Resonance and dissonance is a logical outgrowth of a yin/yang view of the world. Aristotle and Socrates can easily jive with Heruclitus if you don't abuse their assumptions and shut off other possibilities of thinking and reasoning(Indian logic for instance).Yes ultimately the letters are all connected but their can be contingent(as opposed to categorical) exclusion here and there.
What you don't seem to want to entertain is that the child village analogy and reasoning can also be abused for soft power collectivistic and mechanical ends. I could easily see that post-modern reasoning of yours abused by certain emerging power apparatuses today. Hillary has used that term as well as other would be manager based thinkers.
As far as other cultures, I guarantee you that every culture alive has some type of dispute mechanism that includes marginal exclusion, even the stereotypical Native American cultures which you have a bad habit of generalizing. Emile you do know that there will always be an is/ought gap to interests right? Even the most sophisticated conflict resolving societies will not transcend this. This is why individuality and individuation will always be necessary.
Normality and normativity are not necessarily driven by objective truth. The default driver of normativity is basically behaviorally weighted habituated preferences and anchored meanings that EVERY society in history has had. You're not getting around this emile. I know that you care about the non normal and non typical as well as the stranger and outcast emile but the way to help them is to arm them with desire and the ability to find the other and union and affinity from that. This is what the individualist greats like Stirner, Neitzsche, Novatore, ect understood. There is no aboriginal indigenous model of society to solve these inherent is/ought gaps that stem from the yin and yang of resonance and dissonance.
Resonance and dissonance are cool words, I can't wait to use them in my discourse but why hang on to another dichotomy, duality, division or dialectic. The great way is easy for those who have no preferences. Why not dispense with discourse entirely? Maybe because then we'd be lonely men with nobody to talk to, or we could be together in our quiescence. Maybe there lies the answer to why we need to divide the world into self and other so we can enjoy the diversity. One gave birth to two, two to three and three to all things.
Resonance and dissonance is a logical outgrowth of a yin/yang view of the world.
maybe someone's ideas of resonance and dissonance are grounded in yin/yang, but nietzsche's ideas are clearly grounded in physics (the modern physics of Roger Boscovich (1758) that is now said to have been 200 years before its time) which accords with indigenous culture. physics or 'physis', the physical basis of the world (field-matter nonduality) is no doubt also the source of Taoist belief, the writings of Lao Tzu etc. Nietzsche says;.
"If anything whatsoever is well-refuted, it is the presumption of "matter": and indeed not by an idealist but rather by a mathematician- by Boscovich. He and Copernicus are both the greatest opponents of appearances: Since him, there is widespread relief that, there is no longer matter. He has thought atomic theory to its conclusion." -- Nietzsche
it is in the symmetries arising from 'field physics' that Nietzsche grounds his 'beyond good-and-evil' ideas; i.e. from the physical influences that we experience. His ideas of evolution are Lamarckian which is also grounded in the same field-physics.
aboriginal cultural tradition is also grounded in the same basic symmetries. Bohm and Peat refer to this as 'aboriginal science'.
this should not be confused with 'post modernism' that is 'ungrounded' in the physical reality of our actual physical experience.
people commonly misinterpret my references to indigenous peoples traditions. my references are like F. David Peat's in 'Blackfoot Physics'; i.e. they are to the field-matter nonduality symmetries that would have us understand ourselves and the world in terms of inhabitant-habitat nonduality. the aphorism 'it takes a whole community to raise a child' comes from the nondual understanding of the physical world. this is clear from indigenous views of the world as having a 'spiritual field' as primary animating source and material world as secondary phenomena [e.g. Tsawalk, by Umeek, Nuu Chah Nulth people]
the same generalization of dualism can be made re Western culture variants. dispute resolution is fundamentally different where one assumes inhabitant-habitat mutual exclusion as in science and dualism and being-based culture-beliefs.
Of course, there are many variant cultures within the nondualist and dualist groupings involving many other factors. i am not generalizing indigenous peoples and Western peoples in any other sense than this most fundamental difference in worldview; inhabitant-habitat nonduality [man is a strand in the interdependent web of life] and inhabitant-habitat duality [man is separate from the habitat and capable of harming it or helping it]
dispute resolution is fundamentally different when coming from inhabitant-habitat nonduality which comes from field-matter nonduality which says we are all included in an interdependent relational dynamic, ... versus when coming from inhabitant-habitat duality which comes from that assumption of the primacy of matter and the dualist separating of matter and space [there is no matter space separation in field-matter nondualism]
there is an overall complete and consistent symmetry in Nietzsche's views which reveals that we have put reason into an unnatural primacy over intuition, ... dualism' into an unnatural primacy over nondualism. there is a whole coherent understanding here, not a hodge-podge of logical fragments and post-modern armwavings. there is no such coherent understanding in Western dualist science and politics. it is a fragmented mess with as many variants as you like commencing from biased cherry picking of the data. Hilary has nothing to say in common with these ideas and the aphorism "it takes a whole community to raise a child' is fundamentally at odds with Western justice which Hilary not only supports but is the basic reason why the authoritarian stranglehold is unrelenting [Tolstoy].
as for normality and normalization, these concepts suffer from the same unjustified absolutist assumption as the concept of 'objective truth'. there is no such thing. yes, people within a culture will gather together on the basis of their biases and interests and the grouping can be referred to as 'normality' by those people who believe there is such a thing, but there is nothing other than a statistical clustering and thus no grounds for labeling anyone 'abnormal' as if it were a defect. the celts celebrated those who had psychotic episodes and 'knew how to visit the otherworld'. as r.d. laing, thomas szasz [the Myth of Mental Illness] and others have pointed out, psychotic episodes are natural healing phenomena and not 'abnormalities'. of course, every culture has statistical clustering of preferences, but not all cultures have the concept of 'abnormality'. there is no basis for drawing a dualist line to separate 'normal' and 'abnormal' yet dualist cultures do this while it makes no sense and is not a viable concept in nondualist cultures. In Western societies, notably in Russia, if you don't agree with the regime, you must be crazy, and that definition of abnormal is good enough grounds to lock up so-called 'dissidents'.
Nietzsche is making a case for restoring intuition based on physical experience to its natural precedence over reason based on semantic constructions, and so am I.
Is your reference to aboriginal science same/similar to the ultra sexy Deleuzian concept of nomadic science because nomadology really resonates with me. I started reading Nomadology but of course I start more books than I finish but hopefully I'll get around to it.
Why does one of the biggest names in the IT industry make bunk software? I'm sure the better quality PDF viewers have a function to save or bookmark your position in a file so you can return to it after a reboot. I don't know how many times I've started a hard book and lost my place in it because of this issue, then you have to practically reread the whole thing to find it again. I guess I could just write the page number down. I think it might be a conspiracy, because if you're reading books you're not looking at advertisements.
Well folx I've enjoyed this exchange it's been a good growth opportunity and I look forward to further discourse. I leave you with a libidinally charged cultural reference to aboriginal science:
Eluveitie - Inis Monahttps://youtu.be/iijKLHCQw5o
I agree that non matter physics is a part of it, I don't see how this goes against a resonance/dissonance view of things. If you have symmetry the you also have asymmetry relatively speaking.There's nothing duelist about what I'm saying at least if you define dualism along classical lines.What non duelism doesn't entail is the all encompassing holism picture that you are painting. There are relative points of separation which includes individuals from groups. On habitat inhabitants you have no disagreement from me.
On the norm issues it's not about a group straight jacketing a deviant, it's the fact that every group has clustered preferences and anchored meaning that an individual can deviate from. This is the case of every society that's ever been emile including the preferable indigenous aboriginal societies. There are always grounds to be banished or killed. Of course there's no such thing as normal, however there are still preferences that come from weighted group habits. Understanding that there is always relative novelty to relative habit should make things like dissonance obvious.
The point about Hillary and the idiom is that that particular quote is also being used by managerial ideology. Unchecked holism can certainly be used for ill and there will certainly still be power dynamics in your thought circle. Lastly of course intuition should predicate reason, I don't think this entails what you think it does.
>Normality and normativity are not necessarily driven by objective truth. The default driver of normativity is basically behaviorally weighted habituated preferences and anchored meanings that EVERY society in history has had
Your mistake here is in relying on behaviourism as a root psychological model, and assuming it to be present in all societies. Once one recognises the existence of the unconscious (whether as “inner” unconscious in my sense, or “relational field” in Emile's), behaviourism increasingly seems both false in its assumptions and cruel and ineffective in its outcomes. I think there is/was a sense of the unconscious in indigenous societies, though one has to look for it in spiritualised language such as souls, shamanism, dreamtime, sorcery and so on. But there is also Bergsonian “attention to life”, a constant dynamic of resonance and dissonance based on desires and needs, which at the limit-point leads to violence or exclusion (though I think there are societies listed on the Peaceful Societies webpage which avoid this). Emile wants for there to be no “attention to life” in indigenous groups, which is observably false, though this doesn't necessarily mean that there *can't* be human communities without attention to life – the highest-level Buddhist and Taoist practitioners seem to have transcended attention to life, though I wonder in this case if the medicine (superego) is worse than the disease.
Observably, Native American and other indigenous groups usually have/had some kind of normativity and definition of normality, even if it was looser than that in modern “societies”. It was rarely of the type “universal laws which apply equally to everyone” or of the type “statistically frequent behaviours assumed to be normal”, which would lead some people to say it isn't normativity or normality at all, but something else. I'd say the response to “deviance” (generally perceived as imbalance) is quite different from modern responses, even if it isn't exactly Emile's vision either. Windigo psychosis is an interesting test-case – we're basically dealing with a Native American equivalent of serial-killing – people in Arctic societies who developed compulsions to kill and eat others in their community, apparently in the aftermath of scarcity-related trauma. This was believed to be a form of spirit possession (localised unconscious and local non-rational agency) arising from trauma (Emile's “epigenetic” causality) – the person is literally possessed by a famine-spirit which causes them to act compulsively, without rational control and against their human nature (the way “spirit” is used in indigenous accounts sometimes reminds me of Stirner's spooks). It is noticeable that the Windigo-possessed person typically disidentified with the compulsion and was mortified at the harm which resulted, but also that they are not held responsible by the community or “punished” in a retributive sense. According to the available accounts, the first-line response was therapeutic and not punitive, consisting of shamanic practices aiming at soul-retrieval, exorcism and restoration of harmonious relations with the community (on a yin-yang-like balance model). If this failed then the second line was for the person to be put to death, usually at their own request. This is preventive rather than punitive. I'm not saying this is necessarily the “right” or “wrong” response, but it isn't western behaviourism (the person is neither assumed to be responsible nor taken to deserve to suffer for the harm they “caused”; nor are they simply shunned or killed for violating a norm or harming others, even so severely), and it also isn't Emile Zedong Thought (it is not the *community* which brings about the “possession”, it is the ecological context, which furthermore is localised both in its cause – a recent period of famine – and its effect – a spirit possession of a particular person – and which is therefore amenable to localised responses, including killing the person.
