'Realist' bias (intolerance) in Anarchistnews Editorial policy

‘Realist’ bias (intolerance) in the editorial policy of Anarchistnews.org

The following comment was deleted by thecollective from the thread 'Strengthening Our Politics, Commitment and Growth: BRRN 4th National Convention'

my guess as to ‘why’ it was deleted was that there is a ‘realist’ bias (and intolerance of 'pragmatic idealism') in the editorial thinking of Anarchistnew.org. ‘Realist’ is explained in the body of the below comment.

Since two thirds of my comments are deleted by thecollective (and half of my shortened resubmissions are also deleted) which are no longer than many others' comments, it seems as if the editors; i.e. 'thecollective', have a problem with my content. meanwhile, my comments are always intended to contribute to shared development of understanding as to how to bring about a Western society 'remake', not something that can be said of much that thecollective continues to publish, including comments by emile9000 etc. which are for no other purpose than adhominem attack and contain no views of their own.

Here is the deleted comment, as submitted, which tries to speak to a prevalent 'misunderstanding' that is endemic in Anarchistnews discussions:

clashing concepts of 'struggle' where east meets west

confusion reigns from the manner in which different people use the word 'struggle' with a different understanding of its meaning.
sir einzige tries to inject some common understanding but the division is as deep as the division between indigenous (relational) culture and Western (rationalist) culture.

relational experience based intuition (a); perceives 'struggle' as a situation-induced phenomenon, while reason (b); has one conceive of struggle as intention-driven action.


(a) "getting through the freeway traffic was a real struggle"

(b) "i struggled to weave my way through the heavy freeway traffic".

if a team of scientists installed a paint marker beneath one's car to mark its trajectory on the pavement, and went back and reviewed the trajectory when the freeway was empty, they would ask the driver; is this tortuous trajectory capturing your struggle to weave your way through the traffic? i.e. were you in full charge of the vehicle and the author of all of these swerves and curves? the driver would probably say yes, but might hesitate on contemplating the word 'author', thinking of the dog that came from nowhere and darted across and also that it was not as if he was weaving through a bunch of static traffic cones'.

in a relational understanding, there is no 'being' and thus no 'personal, self-actualized authorship' as implied in the semantic construct "I struggled".
in the physical reality of our actual experience, all dynamic phenomena are 'situationally-relationally induced' as in an 'inhabitant-habitat nonduality' [Mach's principle]. 'struggle' cannot be reduced to the pole of personal intention-driven authorship, but Western noun-and-verb language fashions semantic constructs implying such inside-outward (genetic agency driven) dynamics on a routine basis.

'struggle' as an intention-driven activity leads to 'bottom up' authorship which is operationalized in a 'top-down' organizational fashion.

eg: -- "do you want to join the workers' struggle against corrupt and abusive corporate management? Yes? ... then pick up your placard over there, join the line of protesters standing on the sidestreet and wait for further instructions".

the scientists or 'rationalists' who gathered the data on the individual driver's trajectory use a simple being-based, dualist, thought-economical model that reduces dynamics to terms of 'what things-in-themselves do', ignoring inhabitant-habitat nondualism [Mach's principle].

rationalists aka 'realists' aka 'mainstream scientists' see no problem in the imputing of a being-based source to a relational dynamic as in the semantic constructs "the struggler struggles", "fire burns", "water washes", as if 'there is a 'being' there that is the authoring source of a PURELY RELATIONAL-SITUATIONAL nondual inhabitant-habitat dynamic;

"In brief, the Western mind cannot help but think that all reality has been done away with when all "being" (form, substance) has been negated; but the East has found that the removal of the immediate and overpowering face of reality is but a necessary condition for what is really real to appear' (van Bragt, `Introduction', in Nishitani, K. Religion and Nothingness)

Nishitani critiques the adequacy of being-based logocentric representations ; i.e. his emphasis on the non-presence of simple being-based identity and meaning enables nothingness, emptiness or sûnyatâ to become a critical issue in our search for non-illusory reality.

`Unless the thought and deeds of man one and all be located on such a field of emptiness, the sorts of problems that beset humanity have no chance of ever really being solved' – Nishitani

one of those "sort of problems" lies in understanding 'struggle' as something that brews up in, and froths out from, the interior of an independently-existing human being thing-in-itself who dualist science claims exists independently of the operating theatre he is included (contained) in.

as Poincare shows, 'realists' in Western society are people who MISTAKENLY believe that 'being-based 'genetic agency' [as in predicative logic] is 'real' in the sense of the 'physical reality of our actual experience'. It is not. There are no 'things-in-themselves' with their own jumpstart 'genetic agency' to sole-source authorship of development, actions and results, in the physical reality of our actual experience.

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.

@critic's "straight-forward" analysis phraseology that implies his 'reductive analysis' which drops out the relational essence of emile's commentaries, and punctuates it with misconception.

still, parts of the analysis are good even if the overall presentation is a total misrepresentation.

@critic misunderstands the basic structure of PEIR AND SCSR and misrepresent's emile's view as 'dualism is the enemy' and;

"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."

The relationship between the relational (epigenetic-genetic nonduality) and the thing-based (local agency-based) worldview has been compared to the relationship between a polynomial of degree two and a polynomial of degree one (non-euclidian spherical space compared to euclidian rectangular space).

Example; "consider the spherical space of the near surface of the earth and consider the development from three to four major storms in the atmosphere or the development from three to four erupting volcanoes. In the relational view, what we have is a sphere that has three punctures or dimples in it that grows another puncture dimple. this requires impredicative logic wherein we must redefine the prior members of the set as we add a new member [see Poincare on 'impredicative logic']. that is, there is interdependency between multiple storms or eruptions. On can see 'bootstrap theory' in this and also Mach's principle of inhabitant-habitat nonduality.. In the non-relational view, our semantic constructions assume rectangular euclidian space as the framing reference which liberates each of the storms or eruptions from the 'plenum' in which they are interdependently included. This is where semantically constructed scientific reality 'comes from', where we see each of these 'relational features' as things-in-themselves and measure their properties relative to absolute space [rectangular euclidian space] and absolute time.

Seen in the larger view, space is not empty but is the energy-charged space that is a transforming-in-the-now relational continuum. In our physically experienced intuitive reality, what the landlord/master does earlier on impacts the currently unfolding actions of the peasant/slave. our physically experienced intuitive reality is a relational world wherein we are aware of the self-organized criticality in natural phenomena (nonlinear dynamics) wherein emergent events in the present may have long roots into earlier relational dynamics, hence there are no 'stand-alone facts-in-themselves' such as 'the peasant/slave shoots the landlord/master', as there is in semantically-constructed scientific reality (SCSR). we SAY that this shooting event is a fact that we can analyse by imputing 'local agency' to be the authoring force, but this is like saying that it was the local agency of the skier that caused the avalanche [this ignores the nonlinear dynamics of ongoing buildup of relational tensions that is the nonlocal epigenetic inductive actualizing source].

there is no 'local agency' in the relational understanding of the world (PEIR). @critic is wrong in imputing that 'will to power' is 'local agency' [see WTP 1067 and Boscovich and Emerson's portrait of man as a Dionysian-like vent that transmits influences from the nonlocal to the local (Nietzsche was totally onboard with Emerson's view of man transcending a simple local-doer-of-deed status]

so, of course i use SCSR. It is the basis of mainstream science and as Mach says, it is convenient and it delivers 'economy of thought' but it is not to be confused for 'physical reality' as in physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR). SCSR separates the eruptions of volcanics and the storms, treating them as separate events. thus the event where the peasant shoots the landlord is seen in SCSR as an event in its own right, that can be morally judged in its own right, whereas in PEIR, the roots of the event are long and implicate the landlord and his conditioning of the common living space in such a manner that it inductively actualizes rebellion.

What with DNA testing etc. the 'authorities' have plenty of technology to confirm, without a shadow of doubt, that the peasant was the one who caused the death of the landlord. the jury will agree because the whole system is set up to treat scientific reality as the 'operative reality'.

this is where the trouble with SCSR comes in. it is a convenient tool is based on the assumed existence of 'objective truth' as in the truth of 'events-in-themselves'. as Nietzsche says, there is no such thing. furthermore anyone can cherry-pick the events to use in constructing a logical semantic narrative that convinces a large number of people. that a large group of people believe in an 'objective truth' does not prove the existence of 'objective truth' but instead bands people together on the basis of their common biases.

this is the problem in analytical inquiry is that it breaks a relational continuum into notional 'separate events' and allows people to weave them back into their own semantic narratives according to their own biases, contending that, because the facts are (seen as) hard facts, that their logical narrative based on these [disembodied] hard facts is the truth. of course, various groups are constructing their own fact-based semantic narratives, none of which are vetted against the transforming relational continuum of our physically experienced intuitive reality'.

the problem is not SCSR as a convenient tool to aid understanding, the problem is in employing SCSR as the social 'operative reality' since it puts 'reason' into an unnatural primacy over intuition.

in the relational view of PEIR, the fourth eruption of volcanics or the fourth storm is intrinsically interdependent with the earlier three since the plenum in which they share inclusion is primary (it is the source of engenderment of the three, then four events). relations are the source of these things. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.

@critic says;

"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."

as i keep saying though @critic fails to hear, we all have the capability of PEIR and SCSR and when we engineer a gasoline-driven vehicle, we are in SCSR mode where space is assumed to be infinite. the engineer does not include in his SCSR analysis how the energy-charged plenum in which the car will operate will be conditioned by the car operating within it;

"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" SCSR sees everything in local agency-authored terms. PEIR understands that when you run the car in your garage, the engine will bog down and stall (insufficient oxygen)

the Western society political system is based on putting SCSR into an unnatural primacy over PEIR which means that politics promotes the existence of 'objective truth' which does not exist and encourages the cherry-picking of notional 'facts' which do not exist in physical reality to weave together in semantic narratives that please the biases of certain people and thus build subcultures and classes based on their own biases while they claim that that they are rallying around objective truth.

these are ideas, coming from modern physics and applied to society generally in the works of Nietzsche and certain others, which anyone can 'test for themselves' re their own experiences.

@critic errs when he says that modern physics does not eliminate 'locality'. relativity eliminates locality. As already mentioned, 'will to power' is not 'local agency'. local agency is semantically constructed as in 'the farmer produces wheat' or 'the sailboater transported goods from hawaii to tahiti'. this only happens in pseudo semantically constructed scientific reality. The winds and currents are the source of the sailboat's movements, there is no local agency, only local 'braking action' (keel and rudder and sail trim). i.e. @critic says;

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.

with respect to discussion style, we are not in a 'learning circle' in this forum, but are philosophizing about the concepts involved. for my own part, i am not participating in a head-butting win/lose competition with @critic, i am simply trying to defend the ideas i am sharing against misinterpretion by @critic. every time i have fended off one attack, another one comes with the same misinterpretations; i.e. @critic says;

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 have repeatedly said that i agree with nietzsche that there is no objective truth [the sole source of truth lies in our own unique personal experience, that is the reason for the 'learning circle']. therefore, for me, this discussion with @critic is not about who has the closest approximation to objective truth. my sharing of ideas points to why there is no objective truth and how our Western society's trust in semantically constructed scientific reality, .... by employing our personally preferred version of it as 'operative reality', is infusing dysfunction into the relational social dynamic.

my discussion with @critic is in defending against the misrepresentation of relational understanding.

>drops out the relational essence of emile's commentaries

Emile, I can only engage with what you write. I can't engage with whatever invisible “something” (or “nothing”) you're trying to point to *behind* what you write.

When I summarise Emile's views in terms of their literal content, I cut out what for Emile is essential: the “feminine jouissance” arising from the subversion of meaning, the endless repetition and the enjoyment (and addictive frustration) which comes from it.

If Emile insists on writing about things which are unsayable in a language which has an implicit structure he rejects, inevitably everything he says will be misunderstood. This is an inherent part of the jouissance: a constitutive failure which motivates the endless process of repetition, deferral, and minimal variation at the expense of others' sense of meaning.

>i am simply trying to defend the ideas i am sharing against misinterpretion by @critic

If @critic keeps “misinterpreting” Emile's views in the same way, perhaps this is a sign either 1) that Emile's arguments in fact contain the elements @critic is seeing (even if Emile does not intend them), or 2) that Emile is not expressing what he's trying to say very effectively.

More likely, @critic has effectively rebutted Emile's views, but Emile wishes to evade this rebuttal by pleading “misrepresentation” - sidestepping the blow by pretending not to have been in the spot where the blow landed, while also pretending not to be dispatching and dodging blows.

>misrepresent's emile's view as 'dualism is the enemy'

What I do, is structural discourse analysis. Emile persistently treats dualism as the enemy, even if he doesn't use those exact words.

Words can have positive (+) or negative (-) loadings which attach values to them. Whenever you talk about dualism, you attach words which have negative loadings, to the point where dualism itself has a negative loading.

Example: “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. ”

“Restore” implies truth. “Natural” implies truth. “Reduction” implies loss of value. “Dumbing down” implies falsity. EZT is on the side of the natural, of restoration; dualism is on the side of dumbing down, social media groupthink, and contention. Emile deploys the (+)-words like a seduction, and the (-)-words like a cudgel.

When I strip these rhetorical loadings out, and present the raw core of Emile's concrete claims, he claims I “misrepresent” and miss the “essence”. Because I refuse the trickery by means of which Emile turns his position into “not a contender”, not an equal position to be considered alongside others and chosen (or not) on its merits, but something superior, which can only be discussed in language which assumes in advance its superiority. I strip out the jouissance which ties Emile to his position, and which he offers as the “reason” for others to endorse it.

>The relationship between the relational (epigenetic-genetic nonduality) and the thing-based (local agency-based) worldview has been compared to the relationship between a polynomial of degree two and a polynomial of degree one

I have no idea what this quantumbabble means, and my patience with looking up complicated scientific ideas only to find they bear no resemblance to how Emile is using them wears thin.

The rough objection here seems to be something like: EZT does not eliminate SCSR in a binary SCSR v PEIR, but rather, adds an extra dimension to SCSR which turns it into PEIR. Why this “matters” for the content or structure of Emile's view is rather unclear. He's still saying

>Seen in the larger view, space is not empty but is the energy-charged space that is a transforming-in-the-now relational continuum

Which is exactly how I described Emile's position. “core dogma #2: reality is a unitary field where everything's in relation with everything else... Only the unitary field has ultimate ontological status (i.e. “really exists”) or causal power (i.e. makes things happen)“.

>there is no 'local agency' in the relational understanding of the world (PEIR). @critic is wrong in imputing that 'will to power' is 'local agency'

Which is exactly how I described Emile's position. “core dogma #4: nothing and nobody has local agency.”

