perhaps the attraction of deleuze lies with his siding with the anti-dialectics of nietzsche.
supposing one has a clash of view with another. the creative energies of either or both sides could be invested in proving the other side 'wrong'. but in doing this, one abandons affirmation of the many different aspects of one's own unique experience-based perspective. as Deleuze says in 'Nietzsche and Philosophy';
"slave morality from the outset says No to what is 'outside', what is 'different', what is 'not itself' and this No is its creative deed" (GM I 10 p. 36). This is why Nietzsche presents the dialectic as the speculation of the pleb, as the way of thinking of the slave: the abstract thought of contradiction then prevails over the concrete feeling of positive difference, reaction over action, revenge and ressentiment take the place of aggression."
the positive aspect of a clash with other is in knowing oneself in a new and different way thanks to such engagement; i.e. one can know oneself better through such engaging. it doesn't have to be experienced as a laborious, negative pissing contest. As Deleuze says citing Nietzsche;
The question which Nietzsche constantly repeats, "what does a will want, what does this one or that one want?", must not be understood as the search for a goal, a motive or an object for this will. What a will wants is to affirm its difference. In its essential relation with the "other" a will makes its difference an object of affirmation. "The pleasure of knowing oneself different", the enjoyment of difference (BGE 260); this is the new, aggressive and elevated conceptual element that empiricism substitutes for the heavy notions of the dialectic and above all, as the dialectician puts it, for the labour of the negative. It is sufficient to say that dialectic is a labour and empiricism an enjoyment."
the beauty of the 'circle' [and we 'do circles' informally] is that by sharing our respective rich and unique life experiences, the participants get to understand themselves better. the debating forum, on the other hand, doesn't care about harvesting all of the unique differences but is a degenerate dialectical pissing contest that progressively 'highgrades' the reigning champion truth through darwinian win/lose competitions that eliminate unique differences [the unique differences are the baby that is tossed out with the dirty bathwater of losers].
in a 'learning circle', the participants do not hold up score cards after each round to determine who will be eliminated and who will continue to the 'next round'. every contribution is valued and none are scored. the notions of 'best view' or 'worst view' have no meanings since everyone's perspective is valuable in contributing to a continually enriching, holistic understanding.
meanwhile, environments like internet forums enable instant registering of 'likes' and 'dislikes' as satirized in 'The Orville', 'Majority Rule' where everyone can register an opinion based 'like' or 'dislike' for any individual's behaviour or views and the public can see on social media, a video replay of people dissing the individual which has an echo-chamber effect drawing in more 'dislike votes, piling up on the 'masterfeed which may elicit even more dislikes so that the individual may hit a dislike level set by authorities as a threshold which triggers an invention to 'correct' the individual [lobotomization or removal] to give him a disposition that will be docile and non-troublesome and/or remove him so that he can no longer irritate the 'majority'.
the dialectic process in a wireless interconnected environment can thus progressively evolve the 'correct set of views' on the basis of uninformed opinion that is viewing fragments.
deleuze hits the mark in aligning with the anti-dialectic view of nietzsche which restores the truth of individual experience to its natural primacy over the hoax of 'objective truth' evolved and perfected by the dialectics of rational debate.
my own writing has been to 'make a case' for the restoring of experience-based truth to its natural primacy over the evolving of objective truth by dialectical debate assessed on the 'masterfeed' collation of 'like' and 'dislike' votes. this is not a 'contender theory' that aims to challenge the reigning champion theories in the orthodoxy. the new paradigm can't arrive as a revision of the established paradigm; i.e. nondualism is not a revision of dualism; dualism is a reduction and 'dumbing down' of nondualism.
Wow you're cooler than I thought emile :-)
>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 (Gel-Oberon)
>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
>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
I also get those feelings of energy coming in/going out and peaking or being sapped. I know several other people who do, and I think it's quite typical for the “psychotic” class of conditions (schizophrenia, bipolar, autism spectrum) or at least empath/HSP. I believe most people have this capacity as “pre-Oedipal” children but lose it through the Oedipus complex and entry into language.
I think it's also the reason why someone can be an egoist and still be concerned about others.
>Haven't you heard of solo polyamory? (Gel)
Both hands at once? My, yours must be huge.
>fine tuned for recuperation (Ziggy)
Yeah, long story short: poststructuralism/pomo was a further critical development in critique of Marxism and structuralism in France, emerging as a revolutionary force from the 1968 uprising and its aftermath. It's productive for post-left anarchy, post-Situ and autonomism, but it's mostly been imported by Anglo academics from the 80s onwards – mostly as a weapon against academic Marxism. It's homogenised, kitsched and stripped of its more radical implications, and turned into a kind of ironic performance of textual deconstruction (see feminine jouissance, above). It's fused with idpol (which is a recuperated form of 60s/70s movements also) because of academic convenience. It's then become the dominant ideology in a few academic disciplines (mainly arts and idpol-studies) and in the 2000s got caught-up in the patronage systems of the Third Way. So it's been further modified into a form of tech/hysterical sublime which can't see capitalism at all (if it talks about capitalism/neoliberalism then it's either as a cipher for “western reason” or in terms of “class” as an axis of oppression). Anyway – the thing is, this way of doing things has been absolutely *promoted* by (the Third Way/liberal wing of) global capital in the universities and related sectors, it's absolutely mainstream now, and it's no wonder the people trained in this ideology are producing stuff which is so recuperable – their ideology is a product of recuperation!
You look at someone like Manuel Castells, or Kenichi Ohmae, or Kevin Kelly (90s neoliberals and proto-Third Way), and their work is full of this “capitalism as immanent flow – people need to be flexible and surrender to the flow” crap, which is really a way of saying, people need to surrender to global capital and not try to defend their land, jobs, welfare rights, etc.
>don't really have a plan to deconstruct the state (Ziggy)
Yeah, the standard argument is: there's no “state” or “system” or “capitalism”, power is diffuse and everyday, we're all effects of power (“power is productive not repressive”), so the real hierarchies are things like race and gender, they're not enforced in a top-down way but through everyday relations, we're effects of these relations so the focus is on self-change and not social struggle. If the elite or the system had wanted to deflect attention from themselves, they couldn't have come up with a better theory for it!
>It's BAD FAITH ARGUMENT folks. This is why we don't "engage with emile seriously". (Random Lurker)
I'm tending to agree.
In addition to ad nauseum repetition, he doesn't seem to know the common meaning of basic words (like “dualism” and “dogmatism”), or to be able to explicate whatever private meaning he's attached to his words. He just contradicted himself blatantly about physical reality vs perspectivism after openly denying what he previously said (or appeared to say). Whenever he's caught out in a contradiction or a false scientific claim – which is often – he reacts defensively and turns it around on the accuser.
>He's an arrogant dick and this is about his ego, not discussion (Random Lurker)
Superego in my opinion. He pretends to dissolve his own ego while attacking everyone else's, without seeing that this ego attacking itself is still ego. It's the standard structure of religious thought – which is basically what Emile is giving us.
Thanks again @critic for your exhaustive efforts here. I'm a reasonable person, if not an overly nice person but I firmly believe the only value of this place is good-faith discussion. That's why I resent emile, he's like the guy on the bus who won't shut up, not a major transgression but after an hour … you grind your teeth and wish he would. I also feel thecollective is already doing everything they can but I'll point people to this thread to save time in the future.
this is an exchange on a bulletin board. you are like a fellow standing in front of a bulletin board and reading comments posted by someone that irritates you and every time he posts another comment you read it and get irritated again, and start muttering to yourself, ... why won't that guy shut up. arggh, ... i can't escape from his continuing harassment. we all keep replying to him and telling him how annoying his not shutting up is to everyone, ... and what does he do, ... he keeps replying to us for fuck sake!
this bulletin board on this screen in front of me is really very offensive. it's just like being on a bus with a guy that won't shut up.