For the record, I think it's largely true that so-called “crimes” are actually localised ventings of social and ecological energetic disturbances, driven by some kind of hydraulic model (a repressive society does not destroy the repressed energies, but causes them to return in distorted forms; the energy “has to go somewhere”, whether it's violence against self – such as depression – or against others), though there seems to be some social and personal leeway in *where* the energy is “vented” and how (if at all) it manifests socially. There's social causality both on a macro scale (poor people with shitty lives take lots of drugs, drink too much, fight one another...) and on a micro scale (events such as spree-killings reflect a localised impact of wider forces of disposability). People arguably make existential “choices” in the sense of Bergson's version of free will, i.e. they “choose” (or are drawn to/resonate with) a particular ethos or existential response which is then (often unpredictably) determinant of particular actions. And in many ways, persuasion or influence or social war has to take place at this level of existential responses (a typical pig “chooses” or resonates with the authoritarian manner of channelling energies and thus allows a certain kind of spirit-possession by the spook of the state, and displaces discontent “downwards”, onto groups deemed “police property”; an anarchist from otherwise similar social conditions might “choose” or resonate with an emancipatory response of displacing discontent “upwards” in social rebellion instead... and this is why pigs want to criminalise anarchists even for harmless actions, such as with the J20 arrests and trials, and anarchists tend to hate pigs in return).
>It's behavior modification, you change your behavior and discover your true self
Again this ignores the unconscious... the unconscious both determines whether or not you *can* “change your behaviour” by act of will (it has a habit of not cooperating), and what (if anything) your “true self” is.
emile what do you think about corgis, is their lack of tails epigenetic or not?
Give up dude, he won't answer the Qs!
It's BAD FAITH ARGUMENT folks. This is why we don't "engage with emile seriously".
Irks me when people show up late, after this crap has already been happening for years and say we're being nasty to emile or mistreating him in some way. He's an arrogant dick and this is about his ego, not discussion. He'll never be persuaded by anything new and anyone who disagrees gets characterized as being too stupid to understand what he's saying (which is clearly not the case here).
Or he's a bot. Whatever. Point is he's only a distraction because being able to discuss things is the point of the forums.
I believe this claim of bad faith should be acknowledged if not addressed and I agree with OP that the point of the forums is discussion.
Hereby and henceforth! All gluttons for punishment will agree before banging their heads against the brick wall known as emile, that this is in fact, all that they are doing or could ever hope to do! May your skulls thicken and your rhetoric sharpen, for there is no god to have mercy on your souls!
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Emile is smart
And @critic is too!
Oh sweet amor fati,
you hath spareth fair gel,
And my huggings and stern authority,
hath intervened and put to end,
Any chance of futile intercourse,
with that dreaded nightstalker emile,
And that be a surety.
Now the forum freed,
of excess word and empty deed,
Dost floweth like the brook,
through meadow and wood,
And words of wisdom not tangled
in repeated boring jambles,
Of gross emilian shambles,
Now grace these anarch perambles,
From the rebel poets brilliant verbal samples,
In the Now,,,,
if you don't engage seriously, that's bad faith argument. why bother. if you don't have anything to say that tries to discuss things, why respond in bad faith, why not pass by emile's comments?
for me, i know that i am writing about elusive philosophical matters that pisses people off, as with the viciousness when someone takes a position like Duesberg does on HIV-AIDS, the viciousness elicited by those writing on non-Darwinian evolutionary theory (e.g. that Jablonka and others continue to go through), the anger and irritating elicited by AGW-'deniers'.
for years, i have continued to comment on @news in spite of bad faith responses from others, and a lot of derision and mocking. i have always tried to listen and address the issues and the honestly placed comments of others and my overall record is sure as hell not 'bad faith' from my own honest experience-based understanding of it. i have hung in here because of it being a forum on ways of moving to a non-authoritarian, mutually influencing (supporting) relational network form of community.
but of course i do not give back responses that satisfy a majority. what response can Jablonka give to Dawkinsians when the only answer that will satisfy them will be a renouncement of her challenge to darwinian orthodoxy to make way for a more comprehensive evolutionary paradigm, along with a confession that her years of research were all just pomo dreaming?
re 'bad faith'. 'hey, i keep asking you whether you've stopped beating your wife yet,... and you keep ignoring me. you owe me an explanation since i've been putting up with your fucking stone-walling for years now.'
i get all kinds of personal attacks in the exchanges by people who have never met me. some participants used to say, ... 'if you don't like emile's comments, just don't read them'. but it's like the SNL show where people are compelled to keep smelling the sour milk because it's so disgusting' because they want the stimulus that brings on a little 'i'm disgusted' tapdance routine, so that they get chance to 'make a statement' as to their disgust to everyone in the group.
a few people came and left the forum who 'tuned' to what i write and were coming from largely the same place, but they didn't stick around because not many people are willing to put up with being the centre of attack. you don't hear anything form AGW deniers because what's the point when the masses have turned off their listening gear and simply use your comments as a trigger to do a rant that lets them make a statement as to what an imbecile you are.
ok, when am i going to address 'bad faith' as in 'when did you stop beating your wife?', ... i am not going to address it. will i do my best to give honest, thoughtful attention to the HONEST GOOD FAITH comments or questions that come to me, ... yes. but as i have said already, if one person is coming from a paradigm, like Lamarckism, and the other person has already pooh-poohed the whole basis of it and mockingly so with LOLs and 'didn't you know that has been disproved ages ago, ... what then constitutes 'good faith questions' from that person?
i'll tell you what the questions are like in that case, they are questions that presuppose darwinism and have no meaning within the Lamarckian paradigm, yet if one doesn't answer, one is accused of not carrying on a good faith discussion.
how many times have i said that choosing between nondualism and dualism is NOT a binary choice, and how many times do i get it thrown back at me that such a choice IS a binary choice? the choice between 'storm' and 'storm-in-plenum is not a 'binary choice. look up 'impredicative logic'. the dualist conception 'storm' is an SCSR abstraction while the storm-in-plenum nonduality is a PEIR experience.
my sense is that, as with the Darwinist fundamentalists, it doesn't matter what i say to those who have already determined that Lamarckians have nothing worth saying, so being asked to respond to some inquiry turns out to be for the same purpose as passing the bottle of sour milk that will give occasion to the inquirer for doing a little tap dance that registers their disgust.
there are those in the forum who trust in the honesty of my efforts, whether or not they agree with my positions and i do appreciate that!
Yes well, their trust is naïveté I'm afraid.
How is emile more dangerous than any other anonymous man on the internet? As far as I know he isn't selling anything but ideas, are you afraid that he's poisoning the minds of the children through intellectual decolonization? I wish you would describe the nature of the threat explicitly.
I used to be afraid of the dark. When my parents first put me in my own bed, turned out the light and closed the door I was terrified. I used to get up and sneak into my parents room and get in bed on my dad's side, he was the permissive one so he let me. But one time I made the mistake of trying to crawl in on Mama's side, she was the frightened one, and she started screaming in terror and it scared me and I screamed and my dad was startled too. I think after that they started leaving my door open and got me a night light but I always used to sneak up at night and go to the refrigerator and make mayonnaise or Worcestershire sandwiches. I think the problem was it felt like being locked in solitary confinement, but once I started wandering the feeling of isolation ended.
for background, i include someone else's comment who rejects lamarckism to 'pivot from'; i.e.
they are born with short (not docked) tails - and it seems that more recently they are selectively bred for short(er) tails. dogs are an unusual case as they are almost entirely selectively bred - we have been choosing (either consciously or unconsciously) for desired traits over many thousands of generations. if you docked a labrador's tail (you should be locked up for starters), the progeny of this dog would not have a noticeably shorter tail. even if you did this over many generations you would merely select for dogs that were best able to cope with the procedure and whose ability to breed was unaffected - you would not, necessarily, end up with dogs with shorter tails.
lamarck is making a bit of a comeback recently - epigenetics has opened the possibility that not everything that is passable to next generation is received from previous generation (plus random mutation). together with an appraisal of what lamarck actually said, and a realisation that he shouldnt be bracketed with Lysenko, this has lead to a bit a of a re-reading for Lamarck
However, what is generally considered to be lamarckism - the inheritability of traits acquired over a single generation - is still not accepted.
ok, let's talk about the assumptions in this comment. the prime assumption is that the unit of evolution is the dog, a genetically engineered-by-nature species, a biological system-in-itself.
the Corgi species is thus seen as an 'evolutionary unit'. in the Lamarckian view, the field is the source of the biological forms, thus the field would source the matrix of relational influences in an ecosystem within which the developing ecosystem forms would be inductively actualized by the epigenetic influence immanent in the ecosystemic relational matrix. i.e. 'relations' are in a natural primacy over 'things' (biological forms).
so the assumption is instead that the genome is not the source of the tail; i.e. the genome does not 'push out a tail' and then due to changes in the genome, the tail-pushing out genes in the genome go missing. the change is instead due to changes in the epigenetic influence surrounding the biological form. this is what wittgenstein is talking about with respect to intuition and logic; i.e. intuition is the epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes and shapes the logical proposition.
this way of understanding physical reality, from field as inductive actualizing to material structure is inverted in Western science, so that we instead interpret the source of development to reside in the interior of the developing form, whether it is a storm or a biological form. this has been disproved; i.e.
"As is described by Nijhout, genes are “not self-emergent,” that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by “environmental signals.” Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” —Bruce Lipton, ‘The New Biology’
the genome is a RECORD of the development of the biologic form but not its instigator, just as logical structure is a record of the development of an understanding, but not its instigator. the statement 'john wilkes booth' killed abraham lincoln' is a logical proposition and we can prove it. that's what logic is for, for proofs, ... but it doesn't address the originating source of the logical structure; i.e. logic is 'analytical backfill'.
“It is by logic we prove, it is by intuition that we invent. … Logic, therefore, remains barren unless fertilised by intuition.”- Henri Poincaré
this same paradigm-shifting understanding that we have inverted the sourcing of development and actions is also becoming evident in psychiatry; i.e. the incidence of non-native born blacks being diagnosed with schizophrenia in the U.K. is 3-5 times the incidence of native-born U.K. blacks. (Cochrane et al in 'The Social Origins of Mental Ilness') suggesting that schizophrenia is an 'epigenetic (social-relations-induced) syndrome'. this view is also the emerging view in the US ('Mad in America'). While psychiatry has been assuming that mental disorders are 'something wrong in the workings of the biological machine' and has thus focused on medicating those who manifest bouts of psychosis, the developing therapy of 'open dialogue' mimics the 'healing circle' wherein one listens respectfully to other members of the social relational matrix one is included in, ... to cultivate a grounding rebalancing and to promote the sustaining of relational balance and harmony.
this is a 'new paradigm' [epigenetic-genetic nonduality] which exposes the error in conceiving of the biological form as an 'independent biological system-in-itself', and shows Darwinism up as 'analytical backfill'; i.e. as a convenient and economy-of-thought delivering way of modeling evolution, by way of positive-causation based logic [semantic constructions].
in this view, we can see not just evolution but the overall world dynamic in terms of one force (Boscovich style) which is responsible for everything in the transforming relational continuum; i.e. the relational forms and their development and actions (relative to the flow/turbulence). It is only because we conceptualize the forms as 'beings' with 'fixed identity' that we end up having to explain the 'origin of the species' of these beings and then have to come up with separate sciences to explain the behaviour of these purported things-in-themselves.