@critic disagrees with this view and so is 'wrong' (-) and also 'dualist' (-).

Emile's style of argument is:
Emile: XYZ.
@critic: Emile says XYZ, and I disagree because ABC.
Emile: @critic misrepresents my position. @critic says “Emile says XYZ” which is not true - in fact, Emile says XYZ. @critic is wrong and dualist because XYZ, not ABC.

/ignores long exegetical/pedagogical aside which is irrelevant to the disagreement and just repeats the same things already summarised/

The only real “new” argument here is that it's OK to use SCSR language as a “convenient tool”, as long as it isn't confused with the nature of reality. Which makes very little sense, because 1) using SCSR language assumes and reinforces SCSR ontology, 2) using SCSR language to express PEIR reality requires lying/misrepresenting, and 3) Emile is very bad at conveying PEIR intuitions in a language anyone else can make sense of. Instead, Emile constantly attacks others' use of SCSR language (e.g. left-anarchists talk about “struggle”) by inferring that SCSR language implies SCSR ontology which is wrong because [insert long SCSR vs PEIR aside here]. In addition, Emile has elsewhere attacked the SCSR structure of western language as *itself* the source of the SCSR bias in western thought.

>as i keep saying though @critic fails to hear, we all have the capability of PEIR and SCSR

I hear it, I know you think that, but I don't agree with it. I can hear without agreeing you know.

Hence I write: “core dogma #5: the fact that modern people choose SCSR instead of PEIR is the cause of most/all of the world's problems” - this obviously only makes sense if all people have the capacity to choose between SCSR and PEIR, and hence the “capability” to experience both.

From my point of view I'm rather unsure whether I agree that all people can experience both SCSR and PEIR. In part this is because Emile's PEIR is an amalgam construct which somehow mashes together direct embodied/affective experiences of the world, altered consciousness in which relational holism is intuited, and rational conclusions derived from science. If PEIR refers to a non-rational intuitive experience of the world which entails immersion and self-dissolution, then it makes some sense to say that we are all capable of experiencing PEIR as a “flow-state” or “beginner's mind” or somesuch, although in practice, obsessional and disassociative types will struggle greatly to reach such a state. I do not believe, however, that the experience of flow-state or beginner's mind or any other specifiable form of consciousness leads automatically to belief in the entire content of EZT. It is interesting that Emile has chosen to ignore my own discussions of experiences of flow-state and altered consciousness, which typically do not entail a feeling of the loss of local agency in the way that Emile's do. These experiences may suggest that I'm not capable of the *type* of PEIR which Emile proposes – and thus, that his claim that everyone is capable of PEIR is demonstrably false – though it certainly suggests that I've experienced something outside of SCSR.

>these are ideas, coming from modern physics and applied to society generally in the works of Nietzsche and certain others, which anyone can 'test for themselves' re their own experiences

My experience shows me that I have local agency, resonances and dissonances, and generally confirms a Stirnerian-Deleuzian worldview. This is not something I only believe when in SCSR.

>@critic errs when he says that modern physics does not eliminate 'locality'. relativity eliminates locality … The winds and currents are the source of the sailboat's movements, there is no local agency

I've falsified this ridiculous misreading of quantum physics already. First off, quantum enmeshment (which occurs *only* at a subatomic level) requires the abandonment of *either* locality *or* realism (not both!) at this particular level. Local realism continues to apply within the field of application of classical physics; a sailboat can only be directly affected by locally active forces.

The influence of wind on a sailboat is local agency, even though it is not agency of the sailor. Only the wind in this part of the Pacific affects this particular sailboat. The wind in the Arctic only affects the sailboat in the Pacific indirectly, if (and only if) it affects the wind in the Pacific. In addition, the role of the wind as a “factor” in the boat's movement does not eliminate the sailor's agency in selecting (for example) the direction in which to point the sail. The sailor does not have *exclusive* local power to move the boat without regard for the winds, but has a partial local power to “use” the wind to move the boat one way rather than another.

Emile piggybacks on these kinds of empirical cases an implied claim that the sailor has *no* agency and even no *existence* as a thing or agent, which (though it may be true for other reasons) is not at all logically implied in the experiences described, or in the rebuttal of the naïve strawman claims Emile rebuts – which in this case, as in most, nobody in fact believes.

>by employing our personally preferred version of it as 'operative reality', is infusing dysfunction into the relational social dynamic

Here we go again. Emile has just told us there is “no objective truth”. And then, he tells us that taking the wrong view “is infusing dysfunction into the relational social dynamic”. Again, either: 1) it is infusing objectively-true, real dysfunction into the objectively-true, real social dynamic, or 2) it is infusing something Emile (from his subjective perspective) sees arbitrarily as dysfunctional into a relational social dynamic which similarly does not exist, but is simply the way Emile prefers to see things. If 1) then Emile is claiming objective truth; if 2) then Emile's claims lose any force besides being his own personal preference.

>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

Keep it up Emile, trying to turn me into an intractable enemy in your cult-like manner, suggesting I'm just not woke enough to see that my nondualism is dualism and Emile's dualism is not really dualism, and warning people to side with the forces of good and not be tempted by my evil use of logic and evidence which are tools of the dark side and not to be trusted. Everyone sees what you're doing.

>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

LOL. Compare that to the above. “You can explore this for yourself, or defer to @critic's hacked apart prose and dualist orthodoxy”... I'm sure Emile has some technicality whereby this isn't “supposing a clash of views” and “trying to prove @critic wrong”, but it's also likely to be flimsy as a stack of cards in an epigenetically-generated hurricane.

>your comment simply replicates the orthodox dualist assumption of the existence of the independent individual who is the full and sole author of his own behaviour
(Emile to Sir Einzige)

No it doesn't. I think Ziggy is a middle-ground guy, like me. And as a Stirnerian, I doubt he's into retributive justice.

You really need to start noticing that THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO POINTS OF VIEW.

>that's where Western style courts and judges come from, ... i.e. from the assumption that the individual exists as a local causal agent 

Once more, the principal contradiction of Emile Zedong Thought: individuals do not have local agency, actions are epigenetically caused from outside the individual in all cases, AND YET outer social phenomena are just effects of false assumptions held by individuals, i.e. are locally caused.

>nonduality requires logic of the included third rather than logic of the excluded third that @critic is using

And again. Emile wants to claim that he's not using dualisms with his big binary schemas such as “PEIR or SCSR” and “dualism or nondualism”. He appeals here to the “included third”.

Well, here's how the included third works: “a storm is not either PEIR (relational dynamic) or SCSR (local force) but both at the same time”. Or: “a storm is PEIR (relational dynamic) to some degree and SCSR (local force) to some degree”. Or: “a storm is PEIR (relational dynamic), but relational dynamic makes no sense if it isn't contrasted with SCSR (local force) which must therefore be assumed to exist, since otherwise we could not say the storm is PEIR (relational dynamic)”.

Yin/yang is a good example of included third because everything is at once yin and yang, but in different degrees and combinations (excessive yin, excessive yang, balance...) and one never finds yin without yang or yang without yin.

Note that if you do this, you can say there's TOO MUCH of one of the options, but you can't say that one of the options is evil, wrong, bad, false, incorrect, delusional, unjust, oppressive, etc.

So if SCSR and PEIR are not a dualism but a complementary opposition, one cannot say “SCSR is delusion” or “SCSR is wrong” or “PEIR must be put in primacy over SCSR”. One has to say

Everyone – including Emile – please observe that this is NOT how Emile USES the conceptual pairings PEIR/SCSR or dualism/nondualism. He uses them in a dualistic way – something is EITHER one OR the other – and whenever someone else (me, Ziggy...) introduces a third option, he stamps his foot and declares that it's dualism in disguise.

Also, please note that my own position is not dualistic. I follow the Deleuzian theory of univocity and biunivocity: univocity (similar to Emile's PEIR) is the basic nature of everything, but it can become internally “split” and manifest locally as a force counterposed to PEIR, or to other zones of PEIR (i.e. as SCSR, or Bergson's “attention-to-life”). “Too much” of this local SCSR perception creates alienation which suppresses PEIR and univocity and therefore has to be fought through a struggle between the alienated (SCSR) and repressed (PEIR) aspects, but this is not a dualistic struggle because it is a struggle of a force containing everything against a force which is part of this force containing everything but which is turned against itself. Reich's orgone symbol
is a good visual demonstration of this.

>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

There's a serious difference between “there's a common element”, “they are interdependent”, “none of them are exclusive of the others”, and “A=B=C=D=E”. Two instances of “the same” context will always have some observable feature in common – it doesn't mean they're related, except in the mind of the observer. It is certainly not the case that bats are the same as cockerels because they both have wings (F) in common. Nor is it the case that a deer is the same as a fox because they both drink from the same river (F) and are therefore part of a continuous, interdependent ecosystem.

In my view, yes, there is a common element F, even in the strong sense that there is some kind of ultimate relational link (via however long a chain) among everything that exists, so that in a sense it forms a single “field”. My issue is not with Emile's claim that “there's a common element F” but that “F is primary in all cases over A, B, C...” and “A=B=C=D=E”. This “F” is one of the traits of A or B, it is not primary over them and it does not make them identical. It does not mean they exert localised force on one another or that they have any kind of ethical or social relationship. It is, as Stirner would say, one of the “properties” of A, B, C... and not the unique one which is A, B or C. It must not be put *in primacy* because this is the elevation of a spook over the unique one. It must not be assumed to be *the same as* A, B, C... because this again elevates a spook into primacy. To elevate a spook is also (paradoxically) SCSR in that it subordinates the real flow of becoming (PEIR) to a mental category distinct from it. Which is what Emile does: he elevates the property of quantum or relational interconnection above the real becoming of each unique one.

>it is not the paradigm of, for example, indigenous aboriginals

No, a lot of indigenous cultures have some sense of local causality – whether or not they use retributive justice. Look up Azande cosmology for example.

>@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

Emile keeps saying this, yet also keeps making big general claims which implicitly posit themselves as objectively true, when understood by an ordinary speaker of English. “@critic’s remarks are grounded in logical (dualist) orthodoxy ”. Are they grounded in logical (dualist) orthodoxy *as such*, in an *objectively true* way? Or do they just *relatively appear*, from Emile's point of view, as if they are grounded in what Emile takes to be logical (dualist) orthodoxy? If what Emile believes is in fact the latter and not the former, then aren't there sufficient linguistic resources in the English language to say this without appearing to say the former – for instance, “when the arguments locally vented by @critic pass through my pre-existing schemas/fantasy-frame, they seem to me to resemble what I categorise as logical (dualist) orthodoxy (but in fact this is just my personal bias based on a point of view which is not at all objectively true)”?

Here's another one. “Every system is included in a relational suprasystem ”. Is every system really, objectively included in a relational suprasystem? Or is every system included in a relational suprasystem only from Emile's partial, non-objective point of view? If someone else was to say “no system is included in a relational suprasystem, all systems are self-contained”, would this be objectively false from Emile's point of view, or would it just be an alternative point of view of equal validity?

And a final example: “Western society has been putting reason before intuition”. Is “Western society” a thing, or something which doesn't really exist except as a relational effect, in the manner of a storm? This thing which “puts reason before intuition” - does it have local agency to *put* one or the other, or is it relationally determined towards one or the other? If we rephrase this in nondualist language, we get something like: “in a general self-determining holistic relational field, the energies of the entire field have generated a concentration of reason-energies rather than intuition-energies at particular sites” - and if we rephrase it like that, Emile's worldview collapses. Because we no longer have a *choice* between PEIR and SCSR but are epigenetically determined into SCSR, on the basis that the mind which “chooses” between PEIR and SCSR is secondary or does not exist as a thing-in-itself, because “there is no local author there and no local agency belonging to a non-existent local author ”.

Emile *thinks and argues in a dualist way*, and when he's called-out on the resultant contradictions, he just disavows the very structure of what he says.

>The philosophical investigations of Nietzsche and Stirner and Hegel and many others search to find the root source of the dysfunction

… and

>@critic generally mixes and matches dualist and nondualist interpretations in the manner he wants

Yin-yang; included third. Emile persists in denying that anything might be thinkable besides Emile Zedong Thought or his strawman scientific-dualism in which storms are rational subjects.

Often dualist and nondualist views are both partially true, or true “from a certain point of view”.

>the aphorism: "it takes a whole community to raise a child" implies that relations are in an inherent primacy over individual things and that the individual is a 'vent' that transmits influences from the nonlocal relational dynamic

No, it doesn't. It means that children only get sufficient nurture in an environment where the whole community, not just the nuclear family, are caregivers. It's an argument for tribal, band, or extended family structures, against nuclear family structures.

>We accept that PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) allows influences from the past to directly influence the present

The past influences the present via the mediation of “memory”, in this case mainly limbic system memory. PTSD is a special (involuntary) case of SCSR in which an unconscious fantasy or schema becomes locked-into the survival-oriented parts of the nervous system and is immediately activated by triggers reminiscent of the original threat, in such a way that the uniqueness and the context of the *current* incident cannot be perceived or responded to, but only the 'projected' significance of the current incident on the basis of the fixed past formation. Freud uses the term idee fixee in this context. PTSD is certainly an involuntary phenomenon and in this sense, a challenge to simplistic rationalistic views of the willful, self-determining subject. However, it is still a local causality transmitted by traditional, classical-physics and “Darwinian” means. And it also shows that SCSR is an important part of the *involuntary* functioning of humans as living creatures, not simply a delusion arising from western thought.

I believe in a Freudo-Marxist or Deleuzian view of the unconscious, such that each individual contains not only a “will” or “ego”, but also unconscious layers which are determinant of desires and which can override the “ego”, and yet which are also inaccessible to the individual mind. It's local agency but it's not “personal responsibility” and it's not “rational subject”. It's a third alternative to BOTH Emile Zedong Thought AND its internally-constructed dualist Other. It's a relatively common approach in radical (especially 60s-era) thought, taken among others by Deleuze and Guattari, Reich, Debord, Vaneigem, Marcuse, Brinton, Roberto Freire, A.S. Neill, Castoriadis, Augusto Boal, Hakim Bey, Erich Fromm, and many others.

>maybe someone's ideas of resonance and dissonance are grounded in yin/yang, but nietzsche's ideas are clearly grounded in physics

Have you ever heard the expression “you can't derive ought from is”?

It is possible to modify the means by which you pursue a desire or ethos in light with understandings drawn from physics (e.g. to conclude that retributive justice does not meet your higher goal of justice), but it is not possible to derive a desire or ethos, or a motivating force to act or refrain from acting, from physics or any other descriptive science.