We're not talking to you emile, you've made that functionally impossible, it was your choice.
and say, and say, and say, .... but 'talking-at-but-not-listening-to' is the standard approach for those who wish to rally the herd to marginalize others.
Talking-about as in, "Every time I talk to that guy he just calls me an idiot so why would I keep talking to him?"
@critic I am a unique one, you will never meet anyone like me again. Although it wasn't that bad why did you insult my polyamory, are you mad at solo poly?
Hot off the presses:https://youtu.be/NWbUOmaflZc
Polyamory is not unique, and it is anthropocentric, so weigh up all the intolerance that this has in its active roll and sure, it makes for melancholy baby, baby.
I didn't say that polyamory is unique I said that I am a unique one.
You're too sentimental and mystical kiddo to be unique, sorry to break the bad news, just settle for eccentric and leave the heavy unique existentialism to the nihilists, mkay?
where once there lived a giant mouse,
the wind now blows through an empty house
Thanks my fellow poet dood,,,
where once there lived a giant rat
two feet deep in someone's twat
now there is a giant rut
the wind now blows from an empty butt
Wow, I can't believe I've had two opportunities to refer to zoophilia today.
Huh? Insult? It was just a harmless joke :)
(& never heard of solo poly before, thought it sounded like poly masturbation which kinda doesn't make sense but fits in nicely with the Stirner clone-fucking jokes (also, "must have a huge dick" is a complement). Just looked it up, I thought that was just what poly is, as opposed to "open relationship"... ah well.
That neurotic woman in the video on the other hand, with her "keep a tally of positive and negative interactions" (good behaviour stars?) and "if you pretend you like tea, you're raping me"... she needs some insulting. She looks like what would happen if you gave speed to a zombie. "Tip number 1, learn where the clitoris is. It's dangling over my head, because I'm a cunt" hahahaha!
@critic you have a sexy rhetorical style but your dirty poetry is pretty bad.
You and I would get on great in learning circles. Emile, not so much.
Thanks for trying to reconcile us!
Gilles Deleuze suggests that Stirner was a critically important negative influence on Nietzsche. From this perspective Stirner's egoism was answered by Nietzsche's self-overcoming and "the theory of the higher man" -- Wikipedia
Deleuze's suggestion that Nietzsche was using Stirner's view to stomp on so as to pivot off into the direction of the overman is supported by the basic physical symmetries at play. Deleuze says;
"Nietzsche never stops attacking the theological and Christian character of German philosophy (the 'Tubingen seminary') — the powerlessness of this philosophy to extricate itself from the nihilistic perspective (Hegel's negative nihilism, Feuerbach's reactive nihilism, Stirner's extreme nihilism) — the incapacity of this philosophy to end in anything but the ego, man or phantasms of the human (the Nietzschean overman against the dialectic) — the mystifying character of so-called dialectical transformations (transvaluation against reappropriation and abstract permutations). It is clear that Stirner plays the revelatory role in all this. It is he who pushes the dialectic to its final consequences, showing what its motor and end results are. But precisely because Stirner still sees things like a dialectician, because he does not extricate himself from the categories of property, alienation and its suppression, he throws himself into the nothingness which he hollows out beneath the steps of the dialectic. He makes use of the question 'which one?' but only in order to dissolve the dialectic in the nothingness of the ego. He is incapable of posing this question in anything but the human perspective, under any conditions but those of nihilism. He cannot let this question develop for itself or pose it in another element which would give it an affirmative response. He lacks a method, a typological method which would correspond to the question. Nietzsche's positive task is twofold: the Overman and Transvaluation. Not 'who is man?' but 'who overcomes man?' 'The most cautious peoples ask today: "How may man still be preserved?" Zarathustra, however, asks as the sole and first one to do so: "How shall man be overcome?" The overman lies close to my heart, he is my paramount and sole concern — and not man: not the nearest, not the poorest, not the most suffering, not the best' (Z IV 'Of the Higher Man', 3, p. 297) — the allusion to Stirner is obvious. — Deleuze, Gilles, Nietzsche and Philosophy
Nietzsche's 'symmetries' are clearly nondual (circular) or 'anti-dialectic' as in his non-material view of evolution wherein endosmosis and exosmosis are a nonduality in which endosmosis prevails. in terms of pure influence rather than flow, we have epigenetic influence and genetic agency are a nonduality in which epigenetic influence is in a natural primacy over genetic agency.
for example, in a fluid dynamical world, the emergent 'boil' or 'fountain' in the flow [the genetic expression] is not animated by its own 'genetic agency' but is inductively actualized by 'what is not there' [epigenetic influence], a bit like the 'lift' on an airplane wing (or intrusion of fluid within fluid) due to the fluid 'opening up for the penetration' [of itself into itself as in Bohm's infolding and unfolding].
"In fluid dynamics, Bernoulli's principle states that an increase in the speed of a fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a decrease in the fluid's potential energy."
so while Stirner would describe 'genetic expression' as a 'creative nothing' and associate this with the ego, ... Nietzsche disparages the ego and sees the animating source of genetic expression as 'epigenetic influence', the 'not-yet' field of inductive influence that induces self-transcendence in what is already there. As Lao Tzu says, the house as a thing-in-itself transcends itself thanks to what is not there [the holes or openings developing in it that serve as doors and windows].
the point is that the symmetries of Nietzsche are grounded in the symmetries of modern physics; i.e. the physical reality of our actual sensory experience that informs our intuition or PEIR. Whereas Stirner's symmetries have no such physical basis for grounding.
another attraction of Deleuze, then, is that he tuned in to this inversion of views between Nietzsche and Stirner whereby Stirner homed in on the source of animation of a human [creative nothing], putting genetic expression in primacy over epigenetic influence, while Nietzsche pivoted off and away from Stirner by putting his animating source outside and beyond the genetic expression and beyond dialectics, ... seeing the animating source as a will to power [epigenetic influence] that inductively actualized organic and inorganic without distinction, orienting to overall world evolution, as in the 'fields' of physics stimulating our actual sensory experience that informs our intuition.
\\\\\\\\\\ Nietzsche's 'symmetries' are clearly nondual (circular) or 'anti-dialectic' as in his non-material view of evolution wherein endosmosis and exosmosis are a nonduality in which endosmosis prevails. in terms of pure influence rather than flow, we have epigenetic influence and genetic agency are a nonduality in which epigenetic influence is in a natural primacy over genetic agency. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Immanent evaluation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanent_evaluation
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ He lacks a method, a typological method which would correspond to the question. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Why would he want a typological method? To categorize? Perhaps a method of "force" mentioned in the previous article? This is new to me.
Also, have you heard of this? Found it down this particular rabbit hole...emile! bah!
Theater of Cruelty?