Bootstrap theory in quantum physics, in essence, is saying that 'it takes a whole relational matrix to develop a member of the matrix'. this is also the finding in evolutionary biologic experiments into the evolution of microbial communities (Caldwell et al). the initial or primary sourcing influence is epigenetic (relational influence) and what manifests is misconstrued as the positive-causal product of genetic generating agency as in Darwinism. e.g. the ecosystem can be understood as, firstly, a relational matrix of influences, and the material forms that manifest within this relational influence matrix, is secondary phenomena. one can conceive of this by way of Mach's principle;
"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." .
this, in turn, has the symmetry of Huygen's principle in wave dynamics.
seen in this light, it is the wrong question to look for the genetic change responsible for changes in the Corgi's appearance such as a change in its tail structure. if we blame changes in the genome, we need to ask, where is the genome's headquarters and how does the genome roll out this finished product? we know that "genes can't control their own expression" so how does the "genome control its expression", ... or does it? that would only be true if the organism were a 'biological system-in-itself' but if that were the case, we would still have to impute the presence of an intelligent orchestra leader inside or outside of the organism [hint: there is none in the storm]. 'Creationists' put the 'Intelligent Designer' outside the organism and Darwinists just ignore the need for it and say that their logical model speaks for itself. [natural selection is a kind of scientific style 'superstition' that replaces the influence of 'fielding' relative to 'hitting' that comes with imposing empty Euclidian space as is necessitated by declaring biological forms to be 'independent biological systems-in-themselves].
this brings us back to the wittgenstein point about logic. we can put together a lot of logical propositions about protein manufacture and the like to describe development in terms of positive-causal logic, but something is missing. that 'something' is 'epigenetic influence' [which was replaced by empty Euclidian space]. 'intuition' is the epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes logical propositions.
i know all this nonduality 'sounds weird' but that is why nonduality has been rejected because we are a culture that has inverted the natural primacy of intuition over reason, and put reason over intuition. this dualist view of 'something' residing in 'nothing' is simple and convenient lets us thing in 'causal' terms.
That is, the understanding of the world in modern physics is that it is one world wherein field is in a natural primacy over matter within a field-matter nonduality. the whole thing is evolving; i.e. the world is a transforming relational continuum. the biological forms are included in this overall evolution so that these forms do not evolve as things-in-themselves but as inhabitant-habitat nondualities, as in Mach's principle.
I am not saying that this is the model of people working in the science of epigenetics like Jablonka, or the people working in epigenetics in psychiatry or in holistic medicine etc. Their intuition is making a leap up from the hard logic of empirical facts in the manner described by Wittgenstein;
“The propositions of logic are tautologies (6.1), and hence say nothing (6.11). Any attempt to give content to logical propositions is misguided. That they are true shows itself in their structure, and this structure helps us to understand the formal properties of language and the world (6.12). We cannot express anything by means of logical propositions.” -- Wittgenstein, 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'
"6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. 7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations
nevertheless, this very basic paradigm shift from dualist genetic agency driven evolution to epigenetic-genetic nonduality [where the latter is what we get when we semantically reify and give fixed identities to material forms] ... is lurking in the background and emerging here and there. it is simply a retraction of our Western error of putting reason into an unnatural primacy over intuition.
Visual aid: ... imagine a matrix of spheres as in the diagram of a molecule with a central sphere and four or five surrounding spheres and think of each sphere as a multiple person team trying to provide for their own NEEDS. now imagine channels connecting all of these teams to one another so that contributions to resolve NEEDs can flow in both directions between each team and the other teams. in the limit, these channels could be seen as an overall flow-space in which the teams are included. if we don't fix the identity of each team but let their identities float [you can imagine being in one of these teams wherein our activities are being inductively shaped by the NEEDS of the teams within the relational matrix]. thus, the development of your team will be epigenetically influenced and the form of the matrix that persists will be a form in which resonance is manifest.
teams connected in this way will all have floating identities since their activities will be inductively actualized, orchestrated and shaped by NEEDS arising in the fellow teams in the matrix. however, it will be convenient and there will be 'economy of thought' in naming each team as if it had a 'fixed identity of its own' even though it is a relational entity with a floating identity. when we name all the teams and start to use noun-and-verb grammar, we created the idealized concept of 'local generative agency' within the team. that is, we create a logical structure in place of the relational dynamic wherein 'relations' are in an inherent primacy over 'things-in-themselves'.
as is evident in this example, while it is convenient to reduce these relational dynamics to logical structure, we cannot get back to an understanding of these relational dynamics by logic alone which will be building a semantic narrative in terms of 'who is giving what to whom' and 'who is taking what from whom'. recalling the original floating identity scenario, if we focus on any particular team, there will be no way to understand its development and activities as if it such were coming from it-in-itself as if from internal generative agency. [it takes a whole community of teams to raise a team]
all we did here was to let 'identity' float and acknowledge that relations are in a natural primacy to get back to the original physically real situation. semantic labelling of relational forms invokes the notion of 'thing-in-itself being' which reduces the interdependent (mutual aid) relational matrix to a machine-thing-in-itself, notionally animated by its own internal generative agency. This view of machine things-in-themselves is a 'semantically constructed scientific reality'(SCSR) where we can track back from results to whatever caused those results, which is impossible in the 'physically experience intuitive reality (PEIR) of our actual physical experience within the team.
ok, a long narrative to answer a question of the evolution of a Corgi [by way of saying that this question doesn't make sense in the Lamarckian paradigm since evolution is at the level of field and manifest in the forms inductively actualized within the field].
all of these references were to show that we have a choice between these two paradigms that is not a 'binary' or 'dualist' choice, but a choice between understanding the same dynamics as if we lived in semantically constructed (logical) scientific reality (SCSR) or as if we lived in a physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR). If we name all the forms we see and impute them to have thing-in-itself identities, we deliver a 'being'-based logical structure for forms and their dynamics, but this logical structure drops out all the relational complexity of NEEDS-induced relational dynamic. the real dynamic is left floating in a cloud of consciousness that kind of drapes the logical structure.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." --Wittgenstein
Needs induced relational dynamic is exactly what I have wanted to talk about for a long time but I haven't had the right words or someone to talk about it with. Your illustration about the spheres made me think about my relational space and the other people and families in the vicinity and the exchanges of energy and forces at work between people. I used to refer to this as libidinal economy but I don't know if that's the same thing.
Sometimes when I lay down and relax I feel these packets of energy coming into my body kind of in the chest area and at a time like 4th of July when there's lots of people around I might feel a dozen or more. My intuition tells me that this is coming from other people but I know this could be wrong and maybe it's my own physical phenomenon. Also at times I can feel a shock at night mostly that feels like a low level cattle prod that seems like an outflow or a diminishing of quality. These are just two examples and I was wondering if anyone else experiences this and if they have a language to describe it. Relational tensions and dynamics seems really important to me and it seems that our selves overlap or interact at a field or fundamental level.
I also had an experience where I felt like my energies were being pulled out of me and it made me sick because I was not prepared to defend against it. Eventually I mobilized and replenished my stores of energy or resources and now I am more proactive and vigilant about it so if I feel I'm getting drained I get busy or relax and pull some in. It seems there are 4 ways to get 'it', you can make it, pull it, go get it or someone can give it to you. In an area that is impoverished, it seems there is always scarcity and competition. This is the first time I have tried to describe these phenomenon so my language may be crude I was wondering what field of science might address these issues.
Here is a short article that touches on the subject that may be useful.http://cosmichoboes.blogspot.com/2011/08/primer-on-libidinal-economy-in-...
I will quote one pertinent paragraph:
Jared Sexton describes libidinal economy as “the economy, or distribution and arrangement, of desire and identification (their condensation and displacement), and the complex relationship between sexuality and the unconscious.” Needless to say, libidinal economy functions variously across scales and is as “objective” as political economy. Importantly, it is linked not only to forms of attraction, affection and alliance, but also to aggression, destruction, and the violence of lethal consumption. He emphasizes that it is “the whole structure of psychic and emotional life,” something more than, but inclusive of or traversed by, what Gramsci and other marxists call a “structure of feeling”; it is “a dispensation of energies, concerns, points of attention, anxieties, pleasures, appetites, revulsions, and phobias capable of both great mobility and tenacious fixation.”
If you can make it through Duke Neukem III with more than 75% of your energy the method of conserving vitality will be made blatantly obvious to you gel.
I play Open Arena but I get killed a lot. I've always been like C-3PO, I get my ass kicked but I put myself back together again.
I played Nam 69 and I swear the ghosts of Nixon and General Westmoreland entered my psyche ! !
how did that feel?
Wierd, I started to scream and throw furniture around in my basement, and when mom came down with my midnight snack I attacked her with a broom handle. Then Pa ran down the stairs and I ambushed him with a can of lighter fluid and set him alight and stomped on him as he writhed on the floor. Ironically that's what put the flames out and saved his life and he subsequently escaped and went AWOL and the Vietcong now have me detained in Louisiana in a place they've disguized to look like an American lunatic asylum. Cunning little commies!
My sponsor was a disabled Vietnam veteran and a commie from Chicago named Gary Lisk, he was a hypnotherapist and addictions counselor who died in a mysterious boating accident. He left for an overnight fishing trip and his boat washed up on Cape Canaveral about 3 weeks later with his body in it, his 2 passengers were never found, it may have been pirates.
"What's Left" is a cool boat name. I bet he was funny.
He was funny but he was also charismatic and enigmatic and there was a bit of a cult of personality around him and a lot of people didn't like him.
It was the commies, shoulda bombed them back to the stone age, they've got me in a mock bamboo cage here, they've painted the steel bars yellow, I found out last night when I tried to chew myself out, they've even made their Vietnamese food bland and tasteless like the prison food in the US. Damn though, every mouthful makes me homesick, part of their psychological torture methods, that, and the dull Western sitcom tv they show in the dorm they've set up.
What's your favorite US food? Beans on toast?