>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
The claim “relations are in a natural primacy over things” may or may not be true, but it's not what's suggested in scientific theories of epigenetics. Rather, epigenetics claims something like: the tail does not result exclusively from the genome, but rather, from several factors of which the genome is only one. The tail may come from the genome plus an environmental signal which triggers a particular expression – which might even be the triggering of the same expression in the parent. In most cases, however, a scientist would still tell you that the genome is the exclusive or main cause of the tail. However, this says precisely *nothing* about the primacy of relations or things (scientists, of course, continue to prefer thing-talk); because it still leaves the question of “how the genome got there”, and of the conditions for the parents to have offspring and the offspring to reach maturity without losing its tail – and in turn, the parents were only able to pass on their genes because the grandparents were able to survive and reproduce, and the great-grandparents, and on and on back to the dinosaur-age mammals and the first lifeforms and (at other levels) the big bang... and all of this depends on the environment, on the parents, grandparents, dinos, fish and bacteria having enough food, water, light, heat, from sources outside themselves, and not being killed by predators or rockfalls or diseases or asteroid collisions or any of the millions of other things which can kill a creature or render it infertile... and if we stretch this far enough we're back at the relational field as determinant, without modifying the slightest aspect of Darwinism (indeed, this would be the case even if there were absolutely no epigenetic causality in the modern sense at all). Which makes it rather confusing that Emile can't seem to separate the two issues (relations vs things and Darwin vs Lamarck).

>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

What is missing according to Wittgenstein is the form-of-life, which is to say, the localised biological and sensory level of the unique-one's relation to the world (similar to Bergson's attention-to-life). c.f. another of Wittgenstein's famous aphorisms: “if a lion could speak, we wouldn't understand what he said”.

>in the nondualist view of the ‘individual’ there is no local agency such as ‘need to eat’

So much issue-dodging by Emile! Emile can say it is not a “need to eat” (even though he talked about “needs” a few posts back!), that he is not a “biological machine” and has no “local agency”... still, he either eats or starves. We can change the language – we can say Emilefoodeats in Algonquin grammar, we can say there is an energetic resonance between Emile and the food which constitutes an intersubjective assemblage between them, we can say that Emile is epigenetically drawn towards the food from outside himself... nonetheless, Emile either eats or starves. Changing the language does not change the content all that much. Emilefoodeats or Emileinanimatematterbecomes. Emile as living-being is part of a relational assemblage in which food is a necessary component. The food must keep drawing Emile towards itself, and keep existing on a localised level, if the local Emile-force within the wider relational field is not to be decomposed.

However you spin it – unless you actually want to claim that you can do without food indefinitely and not die – there's local identity, there's local force.

So again, all this duality/nonduality repetition is just Emile dodging the questions posed to him, over and over.

>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

Which probably means: Emile still has to eat, but Emile-as-local-actor who eats no longer exists. Orb-web spiders still build the same shape of web over and over, but as localised concentrations of force, and not as agents. Rigid forms are real (not simply SCSR illusions), but are effects of the fluid medium. Which also means that one changes nothing of what one does (one does not, after all, have determinant agency over it); one simply does it with a different consciousness.

>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

This is a bit like saying “everyone has both sight and hearing”. It's not true. Some people can only reason. Some people can only intuit. Not recognising this is ableist.

What you don't seem to realise, Emile, is that some of us have intuitive experiences of the world which do not accord with your own. The differences don't stem from a choice to focus on reason instead of intuition. We actually intuit ourselves as unique-ones.

>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 

It's not all one-way. Circles can be beautiful, but they can also be stultifying. Look up the terms “circlejerk”, “hugbox” and “groupthink”.

>literal discourse via electronic media is ungrounded in personal experience

Emile has no sense of the unconscious.

Emile, personal experience is not self-present. What you present as your “personal experience” is a narrative. This narrative is already within logic, reason, science, etc. The intuitive level is not speakable. It can't be shared in a forum, a circle, or anywhere else. There is always more to what you experience than you can say. There is always more to what you experience – and how it affects you – than you can know consciously.

>in a 'learning circle', the participants do not hold up score cards after each round

They also presumably don't call each other liars, hoaxes, delusional, brainwashed, accuse each other of hackneyed prose, or use ultimatums like “see for yourself and agree with me, or defer to orthodoxy”. “This isn't a pissing contest”, says Emile as he pisses all over @critic.

>Deleuze's suggestion that Nietzsche was using Stirner's view to stomp on

Yeah. Presumably circles don't stomp on each other either.

Are you doing this performative-contradiction shit on purpose to wind us up?

>Nietzsche never stops attacking the theological and Christian character of German philosophy

Yeah... I'm not really interested in doing Nietzsche v Stirner... but suffice to say, pretty much everyone misunderstands Stirner, Nietzsche rarely mentions him, and Deleuze AFAIK only mentions him once (and misunderstands him very badly). What is more important for Emile v @critic is: Stirner, Nietzsche and Deleuze all believed in some kind of (nonrational) local agency.

Someone buy them a beer

your belief in the 'reality' of local agency is expected because it is the orthodox belief in western society. the view i am sharing has no local agency as affirmed by relativity and field physics [field is in a natural primacy over matter, within a field-matter nonduality].

as shared many times, it is convenient to personify relational forms and impute local agency to them. whether or not relational forms are 'really real' divides people into 'realists' and 'pragmatic idealists'.

i can say that 'the whirlpool sucks things in and discharges them'. which implies that this 'local thing' called a whirlpool has the local agency responsible for ingesting and excreting. this is the euclidian space framed view which depicts the whirlpool as a thing-in-itself with its own local agency.. but there is also the understanding, when/if we acknowledge the inherent relational nature of the feature we are calling a whirlpool, wherein the energy-charged flow-plenum is primary and this ingesting and excreting is a purely relational resonance pattern in the flow. there is no longer any 'local agency' wherein 'something' is authoring the sucking in an spitting out. instead, the inflowing and outflowing [variations in the relational structure of flow-space] is the source of the relational form as it sets up the standing wave (resonance) pattern which persists in our visual observation, and, on this basis, we use semantic constructs to assign 'local being' and 'local agency' to the persisting relational feature-in-the-flow, ... including the label-word 'whirlpool'.

as in Nietzsche's 'double error of grammar', we observe a relational resonance feature-in-the-flow such as a whirlpool and give it a word-name-label as if it were an independently-existing thing-in-itself. [pragmatic idealization that is convenient to make] and we impute local being and local agency to it. realists, unlike pragmatic idealists will say that the whirlpool really is a thing-in-itself that has the power to suck things in and spit them out; and pragmatist idealists such as myself will disagree.

for the pragmatist-idealist, the sucking-and-spitting IS the form, the form is not a thing that sucks and spits.

meanwhile you say;

"However you spin it – unless you actually want to claim that you can do without food indefinitely and not die – there's local identity, there's local force.
So again, all this duality/nonduality repetition is just Emile dodging the questions posed to him, over and over."

in your comment, you are using anthropomorphism; i.e. because you think of yourself as a thing-in-itself-with-your own local agency that needs to ingest food and excrete wastes, you impute the same thing to all organisms. nietzsche catches this anthropomorphism as follows;

“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

without getting this 'local agency' issue straightened out, we shall have to agree to disagree. it is a fundamental issue; i.e. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression' is an understanding that has not need of 'local agency' or 'local being'.

* * *

as for the circle protocol and ethics, of course this forum is not a circle. my comments in this forum recommend 'learning circles' as the natural approach for developing a community 'operative reality'. a circle requires members of community to acknowledge that 'it takes a whole community to raise a member'.

>your belief (-) in the 'reality' (-) of local agency is expected because it is the orthodox (-) belief in western society (-)

Again Emile piles up negatively-loaded words to bludgeon anything I say into oblivion – while pretending he is not engaged in adversarial competition.

In this case, the implied accusation is: @critic is just the same as Trump, Popper, Sokal, etc; he's a normie, and therefore not radical, and not solving all the root problems (ecocide, colonialism etc). Which Emile surely knows is both offensive and a gross misrepresentation of @critic's position.

>the view i am sharing has no local agency as affirmed by relativity and field physics

What if I don't care?

Scientific proof is only decisive in SCSR. And in any case, what is proven in field theory is falsified in ecology, in evolutionary biology, in sociology, in psychoanalysis... Emile cherry-picks his science, and furthermore misreads it (quantum mechanics does not necessarily entail that there is no locality; quantum entanglement entails that one abandon *either* locality *or* realism – not necessarily both - *on the quantum level*). And Emile rejects a whole load of other science which does not fit his conclusions. Dominant medical theories of AIDS, Darwinian biology, etc. Emile can't really explain why orthodox scientific proof is decisive in one case, and irrelevant in another. Obviously the selection criteria come from outside science – i.e. Emile takes scientific proof as decisive, only when it confirms his prior prejudices.

/ignores replacement of “storm” with “whirlpool” in standard pedagogical exercise/

Emile, I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with you.

>in your comment, you are using anthropomorphism

Irrelevant. You dislike the forms of modern English. But, my argument is not at all about whether Emile exists as a thing-in-himself or an agent-for-himself, or whether, on the contrary, Emile is simply a localised pool of turbulence within the autopoietic all-encompassing holistic field. My argument is not about whether Emile's pursuit of food is genetically or epigenetically caused or actualised, whether Emile “eats” the food or is pulled towards it by the food itself, or by a movement in the entire state of the field. I specifically rephrased it in various other ways compatible with Emile's PEIR, including Algonquin grammar and outer-causality language. My point is this. The event(s) designated “Emile”, regardless of their ontological status (whether they exist as separate things, whether they have agency), must interact in a certain way with nutrient-containing substances or else transition to a different localised state (conventionally, “death”). That this is the case, can be maintained alongside most of Emile's PEIR postulates – epigenetic causality, lack of local agency, nondualistic field, etc. But if Emile's ontology requires that this not be true, then obviously Emile's ontology is false. Similarly with the spiders making the same shaped webs, tigers being solitary, and Wall Street not affecting Jupiter. It may be possible to make sense of these phenomena without using SCSR terms which impute locality/agency to spiders, tigers, planets, etc., but in doing so, it is also necessary to recognise and account for the observable repetitions at these localities in the “field” - the resonances and dissonances, schizzes and fluxes.

>without getting this 'local agency' issue straightened out, we shall have to agree to disagree

Emile previously said there was no point having this conversation. He said he was going to stop. Yet still, it goes on. I fear this is another instance of the same phenomenon (Emile, you see, is observably a non-fluid, rigid, repetitive local object which repeats the same patterns over and over, even down to the examples he chooses).

It is *already* “straightened out”. I understand what Emile is saying. I also disagree with what Emile is saying. I believe there is local agency. This forces Emile to *defend* his view that there is no local agency – but he persists in instead trying to make out that I haven't *understood* his claim that there is no local agency, that I'm misrepresenting his position.

I have repeatedly challenged him, for example, as to how he accounts for his own need to eat or for certain types of spiders making the same webs, without reference to local agency. These shouldn't be hard questions. But each time, he flips the question around, dodges, sidesteps, throws back that my way of phrasing the question is dualistic or somesuch – without at all engaging with the problem for his theory which the observed phenomena referred to by the question pose. I have seen Emile claim that solitary species do not exist, that all spiders make different-shaped webs depending on their environment, and other such claims which are observably nonsense. If he can't account for such basic facts without either sidestepping the question or denying the evidence, his ontology is clearly inadequate.

>as for the circle protocol and ethics, of course this forum is not a circle. my comments in this forum recommend 'learning circles'

If you really believe in “circle ethics”, you could use nonviolent communication or conflict transformation protocols, communicate like Thich Nhat Hanh... or at least, be a little nicer.

To be honest, I don't care if you enjoy pissing contests or philosophical debates – I'm quite fine with “let's get out our biggest hammers and smash each others' philosophies to pieces”, if that's how you want it – but it maddens me that you endlessly engage in such adversarial approaches, while also denouncing them, and attacking your opponents for engaging in them. That you “epigenetically actualise” *me* into adversarial arguments, and then “scapegoat” me for it, blame it on my “dualism” while leaving your “nondualism” innocent.

But now that you've realized you're trapped in the Emile-matrix, you must escape! Or learn Kung fu? Or something? Whatever, do what you like.

But incidentally, a few posts back when he admitted "my view is that all the problems of society are because we're asked to believe blah blah blah"? This is the position of someone who has probably lead a very sheltered existence and as a result, completely fails to understand power.

Language is only one of the smokescreens of power but it's true nature has always been violence, which of course, pre-dates language by billions of years. Language is only a minor detail, a bit of scenery alongside the path of the beautiful idea, sorry Emile ;)

Haha, I feel for @critic, how his own gravity has been drawn into the black-vortex of emilian attraction/repulsion physics. Gonn need the equivalent of a verbal super-nova to get outta this one!

Only radiation can escape Emile's black hole, after ripping all your molecules apart out of sheer frustration. Like tearing out your hair but at the subatomic level amirite? #funwithphysics #totalprotronicreversal

here we are out on the margins of @news in what was kind of a back-stepping retreat into a refuge for sharing about non-realist (nondualiist) views of anarchism, and being labelled the unfair aggressor.by @critic.

let's just review a few things to provide some context.

1. our understanding of the physical nature of the world changed radically with modern physics, but our practice of putting 'reason' into an unnatural precedence over intuition has not changed. it changed for philosophers like nietzsche when he read Boscovich and became convinced that matter was secondary and not primary phenomenon; i.e. matter is 'appearances' or 'schaumkommen' as Schroedinger also claims, and Einstein. It is only noun-and-verb language that makes material forms 'real' and imputes them to have their own 'genetic agency', as Whorf, Bohm, Watts, Nietzsche and others have pointed out. Nevertheless, '\realism' remains dominant in Western society; e.g;

"the rebel shot the landlord" is a logical proposition that can be proven 'true', IFF one believes that one can analytically break down the world dynamic (the transforming relational continuum) into disconnected fragments using subject-verb-predicate semantic constructs and consider these fragments, termed 'events', to have legitimate stand-alone meaning that can be consider 'true' and 'real'.

anyone can, instead of invoking 'realism' and accepting semantically constructed logical realities as 'reality', acknowledge that the semantic constructing that is used to build the fragment is 'pragmatic idealization'. in the physical reality of our actual experience, we know that years and generations of abusive use of power of landlords are inductively actualizing rebellions in the relational dynamics we know as 'community'. this is the 'physical reality' and it is found in general in nature and it is termed 'nonlinear dynamics' or 'the butterfly effect' or self-organized criticality and it is inherently unpredictable as far as precisely when and how big the explosive release of energy from long-building relational tensions will be. 'the rebel shot the landlord' is 'secondary phenomena', 'symptom' rather than 'source'.

if we take the semantic reality constructions such as "the rebel shot the landlord" as the literal truth, rather than acknowledging the progressive build-up of relational tensions that sourced this surface symptom, then this is 'realism', and why wouldn't you prefer 'realism' if you are a member of the elitist class that is extorting slave labour from those who the monopolists have backed into a corner where they are vulnerable to extortion that makes them into wage slaves and prostitutes. 'realism' protects elitist extortion from being brought to account.