"Similarly, cruelty does not refer to an act of emotional or physical violence. According to scholar Nathan Gorelick, “Cruelty is, more profoundly, the unrelenting agitation of a life that has become unnecessary, lazy, or removed from a compelling force. The Theatre of Cruelty gives expression to everything that is ‘crime, love, war, or madness’ in order to ‘unforgettably root within us the ideas of perpetual conflict, a spasm in which life is continually lacerated, in which everything in creation rises up and asserts itself against our appointed rank.’” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_Cruelty
When (if) one accepts that 'matter' (local material being) is a secondary phenomenon, the 'mind' as purported to reside in a local material entity is likewise demoted from its primary animating authorship role, and is relegated to a secondary reality plane. as in Boscovich, the forces of action and reaction of newtonian physics [based on matter] are a dualism that becomes understood as a nonduality which in the discussions you point to is referred to as 'affect', a single force.
this can be envisaged in fluid dynamics [which is what remains when all matter is dissolved in field] in the example of the convection cell. if we use language to impute material being to the 'cell' then we credit the 'cell', seen as a 'local system-in-itself', with the authoring of 'inputting' and 'outputting'. that implies that the cell resides in a space that is separate from the cell which the cell can browse and graze on, and excrete into. however, if we assume that the field/space is primary and the cell is a relational feature within it, it is the field or flow that authors the inputting and outputting like the turbulence that engenders a waterspout. this field-sourced inputting and outputting IS the relational form, alternatively seen and reified as a thing-in-itself. noun-and-verb language has us impute independent being and local agency to the waterspout (an epigenetic influence induced genetic expression) so that we say that 'it' is pulling water in and discharging it. but there is no self-actualizing 'it' with its own local generative agency there, the animating authorship is immanent in the flow which not only inhabits the relational form in the flow (the waterspout) but engenders it. in other words, our semantic construction of the waterspout (relational form in the flow) as a thing-in-itself with its own local generative agency/authorship, is convenient in that it delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach] but should not be confused for the physical reality of our actual experience.
in the case of a human relational form seen as a thing-in-itself, language leads us to constitute the concept of a mind with 'rational purpose' that directs the body; i.e more dualism and dialectic as we imply that the mind is directing the actions of the body whereby action and reaction are like thesis and antithesis followed by synthesis and more thesis and antithesis followed by synthesis.
in removing matter from its independent status, the forces are reduced to one force which is referred to as 'affect' in the discussions you point to. the transcendent moral judgement of the behaviour of the body no longer makes any sense because the authorship of the body and its actions can no longer be separated out and viewed as being a local thing-in-itself with local authoring agency. everything is in flux [Heraclitus] and the animating source is immanent in the flow [affect or epigenetic influence or will to power].
This recalls Tolstoy's view in which God as transcendent Judge is re-envisaged as the whole and the immanent force within it;
"“That eternal spirit proceeding from the infinite, is the origin of all and is what we call God.” — “God therefore as “that whole of which we acknowledge ourselves to be a part”.
“… And the cause of everything is that which we call God. To know God and to live is the same thing. God is Life.” – Tolstoy
Meanwhile, dialectic depicts man and thought as a local potential that is self-actualizing in an inside-outwardly manner;
"Thus understood," Hegel writes, "the dialectical principle constitutes the life and soul of scientific progress, . . . the soul of all knowledge which is truly scientific". ... dialectic is also an ontological principle, expressing the immanent teleological development of things from their potentialities to actuality. In this sense, dialectic is "the indwelling tendency outwards" (immanente Hinausgehen) of things, the impulse to externalization and concretion.
the dissolving of the opposing 'other' in the process of expanding one's potentialities into actuality, as implies, in the limit nihilism and the self as creative nothingness that feeds on the determinate, is one way of understanding 'genetic expression'. as Hegel says;
the nation lives the same kind of life as the individual: . . . in the enjoyment of itself, the satisfaction of being exactly what it desired to be, . . . [and the consequent] abandonment of aspirations, . . . [the nation slips into a] merely customary life (like the watch wound up and going on of itself), into an activity without opposition. And this is what brings on its natural death. . . . Thus perish individuals, and thus perish nations, by a natural death "
the Nietzschean way is where the 'not-yet' of epigenetic influence [will to power] immanent in the plenum pulls genetic expression of creative potentials forth. this is the dionysian creative primacy over the apolonian determinate within a dionysian-apollonian nonduality..
in other words, in Hegel and Stirner, the evolutionary force comes from the dialectically opposing other that stirs the self into actualizing its potentials, while in Nietzsche, the evolutionary force is the epigenetic influence immanent in the transforming relational continuum.
* * *
re your other item on the 'Theatre of Cruelty', there is the suggestion that the 'body' has a physical experience that is on a deeper level than thought and language, as in the deeper and shallower levels of physically-experienced intuitive reality (PEIR) and semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR);
Re "Insufficiency of language" and getting to emotions that don't find an avenue of expression through language;
“Artaud seems to be suggesting that his play reveals emotions and experiences that we all attempt to proscribe and are unwilling to acknowledge, but which nevertheless occur."
. Artaud was convinced that a theatrical experience could help people purge destructive feelings and experience the joy that society forces them to repress. For Artaud, “the theatre has been created to drain abscesses collectively.”
e.g. people in the community understand, from their experience-based intuition, that they share responsibility through the relational matrix of community, for the violent acts inductively actualized and manifesting through particular members of the community' [Emerson's view of humans as 'vents' that transmit influence from the nonlocal to the local]. this relational sourcing is denied in cultures which emphasize the 'independence' of individual ego-driven selves.
Is it possible for you to provide a tl;dr at the beginning or end of you walls of text? You know, paraphrase your mass of irrelevant kilobytes.
Your walls of text appear don't appear to be in good faith and are generally hard for someone to have a coherent discussion with you. Your repetitive mass of irrelevant kilobytes indicates that you don't want a discussion, but rather to talk at people instead of with them. You may think you're writing some profound, deep philosophical shit, but you're really not.
This is high level philosophical discourse which by it's very nature is inaccessible to some people but not intentionally so.
Must you make apologies for emilebot, you shoegazing fool?
It's not "inaccessible", Emile argues in circles like a priest. If you're taken in by his crappy rhetoric, maybe I'll sell you some land on the moon? ;)
Explained academic discourse to me:https://youtu.be/GS35vUMhww4
"As is the case with other specialities, there will be certain bolos or “acade-
mies” (nima’sadi) that become famous for the knowledge that can be acquired
there, and which will be visited by ibus from all over the world. Masters
gurus, witches, magicians, sages, teachers of all kinds with big reputations
(munu) in their fields will gather students around them. The world-wide rules
of hospitality (sila) encourage this type of “scientific” tourism much more than
can be done under today’s allowances. University will become universal."
I recall a review by Dupont in The Anvil where he talked about the problems of the planned utopian nature of it as creative as it is. It's the type of place I'd like to live compared to a place based on a political economy. Having said that an anarchic world will be panarchic and polychromatic. The irony of anarchy is that it is not supposed to set a general tone for how the world operates. There will probably be various worlds including a bolo'bolo here and some city state there(like a cancer cell you hope the latter's potential growth is kept in check)
We need fiction to help us make sense of our reality.
Bolo'bolo is an imaginative work. The most attractive anarchist utopia I've seen. Though there's a few problems also, I think.
It's in the nature of literary works to make things look more definite than they are. Contrary to popular opinion, most utopian constructs in literature aren't visions of perfection, let alone blueprints, even from the author's point of view. But a few are - and there's a tendency to map how things work very concretely, so as to get away from the illusion that another world isn't possible, that there's no ideas for it. There's an author so to speak (inb4 Barthes, Foucault and "the author-function is epigenetically actualised, there's no literal author"... there's still an author-function even if it's ultimately intertextual) and so there's a degree of planning which wouldn't necessarily be there in reality, and eccentric features derived from the author's own resonances.
IMO bolo'bolo is basically the experience of anarchic group-formation in the 80s-90s (affinity groups, eco-camps, autonomous squats, intentional communities, New Travellers) elaborated into an entire society. It's actually dealing with some pretty deep existential issues at the same time. The concept of nima is particularly rich. Possibly the background to bolo'bolo is the assumption that people will be in flow-state, all or most of the time. This would make things work quite differently to today. People don't relate as implied normative beings, or as rational subjects, but as bearers of a (current or potential) nima. A nima is defined by zones of resonance and dissonance. So, the connection is more direct. A lot of the social mediations disappear. Nima is culture, lifestyle, existential focus of meaning, ethos, desire, all at the same time. It's crucial that it's *chosen* (even though not necessarily rationally), because in many ways, bolo'bolo is existentialism applied consistently.
In reality I think bolo'bolo is more-or-less possible given the right conditions, but it would be a lot messier than it is in the book.