Oh c'mon, its corn bread with peanut butter and jelly, do you think I'm a commie peasant living on cabbage and rice, our great nation gave us B52 bombers and the Armalite rifle to bring justice to this commie menace, Dick's just sent me a plan just drawn up on the round table. I walked in on Nancy on the table with that new peace negotiator, Henry umm,,,,,,he was,,,,,
spreading peanut butter on corn bread?
Umm, no, Henry umm,,,K?
anima sana in corpore sano
"a healthy soul in a healthy body"
I can't read #125 until tomorrow
@gel-oberon3, How do you reconcile the 12-step religious beliefs, err, spiritual, with anarchism?
Which goes well with male identity art and the art of the self motif. It's behavior modification, you change your behavior and discover your true self. Bill and Bob were earnest seekers who plumbed the depths of the world's literature to put a pragmatic program of recovery together. There is a lot of mention of God but it's not necessary to have an intellectual or religious belief in God, there are atheists and agnostics in AA, the groups are autonomous. All you need is an open mind to experimentation. Honesty, open mindedness and willingness. Rigorous honesty!
I was willing to believe, Neo believed that he was the One, Zion believed in One, Neo returned to the source and beat the agents, you can too!
I didn't start thinking critically about it until I felt established in sobriety. At the time of my inquiry I read some of the harshest criticisms, Agent Orange, morewillbereaveled.com? And read 12 Step Nightmares which are mostly criticisms of the bad people not theological debate. But I read all the arguments for and against the existence of God, I shave with Occam's Razor too and actually I haven't been to meetings in years. I have my own program which is still quite close to 12 steps. I have answered the interactive questionnaire at Rational Recovery, looked at SOS and Lifering. I don't feel like I have a God or a master.
Behavior modification is pig psychology. Lrn2 radical psychoanalysis.
the libidinal economy does point to a sea of passionate turbulent experience underlying the local, visible, material dynamics that sources non-logical behaviour. pointing in this direction, to me, is on the right track. it overturns the assumption that man is rational or even more absurd, that our selfish genes are rational or that plants are intelligent and their rational purpose is responsible for ecosystemic mutual aid, ... all stuff that science would have us 'believe'.
colonized peoples become terrorists not because of a rational agenda to kill some people they don't like [as our courts accuse and convict them of] and die in the process [how rational is that], ... their radicalizing and their extreme actions are animated by their inclusion in a sea of passionate turbulent experience. the old geezer who has sex with 14 year olds and then pleads insanity [i'm just crazy about that stuff!] is making more sense than the psychologists who find him perfectly 'normal' (rational, sane), responsible for his own behaviour and fit for trial. in order to cultivate harmony in community, we need to shake off this bogus view of man as a 'rational being'.
mainstream science starts with material entities and their dynamics. what you are talking about is pre-material energy-dynamics or 'field dynamics' which is studied mostly in the 'inorganic realm'. there is no distinction between the inorganic and organic realm in RELATIONAL physics; i.e. there is only one force/influence in Boscovich's and Nietzsche's 'physics' and in 'aboriginal science' as Bohm and F. David Peat refer to the pre-material physics aka field-matter nonduality.
by the way, i am right with you on your 'relational space experiences'.
science needs a paradigm shift to address this un-reason-able (intuitive) stuff.
that is, science breaks everything down into small parts and then tries to explain changes in things in a positive causal manner from inside-the-parts-pushing outwards. this approach is kind of like telling a lot of lies because none of it is true, it is just a popular way of lying.
"We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all. Now man of course forgets that this is the way things stand for him. Thus he lies in the manner indicated, unconsciously and in accordance with habits which are centuries’ old; and precisely by means of this unconsciousness and forgetfulness he arrives at his sense of truth.” — Nietzsche, ‘On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense’ (aussermoralischen Sinne)
for example, with respect to the tail of a dog;
"Tail is one of the common phenotypes found in many animal species. As a physical structure that is conserved in many organisms, it serves important functions. For example, the hairy tail in a kangaroo or dog facilitates its locomotion while the hairless tail in beaver helps regulate its body temperature. Despite such roles of tail, tail-loss can be observed in many animals."
[ "A phenotype results from the expression of an organism's genetic code, its genotype, as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two." -- Wikipedia].
is 'tail a real thing? is it pushed out there by genetic agency? if one looks at it as being inductively actualized, one might think of it in a topological rather than a geometric sense, like an inflatable balloon-dog that is expanding as the ambient air pressure is lowered. as it inflates, the tail will come out if the internal pressure is high relative to the ambient pressure. i am just talking of how we think about the development of 'form' in dealing with inside-outward assertive and outside-inward inductive formative influences.
using geometrical description we might say that the tail resembles a long circular cylinder giving us a sense of its 'existence in its own right' as a 'part' of the 'organism' which is also said to exist in its own (non-relationally-dependent) right. do dogs tails 'exist'? does mount everest 'exist' [or is it just a bump on a balloon-earth with a bumpy spine?]. does a 'goose-bump' on our forearm exist? a tail would have to exist first for us to speak in terms of the dog species 'losing' it.
Do 'parts' of a body, like 'tail', make any sense? There is an old joke about a man who comes into a bar holding something in his unfolded hands. He recounts how he had committed to doing whatever his wife said, and when he got frisky in bed and slipped his hand down between the wife's legs, she said "you can cut that out!". He raises and opens his hands and says; "have you ever seen one of these up close?"
It's a stupid joke, but isn't it making fun of our own stupidity in objectifying body parts as if they were 'things-in-themselves'? Should we be asking 'what is it for?' What does this do? MAYBE IT CAN’T BE UNDERSTOOD AS A ‘THING-IN-ITSELF’. MAYBE IT CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF THE RELATIONAL CONTEXT IT IS INCLUDED IN.
Western society objectifies so-called abnormal ‘criminal behaviours’ as if they are the product of biological machinery gone wrong called ‘criminals’ and the ‘criminal genes’ are hunted down, discovered, and programs of sterilization have been set up in the prisons to get the criminal genes out of ‘the gene pool’, disregarding the social origins (epigenetically induced) origins of so-called ‘criminal behaviour’ [when someone who has nothing takes from someone who basks in obscene surplus, is this aptly called ‘criminal behavour’ or is the hoarding and monopolizing of essential resources more deserving of the term ‘criminal behaviour’. And what is the justification for objectifying a person on the basis their activity of ‘creating imbalance’ and/or ‘resolving imbalance’ as ‘A CRIMINAL’, as in ‘that person is a known criminal’? If they ceased their ‘criminal activities’ would they still be a criminal?
Many people in our stressed society have bouts of ‘psychosis’ [as in schizophrenia, bipolar etc.]. Studies have found that most of this occurs in one’s 20’s and that there is a ‘social origin’ to ‘mental illness’. If people can get through these years, they can resume their natural unmedicated lives, however, once they are ‘objectified’, as in the case of ‘criminals’ as ‘schizophrenics’, ‘manic-depressives’ (bipolars) etc., they are condemned by science and society to remain on lifetime programs of medications (chemical lobotomizers) which blank out their sensitivities to the matrix of relations in which they are included. Meanwhile, scientists are searching for the genes which ‘cause’ these conditions so that people can abort their babies in pregnancy to ‘protect the gene pool’ and to combat what is being called ‘the invisible plague’ (the rise of schizophrenia, bipolar and other psychosis related symptoms).
Even if genetic engineering could alleviate such symptoms with less unanticipated [because our reason is always oversimplified and we don’t really know what the hell we are doing] side-effects than surgical lobotomy, this is no proof that the symptoms are due to inside-outward influence, locally originating generative/genetic forces asserting themselves from the interior of a ‘biological machine’, a ‘system-in-itself’, ... rather than from outside-inward ‘epigenetic’ influences, as with nondual form-in-flow relational features.
Why all this ‘objectification’ based on relational activity? Why should we not question our objectification of the human or any member of any species as a ‘being’, an ‘independently-existing biological machine-in-itself?’ Why not call a ‘man’ a ‘manning’ as Alan Watts suggests and as is the implication in relational languages? Why this objectification of a dynamic living form as a ‘biological machine’? So that we can ‘be someone’ and people will recognize us as ‘a somebody’ and we can ask one another at cocktail parties ‘what do you do?’, as if that noun-subject driven ‘doer-of-deeds’ identity is more important than our life experience of unique situation within a complex relational matrix is something lesser?
Back to the topics at hand, ... will science find the gene-structures responsible for the tail and the 'loss of tail'? Yes, they will correlate something with it using statistics as was done with the . The Genetic Origin of Short Tail in Endangered Korean Dog, DongGyeongi
To gain insight for the tail-loss, several studies investigated genes responsible for this change. ...One of the preceding works on non-model organisms investigated shortening of tail in Pembroke Welsh Corgi which is a representative dog breed with short tail, while another study analysed tail-loss in 23 different dog breeds. These studies suggested that a non-synonymous variant in T gene causes the short tail, however, it did not apply to all the dog breeds with short tail.
The article discusses a far-out correlation between some posited genetic variations and the 'tail loss' which are not nearly as convincing 'lies' as 'CO2 causes global warming' but they are the same type of 'lies' which ignore the energy backplane or the 'field dynamics' that are primary and which lie beneath this 'cover' of cause-effect bullshit. that blocks attempts to look into the pre-material, energy-based root source of dynamic phenomena.
the bottom line is that science is dualist and being-based or in other words 'hung up on reason' which 'blocks' the view through to prematerial (relational) energy-dynamics. that is, it does its modeling in semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR) which lacks the 'dimensionality' of physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR).
i know that's not very helpful, but our science-dominated society is aggressively 'suppressing' the Lamarckian paradigm. this @news forum is a microcosm of the global macrocosm in that respect. a minority of people, like yourself, have resisted the brow-beating from those who are actively and aggressively backing the unnatural primacy of reason over intuition. such brow-beating seems to bounce off you like water off a duck's back.
critics of lamarckism seem to have a religious belief in objectifiction, reducing every relational activity in sight to a notional mechanical thing-in-itself.
on the bright side, protocols like Open Dialogue , which is like a Western reinvention of the 'healing circle' are restoring the natural primacy of an energized plenum based 'epigenetic-genetic nonduality' over 'material being' and euclidian space based 'dualism' in the public consciousness.
I have realised what the main difference is between my position and Emile's position. And which is more broadly, the difference between the affirmative group of theories (Stirner Deleuze/Guattari Nietzsche Bonanno Bey Situationism Autonomism) and the lack-fetish group of theories (Derrida Beckett Levinas Bhabha Butler etc).
Both positions maintain that existence is a field of relational force.
Both positions maintain that “individuals” are relational complexes connected to the field of relational force.
Both positions deny that power is concentrated at a single point in the field, and exerted outwards on passive matter.
Both positions deny that (human, animal) motivation is primarily rational.