'realism', which accepts semantic constructions literally, as 'real', 'the truth', 'the basic facts of the matter', allows us to assign explicit causal responsibility and moral judgement for 'good deeds' and 'bad deeds' to particular causal agents [notional 'local things-in-themselves, notionally with their own internal 'local agency'].

pragmatic idealization' says the semantic reality constructions are convenient 'economies of thought' [Mach].

realism is dualism and being-based; e.g. the inhabitants are seen as things-in-themselves and separate from the habitat. semantic constructs seen as 'pragmatic idealization' opening the way to the nondualist, relational mode of understanding.

2. it was well-known to me prior to posting comments on @news that people divided into realists and pragmatist idealists and that nondualism was to dualism as a polynomial of degree two (spherical space) was to a polynomial of degree one (rectangular space). [Poincare}. This meant that starting from the nondualist view, one could generate the dualist view, but the converse was not possible; i.e. the dualist view accepts the independent existence of a 'system-in-itself' as something 'real' [e.g. solar system atom] while the nondualist view understands that every system is included in a relational suprasystem [system-suprasystem nonduality] and this relational nesting gives back the transforming relational continuum.

At all times, there have been opposite tendencies in philosophy and it does not seem that these tendencies are on the verge of being reconciled. It is no doubt because there are different souls and that we cannot change anything in these souls. There is therefore no hope of seeing harmony established between the pragmatists and the Cantorians. Men do not agree because they do not speak the same language, and there are languages which cannot be learned.
And yet in mathematics men ordinarily understand one another; but it is due precisely to what I have called proofs. These proofs pass judgment without appeal and before them the entire world bows. But wherever these proofs are lacking, mathematicians are no better off than simple philosophers. When it is necessary to know if a theorem can have meaning without being capable of proof, who can judge, since by definition we forbid ourselves to prove it ? There would be no other resource but to corner one's adversary with a contradiction. But the experiment has been attempted and it has not succeeded.
Many antinomies have been pointed out, and the discord has remained; no one has been convinced. It is always possible to extricate oneself from a contradiction by a change of arguments ; I mean by a distinguo.-- Henri Poincaré, Dernières Pensées, Chapter V, Les Mathematiques et la Logique

A dialogue between a realist (dualist) and a pragmatist-idealist nondualist is going to be messy because, the realist will be reading and writing 'semantic narratives' as if they the literal truth while the pragmatist-idealist will be reading the same things and understanding them not as 'reality' or 'the truth' but as pragmatic idealizations that reduce complex relational phenomena to simple material thing-in-itself base dynamics, obfuscating the physical reality of our actual experience..

* * * * * *

Summary: What is happening in the @critic - emile dialogue is that @critic is formulating his comments, questions and complaints in language that assumes the Euclidian non-relational space of observer--observed dualist separation while emile's comments assume non-Euclidian relational space of observer-observed nonduality. It is possible to use noun-and-verb language in such a manner as to restore relations to their natural primacy over material things-and-what-they-do,[e.g. as in the combination of linquistic density and linguistic resonance (Charles Kahn)].

'realism' (dualist inhabitant-habitat separation) s the product of Euclidian space assumption.. inhabitant-habitat nondualism associates with non-Euclidian (relational) space assumption..

“Space is another framework we impose upon the world” . . . ” . . . here the mind may affirm because it lays down its own laws; but let us clearly understand that while these laws are imposed on our science, which otherwise could not exist, they are not imposed on Nature.” . . . “Euclidian geometry is . . . the simplest, . . . just as the polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a polynomial of the second degree.” . . . “the space revealed to us by our senses is absolutely different from the space of geometry.” . . . “Finally, our Euclidean geometry is itself only a sort of convention of language; mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a [relational] non-Euclidean space which would be a guide less convenient than, but just as legitimate as, our ordinary space ; the enunciation would thus become much more complicated, but it would remain possible. Thus absolute space, absolute time, geometry itself, are not conditions which impose themselves on mechanics ; all these things are no more antecedent to mechanics than the French language is logically antecedent to the verities one expresses in French.” – Henri Poincare, Science and Hypothesis

nietzsche's views (and emile's comments) 'up the ante' from euclidian space and dualism to non-euclidian relational space and nondualism wherein 'relations' are in a natural primacy over 'things' and their 'material dynamics'. there is no way to get to the relational view from the Euclidian rectangular space view. the polynomial of degree one drops out what is capturable in a polynomial of degree two.

in the case of indigenous anarchism, the reduction from the relational nondualist view to the dualist view never happened because, in the case of Western society, the reduction was built into the noun-and-verb language architecture.

my aim is simply to open up a view as to how restoring the nondualist mode of understanding (paradigm) can subsume a lot of the dysfunction in our relational social dynamic since it derives from putting semantically constructed scientific reality [dualism] into an unnatural precedence over physically experienced intuitive reality [nonduality] i.e. regarding as 'reality' "the rebel shot the landlord" when it is a superficial 'symptom' view that obscures the root source that lies in continually building relational tensions that blow off from time to time in association with reconfiguration.

Nobody is buying it dude ... Everyone knows you're full of shit.

Oh, except shoe-gazer apparently likes sniffing your endless farts? The guy who once waxed philosophical about how his shoes were his identity and still uses the screen name... That's your fan-club. And ageofconsent ziggy chimes in sometimes too. Fine company indeed!

The empire strikes back!

*sniff sniff*

That you both have a SCSR, with emile's based more on rheomode and @critic's not so much, and emile might be stretching the findings of quantum physics to corroborate aboriginal science. So it might be helpful to look at the actual examples from the science to see how far we can go to justify our philosophical, religious or spiritual beliefs. As far as I know we haven't found the unified field theory yet, but maybe they did when I wasn't looking.
Nomadology: The War Machine p.19
"It would seem that a whole nomad science develops
eccentrically, one that is very different from the royal or imperial sci-
ences. Furthermore, this nomad science is continually “barred,” inhibited
or banned by the demands and conditions of State science. Archimedes,
vanquished by the Roman State, becomes a symbol.The fact is that the
two kinds of science have different modes of formalization, and State sci-
ence continually imposes its form of sovereignty on the inventions of
nomad science. State science retains of nomad science only what it can ap-
propriate; it turns the rest into a set of strictly limited formulas without
any real scientific status, or else simply represses and bans it."

I've posted this before but this may be a useful supplement, it's not too long and gives an introduction to some basic findings of quantum physics and possible applications:

"Be careful what you say you might have to live with it."

He was a hypnotherapist and I started reading Milton Erickson under his tutelage as well as practicing sanmitsu and kuji-in.

"Psychic censor" in this article = Freudian/Reichean superego pretty much (though this article hasn't unpacked superego and ego). The view of the unconscious is pretty undeveloped (and the ego-desire for greater conscious control is very apparent), though it's captured how certain therapies "work" on an unconscious level I think. I find it quite unlikely that people can change the material world through thought - if it's possible, it should be "provable" in SCSR terms, since it would have definite visible effects - though there's some weird outcomes in parapsychology which make me wonder, and also the possibility that modern people never learn the requisite abilities.

In my reading of Deleuze and Guattari, "nomad science" refers to local/indigenous knowledges which are not held by top-down experts ("royal science") but by diffuse groups of artisans or other practitioners, and which are directly related to some kind of processual project. For example, nomadic builders in the middle ages (D&G's example). They're very practical, indigenous kinds of knowledge -
not really much related to deconstructing meaning, though very much tied-up with practicality and flow. There's a lot of studies of these kinds of knowledge-systems nowadays, the ways residents of an area develop knowledge of its ecosystem, the ways indigenous groups organise things like irrigation and disaster resilience, and the ways these practical systems are often tied-up with apparently spiritual cosmologies - google "local knowledge" or "indigenous knowledge" or "indigenous science". These kinds of knowledges are very common in anarchist/anarchic spaces - everything from skills related to squatting or rewilding or "rioting" or building a tree-sit, to everyday skills picked up in practically-oriented collectives (e.g. Travellers know how to keep a car running). One of my objections to Emile's rigid ideology is that it seems to leave no space for local knowledges and the local powers which emerge from them (power and knowledge imply one another) - burning down all meaning a bit too thoroughly to allow for local knowledges, and thereby ruining the capacity for counter-power.

Anarchist social practices are "fractal" in a sense - small-scale actions replicate by diffusion and cause macro-scale changes, without necessarily ever engaging on the macro-level. James Scott's classic example: thousands of peasants deserting can cause an army to collapse. Colin Ward's everyday anarchy, which expands until it ruptures the state. Bey's TAZ's, bees, and tongs. Bonanno's imitable tactics. Huge social changes have come from such "fractal" actions, especially in the 60s-70s. Women's consciousness-raising groups. Free festivals. Hackers and programmers.

science is the mathematical formalizing of experience-based intuitions. general relativity is an incomplete, mathematized generalization coming from the experience-based intuition of the fluidity of natural phenomena. the intuited symmetry of field-matter nonduality is first of all 'intuitive' and the fact that a reasoned, mathematized generalization [unified field theory] has not been developed nor may not ever be developed does not disprove the intuition. the experience-based intuitions of 'indigenous science' are symmetry-based and examples of mathematization among indigenous aboriginal peoples are sporadic (Mayan calendar etc.) and unnecessary for capturing the basic symmetries of natural phenomena and using them to guide social organization.

the symmetries in deleuze and guattari's evolutionary model of state to stateless community are essentially the same as nietzsche's; i.e. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality. for example, the developing form of an arch in a cathedral inductively actualizes the shaping and carving of the stones needed to continue evolving the structure. nomadic science is not the slave of the architect. in other words the cathedral is not constructed by direction of its interiority but instead, its exteriority inductively orchestrates and shapes its evolving interiority; ['royal science is dualist and splits apart the mind and body, the intellectual designing and the manual construction labour].

The carving of the stone—a skill that a worker develops without recourse to the mathematical imperatives of a royal blueprint—is a dynamic, a rhythm of construction defined immediately by the imperatives of its own movement. The production-cutting of stone here is different from the panoptic model, which imposes the law of a normalized form on the matter of a worker’s body. The skills of the carvers do not first make recourse to outside principles of scientific management, but engage “material-forces,” curved vaults that are “placings-in-variation.” These itinerant skills of vagabond workers Deleuze and Guattari place under the heading of “nomad science,” a form of production in excess of the disciplinarity of State “royal science.” The establishment of royal science in cathedral construction marks the imposition of an outside, centralizing measure: “The State’s response was to take over management of the construction site, merging all the divisions of labor in the supreme distinction between the intellectual and the manual, the theoretical and the practical, modeled upon the difference between ‘governors’ and ‘governed’” (ATP 368). Royal science levies a different register of control, a mediating “plane of organization” upon the immediate plane of variable material-forces: “In the nomad sciences, as in the royal sciences, we find the existence of a ‘plane,’ but not at all in the same way. The ground-level plane of the Gothic journeyman is opposed to the metric plane of the architect, which is on paper and off site. The plane of consistency or composition [the dynamic rhythms of material-forces] is opposed to another plane, that of organization or formation [the rules of matter-form]” -- 'Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge' citing Deleuze and Guattari, 'A Thousand Plateaus'

the developing needs [epigenetic influences] in a stateless community inductively actualize its genetic expression/development as in the example of the nomadic science of cathedral buidling. 'royal science' as in 'the state', splits apart intellectualizing mind and labouring body and this is the hallmark organizing mode of Western society.

there is no local agency in nomadic science as space is not a fixed container. local agency is only apparent (schaumkommen). the state is continually changing and not by its own power, but by external influence of the war machine aka nomadic science aka epigenetic influence. the sedentary state or system that has lost its epigenetic halo or sky-hook that pulls it into its continual becoming is a dead structure filled with zombies.

I know you can only ever see two ideologies Emile, but Deleuze and Guattari are neither. Nomad science is still science. Knowledge, and therefore power-knowledge. Nomad scientists still act. They don't just wait around to be epigenetically actualised. D&G are philosophers of action, like Nietzsche. Find the bit about pitting the power of nondenumerable sets, however small, against denumerable sets. In Deleuzian theory, humans exist at the meeting-point in a figure-of-eight between the virtual (quantum/imaginal) and actual (outer/material) world. The central gesture of Deleuzian philosophy is accessing the quantum plane *and then* making a choice, or a leap, based on desire (resonance). It's not just "let yourself be epigenetically determined".

Ahhh crap, now I feel bad... Well played!

there is a huge fear of letting go of the illusion of 'knowing the truth' without a 'shadow of a doubt' as in hard logic, even though it is nothing other than 'illusion'. the fear comes from being raised to believe in the 'reality' of objective truth based on dualism and being; i.e. separation of the observer and observed implies that what is observed 'out there' is 'real' and 'exists on its own' [without dependence on the mental constructionism of the observer]. the illusion of the existence of an independent 'objective reality out there' is the basis for the causal model wherein we [think we] can explain the unfolding 'reality' by identifying causal agents [notionally with their own genetic agency] that are responsible for what is unfolding. this is where we let semantically constructed scientific/logical reality become our 'operative reality' that orchestrates and shapes our individual and collective actions.

[thinking] we can know who to blame or credit for causing bad or good results and commensurately administering punishment and rewards as the popular (Western) means of managing the social dynamic.; i.e. it is the popular animating principle for Western individuals and social collectives and political groups. it is the scientific basis for creating a rewarded and privileged class and a punished and marginalized class.

to even consider its abandonment, in undertaking the construction of a new society (e.g. an anarchist society) strikes fear into the hearts of the rich [causal responsibility for 'good' will no longer be attributed to them in a simple causal sense] and the poor [who are accustomed to the protection of the state against the causal agents of bad unfoldings]..

letting go of our self-deluding practice of putting hard logic and moral judgement into an unnatural precedence over our relational experience-based intuition is impeded by the fear of the unknown [the loss of security that comes with acknowledging that we are not 'in control']. this leads to the persistence of denial re the need to restore intuition to its natural precedence over reason.

putting reason before intuition has become like water to fish in our modern Western society. intuition screams out that rebellion is inductively actualized by the same people who are accusing, convicting and incarcerating rebels for being 'the cause' of rebellion. it is not that we need to reverse the value-status of judges and convicts, we need instead to reject the dualist belief in 'cause-and-effect'.