1. various authoritarian formations - Nazis, Islamists, cults, Stalinists, ancaps - will create their own bolos. Groups which already claim ascriptive cultures (no right to leave, etc) are likely to continue to claim them, even though members have realistic exit options. There's basically no way to stop these "not-quite-bolos" existing, even if we wanted to.
2. related to this - P.M. doesn't really deal with the question of abuse within bolos, situations where a charismatic leader or a ruling group effectively enslave the rest of the bolo. It would be less common than today, because the structure (free movement, lots of meaning in life, no economic dependency etc) militates against it, but we know it can happen in cults and isolated communities (Pitcairn Island for example).
3. also related to this - some people will want/try to accumulate more than the bolo model allows, this may even be part of their nima (e.g. collectors). It will probably be possible on a limited scale. People would need to stop it leading to power-asymmetries which bring back hierarchy.
4. P.M. doesn't deal with whether bolos can kick people out (besides the fact that they have to let visitors in for a certain number of days, but don't have to let them join); this could get very messy.
5. children (and dependents in general) are another problem - before a certain age, they aren't going to be able to leave their bolo. This leaves them vulnerable to things being done (indoctrination, schooling, abuse, etc) which are part of the group nima but which interfere with the emergence and choice of their personal nima.
6. bolos will likely disagree on what constitutes abuse of children, animals, etc. Bolos will also disagree on which types of formations are sufficiently authoritarian to be a threat to the whole of bolo'bolo or to their own bolo (examples: does a cluster of Stalin-bolos constitute an emergent state; how rich does ancap-bolo have to get before it becomes a danger; is terf-bolo allowed to exclude trans people; what will be done if Islam-bolo won't let gay couples visit). This could easily lead to inter-bolo raiding and other complications.
7. the whole thing would only be viable if the distribution of power and technological capacity doesn't allow groups who band together to dominate more marginal groups - but which also allows the mobility built into the model, including knowledge of other bolos and what to expect there. I think the optimal opportunity-structure for this would be a strong preponderance of defensive over offensive weaponry, a lack of effective ways to turn resource aggregation into threat-advantage, and digital connectedness combined with geographical distance. It also seems to be premised on land-abundance. The combination is circumstances is rather precarious.
Also, it's a shame P.M.'s other stuff hasn't been translated.
I refer you to a current author of fiction,
Brian Doyle. He invokes the “ uncanny”
Awareness that we demonstrate in the
Everyday life of people. He talks of
People in terms of flows, Force-fields
Fortuitous Happenstance. All with our Values here of mutual respect, mutual aid, innovation
In communications, in the context of downright
Good reads. Check out his latest “ novel”
“ Chicago”. Available at Barns and Noble.
The writing is dreamy, the narrative is of the Sublime. And touching of the heart. Portraying
Daily life as challenge And redemption.
@critic "5. children (and dependents in general) are another problem - before a certain age, they aren't going to be able to leave their bolo. This leaves them vulnerable to things being done (indoctrination, schooling, abuse, etc) which are part of the group nima but which interfere with the emergence and choice of their personal nima."
Full disclosure, I have misplaced my copy of Bolo'Bolo without having finished it.
But when I read this segment of your post, I was reminded of something that I read of East Wind Community.
I cannot find it on their website anymore, but years ago it read of a childcare practice developed to meet the needs of an original family that practiced a type of Judaism in which the children would live with a rotation non-parental adults. In my recent search for this practice, I came across Kubbitz, but it's not striking a chord. The East Wind site spoke of the children living with other community members, not raised in centers. Perhaps the care rotation of the East Wind children was a pragmatic compromise
of some sort. IDK.
Bolo wise, what if children lived with different bolos throughout the childhood? This could negate some of the vulnerabilities of indoctrination that you wrote of. It might also affect the bolo'bolo dynamics; everyone would be very invested in the well-being of bolos in which their children were staying!
Like summer camp.
Kibbutz I think. The early ones in Israel had shared/rotated childcare (current ones, not so much). A lot of communes had/have their own models as well, often based on Natural Parenting or its forerunners.
I'd always assumed bolos would be like villages or co-housing today, so that children would probably be interacting with all the adults and other children in the bolo, not just parents. But totation among families within the bolo, or collective care by all the adults in the bolo, doesn't necessarily solve the problem of indoctrination into/coerced participation in the bolo's way of life (nima). In fact I would expect that children would be encouraged to take part in bolo activities as early as possible - the same way Andean children have their own mini-gardens from about 3 or 4 onwards. Rotation among different bolos might solve the problem more - though it might also involve forced participation in an even wider range of nimas (which could be worse than just 1).
I've seen evidence that children from quite a young age are capable of selecting a family/home - in McKenzie's work on ghetto communities, she suggests that children in extremely abusive or neglectful homes often spontaneously relocate with relatives or friends' families. Children can select by resonance/dissonance and make their own choices a lot earlier than most people realise, particularly if their upbringing is quite "free range"; it doesn't necessarily matter that it's not "informed consent" in an adult sense. So I can imagine self-selection of bolos happening early in urban areas where there's a lot of bolos and they interact a lot. The worry then, though, is that pedos or cults will use "grooming" or "lovebombing" tactics to draw children in, and then use invisible forms of coercion and manipulation to stop them leaving again. I'd also expect these kinds of groups would locate themselves in remote areas or clusters of likeminded groups. It's not exactly a decisive argument against bolo'bolo (there would certainly be less abuse overall than there is today) but it's something of a worry.
By the way, I had a long conversation once with an idpol friend about whether bolo'bolo could handle intimate partner abuse. I suspect it wouldn't be a massive issue because of the opportunity-structure in bolo'bolo - most people live in larger units, "victims" can't be isolated, existential freedom is expected, and people have a lot of exit options. The general context removes several of the drivers of abuse (shame, existential frustration, economic dependency, gender inequality) and the collective living contexts mean that most abuse would be immediately visible to people outside the relationship. From what I've seen (and someone might correct me on this), overt abuse in the "activist scene" generally happens in monogamous contexts and in private, away from the gaze of the rest of the "scene". Also, if restorative/therapeutic means fail and the bolo can't/won't expel the abuser, it would also be very easy for the survivor to simply relocate to a distant bolo and never be found. But I'm a bit more concerned what would happen if an entire bolo or a cluster of bolos developed pro-abuse norms, because either a charismatic leader enthralled the entire bolo, or a large section of the population subordinated the rest (think Manson Family, Fundamentalist Mormons, Pitcairn Island...)
When you wrote of “lovebombing,” I thought of the only context in which I’ve heard of the term: emotional codependency therapy. (This was in YouTube world; I’m not well-read on the topic.)
You wrote of the opportunity-structure in bolo’bolo being generally inhospitable to abusive relationships. Perhaps the expectation of “existential freedom” is what I’m about to refer to, but there’s an element of my anarchist dream that incorporates a person’s emotional fortitude. Co-dependency is, from what I’ve gathered, a learned desire to control the emotional and behavior responses of other people (commonly learned as a survival mechanism.) An example of this would be of a child, dependent on the care of an abusive adult, learning to “walk-on-eggshells” and preemptively manage the emotions of the adult. The child might grow up with an automatic aversion to all “negative” emotions, and a desire to manage the emotional-landscapes of individuals and groups. People with codependency are prone to finding themselves in abusive relationships. My memory is getting murky on the reasons for this.
I write this to point out that bolo’bolo life might ALSO contain the elements of a proactive psyche, fortified against abusive relationships. Again, maybe this is the “existential freedom” that you referred to.
As for pro-abuse norms developing in single or clustered bolos, I’m thinking of my very recent study of the liberal idealization(?) of the “individual.” Could a similar mechanism be developed to avoid abuse? I am on my own shaky ground here; I am nervous to advocate for coercive planning / manipulation of others. I’m at the threshold of my self-reflection here! Onward!