But for the affirmative group, the experience of the field of relational force is the experience of a “will-to-power” (Nietzsche) or a “flow of desire” (Deleuze/Guattari) or a self-valorising perspective (autonomism, Situationism) which is an *empowered* force, distinct from the ego (in the psychoanalytic sense). Interactions with other forces (not just people, but animals, plants, objects, machines, the air...) is *interactivity* based on the productive intersection of the will-to-power as manifested in each cluster of energy. The experience of empowered force overrides and replaces the selective reasoning of the ego, or directs it in new directions.
For the lackist group, the experience of the field of relational force is the experience of *passivity*, and its participants are *interpassive* - their enjoyment (Lacan) or self-interest (Stirner) in the field of relational force is a negative interest in disrupting and disempowering themselves and others, so as to obtain a state of self-evacuation and resultant euphoria.
And – whereas affirmative thought can recognise and critique lackism – lackism depends for its libidinal appeal on the idea that *all force* is ego, delusion, power-over, etc – and *must* misrecognise affirmative thought as a reassertion of ego. For this reason, lackism spends much of its time seeking to erase affirmative thought.
The two positions reflect *different experiences of the world*, at the *intuitive* and not only the categorical level.
It's a difference regarding the Freudo-Lacanian concept of the phallus. In psychoanalysis, the phallus broadly stands for the possession of power, of autopoietic or self-creating agency, the ability to generate libidinal energy and meaning. In conventional subjectivities, “masculine” subjects believe they have the phallus and the other does not, whereas “feminine” subjects believe the other has the subject and they do not (this doesn't necessarily accord with sex, gender, or gender-identity, but correlates with traditional gender norms). Affirmative autonomy and lack-fetishism both escape from conventional subjectivity. They both dissolve “the ego” in the sense of the manager-self which possesses power *at the expense of* the other, and thus dissolve the dualism of master-slave or master-hysteric.
But autonomous theory *has the phallus* - everyone has the phallus, including women (hence the 70s feminist emphasis on *clitoral* sexuality). There is no phallus “out there” in the world; everyone creates their own phallus, or source of existential meaning and power, from the resonances of their desires – in a world where everyone, everything, also “has the phallus” and power is therefore diffuse. These are theories of *autonomy* - in which local nodes self-valorise and create meaning in this way. The “phallus” is distributed among all subjects/forces and therefore suffuses the entire field.
The lack-group are based on what Lacan calls “feminine jouissance” - an immanent enjoyment of a process of destruction, frustration, emptying and slippage of meaning, which disempowers both self and other (akin to classical mysticism). This alignment is possible only for people who are already convinced they “do not have the phallus” - and it entails castrating attacks on those who believe they have the phallus. They speak from a position of emptiness and disempowerment, and use this position – their own absence – to disempower everyone else. They may choose to name their position *anything*, because for them, there is no inherent meaning and all language is delusion. So, they will call themselves anarchist, even though there is no autonomous power in their position; they will call themselves indigenous philosophers, even though their position does not represent the entirety of indigenous thought; they call themselves quantum theorists, even though their grasp on quantum theory is weak and they reject the scientific method, because for them, quantum theory is just another signifier to cause to “slip”. They claim Nietzsche or Tolstoy and make them say what they want them to say. I have seen this practice a thousand times in academia - “Marxists” who don't believe in classes or class struggle, who deny that communism is possible; people who turn Deleuze or Benjamin or Wittgenstein or Hegel into clones of Derrida; “anarchists” who don't believe the state exists or, if it does, that it can or should be destroyed – instead defining “anarchism” as anti-hierarchy, which is to say, anti-linguistic-hierarchy, which is to say, anti-language – feminine jouissance.
And if you're not a subject who already thinks you “don't have the phallus”, you won't be able to experience feminine jouissance
Feminine jouissance isn't something its adherents will *talk about* in their writings (though it *can* be talked about, as I've just talked about it) – it's something they *do* in their writings, to the endless frustration of anyone looking for a good-faith argument.
Autonomy is “masters without slaves” - lackism is “slaves without masters”.
Neoliberal capitalism is also increasingly “slaves without masters”.
>i have had three 'spirit-shifting experiences' involving sexual intimacy
I've had what I'd call flow-state experiences on a number of occasions – some leading to complete ego-dissolution, others to ego-weakening. Many of these have simply involved immersion in an activity where the will-to-power is flowing of its own accord. It can be art, writing, theory, music. I've also had experiences of this kind in dreams. I find that the more I'm in flow, exercising power in resonance with outer forces “selected” at the level of will-to-power in a manner which realises my capabilities to the fullest, the more likely I am to have such experiences. The more disempowered and passive I feel, the less I have them. Interesting, however, that Emile's come primarily from others. Other people I know, have had these experiences mainly in riots, protests or free parties.
>Age shifting (Someone Emile's quoting)
During sex? Sounds creepy to me.
Also, Emile switches off from repeating the same shit over and over for long enough to have sex?
Can't you at least come up with different examples?!
>If you can't be in the place you love, love the place you're in! (Emile)
Doesn't work if you're in Auschwitz, idiot. Even if you're Viktor Frankl. Tip from Frankl: you need to *create* meaning – even if only in the way you relate to things you can't change.
>refugee crisis (Emile)
Your analysis here is identical to that of Third Way morons who don't see the political economy behind it, or the ways in which neoliberalism itself “epigenetically actualises” this particular style of rejection. Refugees have become a lightning-rod for (initially legitimate) hostility to neoliberal globalising processes which have destroyed lives and meaning, and created a situation of generalised precarity. The left has offered few answers because it's too busy celebrating neoliberalism's inclusive potential and masturbating over idpol shit. So it gets channelled into right-wing nonsense which sees the causes of neoliberalism in its symptoms (refugees are also often displaced *because of* neoliberalism). Your inability to see neoliberalism in the situation shows your pathological confusion of the capitalist cybernetic Spectacle-simulacrum-totality and the field of becoming/univocity itself – as described in Jameson's account of the hysterical/technological sublime.
The style of response which says “people are just irrationally resisting change, they need to be more flexible” is absolutely the neoliberal line on “globalisation” and is utterly reactionary. It creates the conditions for alt-right shit.
>racism begins by formulating a category and binning people in it (Emile)
Emile Zedong Thought begins by formulating a category (dualism vs nondualism) and binning people in it.
>Algonquin language was a relational language (Emile)
OK smart-alec, tell us what features of the Algonquin language are relational. How does an Algonquin-speaker say “the cat is on the mat” without implying that “cat” and “mat” are categories?
There's a discussion here, by the way:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(linguistics)
Roughly, in languages like Algonquin with strong noun incorporation, you say “Ibedbought” (all one word, mainly a verb) instead of “I bought a bed”. Whether this really had the epistemic effects Emile wants, I'm not sure. Emile's statement “racism begins by formulating a category and binning people in it” becomes “onecategoryformulates and onepeoplebinputs, then oneracismmakes” (assuming impersonal pronoun “one” for a general claim of this kind – which might not even be possible in Algonquin!), and I've replied “Emiledualismnondualismcategoryformulates and emile@criticbinputs”. It's verb-dominated, it foregrounds process rather than things, and it marks the actors more clearly (there's presumably no passive voice or abstract noun-led subject-object formations?), but it doesn't eliminate local agency.
>I have never proposed nondualism over dualism on the basis of social effects (Emile)
You're going back on it now, but in “reply to #71 why argue over which reality to employ?” you argue, “which reality we opt for (dualist or nondualist) shapes the community dynamic very differently … if you are happy to live in a society which scapegoats individuals so as to let corruption in the relational dynamics of community off the hook, ... in that case, there would be no point in arguing” - this suggests that your argument for PEIR is based on the claim that PEIR is justified because it does not lead to retributive punishment. This follows from your claim that dualist and nondualist reality cannot be compared by a common standard (so I'm being unfair wanting evidence or logic from you), and my response that there is no way to decide which view is best if they are incommensurable, and therefore, no point in Emile arguing/reasoning with others. Please keep up. Your non-sequitur responses to previous challenges are still on the webpage, you can't just deny them.
>nietzsche and others point to the fact that our reason based dualist models of the world don’t capture the physical reality which is non-dualist (Emile)
OK, so Emile has stopped being a pragmatic idealist, he now believes there is an objective physical reality with certain traits (one of which is nondualism). But Emile earlier claimed that dualist and nondualist theories are incommensurable, and no evidence can decide between them. If nondualism is a feature of an objective physical reality, then its existence should be empirically demonstrable in a way which falsifies dualism. If it is not empirically demonstrable because the theories are incommensurable, then there is no way one can determine that one or the other describes “the physical reality”, since both fit equally well with the available evidence interpreted in their own terms.
>the point about western debates is that debates are oriented to finding the ‘objective truth’ and i have said that i agree with nietzsche’s perspectivism that there is no objective truth
Aaaaaand he's back to being a pragmatic idealist again. In which case he can't say things like “physical reality is non-dualist” (an objectivist claim about the real nature of the real physical world).
>nondualism/PEIR → relational causality → restorative justice Yes
>dualism/SCSR → individual agency → retributive justice Yes
OK so now Emile buckles down on claims which I have shown to be empirically false and utterly ignores my rebuttal. Nondualism/PEIR does not necessarily lead to restorative justice as it can also lead to compatibilism and consequentialism. Dualism/SCSR does not necessarily lead to retributive justice as it can also lead to social causality, psychological causality, “the devil made me do it” etc.
>emile treats me badly? come on. Judge not lest ye be judged
Emile's version of “antifa = fascists because they both hit people”
>my impression is that we are not moving towards this because of some very fundamental differences in assumptions that you don’t want to talk about.
Nope. YOU have fundamental assumptions you don't want to talk about.
>e.g. how many times have you spoken of the difference between nonduality and duality as a ‘binary dualist choice’? It is not!
1. 1. the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided.
"a dualism between man and nature"
Emile uses a dualism between dualism and nondualism. In linguistic structural terms, it is strictly speaking a dualism.
The idea that PEIR and SCSR are distinct phenomena which need to be put into a primacy one way or the other, is a dualism.
>how many times have i said that choosing between nondualism and dualism is NOT a binary choice, and how many times do i get it thrown back at me that such a choice IS a binary choice?
Saying it's not doesn't make it not. “How many times have I said that Trump is a lizard, and yet, I just get it thrown back at me that Trump is not a lizard?”
>the dualist conception 'storm' is an SCSR abstraction while the storm-in-plenum nonduality is a PEIR experience.
All language is separative and categorising. The distinction between 'storm' and 'storm-in-plenum' is linguistically speaking a dualism. The concept 'storm-in-plenum' is not identical to the event it describes any more than the concept 'storm'. The event-level thing is something we must 'be silent' about (Wittgenstein) because any possible words (even in Algonquin!) categorise it in ways which are inadequate to the event-level itself (by implying separateness, non-uniqueness, etc).
>look up 'impredicative logic'
Definitions which refer to themselves, aka circular reasoning. Used in set theory. Irrelevant to the issue of dualism.