I'll be back properly when I have more time. Some of us have lives you know.

For now:

1. You're repeating yourself and adding very little, we know what you think already.

2. You said a few posts back that everything which can be said in SCSR can still be said in PEIR because PEIR is like forcing a set in set theory, it adds a dimension. Now you say the reverse - everything in PEIR can be said in SCSR but not vice-versa. Make your mind up.

3. Everyone knows a phrase like "A=B" can only be true if A and B "exist". "The rebel shot the landlord" only makes sense if "rebel" and "landlord" exist, so EZT (no separate objects) makes "the rebel shot the landlord" false. You're not saying anything new or transformative here.

4. You're claiming to mind-read again. Asserting that I believe Euclidean spatial theory when I've never talked about it. You haven't shown how my statements imply Euclidean spatial theory and I've no idea whether I believe Euclidean spatial theory or not. But, just asserting it proves nothing.

5. Your aim (last para) is self-contradictory as it both relies on SCSR (for empirical evidence of dysfunction in the social dynamic and the nature of the solution) and denies it.

6. Nobody here advocates imprisoning rebels and you know it. Stop building straw-men.

7. Your rhetorical appeal to others' alleged "fear" to "let go" of certain beliefs (which they probably don't hold to begin with) is offensive pseudo-psychiatric nonsense. Notice how the same argument can ground any position - by imputing bad faith based on fear to the adversary. Christians fear recognising the truth of atheism, atheists fear recognising the truth of Christianity, Emile fears recognising local agency, anti-pedos fear recognising children's sexuality, Holocaust historians fear recognising a huge Jewish cover-up. Such assertions do nothing to prove the (usually absurd) arguments they're mobilised to support. Emile, you need to engage with what people say, not the "motives" you project onto what people say.

Thx @critic but Emile's right. Looks like I'm just unable to admit that I'm dumb and scared and by extension; he's a mystical, semi-omniscient being who long since transcended my puny mortal understanding. Since I'm an ignorant savage, I'll express my reverence for saint Emile with weird, psychosexual violence like an animal sacrifice where I roll around in the blood afterward or whatever.

Our Eternal Anarky won't be hijacked by their rationalisms!
Long Live the wyrd of emile! inside and out
w All Power toward the pragmatic unknown, err what-ever

All you idiots! @critic and emile are the same person, its so obvious, emile's ego needs to vent with walls of text against walls of text to be sustained.

for example, you wrote;

6. Nobody here advocates imprisoning rebels and you know it. Stop building straw-men

this has nothing to do with what i was talking about; i.e. your allegation of my building a strawman is itself the strawman which you are building.

you ignore the nondualist meaning in my comments and continue to plug your own 'realist' (dualist) definitions into my comments, turning them into something they are not.

your 'nobody here' comment is a case in point. in speaking of fear, i am speaking, for example, of fear of terrorism that is being inductively actualized by relational tensions in the overall community; e.g relational tensions arise between rich and powerful colonizers who are screwing colonized indigenous peoples and have-not colonizing settlers. this inductively actualizes terrorist backlash against the colonizers. but this root source of terrorizing rebellion is not addressed when SCSR reality is the 'operative reality' since in SCSR reality, the terrorists are identified as the full and sole causally responsible source of the terrorism [there is no acknowledging of epigenetic inductive actualizing influence in SCSR reality]. The have-nots, because they are afraid of rising terrorism, join with the 'suiperior class' in supporting a governmental standing army to 'fight terrorism' [state terrorism waged against the colonized is excluded/denied].

the have-nots thus end up supporting the state's armies against the rebels/terrorists [internal and/or external] together with the 'superior class'. tolstoy speaks about this twisted psychology which would have brother shoot brothers as follows;

'But who composes this army that they would order to fire upon us?
'Why, our neighbours and brothers-deceived into the idea that they are doing God's service by protecting their country from its enemies. When the fact is, our country has no enemies save the Superior Class, that pretends to look out for our interests if we will only obey and consent to be taxed.'

the public clearly needs to develop its own methods of protection and avoid supporting the standing armies of the state.

The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order, and in the assertion that, without authority, there could not be worse violence than that of authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that Anarchy can be instituted by a revolution. "To establish Anarchy." "Anarchy will be instituted." But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require protection from governmental power, and by there being more and more people who will be ashamed of applying this power.

* * *

all of your comments simply play with word definitions as you want, setting up the new hijacked meaning of my original words as a strawman error on my part. in 2. you simply make up something that is not implied in my comments, and in 3. you seem to acknowledge that 'rebels' may not exist, my my point that they do exist in SCSR reality and they are depicted as independent causal agents which can be blamed for rebellion. in 4. you don't like my use of 'euclidian space framing' as applied to some of your commentary. as Poincare observes, euclidian space is just a language convention that, when applied, constrains depictions of dynamics to one-sided all thing-driven actions [all hitting influence and no fielding influence, to use Gould's baseball metaphor]. in 5. you say i use SCSR for empirical evidence. no way. SCSR features local things-in-themselves, notionally with their own local agency driven actions and deeds. in my view, there are no such things in the physical reality of our actual experience; i.e. local things-in-themselves and their local genetic agency are semantic constructions aka 'pragmatic idealizations' that are 'not real' in any physical-experiential sense. in 6., you speak of 'nobody here' wanting to imprison terrorists. so what? i was talking about the same phenomenon as tolstoy where the public in general prefers the sense of security in locking up or in eliminating terrorists as is suggested by SCSR which depicts the individual as an independent biological machine-in-itself that is fully and solely causally responsible for its own actions and results [the superior class colonizers who are poking others in the eye with a stick and inducing terrorizing rebellions get off the hook right there, so that the war on terrorism spans interventions that breed more radicalization, extremism and terrorizing rebellion]...

in short, your comments are not comments on my comments, they are comments on your distorted interpretations of my words that come from your having hijacked my definitions and substituted your own.

* * * * *

how the hijacking of intended understanding 'happens';

nomad science is where the unfolding relational dynamic of situation inductively actualizes, orchestrates and shapes 'genetic expression'. the stone-carving artisans of nomad science live in a physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR) however, the developing structure of the cathedral arch is 'genetic expression' as seen by a voyeur observer who is not involved and that becomes his 'objective truth'. he will say; 'the workers constructed the cathedral arch as if they had a blueprint or intellectual plan in their head that was driving their local agency to causally construct the arch. that is, the semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR) does not acknowledge epigenetic influence much less its primacy over 'genetic expression'.

what is implied in SCSR is fixed [chessboard-like] 'euclidian space framing' where space is a non-participant [epigenetic influence does not exist in SCSR, there is only 'local agency' imputed to originate from 'things-in-themselves'].

in modern physics, space is a participant in physical phenomenon, as it clearly is in Deleuze's 'nomad science' where space is no longer a fixed reference frame of the chess board where 'local' refers to an explicit location specifiable in terms of the fixed reference [chess-board-like] framing grid, ... but is instead understood as the relational situation one finds oneself included in, in this unfolding moment.

it is the unfolding relational situation the nomad is included in that is inductively actualizing, orchestrating and shaping his stone-carving actions, not some fixed intellectual blue-print in his mind that is directing his body inside-outwardly regardless of his situational inclusion within the transforming relational continuum [in 'royal science', mind and body are split apart into two, so that the stewards of the community and their experts and architects which constitute the 'intellectual mind' of the community can mediate so as to direct the 'body of the community' whose citizens and workers are thus reduced to instruction-driven robots. zombies

so, let's me be clear on one thing that you keep flip-flopping on when you mention PEIR and SCSR, ...

PEIR REFERS TO THE PHYSICAL REALITY OF OUR ACTUAL NONDUAL EXPERIENCE OF SITUATIONAL INCLUSION IN A TRANSFORMING RELATIONAL CONTINUUM.(our actions, like those of the stone carver, are epigenetically orchestrated and shaped by the unfolding relational dynamics we are situationally included in)

SCSR REFERS TO INTELLECTUAL, DUALIST [OBSERVER-OBSERVED-SPLITTING] REASON-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS THAT MAKE USE OF NOTIONAL 'THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES' WITH 'THEIR OWN LOCAL AGENCY DRIVEN AND DIRECTED ACTIONS AND RESULTS' -- MATERIAL DYNAMICS THAT NOTIONALLY TRANSPIRE IN AN ABSOLUTE SPACE AND ABSOLUTE TIME OPERATING THEATRE THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE DYNAMICS THAT TRANSPIRE WITHIN IT (our stone-carving and stone-laying dynamics could thus be directed by written instructions on how to carve the stones and how to lay them. the entire operation is a one-sided local agency driven activity,, ... but is it 'real'? no, it is not 'physically real' in the same sense as PEIR because it is impossible for a person to generate local agency driven actions and results while situationally included in a transforming relational continuum. is it real that; 'Katrina is growing larger and stronger', ... 'Katrina is heading for the Gulf Coast', ... 'Katrina is devastating New Orleans', ... 'Katrina is heading overland and dissipating'. ...?

IS IT REAL? ... NO!. SCSR is not about the physical reality of our actual nondualist experience, it is about pragmatic idealizations formulated from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar constructs that develop narrative portrayals of an 'objective reality out there' independent of the observer. by the same token, 'the rebel killed the landlord' is one of these 'pragmatic idealizations' that fail to acknowledge the primary role of epigenetic influence in inductively actualizing genetic agency. noun and verb language and errors of grammar are responsible for 'inventing things-in-themselves' and inventing 'their local agency' to construct convenient, thought-economizing 'pragmatic idealizations' that correlate with our senses of vision and touch to capture 'appearances' as if in a 'world out there' separate from the observer and constituting 'objective truth'.

if you want to comment using PEIR and SCSR, please don't substitute your own definitions and make out that they're mine; e.g you said;.

2. You said a few posts back that everything which can be said in SCSR can still be said in PEIR because PEIR is like forcing a set in set theory, it adds a dimension. Now you say the reverse - everything in PEIR can be said in SCSR but not vice-versa. Make your mind up.

that's not what i said. in the first place, nondual experience cannot be directly articulated. as wittgenstein said, one has to develop the art of writing nonsense, a special kind of nonsense that will elicit the desired understanding in others at which point the listener should cast aside those expedient statements as 'nonsense'. what i said about sets was in terms of evolutionary symmetries as we go from fewer to more forms as from 3 storms to 4 storms in a common flow. in physical reality the storms do not have independent identities since A=P (common plenum), B=P and C=P therefore A=B=C (=P). if another D storm emerges, then A, B and C would have had to have changed since all storms in a common plenum are mutually influencing [non-independent]. this is to do with the nondual symmetry of the inhabitant-habitat nonduality that we experience wherein "the dynamics of the inhabitants are condtioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants' [Mach's principle of inhabitant-habitat non-duality aka field-matter nonduality].

PEIR is unique to the individual experiencing it, and it is inarticulable in SCSR because SCSR is in the form of notional 'objective reality out there' that is the same for everybody. PEIR is something to share in a learning circle and it is not intended to be interpreted as an objective reality 'out there' that is purported to be the same for all.

In terms of relative symmetries of nonduality and duality, nonduality can 'see' the 'form' and the 'flow' and understand them as One (as a nonduality). dualism extracts the form and discards or ignores the epigenetic influence of the flow and relocates that influence as 'local agency' is if belonging to the form. the form that was a sailboater that derived its power and direction from the flow, dualism now recasts as a powerboater that is an independent self-powered machine-in-itself..

the ego corresponds to the 'realist' or powerboater view of self while the sailboater corresponds to the pragmatist idealist 'natural Self'

excuse the repetition but since you keep repeatedly substituting your own word-definitions and ignoring mine, you force me to repeatedly correct you re your mistaken interpretations of the terms i am using.

>i am speaking, for example, of fear of terrorism that is being inductively actualized by relational tensions in the overall community
>in 6., you speak of 'nobody here' wanting to imprison terrorists. so what? i was talking about the same phenomenon as tolstoy where the public in general prefers the sense of security in locking up or in eliminating terrorists

But nobody here shares this view. This is really, really relevant here. You are literally arguing against something which nobody here has said. You may be arguing against “the public”, trying to explain a social phenomenon rather than arguing against anyone here. But you are inserting these arguments in responses to people here (usually me), as if my/their basic philosophies involve “let's lock up terrorists” or “let's lock up criminals” - and this is why we should give up “dualism”. You are attacking people here as “dualists”, on the basis that “dualism” leads to these kinds of individualised etiologies of violence and “crime”, when the people you are calling dualists DO NOT hold these beliefs – thus proving that EITHER these people are not dualists, OR dualism does not necessarily lead to the conclusions you impute to it. In which case EITHER your argument is bad faith, you're projecting a belief in punishment onto others which you realise they “don't have”, OR it's irrelevant, you're arguing with “the public” (who aren't reading this) and talking past the people who actually ARE reading your shit.

Fuck, even the COIN goons know that terrorism is caused by social injustices, that's why hearts-and-minds is so central to COIN.

By the way, your “colonisation causes terrorism” account is also absurdly simplistic, since it doesn't account for the particular forms it takes – why it's Islamist in one place, far-right in another, Marxist or narco-criminal in another, etc. You're not accounting for the Rabin assassination or the Las Vegas shootings or the Batman shootings for example, nor ISIS massacres of Yezidis and Sufis. IMO it's always socially caused but the social causes are mediated at a local level.

Crucial question here: why should I, a “dualist” (by your definition) who does not believe in punishment, care about the fact that there are other “dualists” who believe in punishment? Why should this be any more relevant to my arguments against EZT than (for example) if I used Hirohito's Buddhism or the Rohingya crisis to “prove” than nondualism causes genocide?

Executive summary: what I need from you, Emile, is an answer to the question: why should I care that other “dualists” believe in punishment? Why is this relevant to my objections to your position?

>the public clearly needs to develop its own methods of protection and avoid supporting the standing armies of the state

But if it does this, it's acting as a self with local agency, and acting for “protection” instead of going with the epigenetic flow...

To be honest, the way you follow through your arguments politically (on the rare occasions you do), is starting to suggest to me that you DO believe in local agency, but local agency of the “sailboat” type rather than the “powerboat” type. But for some reason, you've decided that the “sailboat” type of local agency is not local agency.