Yes, I was meaning something similar with "existential freedom". i.e. if people are taught (or the environment is structured to imply) that people's life-path should be autonomous and that people should not allow others to dominate them, this will encourage personality-types resistant to abuse and lacking desires to abuse others. For example, people (even children) do not have to worry about pleasing others to secure survival, if a subsistence minimum is available as a matter of right, or from minimal autonomous effort. The threat of ostracism is not so pressing when someone can move to millions of different communities or survive independently. People in bolo'bolo would thus be less prone to be "codependent" to begin with, and both less likely to abuse others and less likely to be vulnerable to abuse. But I'm really not sure how much faith I want to place in this - particularly in the early days of bolo'bolo (i.e. any scenario within our lifetimes). For the record, there's a lot of (uncolonised) indigenous societies where abuse in the modern sense is/was unknown, though mutual dependency tends to be institutionalised, and there's other cases where indigenous societies are very abusive by modern standards. Colonised societies tend to have "epidemics" of a cluster of social problems - including domestic and sexual abuse, and also depression, addiction, recklessness, etc - after colonisation or modernisation. Everyone from Native Americans and Australian Aborigines who were colonised centuries ago, to recently displaced Kayapo and Bushmen living in resettlement camps. Which suggests that these problems are socially/structurally caused, not a result of abuse-promoting norms, culture, "privilege", or individual badness - although suggesting this tends to draw a backlash from idpols as well as New Right pigfuckers.
I'm not exactly an expert myself... but I think people who've learnt to "walk on eggshells" will be vulnerable to abusers who (unconsciously?) use "externalisation" approaches (i.e. always blame the partner/victim/survivor), because the dependent partner uses "internalisation" assumptions and accepts the abusive partner's demands. Both internalisation and externalisation involve a desire for control, but in different ways (through self-change vs coercing others). I think people are on a continuum as to how far each person prefers internalisation (my-fault, walk-on-eggshells) or externalisation (your-fault, assertive/aggressive) orientations, but oppressed groups will tend to internalisation (Nietzsche's slave-morality or herd-morality) which may be closely tied-up with the neurosis-superego-repression-character-armour axis studied by people like Reich, Theweleit, Marcuse and Brinton. In Marcuse there's a concept of frustration-aggression which basically says that scarcity leads to frustration (of satisfaction of desires, of self-actualisation and freedom) which always generates a quantity of aggression, but this aggression can go in several ways - not only against the source of frustration, but also against scapegoats or easy targets, or inwardly against the self (e.g. in depression), or be repressed and "return" as phenomena such as conflict-aversion. Internalisation is more functional than externalisation for capital and tends to be encouraged by dominant therapies, though people may also be encouraged to "mis-externalise" by scapegoating or displacing frustration-aggression downwards - IMO this is a key function of ingroup-outgroup ideologies (anti-crime, anti-poor, racism, nationalism, etc). It seems the walking-on-eggshells situation is typical of modern workplaces (managerial bullying), Third Way politics, idpol and other ideological sects, and a range of other situations (black people around police, inmates in prisons/asylums, etc). Anarchy is more of an externalisation approach, as are radical movements in general - although idpol influences have weakened this. I'm a little skeptical of the orthodoxy on this topic, as I feel all living things try to control outcomes to some degree (e.g. we all, save maybe the severely depressed, want to prevent our partners, relatives or housemates from murdering us, want to make sure we have enough food, etc), so every living thing will have some kind of instrumental tendency to it, though probably the activation of these protective responses depends on the degree of contraction/relaxation (Bergson) of the bioenergy stratum at each localised point (i.e. the more pressing the struggle to survive, the more activated the protection response will be). People are trying to control their environment and others' responses every time they dust their house, change their profile picture, hunt for food, apply for a scholarship, blockade a pipeline, wear a mask (to take a wide variety of examples). So if this is always "abusive" or "codependent" (which some of the pop-psych community seem to think), then human and animal activity is almost by definition "abusive" or "codependent" - at which point we're more-or-less in Hobbesian territory. The Emile type of argument, "we aren't local agents, we can't control anything (ourselves or others), we need to go with the flow" seems to me to run up against the barrier of limbic system responses and PTSD: it's perfectly viable with a strong enough level of "relaxation", but not outside of such an environmental context (i.e. scarcity conditions generate scarcity affects).
I happily find myself with many new things to study, @critic. I'm going to throw this in the stock-pot and come up with ideas to write back with.
Where you live sounds like hell. Around me, Conflict or Radical Social Theories ground most discussions of Society. I have mixed feelings about this.
Discussions of race, gender, class, religion and ethnicity, (what-have-you) are framed so tightly by an analysis of power-exchange that individual agency is often reduced to that of an Individual. An example of this could be found in Soul-Pathology studies for the development of Sick People. This might, at first, come across as a complex topic, but it usually resonates with Society-Members over ten or under the middle-class.
Outliers of whatever value-system established by Capital are routinely jacketed with “Dangerous” or “Self-Dangerous.” This is a clever trick by Capital because it is Capital that sets these standards. The Value-System is a strategic trend established by Capital and Published in numerous publications such as PsyOps Monthly, The PsyOps Journal of Duty and Shame, The Honor and PsyOps Magazine of Insecurity, and PsyOps: All Guilt News.
These publications are utilized by Capital in two ways. First, the Value-Systems are sold as “talking-points” and “scandal.” Secondly, seemingly banal consumer goods such as This Ruler and That Ruler are provided as a means to demonstrate compliance. If an individual refuses to buy This Ruler or That Ruler, it demonstrates to Capital that you haven’t bought the recent Value-System, which is actually more important to Capital that you consume.
Capital will then publish another round of magazines and journals in which the new Value-System is “Conformity is Safety, Anxiety is Personal.”
Capital, with this publication, has turned individuals against one another because “Conformity is Safety, Anxiety is Personal.” I’m sure you can see where I am going with this. PsyOps publications are released monthly, but with digital publishing,… well, Value-Systems are re-released every “All the Continuously.” Non-conforming Individuals will be executed, caged, tortured into compliance, starved to death, any number of things.
This is only one example of how my conversations about Individuals Around Individuals (IAI) plays out around me. I have mixed feelings of Critical Theory grounding so many of the discussions of IAI around my home, but it sounds a lot nicer than whatever you’re having to deal with over there.
Bless your heart! I hope that the IAI near your home stop blaming themselves for living in the Capital.
when one starts from an analysis of the world dynamic such as 'the planetary work machine', one puts oneself into a scientific reality in which the world dynamic is seen by way of semantic constructions depicting people as things-in-themselves with their own 'local agency' that are causally responsible for constructing the 'planetary work machine'. [post-industrial world models then pivot from, and seek to overcome the problems of the human-built world to date.
in our physically experienced intuitive reality, there is only one world, a transforming relational continuum in which humans are included participants. the concept of a 'planetary work machine' is a semantic construction, a dualist, being-based 'system' that, while it is in physical reality included within the transforming relational continuum, is semantically presented as a 'stand-alone' system-in-itself.
the development of a new, post-industrial system such as bolo bolo is a fascinating intellectual exercise, but as the author and reviewers observe, it is one of many possible scenarios and it does not and cannot possibly comprehend and take into account the relational complexity of the real world, ... the nonlinear dynamics, the butterfly effects and all those physically real influences that make prediction impossible. anthropocentric intellectual modeling proceeds uninhibited by these impossible to address complex realities, and this is what gives us this feeling of science fiction where this is a kind of intellectual cleanness coming from the mind of the narrator which does not try to see the world from the perspective of non-human participants, such as the four-leggeds and the crawling, finned and rooted ones and arrive at a non-perspectival view of interdependent eco-evolution.
anthropocentric semantic constructions which present human social systems as 'systems-in-themselves' are the currency of Western cultural politics. the reason why they are diverse and mutually contradicting is because semantic constructs are based on analytical inquiry that first of all breaks the transforming relational continuum down into separate events called 'hard facts' which are deemed 'true'. constructing histories is done by cherry-picking 'true facts' to construct a semantic reality that serve one's particularly biases and emotional needs, thus one can construct a 'post-industrial society' that solves problems of industrial society by cherry-picking or, in the case of dreaming, 'dreaming up' the facts needed for the construction.
because the 'facts' are not true in a physically real sense [one can't reduce a transforming relational continuum to a bunch of stand alone facts as historical reconstructions are wont to do], the semantic constructions woven around them are arbitrary. all political worldviews are arbitrary.
indigenous anarchism, because it does not lean on 'objective truth' but acknowledges that the unfolding transforming relational continuum includes man, and that man is not in control of it, operates on the basis of cultivating, restoring and sustaining balance and harmony in the unpredictable and non-masterable unfolding relational dynamic. Western values, on the other hand, are based on modulating the behaviour of humans seen as 'independently-existing biological systems-in-themselves' that are imputed to have the local agency to build their own social structures as if in an empty euclidian space; i.e. within a semantically constructed scientific reality.
