; i.e. science bases its 'existence' on its own 'common properties' which is circular reasoning, but as Goedel's theorem says, systems of logic don't have the ability to stand on their own shoulders, look down on themselves, and correct the incompletenesses that can lead to contradictions.

the same error of logic is used in classifying human 'races'. is extinction avoided by racial mixing or is extinction determined by the disappearance of a pre-mixed strain?

Theodore Roosevelt in a letter to Charles Davenport, head of the Eugenics Records Office, in 1913. In order to prevent “race suicide”—the envisioned tragic result of a decrease in reproduction by a superior race—“good citizens of the right type” should multiply themselves to cancel out rampant breeding by “citizens of the wrong type.”

the assumption of the existence of 'things-in-themselves' FAILS at both the micro and macro level. relations are in a natural primacy over notional 'things-in-themselves'. if we acknowledged this in our actions, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. but as nietzsche says, Western civilization has put faith in science and reason into an unnatural primacy over 'intuition'.

It's possible to make decent anti emile comments. yours are shitty

Yep. Emile hijack. Should we just stop engaging? Personally I'd like a "hide Emile" button added. Hides Emile and all replies.

Do you really think all humans are gonna die out in the collapse? Or just the majority/the dominant system?

I guess it depends how it unfolds, but it would have to be pretty massive crisis for humans to disappear entirely - this is a lifeform which can live almost anywhere. But if there's likely to be survivors, it might be worth thinking through different scenarios and "prepping".

Two texts you may like to look at, regarding nihilism and end-of-the-world, are Sing Chew's Recurring Dark Ages, and Desert. Desert has strategic eco-anarchist responses to current crisis, and Dark Ages situates civilisation collapse in ecological collapse and suggests what might happen after.

For one thing it conflates nihilism and pessimism which it really shouldn't. It's also a work that will really silly if human machineological systems come up with solutions to these problems. Can I just see some catastrophe free eco analysis please.

If techno civ finds solutions, we just go back to insu, or 68 model. It's only the catastrophe that's making us change tactics.

It makes no sense to specifically orientate around it. If and when it happens it happens.

Meh! Just do good @priniples. Outcome are never a sure thing any way so why not.

Yep, that is my bottom line. But you know, moved from sympathy to my fellow travelers or whatever, then perhaps it would've been good if more folks faced up to the predicament of our time (no arrogance implied).

@ is basically a sideshow, and rightfully so. And it sort of plays back to the topic it self, that sort of pragmatics which you espouse - or which I infer from your comment - is what is needed.

We can discuss ontology, organizing and it's finer nuances, but as things seem to stand as of now, then it might just be a little of course.

And how might those principles apply to a world which is not that, nor will it be, that which once upon a time formulated anarchist thought, and which we are still very much wed to?

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.