Actually I've seen set theory used to argue that the universal field in Emile's sense cannot exist, because there cannot be a set of all sets, it's always possible to force a set.
>look, i am not inventing a new theory
Your theory is not stated or entailed in the sources you refer to, as I've shown repeatedly. Your theory is your own.
>globally dominant Western dualist culture REASONS, regardless of social oppression experienced by the protester, rebel or terrorist, that that person is fully and solely responsible
The legal system and the corporate media are not the whole of “Western dualist culture”. Historians and sociologists do not generally believe that revolts and revolutions are caused by individual free will.
For instance, have a look at this:http://www.historydiscussion.net/history/history-of-russia/top-5-causes-...
Historians attribute the Russian Revolution to “autocratic rule of the Czars” (similar to Emile's landlord), “the social system”, “the policy of Russification”, and the “influence of the industrial revolution”. Only cause 4, “the rise of nihilism”, is arguably “blamed” on rebels... and in this case, rebels half a century before the events they “caused”!https://www.thoughtco.com/causes-of-the-russian-revolution-part-1-1221800
does not mention rebels at all, but instead lists Tsarist autocracy, peasant poverty and the growth of the working-class!
By the way, moral responsibility and causal responsibility are distinct concepts. It's pretty stupid to have the former without the latter, but entirely possible (e.g. someone is “born evil”). It's quite possible to have the latter without the former. For example, someone might maintain that a brick's mass is the cause of its falling to earth, without thereby claiming that the brick is morally responsible or legally liable for damage it causes by falling to earth.
>if many dualists in the dualist community believe that rebellion is induced by the community, then why are so many protesters and rebels and terrorists put in prison?
Because the bosses want to (epigenetically) terrorise people out of protesting. Duh.
Why did Assad claim that the Syrian protesters were run by Mossad, the EU and al-Qaeda, when there was no evidence whatsoever for this?
>closeness is a relational reference, not an absolute measure
Still classical physics, not quantum physics.
>respecting the truth of individual experiences
You are in denial that people also have an *unconscious* and therefore, their relations are not self-present.
>if you don't have anything to say that tries to discuss things, why respond in bad faith, why not pass by emile's comments?
Because people like me are still stupid enough to take you at face value and argue in good faith.
>i know that i am writing about elusive philosophical matters that pisses people off
Nice ego-boost, Emile. Post repetitive, often insulting nonsense that trolls people – get stick from the people you've trolled – pretend it's your genius which is the reason people are mad.
Are you fucking serious?!
A fucking homophobe who blames AIDS symptoms on drug use, and provides an excuse for governments like South Africa to deny people AIDS drugs.
...although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg's arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses.
[Duesberg] forfeited the right to expect answers by his rhetorical technique. Questions left unanswered for more than about ten minutes he takes as further proof that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Evidence that contradicts his alternative drug hypothesis is on the other hand brushed aside...Duesberg will not be alone in protesting that this is merely a recipe for suppressing challenges to received wisdom. So it can be. But Nature will not so use it. Instead, what Duesberg continues to say about the causation of AIDS will be reported in the general interest. When he offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if possible be published.
No wonder Emile likes him!
>my sense is that, as with the Darwinist fundamentalists, it doesn't matter what i say
My sense is that, with Emile Zedong Thought fundamentalists, it doesn't matter what I say, because they've already decided that I disagree with them, therefore I'm a “dualist”, therefore I have nothing worth saying.
>suggesting that schizophrenia is an 'epigenetic (social-relations-induced) syndrome'
There are also people who believe that it is a label with no real referential content. However, the idea that it's socially-caused does not threaten dualism in the slightest. Everyone knows injuries from car accidents are externally caused. For Emile's argument to work, we'd need to know that *all* mental conditions, physical diseases, disabilities, and other differences among people are socially caused – and of course he can't provide this.
>'healing circle' wherein one listens respectfully to other members of the social relational matrix one is included in
Get a fucking mirror, you arrogant prick.
OK, so basically what you're arguing isn't that Corgis which have their tails docked will have puppies with no tails, but that the fact that some Corgis have a gene which causes them to have no tail, or that this gene is actualised in the particular effect of having no tail, is explicable by factors other than simply the gene itself. Which I don't think any scientists would disagree with. But you're piggybacking Lamarckianism on this, and a whole critique of natural selection – when natural (or human) selection is itself a type of external/environmental (“epigenetic” in Emile-ese) causality.
>relational complexity of NEEDS-induced relational dynamic
Requires that individuals have needs. Your move.
did you put Stirner in both affirmative and lack?
This is a pet peeve of mine which I don't stay silent on when it is brought up, but I am one of those monsters who rejects the HIV/AIDS theory. I reject it simply because I don't follow the orthodox cause reductionism of Germ Theory something which I would argue betrays your own non modernist nominalist views. I'm by no means of Bechampian as I think he represented an old outdated software of disease. I do acknowledge that Pasteur brought some irresistible software updates to the table regarding germ communicability and disease. Having said that, crude Western Minds went to town on ALL LOCAL causation and ignored context almost entirely(They could not conceive of probiotic dynamics or the modern microbiome that we know of today). If you differentiate between germ communicability and outright causation with full cell terrain context in play then Germ Theory is fine. Germ Theory is not fine unfortunately and there is a dissonance when it comes to legacy classical conceptions and what the data that I've read is actually showing. Putting aside that preface.
I take a radical Perth Group derivative position on HIV and all viruses. I would argue that clear on back to TMV there has NEVER been an empirical presentation of a pure isolated morphological viral entity. TMV essentially had 2 isolation stories and no pure isolate to back it up. For me my criteria is a pure isolate(no structural debris) with hermetic cross referentially specific protein markers across ALL infected AND affected. That is my repeated demand to all virologists and going by the likes Robin Weiss and others who have taken on the Perth Group it doesn't look like they can do it. They simply default on inference(a no no for a hard empiricist like me) and molecular genomic markation(some thing that does not cut the mustard for me compared to pure cell culture).
In regards to Duesberg, I have my own problems with him. He does have a reductionist explanation admittedly and his continuing belief in virology ultimately sink him for me. In terms of being homophobic, he has his fans in the queer community. People such as John Lauritsen and Mark G Conlan. Those two make a VERY convincing case of the 70s fast lane lifestyle playing a role in what is now called AIDS(I'll get to that). It's not everything, it's not as simple as saying 'poppers caused aids' but it is a co-factor and I would say to you that the co/multi-factoral model of AIDS(there's a conservative hypothesis and a radical one) has NEVER been refuted. I was actually in contact recently with Robert Root-Bernstein and he assured me that there are going to be two papers that will demonstrably bring the multi-factoral model(the conservative model which takes hiv as an existent given with some secondary powers of causation) back into the game(providing they pass peer review of course which I'm pessimistic about given my views on PR). I've read the long drawn out 03-05 BMJ debate which featured the AIDS ideologues debating primarily Eleni and others with the PG position. At no point did they ever deal with the basic problem of non isolation and purification accept as to eventually say that all other viruses don't pass their criteria either(which to me puts virology in even bigger jenga build type trouble)
There's the separate question of the existence of an immune system which I also reject. I won't create as big a body of writing for this part accept as to say that if you actually look at the data it looks like the 'system' that we have is morphostatic(tissue integrity) and commensalist based not immune based which was a crude assumption based on all powerful and over local disease causing germs. There is mostly what is the innate aspect of the system and there is a secondary adaptive function which deals with commensalization and can explain why vaccines work for instance(they don't work for the reasons the consensus say they work but they do work). Essentially vaccine logic abuses the adaptive function. I'll post my contrarian go-to guy for this issue who you are free to reject but I would argue that the metadata that I have read on immunology backs him up more and more(see Polly Matzinger for a more consensus accepted view that is still non the less half way to his) http://www.morphostasis.org.uk/ There's also the likes of Ray Peat and Hans Selye from whom you can learn about issues of stress, environmental toxins, endocrine, thyroid and thymus issues which are never properly considered within germ cause centric immunology.
Anyway, that's all I've go to say about that as Stone Cold would say. I think HIV/AIDS has destroyed a more wanton epoch of sexuality that baby boomers and first half genXers got to enjoy before this spookery took off and created this unwarranted climate of fear. Interestingly enough the sexual revolution happened between the end of syphilis as a threat and before the rise of AIDS. That should tell you something especially given that a similar critique can be lobbed at the big S and the menace that accompanied it(see Herbert M Shelton)
Otherwise there's much you and I agree on. I guess am am one to go for the qualitative contrarian positions on certain matters of science(though by no means everything).
>'healing circle' wherein one listens respectfully to other members of the social relational matrix one is included in
Get a fucking mirror, you arrogant prick.
the circle is where one 'puts away their head-voice' and shares from their 'heart-voice' (personal experience).
everyone has their theories and there is no objective truth. purported objective truths are spun together from cherry-picked 'facts' and academics are especially well equipped to spin some of these together [they have so many names and concepts to draw upon] to create a "convincing" argument.
coming to grips with there being no objective truth [science's primary business] is a major shift that hasn't happened yet in our culture but nietzsche is saying that the belief in objective truth is in process of collapsing. the terms post-truth era, fake news etc. are flagging the decline of people's belief in 'the truth'. every politician has a different truth to sell.
emile is not selling any 'truth', other than the need to reject any 'truth' of the objective type where it is supposed to be a truth for you and i and everyone; i.e. the truth about 'the way things are'; i.e. the way things 'really are'.
i am saying that the sole source of truth is one's own experience and we all have different experience and from these different experiences, we have different perspectives, and these differences are very valuable and important to our collective understanding, hence the bringing of many different perspectives, not just one that comes out as a winner in a debating contest, ... and pulling these many different perspectives into coherent, connective relational confluence.
this is the paradigm that the current reason-over-intuition orthodoxy is not buying into. we are still commonly hung up on the idea that sorting out whose got the bigger truth should be believed.
what you are doing right now is what nietzsche says is buying into a 'philosophical hoax'
“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. … according to perspectivism, we agree on … things not because these propositions are “objectively true,” but by virtue of sharing the same perspective. When it comes to basic matters, sharing a perspective on the truth is easy – but when it comes to issues such as morality, religion and politics, agreement is much harder to achieve. People occupy different perspectives, seeing the world and themselves in radically different ways. These perspectives are each shaped by the biases, the desires and the interests of those who hold them; they can vary wildly, and therefore so can the way people see the world.”
you feel that if your arguments seem better than someone else's and people buy into that, that your truth is 'closer to the truth'. but the only thing you can prove by having many people prefer your views to another's views, is that more people have the same biases as you have. 'reason' is not going to sort out 'differences in logical, objective views';
"“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”.
so what if more people like your arguments? what does that prove other than the orthodoxy that puts reason-over-intuition wins yet again and imposes their orthodox reason-over-intuition views [and the actions that flow from them] on the crowd.