Emile, fuck off. We're not talking to you, and we're not talking about PEIR vs SCSR or dualism vs nondualism. Your interjection is irrelevant.
semantically constructed narratives on post-industrial civilization can range from genetically driven to epigenetically induced; e.g. struggles for survival in the face of environmental catastrophes wherein the activities are inductively actualized by unpredictably unfolding situations in which the protagonists are inextricably included.
It is a politician's delusion to believe that one can seize control of a narrative. the only thing that it is possible to control is the semantic narrative; e.g. by monopolizing the communications medium. the physical reality continues to unfold in a manner that is radically different from the view as presented by those that are controlling the semantic narrative; e.g. the history of north america is very different when the narrative is controlled by the colonizers rather than by the colonized indigenous peoples.
'realism' is the confusing of semantic narratives with reality [putting SCSR into an unnatural precedence over PEIR].. . realism is the popular bias of Western culture, while 'pragmatic idealism' accepts that control of the semantic narrative simply puts people into a belief-based pseudo-reality. politicians compete in the rallying of people to join in their semantically constructed scientific [logical] realities. the difference between north-korean, american and russian semantic realities does not imply that any one of these comes closer to 'objective truth' since there is no objective truth.
the bottom line is that controlling the semantic narrative as in writing a utopian novel is essentially a depiction of this political exercise of semantic construction of logical/scientific realities which are woven around a seeding of notional 'factual truths'. the only truth available to us is the truth of our own unique relational experience.
hence the utility of the 'learning circle' in understanding the world in a nature-grounded manner. in this way, there is no suggestion that we can control the unfolding/infolding 'transforming-in-the-now relational continuum' [but we can continually attune to epigenetic influence as it orchestrates and shapes our 'genetic expression', so as to restore balance and harmony in the relational dynamics we are included in, as we participate in the evolutionary unfolding/infolding.]
Isn't a blueprint for a new society it's a vision of possibilities that stimulates the imagination of the reader. A castle in the air that we can virtually tour as a contrast to the reality we are experiencing today.
at the same time, the 'realist' - 'pragmatic idealist' division arises in people's interpretation of fictional societies as it does in modern society
the semantic realities spun by politicians stimulate the imagination of the listener, and the listener can accept them as 'real' or as 'pragmatic idealizations'.
authors such as hans widmer and ursula le guin stimulate the imagination of the reader and the reader can feed on these 'metaphorical narratives' as if they are 'real' (literally 'true'); ... or take them as 'pragmatic idealizations'.
'realists' accept dualist, being-based constructions and thus accept the primacy of the noun over the verb in semantic constructions such as 'the rebelling rebels' or 'the gyrating water-spout', thus the visual form of waterspout as a vertical cylinder made of water is primary and 'gyrating' is secondary; i.e. realists see it as what the vertical cylinder is doing. likewise,realists see the rebelling as what the rebel is doing. the natural precedence would be to give the verb precedence and speak of the 'rebelling' and the 'gyrating' without interposing 'being' in front of it as the imputed primary author;
"Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego." -- Nietzsche
the rebels moved through the squads of police to attack the landlord's estate.is like saying 'the waterspout moved through the air destroying all the vessels it encountered'; i.e. rebellion is dissonance arising within the relational social dynamic of the community. the transforming relational medium is the message, in both cases [if you take off their clothes rebels and police are just members of a community divided against itself; i.e. relational influence is in a natural primacy over being-driven agency.]
realists believe in semantically constructed being-based models and employ them as 'operative realities' while pragmatist-idealists use them in discourse because they are convenient and deliver economy of thought, but without confusing them for 'reality' and without employing them as 'operative realities'.[they are not fit for employing as 'operative realities']
this 'realist' - 'pragmatist-idealist' division in people that occurs in people's interpretations of political semantic reality constructions does not vanish in fictional, semantic reality constructions; i.e. people may be attracted to fictional models for different reasons.[e.g. hard logic of cause-and-effect or relational harmonies and balance].
>that's just the point, belief in controlling the narrative
Besides the fact that *Emile always tries to control the narrative* (and impose his personal language of SCSR or PEIR, inhabitant-habitat nondualism, “dualism” as boo-word, etc etc) and therefore acts completely the opposite to what he says.
We are talking here about possible ways to organise the world.
Nobody's saying we have perfect control to produce a world which is exactly the way we want without struggle or confounding variables. Nobody's saying that there won't be complications we haven't foreseen, or even completely different outcomes. The process is experimental. There's no definite blueprint.
Still, it's about *doing something*. Committing to exerting energy to produce one thing rather than another. And it doesn't matter, from this perspective, whether we're “really” autonomous agents or just products of resonance/attraction/repulsion structures in an inhabitant-habitat nonduality. We're talking about the direction in which we (or whatever flows through us) direct our efforts, and we're using language to do it, *and there's nothing wrong with that*.
If (like me) you believe that scarcity-thinking is a product of scarcity-relations in the (local) social/material field, then focusing on the thoughts is focusing on epiphenomena or effects, trying to have (“epigenetic”) causes without (“genetic”) effects – and in this, Emile is making the dualist error he criticises, positing a local self who can simply wish away social effects and “believe” PEIR. If we lived in bolo'bolo then PEIR would be more apparent because the degree of relaxation would be greater; the world would tend towards PEIR and not SCSR, because the struggle to survive would be less immediately resonant than the flow of becoming. Just as it was in precolonial indigenous bands. But if we're going to get there, we have to exert what power we have to move the flow in that direction (even if in the manner of a sailboat and not a motor-boat). And getting caught up in, “well, you're still using SCSR language” or “bolo'bolo won't turn out exactly the way you expect” is a reactionary blockage which stops us exerting power (whether or not this is really the universal field exerting power *through* us) and thus reinforces the current distribution of forces – a distribution which generates the primacy of SCSR.
Of course, if you're convinced the ego is the enemy, and the ego is the source of all the world's problems, and the problem is to tear down one's personal ego no matter the cost, then you're going to think there's a problem with it. In which case, you have no idea how social movements work, so go away and philosophise in a corner somewhere while the rest of us get on with changing the world.
Regardless of whether it's ontologically valid or not, the politics and sociology of Emile Zedong Thought's “pragmatic idealism” is equivalent to all the other projects which seek to *supplement* the existing balance of forces with culture, education, psychology, morality, so as to get rid of its unwanted effects without changing the structure, the balance of forces. “We'll solve global poverty by educating women in poor countries”, or “we'll destroy patriarchy by combating toxic masculinity”, or “we'll solve the problems of precarity by teaching people to accept uncertainty”. The typical Third Way, post-Washington Consensus move – which is always a distraction from the *real* issue of changing the *material sources* of personal-level outcomes *in the field of forces* (Emile's universal field) by inserting modifications at the level of consciousness. And this deflection is the same *whether or not* local agency is simply an effect of external influences or the flux of the universal field composed of everything.