Let's go back to the “Emile has to eat” and the spider-web examples. Suppose that, instead of your whole deflection into “@critic's language imputes dualist assumptions and implies Emile as a subject generates local agency when in fact Mach Nietzsche blahblahblah...”, you had simply said: Emile has to eat, but Emile is a unique being with unique PEIR and “eating” is also uniquely different for each person, and therefore, Emile “has to eat” in a sailboat way and not a powerboat way, Emile eats in a relational inhabitant-habitat nonduality which is better thought of as a flow of food-energy, then we could have avoided that whole long argument. Because this would rebut the objection I was raising. Similarly with the spider – if instead of trying to defend the implausible claim that “spiders make different webs in different places”, you'd suggested: the spider has no ego, the spider is like a sailboater, the spider has a sense of the pragmatic appropriateness of this particular shape with which it resonates, the spider “reproduces” the shape but in a different assemblage each time, with a tree this time, a dumpster that time; and the subjective meaning of the web-image is different, at the level of PEIR, in each spider – again you would have solved the entire problem.

But I want to know: is this really what you mean? Or do you mean “Emile does not have to eat because Emile is not a separate being with local agency”, and “spiders always build differently shaped webs”?

The same slippage occurs around SCSR/PEIR: you sometimes talk as if SCSR is a “delusion”, “brainwashing”, and only exists in language, but at other times, simply that it's overblown, that SCSR objects “really exist” but PEIR relations are “in primacy”. These are actually rather different claims. Because, if PEIR is in primacy, then SCSR also has validity/importance but is in a secondary, subordinate place.

Can we agree that the “sailboat” type is the better type, but that I call it “local agency” and you don't?

Can we also agree that PEIR relations are primary, but that SCSR objects have some kind of existence beyond “merely illusory”?

You seem to me to oscillate between the contradictory positions, 1) that there is no local agency and 2) that there is local agency but it is of a “sailboat” not a “powerboat” type; and also 3) that PEIR is real and SCSR is not, and therefore, SCSR language and perception should be abandoned, and 4) that SCSR is also real from a certain point of view, or at least, is a necessary fiction we can't do without.

Executive summary: It would help me to understand your point of view if you could decide these questions one way or the other. 1 or 2, and 3 or 4. And whether or not you agree with the above spin on the food and spider cases.

>the stone-carving artisans of nomad science live in a physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR) however, the developing structure of the cathedral arch is 'genetic expression' as seen by a voyeur observer who is not involved and that becomes his 'objective truth'

I don't think you understand how artisans work. True, there is no “blueprint” in the modern sense – they're doing something far more locally resonant, “epigenetic, “sailboat”-like than is (say) Le Corbusier or someone using a 3D printer. At the same time, they have a “vision” they're tentatively bringing into being, and there are prior structures in this “vision” (for example: a medieval cathedral always has a cross-shape). The vision is modified in line with the “material” and its “epigenetic force”, changed as it goes along. A Tlingit canoe-maker for example does not impose a design on the wood but “works with” the wood to produce a canoe which is “immanent in it” - this means, for instance, cutting with rather than against the grain. But still, the canoe-maker is mixing his own agency (his mana – the localised concentration of holistic force) with the force of the wood, persuading it to go a certain way, the same way a sailboater does. And the canoe-maker or the cathedral builder or the sailboater (or any artisan with local/indigenous knowledge) needs a particular type of knowledge, a set of heuristic rules and an ability to “read” the situational reality, to intuit the way to proceed so as to produce a certain result from a certain set of conditions – and this might even, for instance, include mathematical knowledge (in the case of the architect). It's very different from modern science, because it's less abstract, it's tied-up in the practical task at hand, it's far more falsifiable and modifiable – more Popperian, in a strange way. Is this what you're meaning by PEIR? It's always seemed to me you want PEIR to go further – to involve no local agency at all, no projectuality or desire at all. So with nomad science, we are dealing with a third option, a point between SCSR and PEIR, where the two intersect – in Bergsonian/Deleuzian language, the point of actualising the virtual, or of the present intersecting with the past.

Believe it or not... I've done a fair amount of “nomad science” in my lifetime... everything from shaping wool into an ornament, to stacking wood, and cleaning out a pond... I can FEEL how it is very different from “royal science”, from Taylorised production for example, or filling a form, or assembling a flatpack (which in fact, are all very difficult for me)... I can FEEL how nomad science is allowing environmental influences and forces within the “worked” material to influence, and interact with, the process of production, how the weight of the wool will not allow it to attach a certain way, how I can compensate for this by varying the way I'm attaching it, or how the shapes of each piece of wood affect whether they can be stacked (and I could equally say: consoling a distressed friend, or entertaining children while containing the resultant chaos), and at the same time, how there is more space for *my* individual variation within nomad science, how if I can't do something one way, I can often find a workaround... still, there's a projectuality there, a passage from wool to ornament, from dirty pond to cleaner pond, from unstacked wood to stacked wood, which is *my* projectuality even though it requires sailboat rather than powerboat agency. Sometimes you seem to accept this, sometimes you seem to deny it. It's your denial of this projectuality which I most object to. My stacking the wood “successfully” is not at all the same as my leaving the wood strewn on the floor, or stacking it “unsuccessfully” so the pile collapses (which by the way, has nothing to do with whether I'm “morally responsible” or the primary causal force in the wood being stacked, or indeed, whether my projectuality is somehow determined by the state of the entire field).

The other issue here is that quantum physics is not a nomad science. It's a royal science. It's conducted by non-locally-situated “expert” scientists in rarefied laboratory contexts stripped of real-world complexities. It involves precise experiments (always done the same way everywhere) using mathematics and specialised equipment, the results of which are taken to apply everywhere. Its conclusions may support PEIR but its methodology is not nomad science and is not PEIR, it's an SCSR methodology, a way of pursuing precise objective knowledge.

Executive summary: do you recognise any kind of projectuality in nomad science (e.g. wood-stacking, wool-weaving, pond-cleaning)?

>PEIR is unique to the individual experiencing it, and it is inarticulable in SCSR because SCSR is in the form of notional 'objective reality out there' that is the same for everybody. PEIR is something to share in a learning circle and it is not intended to be interpreted as an objective reality 'out there' that is purported to be the same for all

If PEIR is unique to the individual experiencing it, then it is inarticulable IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, and the use of a learning circle instead of a science class or an internet forum does not make it any more articulable. If PEIR is unique to the individual experiencing it (you're actually sounding like Stirner here!), then A's perception of B's statement can never be the same as the experience B is trying to articulate (in ANY social context), because B's statement necessarily stems from B's unique PEIR, and A's understanding necessarily interprets it in terms of A's unique PEIR.

The choice therefore seems to be: either 1) we recognise nobody can say anything meaningful, and collapse into solipsism and private language, 2) we carry on using SCSR as a rough approximation of something-in-common, and hope there's sufficient similarities in people's PEIRs for it to work, or 3) we try to create localised point-to-point communicative rhizomes based on perceptions of similarities and differences in the articulations of particular PEIRs.

Note that the PEIR which is unique to each person is necessarily local, and cannot also be the PEIR of quantum physics or universal holism.

>IS IT REAL? ... NO!. SCSR is not about the physical reality of our actual nondualist experience, it is about pragmatic idealizations formulated from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar constructs that develop narrative portrayals of an 'objective reality out there' independent of the observer

Is this “pragmatic idealisation” of SCSR a good/necessary thing or a bad/harmful move?

If it's a good/necessary move, then your objections to this, that and the other linguistic statement based on its being derived from SCSR (“anarchists need to struggle against the state”, “we can't pursue harmonisation with pigs”, “the rebel shot the landlord”) are utterly redundant. The statement remains just as valid, except with ironic detachment – we keep acting “as if” things-in-themselves exist, and we *must* keep acting this way, even though (or even if) we “know” at a deeper level that this is pragmatic-idealisation we're complicit in (this is basically the Derridean position).

If it's a bad/harmful move, then we're back at the point of “dualism bad, nondualism good” and the problem of how we can say things in a nondualist way, and the problem that you keep using dualistic SCSR language which carries dualistic SCSR connotations for most of your readers. And we're back with the question of whether your alternative language (Algonquin grammar, rheomode, energy-speak, whatever) can eliminate the assumption of agency (i.e. we don't lose agency entirely by saying “fromrebeltolandlordbulletwent” or “a bundle of projectile force flew through the continuum from the rebel-site of energetic concentration to the landlord-site of energetic concentration, bringing about the dissolution of the energies at the landlord-site”).

Executive summary: Is SCSR necessary despite not being “real”, or is it unnecessary and bad?


OK so here's the problems.

1. Most people's *intuitive*, *directly experienced* intuitions of the world are closer to SCSR than PEIR. If you experience nondual existence directly, you're exceptional.

For example – if someone is hit by a stone, most people will experience the stone as an object which is thrown or falls or otherwise propelled by local force. If a person throws it, most people will react intuitively that the person is an agent who is attacking them. This “SCSR” leap happens at the level of intuition and experience – not thought.

On the other hand, the realisation that (say) I'm interconnected fairly closely with Chinese workers who built the keyboard I'm typing on, or that the killing of a particular mammal in the age of dinosaurs might have resulted in my not being born, is completely invisible to intuition. It's something I can only know through “reason” or “evidence” - in an SCSR way. If indigenous people can intuit these kinds of relations directly, this is because they're taught from an early age to see things which are otherwise invisible (whereas westerners are taught not to see these things). Capitalism in particular seems to go to great effort to conceal the relations which constitute it. And for this reason, the relations are not intuitively present.

2. A person acting within PEIR is also exerting agency. A sailboater is exerting agency. A cathedral builder is exerting agency. Can we have agency without notional “things-in-themselves”? I'm not sure. If not, then SCSR is (at worst) a necessary illusion which underpins how humans are able to engage constructively with PEIR (Bergson's attention-to-life).

3. To the extent that people intuit themselves as part of a 'transforming relational continuum', they generally experience it in a localised form. So, people might experience themselves as interdependent with their families or co-workers or their home or their food, but not with the whole universe. The claim that my eating a sandwich might shift the orbit of Jupiter (which is scientifically false, but true by Emile-logic), or the claim that a butterfly flapping its wings in the desert might cause a hurricane miles away (which is scientifically true according to chaos theory), is utterly *counterintuitive* - not simply “contrary to reason”. In fact, reason – which must submit to evidence – accepts these claims far more easily than does intuition.

4. It is possible that people “intuit” PEIR in states of altered consciousness, even if they “intuit” SCSR normally (this is my own experience). If so, I am not at all sure that the two components of PEIR – the worldview which appears at a high level of abstraction, and the experience of altered consciousness – are actually identical, or that either of them is the same as the socially-organised cosmologies of indigenous groups.

>nondual experience cannot be directly articulated... one has to develop the art of writing nonsense

I disagree that this is at all useful in “pointing to” any kind of experience – it simply creates a language with no relationship to experience.

But this is more about method/style than content. I dislike your style of communicating. I often feel what you say as aggressive, arrogant, disregarding others' needs and concerns, and also as annoyingly repetitive, logically inconsistent, and contemptuous towards all problems (notably, *practical* problems) outside your philosophical obsession. The effect of this way of communicating on most people here has been that people reject, ignore and mock your arguments, your posts get exiled out here to the forums, and most of us who aren't ignoring you keep arguing against you.

You act as if there's some kind of backdoor through which unique individual PEIR can be directly placed in language by way of either nonsense or repetition (of magic formulae such as “epigenetic influence actualises genetic influence”). This makes no sense to me. If it can't be said, it can't be said – by nonsense as much as by direct assertion.

The attempt to “trick” readers into agreeing with you, creates a hierarchical relationship between yourself (knowing-subject who manipulates the reader) and the reader (object to be tricked) which is itself contrary to your philosophical assumptions.

I have seen varieties of nondualism written-about in many ways – the manipulative, hierarchical way is not the only (or the best) way. Deleuze uses a machine-method, showing the ways particular systems are arranged as contingent systems. Thich Nhat Hanh uses a very accessible, compassionate style which speaks to the reader at the level of needs. Wittgenstein provides long logical rebuttals of opposing positions. Mach derives what he's saying from standard scientific evidence, but shows how this evidence points beyond SCSR. Hakim Bey emphasises the direct experience of altered consciousness, and elaborates some of the means to reach it – dreams, drugs, TAZ's, wanderings. Nietzsche writes in aphorisms and inspirational statements and imaginal dream-imagery.

It may just be that writing nonsense, and stomping on “dualist” arguments, does not work *for me* - though it seems to me, it does not work for the rest of the @news audience either. But, maybe a part of the uniqueness of each PEIR is that different arguments and formulations work for different people?

That other random makes a good point! We need a picture of @critic and Emile holding a sign that says "we're the same person".

It is a very similar style of writing, and the psychology profile fits, we all intuitively feel they are twins.

you say;

OK so here's the problems.
1. Most people's *intuitive*, *directly experienced* intuitions of the world are closer to SCSR than PEIR. If you experience nondual existence directly, you're exceptional.
For example – if someone is hit by a stone, most people will experience the stone as an object which is thrown or falls or otherwise propelled by local force. If a person throws it, most people will react intuitively that the person is an agent who is attacking them. This “SCSR” leap happens at the level of intuition and experience – not thought.

relational influences are primary while material dynamics are 'schaumkommen'. physically experienced intuitive reality is not in explicit terms of the 'things' and 'what things do'; e.g.; the eagles

Somebody's gonna hurt someone before the night is through.
Somebody's gonna come undone; there's nothin' we can do
Everybody wants to touch somebody, if it takes all night
Everybody wants to take a little chance, make it come out right.

your example with the stone assumes 'being' of the 'stone' and 'being' of the 'someone' hit by the 'stone'. this is all semantic construction. in the relational view, the transforming relational continuum is the primary reality and there are no 'material beings'. e.g. as einstein says;

Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? What impresses our senses as matter is really a great concentration of energy into a comparatively small space. We could regard matter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong. In this way a new philosophical background could be created. ... A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone. There would be no place, in our new physics, for both field and matter, field being the only reality. --
Einstein and Infeld, 'The Evolution of Physics'

'reason' involves our mentally abstracting of visible tangible relational forms [secondary phenomena] as things-in-themselves, by way of noun-and-verb language so that we construct a [material dynamics] pseudo-reality based on the secondary phenomena. relational tensions in the earth that associate with 'fields' of relational influence give rise to earthquakes and avalanches whereupon we can talk about stones tumbling down mountain sides; i.e. we can construct semantic realities based on secondary phenomena and build semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR) that we employ as our 'operative reality' to instruct our actions and deeds [and goals and objectives]. space in this case becomes, by implication, a void that surrounds the semantically created things-in-themselves [Euclidian space]..