i believe in the value of circles, for listening to multiple different perspectives, i am suggesting that everyone should hold on to their own PEIR perspectives and don't get sucked into one's own or anyone elses 'SCSR objective truths (that is all that scientific reality delivers is 'objective truths' that are supposed to be the same for everyone).
where you say;
>relational complexity of NEEDS-induced relational dynamic
Requires that individuals have needs. Your move.
you fail to see (or acknowledge) that all the while i am talking about 'relational needs' not 'individual needs'. the community wherein the family's house burned down, the missing house is a need that inductively actualizes others in the community to rise to the occasion and help construct a house. relational needs are all there is in a world where relations are in a natural precedence over things. to impute individual needs is to regress to the notional existence of independent biological machines-in-themselves who need some inputs. they don't need need inputs, they are the inputting-outputting nonduality in the manner of the purely relational convection cell.
if you can agree that if your views are endorsed by 100 times more people than my views, that is just because 100 times more people have the same biases as you, then we will be on the same page, nietzsche's page. this is how the reason-over-intuition orthodoxy works. look at the trump election, people spin a good reasoned argument about washington insiders and fake-news media as explanations for some common dislikes and you have a purported objective truth that is nothing other than rallying together a group with common biases. there is no objective truth.
this is where my writing is coming from. i am not selling objective truths as you evidently are, and as the reason-over-intuition orthodoxy is, i am saying, as heraclitus said, don't listen to me, listen to your own experience. that is the new paradigm;
Even if he [Nietzsche] was right that all we have to go by are our different perspectives on the world, he didn’t mean to imply we are doomed to live within the limits of our own biases. In fact, Nietzsche suggests that the more perspectives we are aware of, the better we can be at reaching a watered-down objective view of things.
At the end of his 1887 book On the Genealogy of Morality, he writes:
“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.” - Papazoglou
the able orator who sells people on the basis that his objective truth is a greater objective truth is just telling lies in a manner that it appeals to popular biases.
we are not on the same page re our most basic assumptions; you say;
"Emile uses a dualism between dualism and nondualism. In linguistic structural terms, it is strictly speaking a dualism.
The idea that PEIR and SCSR are distinct phenomena which need to be put into a primacy one way or the other, is a dualism.
dualism implies standard aristotelian logic wherein A and B are mutually exclusive and we can cleanly choose between them, however but field and matter are not mutually exclusive, the latter is included in the former and thus we have 'the logic of the included third' or 'quantum logic' (Lupasco, Nicolescu et al). instead of EITHER/OR logic we have BOTH/AND logic
lastly, you might want to participate in some 'circles' and get the intuitive feel of it so that you could discriminate between 'how circles work' and 'how we are working'. your remarks shows that your understanding of 'circles' is a long way away from the circles that i am talking about which have little to do with the protocols in these exchanges. i can't do a 'circle' all by myself, yet there is some sharing of experiences going on which you have chosen to mock and deride,
I read the article about Open Dialogue that you posted the link to and it sounds like a nice approach. Is this new to the field in the sense that psychoanalists have traditionally been authority figures and in this approach they become a member of the family so to speak?
My old sponsor used to say "it's your lie tell it like you want to" and the chair next to him in the noon meeting was called intensive care, his practice was called A Kind Ear.
yes, the new paradigm seems to be one in which the psychiatrist and the psychoanalyst put the person back in the centre, but the radial symmetry is inverted so that the person becomes the axle-hole at the centre of radial spokes like the eye of the hurricane, drawing strength through the radial spokes. e.g.
“Mad in America began in 2012 to ... explore issues related to the goal of “remaking psychiatry”. It was swept into existence by the response Robert Whitaker encountered in his books “Mad in America’ and ‘Anatomy of an Epidemic (Whitaker 2002, 2010) . A generation of people whose lives had been affected found validation in Whitaker’s critique of the literature that biological psychiatry claimed as its foundation – people whose voices had been systematically dismissed (literally) by a powerful and pervasive institution. A forum was needed to channel that energy into productive dialogue.
In ‘Anatomy of an Epidemic’, Whitaker found that the best documented ‘treatment’ outcomes are in Tornio, Finland, where Open Dialogue’s central premise is that people whose voices are excluded from the dominant dialogue in a social network become increasingly strident and/or bizarre, and are sooner or later labeled ‘mentally ill’. Tornio corrected this by creating ways and means for people to find understandng together, and in this last 30 years reduced their rate of schizophrenia from record high to record low."
"EXCLUDED FROM THE DOMINANT DIALOGUE IN A SOCIAL NETWORK" is the key phrase here, which captures how people are 'marginalized' by what is essentially a hijacking or colonizing of the commons. the figure in the centre is no longer seen as a 'fountainhead'; i.e. a source of generative power that radiates radially outwards, but is instead understood as a nexus of power fed by outside-inward (epigenetic) radial energy flow. "It takes a whole community to raise a child". the central character is a figurehead (for continual venting of energy through the central figure) rather than fountainhead.
>all stuff that science would have us 'believe'
“Science” isn't a conspiracy. There isn't some group called “science” who go around telling people what to believe. Scientists disagree all the time.
>it is just a popular way of lying
See, this is either bad faith or stupidity. First Emile says SCSR is brainwashing, then he says it's lying. If it's lying then they know it's untrue.
>science needs a paradigm shift
Why is Emile still trying to get a pat on the head from daddy? Why does Emile still care what scientists think?
>Do 'parts' of a body, like 'tail', make any sense?
And on, and on, and on goes the circle of feminine jouissance circling around itself and the destruction of meaning.
>the ‘criminal genes’ are hunted down, discovered, and programs of sterilization have been set up in the prisons
Emile is still fighting the dominant criminology of the 1930s. Perhaps Emile like zoophilia, necrophilia, and BDSM, but this is the only satisfaction from flogging a dead horse. Today's dominant theories of criminology are, 1) culture of crime – ghettos breed low expectations and tolerance for deviance, change the culture (e.g. more people in work, less tolerance for minor deviance) and crime goes away, 2) situational crime prevention – crime is “epigenetically” generated by the lack of deterrent structures and the opportunity to commit it, putting in place opportunity-structures adverse to crime (locks, cameras, lighting...) reduces it, 3) idpol constructivism – crime is an effect of forms of privilege and hierarchy – for example, violence is due to the performance of masculinity, and 4) New Right 'collapse of moral values' – broader social trends cause crime. All of these are “epigenetic” explanations in Emile-speak, even though most of them are quite reactionary.
>coming to grips with there being no objective truth
Emile repeats over and over certain turns of phrase (such as “primacy of epigenetic over genetic”) as if they are objective truths. He does not speak as if they are personal “heart-voice” experiences which are true for him alone.
Emile needs to get a fucking mirror – because Emile does not listen respectfully.
>what you are doing right now is what nietzsche says is buying into a 'philosophical hoax'
Case in point. Hearing someone else's viewpoint and telling them it's a “hoax”. When Emile accuses @critic of buying into a hoax, is that heart-voice or head-voice? Is that listening respectfully? Is that foregoing the “debating context” and the goal of “winning”, to instead create “relational confluence”? Can one even make sense of a word like “hoax”, or “liar”, or “brainwashed”, without a binary between truth and falsity?
Does someone in a Native American circle, stand up and say to one of the others – what you have just told me is a lie, a hoax, and brainwashing?
Emile needs to practice what he preaches.
>emile is not selling any 'truth', other than the need to reject any 'truth' of the objective type
Emile is trapped in a performative contradiction. He pushes a truth – in an arrogant, universalist, doctrinaire way – while claiming not to be pushing a truth, not to believe in a truth.
>People occupy different perspectives, seeing the world and themselves in radically different ways. These perspectives are each shaped by the biases, the desires and the interests of those who hold them
That is in direct contradiction with Emile's claim that there is no localised agency but only field.
Also, this is not and never has been the area of disagreement between @critic and Emile.
Emile will not accept that there are different thinking styles, like those of the Myers-Briggs type, such as intuition-sensation, feeling-thinking, perception-judgements, and that these might be equally valid. The “wrong” type – say, judging or sensing or thinking – is for Emile always evil western reason which must be violently subordinated to the the right type which must be “put in primacy” by means of the dialectical sledgehammers Emile wields.
But, in denying the perspectival realities of the other types – which is to say, fourteen of the sixteen Myers-Briggs types – Emile is unable to embrace perspectivism or to practice what he preaches in terms of dialogical circles.
>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
@critic does not believe that, and has never said that. Why is Emile distracting everyone by arguing with his shadow?
>this is where my writing is coming from
Emile has evidently never heard of rationalisation. People often do not know or accept their real reasons for doing things.
The symptoms and lacunae of Emile's discourse, his dualistic language used to express nondualist views, his promotion of dialogue and restorative justice promoted by means of aggressive adversarial communication, are ceteris paribus evidence of his real motives.
> 'reason' is not going to sort out 'differences in logical, objective views'
So Emile has never been convinced of anything in your life, by someone else's argument or evidence?
>so what if more people like your arguments?
When did @critic gloat about that?
The fact that Emile tries to rebut claims which have not been made (even when he's not meant to be rebutting any claims at all) is proof that this is all just a public performance of his own psychopathology. Emile feels frustrated that the community seem to side with @critic, and proceeds to project the source of this feeling onto @critic and denounce it as yet another ruse of western reason.
But if it's a ruse of western reason, and Emile is beyond all that, then why is this ruse producing an affective response in Emile, an affective response so strong that Emile has to project it onto @critic and lash out against it?
>everyone should hold on to their own PEIR perspectives
Emile presumably sees no value in psychoanalysis, or any other process of unpacking and making-conscious the invisible dynamics behind someone's “PEIR perspective”. Emile also presumably sees no value in reality-checking PEIR-based claims (much like George W Bush's “faith-based” rather than “reason-based” politics). Emile is therefore a neophobe. Each stuck in their naïve common sense, an epistemic island.
>to impute individual needs is to regress to the notional existence of independent biological machines-in-themselves who need some inputs
Emile would need to eat, even if Emile's community decided, relationally and collectively, that eating is just an SCSR illusion. Emile's need would be unmet, whether or not others felt this need.
Of course, the relational dynamic is vital to whether the need gets met or not – but it's an individual fucking need.
>if you can agree that if your views are endorsed by 100 times more people than my views
That may be true on Anarchist News (in the unlikely event that 101 people read this thread), but Emile's views are actually far more common, because Emile is a close relative of the neo-Buddhist pop-psychologists and management consultants, the idpol feels-over-reals crowd, and the poststructuralists who are hegemonic in several academic disciplines. Not to mention that Emile has previously claimed that Emile Zedong Thought is shared by indigenous and colonised peoples everywhere, which is to say, nine-tenths of humanity.