>the only truth available to us is the truth of our own unique relational experience
Your own unique relational experience is never self-present to you. It is affected by the language you have learnt and the emotional and bodily dispositions you have acquired (by whatever means). Any meaningful subjective reality adds to and subtracts from the full field of forces within which one exists – this is absolutely basic to Korzybski, Peirce, Saussure, etc. The illusion that we have access to a “unique relational experience” *which we can express in language to others* is itself a product of SCSR.
the early morning tweets etc, the accusations of fake news, the arbitrary inventions of 'facts' and the frequent introduction of new material that contradicts or updates previous 'objective truths' underscores the political orientating to control the semantic narrative regardless of the physically experienced intuitive reality. the belief in the threat of saddam's purported production of weapon's of mass destruction and the threat of north vietnam using the indochina peninsula to spread communism have been successful politically motivated semantic narratives that need not bear any resemblance to the physical reality of our actual experience.
writers of political fiction deliver semantic narratives that are credible if we are in 'realist' thinking mode, a frame of mind wherein we believe that the future is fabricated by local material causal agents with internal generative agency that drives their actions and results. these semantic narratives are inherently subjective and incomplete [cherry-pick notional 'facts' based on analytical fragmentation] and when they become 'operative realities' that organize the actions of masses of people, such actions engender massive externalities; e.g. inductively actualizing radicalization and extremism [ISIS, al Nusra in the case of the war on Iraq, and the inductive mobilization of massive russian and chinese support in the case of the vietnam war].
trump's semantic reality constructions have nothing do with physical reality but are presented as 'the objective truth'. as nietzsche says, people come together as a 'political following' believing that these semantic constructions are 'the truth', without realizing that the unanimity of belief in no way implies the 'truth' of semantic narratives, but instead brings together those with particular biases and emotional needs. the same applies to utopian semantic narratives..
Build castles in the air, psychotics live in them.
just to point out, for possible interest, ... starting with a concept such as rhizome and exploring all instances of it, in different contexts, as dave harris suggests (for starters) is like the analysis of Charles Kahn of Heraclitus' writings where concepts are purely relational rather than absolute;
Relational imaging as a mode of sharing understanding is described by Charles Kahn in ‘The Art and Thought of Heraclitus’ as a combination of intentional redundancy (linguistic density) and linguistic resonance, akin to Wittgenstein’s approach to getting to the ‘synoptic view’ through ‘repeated surveying of the connections’;
linguistic density: a multiplicity of ideas are expressed in a single, ambiguous word or phrase;
linguistic resonance: a single verbal theme or image is echoed from one text to another, so that their meaning is enriched when they are understood together; -- Charles Kahn
there is a suggestion that 'relations' are primary in such works. this is why they cannot be discussed 'straight-forwardly' as in a linear text, but must be approached obliquely.
Why the fuck would putting 'relations' in primacy mean that you have to talk 'obliquely' and not 'straight-forwardly'? This is an absurd conceit.
It's easy enough to say "a storm is generated by climactic factors outside itself" without any obliqueness. It's easy enough to say "revolts are caused by oppression, not bad people".
The point of obliqueness is to wage war on language so as to torture it into speaking the intuitive level which (by definition) it cannot speak. The cost of this is an utter inability to communicate. Bad faith communication. And this, Emile, is why people don't like you.
Many people feel that there is something basically flawed in the workings of our society that is sourcing imbalance, dissonance, dysfunction and incoherence. There are various tags we apply to this like 'capitalism', 'authoritarianism' etc. The philosophical investigations of Nietzsche and Stirner and Hegel and many others search to find the root source of the dysfunction. They create terms and concepts that are like supports for tunnelling in and getting to the root source. these terms and concepts become an extension to common language that enables others who feel a calling to deepen their understanding of the source of systemic social dysfunction.
without deepening our understanding of root sources, we are condemned to putting out brush fires and interminably chasing surface symptoms, efforts which not only do not come to grips with the deeper root source but that may exacerbate them.
My view is that the problem in society is that we are asked to believe in the judgement of experts who speak a language that is not commonly understood.
the challenge is therefore to develop a common language that is capable of putting us all on the same page without having to exhaustively study a diverse multiplicity of obscure philosophical investigations.
English has the problem that it is 'being' based and thus automatically 'dualist' so that one has to do 'work arounds' to get to relational meaning; i.e. meaning wherein the assumption is that relations are in a natural primacy over 'things-in-themselves' and 'what things-in-themselves do'.
Nietzsche's philosophy is rooted in an understanding of 'physics' per Boscovich, wherein matter does not exist, but is appearances, as agrees with modern physics with its field-matter nonduality. The implication is 'inhabitant-habitat-nonduality, or in plain terms, that we, as inhabitants, are not separate from and capable of 'changing' the world, as we are included in the world as one thing, a transforming relational continuum, in the manner of a storm-cell in a flow. This is the understanding of indigenous anarchists who put the sustaining of harmonious relations in precedence over analyses in terms of 'things' and 'what things do'.
Any social issues that arise and that we wish to talk about can be discussed in these two ways (a) things-first (science), (b) relations-first (intuition), but 'things-first' is the default for our dysfunctional western society and it fits our noun-and-verb language architecture, suggesting that our culture is shaped by our language. It has us continually searching for the causal agents responsible for actions we morally judge as wrong, like the slave who rebels against and kills one of the controlling master-class.
A relational view would acknowledge that such actions by the slave are inductively actualized and stem back to the relational dynamics of master-slave division and the relational tensions that build. Many people remain enslaved under the thumb of an elitist or master class because they accept the (a) things-first analysis.
There is a language problem here that it is my interest in addressing. I have tried to come up with a minimum of terms dealing with the fundamentals that can be easily understood and are capable of dealing with complex philosophical issues; i.e. 'semantically constructed scientific reality' (SCSR) ,and 'physically experienced intuitive reality. (PEIR) but if someone is advocating concepts developed by Stirner, for example, I have to use his terms and make bridges between them and the preceding terms which are available to one's everyday experience.
In Nietzsche's view, epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression [field inductively actualizes the material dynamics of things]. In our standard western default view, things have their own 'local generative agency' so we should blame things for 'good deeds' and/or 'bad deeds'. In this case, an elite class develops that takes credit for authoring good results and others become marginalized by this unnatural and flawed attribution.
You may believe that simple English is adequate for whatever investigations into social issues we may undertake, but many believe that is not the case. Can we work together to overcome the shortfalls in language? Yes, to a point, but the reason for 'learning circles' is to shift directly to sharing unique personal experiences and face-to-face oral tradition (which includes non-discursive expression/communication). literal discourse via electronic media is ungrounded in personal experience and can short-circuit this.
Emile rejects simplification and TL;DR because this makes it too easy to cut through his bullshit. Also because he believes a conceit that he's talking about things which can't be said in (western) language, by using (western) language against itself. But once you've got the basics – including a few bits of private language which Emile uses very frequently – it's pretty straightforward to decipher.
So, here's our Little Red Book, thanks to @critic.
Emile Zedong Thought, core dogma #1: there are two ways of viewing the world, PEIR and SCSR. These are mutually incompatible. We choose which to adopt. All/most of the world's problems are due to people adopting SCSR. PEIR puts intuition before reason. SCSR puts reason before intuition. Logic, argument and evidence are variants of reason.
Emile Zedong Thought, core dogma #2: reality is a unitary field where everything's in relation with everything else. It is shown to be a unitary field by quantum physics and other trends in science (e.g. epigenetics), by philosophy (Nietzsche, Tolstoy...) and by indigenous thought/practice. (A great deal of Emile's wordcount goes on attempting to demonstrate that these claims are true). Only the unitary field has ultimate ontological status (i.e. “really exists”) or causal power (i.e. makes things happen). In Emile-speak, recognition that only the field really exists/has causal power is “nondualism”. In nondualism, “relations” are primary over “things”.