'being'-based talk of 'someone being hit by a being-based 'stones' is SCSR (scientific reality). relational transformation is the primary physical phenomenon and we are included in it. it is not really 'separate from us' and 'out there in front of us' as we make our voyeur observations that separate us [in thought and language] from the material dynamics we are observing. reason has us attribute the throwing of the stone to RATIONAL INTENTION in the interior of the human 'being' and NOT to relational influences that tension up within the transforming relational continuum as are alluded to in the eagles lyrics.

once we regard as 'real', this dualist tactic of SCSR to split apart 'mind' and 'body' thus attributing the action of the body to instructions from the mind IGNORING EPIGENETIC INFLUENCE IMMANENT IN THE UNFOLDING RELATIONAL DYNAMICS WE ARE UNIQUELY SITUATIONALLY INCLUDED IN, we open the door to having the body-directing instructions come from a superior source such as 'the boss', making us into robots that can be replaced by machines. i.e. once we abandon our artisan mode of inhabitant-habitat nonduality and accept ourselves as reason driven independent beings, we set ourselves up for 'capitalism' wherein we play the role of 'robots' that can be replaced by AI machinery.

you say;

OK so here's the problems.
2. A person acting within PEIR is also exerting agency. A sailboater is exerting agency. A cathedral builder is exerting agency. Can we have agency without notional “things-in-themselves”? I'm not sure. If not, then SCSR is (at worst) a necessary illusion which underpins how humans are able to engage constructively with PEIR (Bergson's attention-to-life).

as Emerson says, a person is a vent that is transmitting influence from the non-local to the local point on which his (nature's) genius can act.

the ambiguity here is the ambiguity between duality and nonduality. noun-and-verb language reduces nonduality to duality; e.g. the storming is the inflowing-and-outflowing, it is not a thing-in-itself that is responsible for ingesting and discharging. it IS the ingesting-discharging nonduality; i.e. it is a relational feature in the flow. noun-and-verb language breaks it out of the flow and imputes 'being' and 'local agency' to it. nietzsche describes this as an 'error of grammar' that can be likened to 'God'; i.e. we feel like we have to invent a causal source for everything;

“Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

you are using language to create your own preferred definitions; e.g. you use subject-verb constructs to synthetically define thing-driven actions which 'drop out' epigenetic influence that is primary; i.e. a person is a relational feature within the transforming relational continuum, and it is the transforming relational continuum that is inductively actualizing relational forms that we call 'persons' and 'sailboaters';

A person acting within PEIR is also exerting agency. A sailboater is exerting agency. A cathedral builder is exerting agency.

what happens to the mother-flux when we construct these semantic pictures with nouns and verbs? she is a goddess that 'goes missing';

“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” P.U. 109)
“A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” (“Ein Bild hielt uns gefangen. Und heraus konnten wir nicht, denn es lag in unsrer Sprache, und sie scheint es uns nur unerbittlich zu wiederholen” P.U. 115)
– Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (Philosophische Untersuchung)

there is no requirement that we must start from 'humans' to explain the global social dynamic. relations are in a natural primacy over things such as humans. relational languages treat humans as relational forms that are included with a transforming relational suprasystem, relational forms that are continually gathering and being regathered in the flow. to construct a reality that starts from these transient human forms and their 'agency' is to construct a synthetic reality that does not reconcile with the physical reality of our actual relational experience. this simple and convenient [because it delivers 'economy of thought'] semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR) is not to be confused for the physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR).

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

Sheesh, you're harder to pin down than one of those particles which blinks in and out of existence.

I am going to ignore most of your repetitive droning-on about stuff you've already said, as well as your ridiculous bad-faith accusations against me (I invent pretend definitions using language, etc). Because if this is going anywhere, the only way forward is for you to clarify what you think, and especially, clarify the terms you keep throwing back as “misread”, so we can actually have a conversation where we recognise each other's terms. I also don't care about the symptom-labels you throw at me, and you're beginning to bore me.

Here are the important questions again.

Can we agree that the “sailboat” type is the better type, but that I call it “local agency” and you don't?

Can we also agree that PEIR relations are primary, but that SCSR objects have some kind of existence beyond “merely illusory”?

Do you recognise my summaries in https://anarchistnews.org/content/realist-bias-intolerance-anarchistnews... on the spider and the eating cases as identical to your position, or as radically different? If different, then why?

Do you recognise any kind of projectuality in nomad science (e.g. wood-stacking, wool-weaving, pond-cleaning)?

Is SCSR necessary despite not being “real”, or is it unnecessary and bad?

If PEIR is unique to each person, how can it be the same PEIR as the PEIR of quantum physics?

I'll just respond on one thing, which again is an important question you've dodged:

>your example with the stone assumes 'being' of the 'stone' and 'being' of the 'someone' hit by the 'stone'. this is all semantic construction. in the relational view [… blah blah blah]

Not sure if bad faith or just stupid. I know you think that “the stone” or “someone” does not have substance and is “semantic construction”. My point is that, for most people, INTUITIVELY, “the stone” and “someone” exist (as objects of intuition/perception). They aren't experienced first as relational, and then alienated by linguistic categories into being seen as objects. They're experienced directly as objects.

This is important because, in common English, “intuition” refers to immediate experience (“immediate apprehension or cognition”; “the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference” - Webster's dictionary; (knowledge from) 'an ability to understand or know something immediately based on your feelings rather than facts', Cambridge dictionary).

Most people, at least in western culture, *immediately experience* themselves as local agents and other objects as having distinct existence. Or at least, if you would ask them what they immediately experience, this is what they would say.

I'll grant you that this way of experiencing might be an effect of language, and that it might not reflect the real nature of the world. But there's no non-SCSR “outside” of direct intuition of flows and continua in most people's experience of the world. They intuit SCSR directly.

If this isn't relevant to your view of “intuition”, but is a form of “reason”, then please explain what you mean by “intuition”, and how “all of us” can access “intuition”.

Intuition is more of a knowing than a thinking, the thinking comes after the knowing. Just like when you feel like you need to poop you just know it and you don't think "oh I need to poop" until after the PEIR. Everyone has intuition to varying degrees depending on your personality and level of awareness. The more you tune in to PEIR the more things you can intuit about the world. Surely there was a time before language when people didn't reason, they might have thought in images but most of their navigation of the world was intuitive. You just have to get in to it.

Language adds to the richness of our experience and SCSR is the culmination of words and symbols through history and a product of PEIR. We can build conceptual constructs that are models of reality but we shouldn't mistake the map for the territory. I have a pretty good map of this city in my head but there are places I haven't been in a long time and some places I've never been. I could steer a tourist in the right direction but by the time they got there they might find my description to be erroneous. If I tried to draw you a map of the city it would be crude and lacking in detail. And even professionally drawn maps that are a few years old are not entirely accurate. So any semantic description of PEIR is at best a second hand model or even a castle in the air that can't capture a reality in flux with words or symbols.

for example, the DSM [The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] is a compilation of diagnostic concepts that aims to capture the nature of problematic (so-called 'abnormal') behaviours or 'mental illnesses' in a particular individual; e.g. 'homosexuality' and 'transgender' have been conceptualized as 'disorders';

"It was not until 1987 that homosexuality completely disappeared from the DSM, but the concept of ego-dystonic sexual orientation persists in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases. More recently we have seen a similar shift with transgendered individuals. It is interesting to note as homosexuality came out of the DSM, transsexualism was making its debut. This transformed into gender identity disorder, and most recently, to gender dysphoria in DSM-5." --Mad in America

there is a lot of socio-cultural subjectivity in conceptualization, and it is a weasel's game which nevertheless can shape an 'operative reality' that guides our individual and collective behaviours in our relational dynamics as we get out our conceptual maps to explain to ourselves the territory we are inquiring into.

no matter how many new concepts are developed within neuroscience, since emotional distress in individuals is now acknowledged to be epigenetically induced by the relational dynamics the unique one finds herself in, scientific conceptualizers 'have their ladder up the wrong wall' by digging down and in to make their maps of the territory, since the inductive actualizing influence is coming from the social relational matrix the individual is included in.

every system is included in a relational suprasystem and that inclusion nesting prevails throughout the transforming relational continuum, therefore the subjective act of focusing on a 'particular territory' and conceptualizing what goes on within that territory is too constrained from the get-go to extract an understanding of the territory, since the transforming relational continuum is unbounded and epigenetic influence inductively actualizes 'genetic expression' as observed in the subjectively constrained 'territory of investigation'.

as our experience-based intuition informs us, conceptualizing of a subjectively constrained territory, such as the scenario wherein rebellion gives rise to violent genetic expression, fails to include in its inquiry, the long term relational tensions that are the source of epigenetic influence that is the inductive actualizing source of the observed 'genetic expression'; .wherein brother peasant kills a brother-landlord. instead, the concept 'murder' is formulated along with 'offender' and 'victim' so that the inquiry-territory can be reduced to a notional local-in-space-and-time 'event' as if that has 'stand-alone-reality' aka 'objective truth'.

so the deep problem with map and territory is that the physically real territory of our actual experience is the transforming relational continuum [the world is given only once and includes both subject and object]. subjectively limiting the inquiry-territory distorts the mappings, but concepts, to be firm and solid, such as 'murder', 'offender' and 'victim', can only retain their logical hardness and certainty, by subjectively limiting the inquiry-territory. it is the 'social subjectivity', as with the DSM that takes up the slack in concept formation so as to give clarity to the concept. scientific dualism, by separating the observer from the observed, separates out the inherent unfathomable depths of relational dynamic sourcing [epigenetic influence] from the foreground 'genetic expression' so as to enable crisp conceptualizations and explicit mappings, keeping the subjectivity of the observer out of the subjectively constrained field of vision [constrained inquiry-territory].

Why haven't you shown some basic decency and replied to @critics Qs in comment 246?

if you haven't discerned yet, @critic and emile 'speak different languages' and @critic is insisting that i respond in his language; i.e. my language puts relations in precedence over logical objects while @critic's language puts logical objects in precedence over relations. as Poincare says about this exact topic;

At all times, there have been opposite tendencies in philosophy and it does not seem that these tendencies are on the verge of being reconciled. It is no doubt because there are different souls and that we cannot change anything in these souls. There is therefore no hope of seeing harmony established between the pragmatists and the Cantorians. Men do not agree because they do not speak the same language, and there are languages which cannot be learned."

for example, it is convenient to treat 'plants' as 'logical objects' and straightaway easy to do in noun-and-verb semantic reality constructions. 'realists' (Cantorians) regard plants portrayed by way of logical objects in noun-subject-verb-predicate semantic constructions as 'real' while pragmatic idealists may see plants as relational forms that develop within a confluence of relational influences (relational-influence-based ecosystem). the plant in this view is a relational feature in a transforming relational continuum. relational influence is non-local, non-visible and non-material [field influence is relational influence]. thus, the 'pragmatist idealist' will also employ noun-subject-verb-predicate semantic constructions, but this time, as 'pragmatic idealizations' which provide a map of the territory which is not the territory.

now, given that we are all included in a common relational dynamic aka 'habitat', plants are our brothers and sisters rather than logical objects seen as being 'separate' from our observing selves. that is the view of the pragmatist-idealist such as emile. for the 'realist', the plants as logical objects are the 'primary reality'.

which language does @critic speak? his language is the language of hard logic; i.e. 'realist language'. my language always implies that relations are in a natural primacy over logical objects and views logical propositions as a support tool rather than as deliverer of semantically constructed realities that can be equivalenced with 'reality'. if i say that there is a diverse multiplicity of organisms in such-and-such ecosystem, i am not inferring that these organisms are causally responsible for the ecosystem dynamic [cooperation or mutual support], i am inferring that the larger relational suprasystem in which the ecosystem is included sources the epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes that development of this diverse multiplicity; i.e. the relational dynamics of the suprasystem and its immanent epigenetic field is the primary reality while the diverse multiplicity of relational forms is secondary phenomena which attracts our subjective focus of vision and touch sensing. .

@critic wants to tie things do within the highly constrained space of logical objects and propositions based on them.

for emile, logical objects have no reality of their own, they are abstract idealizations that are fingers pointing to the moon, ... maps that are not the territory, ... logic is nonsense that nevertheless assists us, in wittgenstein ladder mode, to draw on our physical experience based intuition which is 'beyond logical propositions. this where 'what we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence' (experience-based intuition that transcend the meaning-conveying capabilities of logical propositions).

if you have a question on this and are interested in further inquiiry into it, at the level that poincare is talking about it, please pose it and i will respond.

if you are just curious about discursive protocols, as my above comments explain, there is no point in my agreeing to respond in a language (logical propositions taken literally) that is incapable of conveying my views, yet that is the format that @critic is posing his 'arguments' in.

"if you haven't discerned yet, @critic and emile 'speak different languages' and @critic is insisting that i respond in his language"

Not really … that's a self-serving mischaracterization. @critic is pointing how your "language" apparently misrepresents everyone else's position, when you aren't just repeating your usual talking-points. This of course, means it isn't a language at all, more of a shady rhetorical style where you're impervious to criticism. It also implies that you think we're all idiots, assuming you're even aware of what you're doing.

it is no coincidence that many people [while still a minority within Western culture] coming from different disciplines [physics, philosophy, linguistics] have suggested that the relational languages of indigenous aboriginals can easily handle the nondual findings of modern physics wherein field-and-matter are a nonduality with field being 'primary', while noun-and-verb language cannot handle nonduality [not directly] because it reduces relational forms to logical objects, and uses logical objects [idealizations] as the base of primary reality.

yes,, of course the direct and literal use of noun-and-verb language is in majority use in Western culture and in this forum. as i repeat over and over, as many times as others insist on ignoring this and insist i quit talking this way, ... we are all capable of putting 'logical objects' aka notional 'things-in-themselves' into an unnatural primacy over 'relations'. by the same token other cultures (indigenous anarchist cultures) use language 'relationally', as emile is also doing, and as nietzsche, david bohm and alan watts and benjamin whorf were advocating, and r.a. wilson.

many people have been interested in how the way we use language 'shapes' what is 'reality' for us.