>"It takes a whole community to raise a child"
In indigenous cultures, it also takes the ancestors and the mountain-spirits, the rivers and the land.
Sounds similar to Guattari's schizoanalysis actually. Emile seems to wish to render it communitarian and self-decompository, when it's actually “patient”-centred.
>lastly, you might want to participate in some 'circles'
Emile suggesting that @critic do something is pretty much guaranteeing that @critic will not do it, because Emile's vicious polemical style epigenetically activates @critic's “fuck you, I won't do what you tell me” ethos. And, once more, Emile pries into @critic's life, projecting assumptions about what @critic has or has not done, based on his own prejudices. @critic is in fact quite familiar with certain variants of the “circle” methodology, and not necessarily hostile towards them. @critic has seen it done well, and done badly. When it's done well, the different experiences join into a rhizome where they all make sense relative to one another. When it's done badly, it validates the naïve closed-mindedness of certain participants or the dogmas of the group, and subtly silences or isolates dissonant viewpoints, producing a stultifying communitarianism. Also, circles are not great for relating to all the *other*, nonhuman beings and flows and processes which are part of each person's local, relational field – because the mode of speaking an “experience” is exclusively human. @critic communes with plants, rocks, animals, books, objects, even computers, more easily than with most other humans.
Also, @critic struggles to speak “from experience” because @critic's experience is fragmented, disrupted, confusing, involves a great many processes for which there are no words, and in general, is not intuitively accessible to (most) other people. @critic's experience is nondualistic, and therefore, has no place in language, which (from @critic's point of view) is inherently dualistic and simplifying. The people with clear, narrativisable accounts of their experience (however confabulated these might be) tend to get a better hearing in these spaces – often to the point where their “experience” becomes part of the group “experience”, and @critic's does not. This makes experiential exchanges frustrating and overexposing for @critic. Hence, @critic finds logical-empirical dialogue, in which @critic is closer to points of reference others can understand, preferable to intuitive dialogue, in which the gap between @critic's form of life and those of other humans is often unbridgeable.
@critic’s remarks are grounded in logical (dualist) orthodoxy and a ‘dualist reading’ of my ‘nondualist’ comments reducing them to what they are not, and then critiquing them on this (strawman) basis.
there is nothing in my writing that claims to be an objective truth [a truth about the world as if separate from ourselves and the same for all, as in ‘dualism’]. our personal experience is unique and it is the sole source of truth. this is why there is no objective truth if we acknowledge the natural primacy of experience based intuition over reason.
this is ‘the emerging new paradigm’ however, it is really the ‘old paradigm’ [of indigenous aboriginal inhabitant-habitat nondual mode of understanding, and of buddhism, taoism, advaita vedanta [as equivalenced with modern physics by schroedinger].
the inadequacy of the noun-and-verb language we are using here, to convey nondualist understanding, has been pointed out by Bohm (Rheomode), Alan Watts, Benjamin Whorf, Wittgenstein, R. A. WIlson and others. Since I am using it in this exchange to convey nondualist understandings, if another person reads what i write through dualist lenses, they simply drop the nondualist meaning out of it in their comments and point to inconsistencies in their ‘dualist’ reduction of statements meant by myself to convey nondualist understanding. this simply obfuscates the intended nondualist meaning which is inferred and lies beyond the dualist ‘literal reading’ of the words in the manner that Wittgenstein points out, [that @critic failed to see]; i.e. that that which we must pass over in silence is the understanding that lies beyond the logical proof. Poincare expresses the same thing in the terms hat ‘logic is barren unless fertilized by intuition’.
here is an example of how nondualist intention gets reduced to dualist content by @critic where this reduced meaning is then used as a strawman for @critic’s critique. this pervades most if not all of @critic’s comments.
[emile] >to impute individual needs is to regress to the notional existence of independent biological machines-in-themselves who need some inputs
[@critic] Emile would need to eat, even if Emile's community decided, relationally and collectively, that eating is just an SCSR illusion. Emile's need would be unmet, whether or not others felt this need.
Of course, the relational dynamic is vital to whether the need gets met or not – but it's an individual fucking need.
in the nondualist view of the ‘individual’ there is no local agency such as ‘need to eat’ because the individual is only a biological machine in the dualist semantically constructed scientific reality. an individual is a relational form. in the dualist view, an individual convection cell is a ‘local system-in-itself that has inputs and outputs [it feeds on warm water and outputs cool water]. this picture comes from imposing an absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame so as to depict it as a local system-in-itself.
in the nondualist view of the ‘individual’, what is primary is the physical medium which is the source of both ‘input’ and ‘output’, not the relational form itself which is ‘appearance’ associated with the circulating flow. the circulating flow is a local visible 'appearance' though not a ‘thing-in-itself’ which is the author of the inputting and outputting. there is no local author there and no local agency belonging to a non-existent local author. as Emerson says, we are ‘vents’ that transmit influence from the nonlocal to the local, we are not local ‘doers of deeds’.
Every system is included in a relational suprasystem. if we first view the relational form such as a convection cell in a euclidian space measuring reference frame, the cell is the author of the inputting and outputting [local system with local agency]. Then, if we view it as a relational feature within the relational suprasystem of the energy-charged plenum, ... the plenum becomes the author of the outside-inward – and – inside-outward circulation. in this case the individual is as Schroedinger describes him, as ‘appearances’ or ‘variations in the relational structure of space’.
you can see ‘what language does to thought’ when we look at a tornado sucking up trailers and houses and throwing them out again. the language i have just used is ‘dualist’ language where i semantically construct a scientific reality. but if i have explained to you that my intention, in describing relational forms such as the tornado, ... is to acknowledge their form-flow nonduality and not to accept ‘literally’ their system-in-itself depiction as framed in a euclidian space measuring/reference frame, then when i use the word ‘tornado’ or ‘emile’, i am speaking about nondual reality as in our physically experienced intuitive reality.
@critic generally mixes and matches dualist and nondualist interpretations in the manner he wants so as to set up strawman critiques; i.e. @critic says;
the individual is a relational form in the transforming relational continuum; it is an epigenetic-genetic nonduality, a relational feature in the flow. the ‘appearance’ of a ‘local cell thing-in-itself’ that is the author of a need to inhale and exhale [ingest and discharge] is the euclidian space framed view.
by acknowledging the natural primacy of the fluid medium, the local author and its local agency ‘disappear’ from the mind but the relational form doesn’t go anywhere. instead it is seen and understood as a dimple within the fluid medium [goodbye euclidian lenses that give dualist views, hello relational lenses that give nondualist views].
in spite of being able to understand the same phenomenon in both nondualist and dualist modes, we nevertheless build semantic constructs that impute ‘local being’, and ‘local agency/authorship’ such as ‘the tornado is growing larger and stronger.’ what is common in our culture, which has become invisible and taken for granted, as with water to fish, ... is to take a relational activity that appears as a ‘form’ within an energy-charged flow-medium [a form-flow nonduality] and RE-present it, using noun-and-verb language-and-grammar, as a thing-in-itself with its own local agency and authoring powers. This is the ‘error of grammar’ that Nietzsche expounds on.
Emile would need to eat, ... it's an individual fucking need.
declares the semantic construct implying local agency to be ‘real’. i.e. it portrays emile as a local system with local agency that authors its own inputting and outputting; i.e. as a biological machine.
“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our understanding by the medium of language” (“Die Philosophie ist ein Kampf gegen die Verhexung unsres Verstandnes durch die Mittel unserer Sprache” --Nietzsche P.U. 109)
Field/matter nonduality takes us beyond the reach of the standard logic that @critic is using. nonduality requires logic of the included third rather than logic of the excluded third that @critic is using. for example, we see five storms in the one flow. in standard logic of the excluded third, each of these storms A, B, C, D, E is mutually exclusive of the other. in logic of the included third, there is a common element F (e.g. the common fluid medium) such that A=F, B=F, C=F, D=F, E=F such that A=B=C=D=E. none of them are exclusive of the others, they are interdependent.
Here you can see Mach’s principle of inhabitant-habitat nonduality which tells how A, B, C, D and E are influencing one another by conditioning the dynamics of the common medium F, at the same time as the common medium F is conditioning the dynamics of A, B, C, D, end E., ... and also that immanent in the fluid (field) medium is the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression [the emergence of A, B, C, D, E.]
everyone of us has the capability both to intuit and to reason. the issue is in regard to which we put in precedence over which. Western society has been putting reason before intuition. this puts belief in objective truth ahead of belief in personal experience. but objective truths do not exist. the many competing versions of the objective truths of politicians derive from cherry picking the data and putting one’s own spin on the semantic narrative so constructed.
the new paradigm which is the restored old paradigm restores intuition to its natural precedence over reason.
you can ‘explore this for yourself’, or if you want to defer to @critic’s or any other’s attempted logical proofs based on hacked apart prose to reject this and reaffirm the orthodoxy of objective truth and dualist convention, that’s clearly up to you.
When I get done with bolo'bolo I might read Wholeness and the Implicate Order to get a better understanding of PEIR.
Why are the concepts of Deleuze and Lyotard so damn sexy? Please don't feel obligated to respond to my postmodern hodgepodge unless you find something interesting or relevant.
Here is my reading for the day:
The great Tao flows unobstructed in every direction.
All things rely on it to conceive and be born,
and it does not deny even the smallest of creation.
When it has accomplished great wonders,
it does not claim them for itself.
It nourishes infinite worlds,
yet it doesn't seek to master the smallest creature.
Since it is without wants and desires,
it can be considered humble.
All of creation seeks it for refuge
yet it does not seek to master or control.
Because it does not seek greatness;
it is able to accomplish truly great things.
-From Tao Te Ching +
The next street over from mine is a long straight residential dead end road with a park at the end. The residents have started a slow down campaign because of speeders killing the cats and endangering the children and it's combative, they yell at the cars to slow down and sometimes engage with the drivers, they have homemade signs in their yards telling people to drive like your children are playing here. Last night I heard a woman yelling "Trouble Trouble!" who is her cat that got hit by a car, then I heard a hot rod start up and chase after the cat killer. I ride down that street every day on my longboard but haven't actually engaged with Slow Down! yet so I put on my shoes and headlamp and walked across a muddy lot and started looking for the cat ( I didn't find it but maybe they did after I left ). I met the woman and helped her search then the man came back and I met him too.
There is a CRA here that has an infrastructural plan for that street that probably includes humps or swells to slow traffic but speed bumps would probably not be appropriate because of all the boat trailer traffic.
On my street the problem was coyotes ate all the outside cats. One family at the end of the Street lost 3 out of 4 cats until they finally started locking the last one up at night. I lost 1 to a coyote and 1 to a car and decided not to get another one.
Have you made an anarchy101.org account? You can make a profile page, add old topics (questions) to your account page that interest, and write-up new questions to see if ppl are into the vein of your curiosity.
More information about text formats