Emile Zedong Thought, core dogma #3: anything which is not “nondualism” in Emile's sense is “dualism”. In Emile-speak, dualism encompasses a range of scientific and rationalist ideas which are assumed to function as a single construct. There's an Emile-image of dualism which is something of a straw-man and comprises a range of distinct positions. Dualists believe that the world is composed of separate things, and that people/objects have local causal agency (and maybe rational free will). In Emile Zedong Thought, dualism is The Enemy. In practice, any attempt to rebut or qualify anything Emile says is automatically taken to be a manifestation of dualism (since it necessarily uses logic, argument, reasoning, evidence, etc).
Emile Zedong Thought, core dogma #4: nothing and nobody has local agency. Local (or “genetic”) agency here means: we make things happen. The ball moves through the air because I threw it. In Emile Zedong Thought, local agency is identical with the “primacy of reason”. Saying “John hit Bob” is the same as saying “John, as a rational self-determining agent, decided and motivated himself to hit Bob for reasons internal to him” (this is called “genetic agency” in Emile-speak). Ontologically, this claim is incorrect. Emile likes to use the “storm” analogy to show this. People name storms as “Katrina”, “Harvey” and so on, but they don't really have local agency and they don't exist except as effects of a wider field (air currents, pressure, etc; in Emile-speak, “epigenetic agency”). So, “Katrina struck New Orleans” is strictly speaking incorrect. Emile believes that the idea of an individual as an agent, and all language of the subject-object type, involve a similar mistake. Emile also likes to use the case of rebellions caused by historical conditions (e.g. peasants revolting against landlords). Peasants are mistakenly assumed to be agents who decide to revolt, when in fact the landlord's oppression causes the revolt from outside.
Emile Zedong Thought, core dogma #5: the fact that modern people choose SCSR instead of PEIR is the cause of most/all of the world's problems, including colonialism, capitalism, statism, punishment, and environmental destruction. Only modern societies choose SCSR. The fight against SCSR – which first of all, means adopting PEIR rather than SCSR oneself – is the one and only way to solve these problems. Anything which refuses the fight against SCSR and reproduces dualism is part of the problem.
Emile Zedong Thought, social implications: there are five main social implications I can recall. Firstly, retributive justice (punishment) is bad. It's based on individual responsibility and therefore a belief in local agency. Retributive justice should be replaced with restorative justice, which focuses on social causes of deviance. Secondly, people should be fluid, and allow themselves to be “determined” by the context they're in – rather than being rigid and resisting change. Thirdly, communities have ethical primacy over individuals. People should put the community before themselves. Fourthly, experience-sharing circles are a valuable way to communicate, whereas adversarial debate is not. Fifthly, Emile rejects any kind of politics which rests on exercising human agency to change the world. Most often, he conflates such agency with retributive justice (anarchists scapegoat bosses, pigs, the government, much as statists scapegoat “criminals”).
Once you understand this matrix, it rapidly becomes clear that everything Emile posts is either repetition of these same key ideas, or else circling around them (what I earlier called “feminine jouissance”). Hence I provide very short TL;DR's of Emile's most recent posts below.
By the way, my main objections:
1. Local agency exists. Assuming local agency is not the same as assuming entirely self-determined or rational action. Changing language (e.g. putting relations before things, verbs before nouns) does not eliminate local agency.
2. Emile Zedong Thought is itself dualistic, relying on the PEIR-SCSR and dualism-nondualism binaries. Emile persistently denies that these binaries are dualistic, and accuses me of misreading his statements through my own, “dualist” lens. I believe, instead, that the dualism of his statements is visibly present in the statements themselves.
3. Emile contradicts himself. Dogmas 4 and 5 are incompatible. The choice of SCSR can only be the cause of the world's problems if humans have local “genetic” agency. If PEIR is true, SCSR claims are themselves effects of the wider field and are not locally determined. The cause of problems must be an imbalance or distortion within the field.
4. There are other alternatives besides Emile Zedong Thought and Emile's idea of dualism. I've written variously about Stirner, Deleuze, the unconscious, etc. I take a third position which recognises aspects of PEIR but also local agency and aspects of SCSR. Emile sees this as cherry-picking, or just as disguised dualism.
5. Rigidity observably occurs in nature, and is compatible with fluidity on a deeper level. A person or animal being “rigid” on an observable level (e.g. a spider always building its webs the same shape) is not necessarily denying or alienating itself from quantum fluidity.
6. People, animals, plants have “attention to life” (e.g. desire to survive, need to eat), and SCSR is partly an effect of this.
7. Language (not just western language) is necessarily dualistic to some degree.
8. Other people's PEIR does not automatically lead to Emile Zedong Thought.
9. Intuitions are ultimately incommunicable. The refusal of reason(ing), logic, argument, evidence, etc., renders communication impossible.
10. The political consequences of Emile's theory do not follow logically from the theory itself. For example, it's possible to believe in social causality and restorative justice, without believing there is no local agency. It's possible to believe that everything's relationally caused without emphasising the community over the individual.
11. Emile makes a number of mistakes in his readings of science and theory. e.g. Nietzsche believes in localised agency (will-to-power); quantum physics does not eliminate locality when dealing with objects larger than the quantum level.
12. Emile's style of arguing is inconsistent with the content of his arguments. Emile's mode of arguing is exemplary of the dualistic, adversarial, either-or “pissing contests” he condemns.
I've also contested Emile's views point-by-point on a lot of the indigenous, philosophical, and scientific bases he uses.
Now the TL;DR's:
Post “epigenetics and immanence in Nietzsche”: Really there is only the universal field, and local objects (matter, mind) don't exist. Relations are primary over things. For example, a convection cell doesn't really exist. What exists is the process of input-output which is perceived (wrongly) as a convection cell. The process really exists, but “the cell” has no local agency – it doesn't cause anything. Similarly, humans don't have minds or rational purpose. Humans are also just processes caused by the state of the entire field. Humans don't have agency. Dialectics (the theory of transformation through conflict, found in Hegel and Marx, and according to Emile, Stirner too) is wrong because it assumes that people have local agency. Dialectics causes big fights in which people try to extend their own power at others' expense, instead of living in the moment. It wrongly maintains that self-actualisation comes from conflict with someone/something else. In fact, self-actualisation comes from transformations in the unitary field. “Affect” is Nietzsche's/Deleuze's name for the unitary field. Tolstoy says the same, but calls the unitary field “God” instead of “affect”. In “theatre of cruelty” (Artaud), it's recognised that the body experiences PEIR and this is deeper than the SCSR of the mind. For Emile, this is similar to restorative justice. Restorative justice recognises that community relations, not individual choice or badness, causes crime and violence.
Post: “response to suggestion”: Many people know modern society is fucked, but they disagree as to why. Philosophies articulate the different views of why modern society is fucked. Without philosophy, we can't talk about why society is fucked (because everyday language is too superficial – it talks about things *inside* modern society). Emile says he wants to develop a common language to overcome the power of experts. But everyday English embeds dualist assumptions and blocks nondualist statements (because most claims have the form “noun verb noun”, “X verbs Y”, wrongly implying that X has agency). It's therefore inadequate to express PEIR. We don't have agency, so we can't change the world. What changes the world is the relational process going on in the universal field. We have a choice between SCSR and PEIR. SCSR causes retributive processes of looking for bad agents (standard example of socially-caused revolt). Emile uses his own “simple” terms to explain his view, but also engages with philosophies used by his critics. Nietzsche is a nondualist who does not believe in local agency. We can reach PEIR via learning circles.
More information about text formats