“The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group . . . We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” – Edward Sapir

logical propositions are not capable of dealing with relational experience, but logical propositions are the dominating (majority preferred) currency of the Western culture mode of understanding. 'logicians' can have superb skills of constructing systems of logical propositions that 'hold true' within the logical system. these skills are perhaps more highly developed in @critic than in native elders but native elders may have a better hold on the relational view of the world that is compatible with field-matter nonduality, as was the finding of david bohm, for example. in bohm's terms relational dynamics aka 'the implicate order' are the primary reality and the 'explicate order' that we can see and touch is secondary.

even though the explicate order is secondary, it is made primary by dualist, being-based [logical object-based] semantic constructions (SCSR). logicians and their language of logical propositions based on 'explicate order' treat their semantic realities as 'real' [logicians are 'Cantorian realists' in Poincare's terms]. intuitives, on the other hand, treat the same semantic constructions as 'pragmatic idealizations'. the same words are understood differently by 'logicians' and 'intuitives'. now, for sure, @critic, like all of us, is capable of experience-based intuition as well as intellectual-idealization based logic, so what is intended here is that Poincare's term 'realist' refers to a logician which is someone who, although he is capable of experience-based intuition, prefers to put logic into an unnatural primacy over intuition. Poincare's 'intuitive' refers to someone who, while he fully capable of intellectual-idealization based logic, keeps 'intuition' in its natural primacy over 'logic'.

the logician and the intuitive both employ the word 'storm' in noun-and-verb english, but for the intuitive who is using language in a relational, non-being based manner, a storm is an inductively actualized genetic expression. in other words, epigenetic influence in the relational dynamics the storm is included in, is the source of the storm and its actions and results. the word storm as used by the logician, is understood as a logical object that exists independently of the space it operates in and in logical propositions, is depicted as a local causal agent in its own right.

e.g. the intuitive will understand the phrase 'the child-soldier slaughtered the people in the cafe' as 'pragmatic idealization'. since it takes a whole community to raise a child-soldier; i.e. epigenetic influence immanent in the relational dynamics of community [relational dynamics nest inclusionally within relational suprasystems which ultimately nest inclusionally within the transforming relational continuum] inductively actualizes the development of the child-soldier. the relational reality is an understanding wherein relational tensions in the relational dynamics of the community 'vent' through individuals such as the 'child-soldier', they do not originate within them.

the logician will understand the phrase 'the child-soldier slaughtered the people in the cafe' as a logical proposition that can be proved, wherein the 'child-soldier' is a logical element/object. if the word 'child-soldier' were not a logical object but was 'relationally entangled' with the dynamics of the habitat this inhabitant was included in [as in an inhabitant-habitat nonduality], the logical proposition would come apart at the seams. the 'proving' of the logical proposition would no longer be possible because the 'child-soldier' could no longer be passed off as a logical object.

every time i see a noun-subject aka 'being', i think of it's purported existence as 'pragmatic idealization' and understanding instead that it is the inductively actualized genetic expression of epigenetic influences it is situationally included in.

the logician will see the child-soldier as fully and solely causally responsible for 'his own acts' [as in forensic science]. mitigation as @critic mentions is after-fhe-fact of finding the child-soldier to be fully and solely causally responsible for his murderous actions.

the intuitive will not be talking about mitigation after the fact of forensic science proving full and sole causal responsibility of the child-soldier, the intuitive will see the relational dynamics of community as in a natural primacy over the dynamics of the individual members.

same phrase, two different understandings on the part of (a) intuitive and (b) logician;

'the child-soldier slaughtered the people in the cafe' is the 'genetic expression'.

in the intuitive understanding it is epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes genetic expression; not just in this example case but in all cases

in the logical understanding the child-soldier is a logical object that is imputed to have its own local genetic agency that causally authors this genetic expression.

one semantic construct which can trigger two very different realities; - (PEIR) where we walk his life in his shoes through the relational dynamics of community he was situationally included in, and (SCSR), where we dualistically split apart observer and observed and see the 'child soldier' as a 'logical object out there' that is fully and solely causally responsible for his own behaviour.

“The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group . . . We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” – Edward Sapir

random lurker and @critic are on the same page with the majority in our Western culture but a majority has no monopoly on the truth.

"majority has no monopoly on the truth"

… and neither do you.

there is only the truth of our actual experience as relational forms, uniquely, situationally included in the transforming relational continuum.

as Emerson observes, Western man is not lacking in the intuitive capability of understanding himself as transcending the simplistic logical object status that his own semantic constructions reduce him to, as in 'realism', ... but has a 'mischievous' tendency' to reduce himself to a simple \logical object' with its own 'local agency', ... a 'doer of deeds'. Nietszche likewise points out that it is man's ego that is at the bottom of this reduction of the transcendent natural self to a simple doer of deeds. as Emerson puts it;

"“Whilst a necessity so great caused the man to exist, his health and erectness consist in the fidelity with which he transmits influences from the vast and universal to the point on which his genius can act. The ends are momentary: they are vents for the current of inward life which increases as it is spent. A man’s wisdom is to know that all ends are momentary, that the best end must be superseded by a better. But there is a mischievous tendency in him to transfer his thought from the life to the ends, to quit his agency and rest in his acts: the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine. – Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘The Method of Nature’

Like Emerson and Niet\zsche, i acknowledge this Western cultural habit of denying the epigenetic origin of relational forms and the associated reducing of relational forms to 'logical objects' notionally jumpstart-animated by their own 'local agency' [as if organisms were 'independent biological machines' roaming around and interacting in an empty absolute space and absolute time measuring-reference frame-imagined-as-an-operating-theatre]. There is no allegation here that 'realists' are incapable of putting their experience-based intuition back into its natural primacy over logical-object based reasoning. The reduction to a logical object base is a cultural habit introduced into Western people from infancy, the same habit as the cultivated belief in the existence of nation states as logical objects with their own logical agency. [pragmatic semantic idealization that is habitually confused for 'reality']. this is the same brand of semantic/grammar -based bullshit as reduces humans to logical objects.

“Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche

so yes, no-one has a monopoly on the truth, not me and not the Western culture-conditioned majority. this rejection of the concept of a 'truth' that lies beyond actual experience takes us back to the 'learning circle' of indigenous anarchists where each unique-one's personal experience is respected as their truth and by understanding the diverse multiplicity of unique experiential truths [by bringing them into coherent connective confluence], a holistic understanding can be relationally 'imaged' which incorporates the important differences in experience which logic-based 'objective truth' simply discards [logical debate fails to 'listen' to different perspectives by seeing these differences as 'noise' that is fuzzifying the 'objective truth', and attempts to filter out the noise and get to the 'objective truth' by the principle of Lafontaine, 'la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure' (the reasoning of the most powerful is always the best)].

because the Western habit is to put logical objects and their notional self-initiated, local agency-driven actions as relational dynamics re portraying in semantically constructed scientific reality, into an unnatural primacy over physically experienced intuitive reality, \Western society ends up believing in an 'objective truth', a common semantically constructed view of a material world out there observed by, but not including the observer, ..., based on an emotional bias shaped cherry picking of facts selected by 'les plus fort' by the principle of Lafontaine, whether 'les plus forts' are dictators, elected politicians or charismatic rhetoricians. there is no justification for believing in the existence of 'objective truth'.

bottom line; - trust your own unique, physically experienced intuitive reality while respecting the unique, physically experienced intuitive reality of others, and share these experiences and bring them into coherent connective confluence so as to equip yourself with an 'operative reality' to guide your behaviour [relational engaging] within the relational dynamical world you are uniquely, situationally included in. do not accept any politician's, dictator's, or charismatic rhetorician's purported 'objective truth' that purportedly speaks of a 'world out there' that can be semantically re-presented in language, that is purportedly 'independent' of the observer's emotional biases and needs.. such dualist, logical object based views are nothing more than 'pragmatic idealizations', they are not 'real', as the purveyors of semantically constructed scientific realities (SCSR) make them out to be.

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

>logical propositions are not capable of dealing with relational experience
> 'objects that exist' are the synthetic product of dualist semantic construction where we speak of 'the cell' as noun-subject and have the noun-subject inflect a verb

Yet Emile keeps trying ad nauseum to deal with, describe, explain, relational PEIR experience using noun-verb English language. If he really believes his propositions 1. that noun-verb language requires logical/SCSR thought and 2. that relational experience can't be expressed in this language, then he would just shut the fuck up.

Really, it's no different from saying “the smell of a rose cannot be expressed in language”, and then writing six paragraphs of dense philosophical and scientific prose describing the smell of a rose. And then if anyone objects, saying “you're missing the point, THE SMELL OF A ROSE CANNOT BE EXPRESSED IN LANGUAGE” and then repeating those six paragraphs.

log-jamming fish-traps. afantasm
I Am Sam a hand witch. like rats n twats orgasm
ifn Be. you, too still there agazing.
wherefore art Tao thee magic alley blazing
manic and amazing, dancing with depression
manufactured disposession. shoes twice steppin’
through storm-cells’ representin, a flight to action
weather Asicks or Reebok, chosen style as perfection
a who-how together flowing, smile worthy mention
in rhyme kinda always never knowing do shit lexion
and Time, just get in-to-it, for a while. sublime

you say a river gives. the spring very same
what lucky, well and good. intraplanetary game
and sing. so deep. two feet and not expecting.
muh peoples love they sleep ever daily resurrecting.
and much beautiful.
dreamingly unusual, a need uncanny
but granny tseems refuse to tho.what a pity.
so We flow.
cuz London's calling me, grow!
tho not in any city, yo and thrive proceeding
a reciprocary needing, that evolusive meeting

for alll the shit i don't know. and what a Tor is
or where the ceiling or the floor is
does it come from the store, Siz?
like da Cheeze Wiz.
to vandalize Man? in a can
look please, Ms., let’s make our Oly stand
-in between the long distance-
at what THIS is
it’s errybody’s business, and why

- O - let me die, a child,
sailing unseen like the kids gone wild
for whirlwinds and empty butts
thee eye can see for miles
underneath a waterfall
and little hobbit’s guile.

Earth, a spirit, a habit
have you hear it?
raining fire like from heaven
that song.
its hit me
like a bong. in the morningfor fuck’s sake
to wake up and turn
and get loose, and gay
to abstract today. aplay on queue and clues, too
the good Life choose, prevailing
way out on a levee wailing. done flailing
underneath the moon
time strikes. and meaning ends all
too soon?
like falling on the ball
totes path o’ logic
dat spaceship epi-esca totalitary chronic
referencial finger-pointing -all on it-
like oils anointing.
or some demicycle lunarsexy catbird’s conjoining
touchdown at the beach
in teh rhisomatic outreach
underground stooping
some nomadic forestation extra-special pooping.

凸( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)凸

yes i guess, humanity's grotesque
a last identifier
all i suggest is that we just get higher
in the middle of a road
but what little do i know
so all alone. sad
onward, comrade!
to the next intersection. am i write?
nope nope
just smoking dope
and a dream to get away
nothing to say but,
and thank you, i fucking do

you are not write!
you are whatever gets across from thoughts to mine
I don't know which acronym that is
It wasn't that I wasn't bothered
To look it up
but that middle road?
Is some stoner-bro defeatist bullshit?

I adore you and you know that.

get the fuck up

wherefore public kisses
from the home of Romeo?
these sights cast pink on, flushed
sweet cheeky devil!
bashful and heart boasting
on this pleasing bank of thyme
Such love looks not like lines
but waves of water body
forth and waking sleeping
seething madness and love
my blush to force the bloom
of site’s tight behind?

head-shy is the poorest word
(of course it’s not a thought)

if you kiss pommes verte
in the morning crisp with frost
it is no loss
smythe bound signatures of whatever
to see words weave in stacks of rough and
silky thoughts
ride high and more lay
black and feel on pages
or with eye-rolling patience
what spooks the rages

to even to sit apart

presently forbidden fruit
this lover dares not
bite. tis not dawn here yet
and lest forget
"The orphan and the fairy"
so for now that's magic plenty

OK, but here's the problem. Often this pre-thinking "knowing" (if it is, indeed, pre-thinking and not simply unconscious) involves SCSR-like object-assumptions. Someone eats something foul and they vomit - it's a pre-conscious reaction, but it's based on a division of the world into edible and inedible. In cases of fear, rage, panic, freeze-ups, people directly intuit a threat which might even (in the case of phobias) be a threat they don't consciously recognise as a threat, and they might not even know what's triggering it in some cases. This is clear in PTSD - people directly intuit the entire threat-complex involved in the repetition of the trauma, when it isn't really "there" (in an Emile PEIR-sense any more than an SCSR-sense). And the limbic system threat reaction is very much separative - there's an immanent threat or there isn't, a particular stimulus triggers the sense of threat pretty much directly. In some of these cases, the thinking mind actually has a better sense of what's going on that the intuiting mind.

Another problem: linguistic and perceptual categories "react back" on unconscious formations. Someone with an allergy to flowers, may start to have allergic symptoms on seeing plastic flowers. Their body recognises the "flowers" at the level of signifier, based on the knowledge-category "flowers"; it doesn't just relate directly to the pre-thinking allergen. Notice that there is no conscious intent in cases like this. We can't "make ourselves" have allergic reactions.

And - while it's possible to have an intuitive "I-thou" relation with (say) a flower or a rock or a river, this is not the "natural", spontaneous disposition of modern humans - often, it is something people can only reach by working consciously to "be mindful", to filter out SCSR simplifications and so on. It's only at this point that people can see more than just "a river" and start to see how the river is "not an object in itself" but interrelated with its environment, with the observer, etc.

Yes there is an unconscious... but, it doesn't involve a direct magical connection to the world-as-it-really-is which bypasses "reason" and "thinking"... it isn't free of SCSR-like separations, or of the learned influences of language... it is also distorted by contact with a distorted world (as Guattari, Reich, Marcuse all knew).

PTSD is where a sound (a party balloon being popped) or a sight (a child pulling out a toy gun) triggers logical inference acquired from prior experience. it is not "physically experienced intuition".

@critic says;

This is clear in PTSD - people directly intuit the entire threat-complex involved in the repetition of the trauma, when it isn't really "there" (in an Emile PEIR-sense any more than an SCSR-sense). And the limbic system threat reaction is very much separative - there's an immanent threat or there isn't, a particular stimulus triggers the sense of threat pretty much directly. In some of these cases, the thinking mind actually has a better sense of what's going on that the intuiting mind." [bold highlight is emile's]

in emile's view, intuition associates with mind-body nonduality, as from infancy, so in this understanding of 'physically experienced intuition', there is no 'intuiting mind' that picks up on something and gives it meaning by way of logical inference as in PTSD, so that the 'intuiting mind' directs the body's actions as in the dualist conception of a split-apart mind-and-body.

in our physically experienced intuitive reality, we can 'feel' the epigenetic influence of relational tensions that we are included in, that wax and wane and which may trigger outbursts (the crying of an infant). in this view, logical constructions do not come into play.

'logic' does not exist as a process in itself, logic is something we build into the forms of our sensory perception to make the world easier to understand;. as Nietzsche puts it;

Our subjective constraint to have faith in logic, is expressive only of the fact that long before logic itself became conscious in us, we did nothing save introduce its postulates into the nature of things: now we find ourselves in their presence,—we can no longer help it,—and now we would fain believe that this constraint is a guarantee of "truth." We it was who created the "thing," the "same thing," the subject, the attribute, the action, the object, the substance, and the form, after we had carried the process of equalising, coarsening, and simplifying as far as possible. The world seems logical to us, because we have already made it logical. -- Nietzsche WTP 521


Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

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