'Realist' bias (intolerance) in Anarchistnews Editorial policy

346 posts / 0 new
Last post
emile
you know what the orthodoxy likes -- wooden stakes

you say;

"It's not really your model that interests us anymore, how could it possibly still be interesting after all this time?

how is it that so many people in this forum 'speak for everyone', as if there is one monolithic herd-mind in operation.

anyhow, ... that's a good question. so why did you follow me out here to the gulag?

evidently, the interest is in putting a wooden stake through the heart of the Machist relational heresy.

relational heresy restores intuition to its natural primacy over reason, in which case, logical argument cannot prevail over and stamp out relationality. the Machean heresy of relationality was a threat to the materialist interpretation of Marxism, and Lenin wrote an entire book for the purpose of putting a wooden stake though the heart of Machism which had been 'catching' on in the late 19th century as a revised (revisionist) non-materialist interpretation of Marx.

Lenin’s work Materialism and Empirio-criticism played a decisive part in combating the Machist revision of Marxism. It enabled the philosophical ideas of Marxism to spread widely among the mass of party members and helped the party activists and progressive workers to master dialectical and historical materialism. -- www. marxists.org

'Machism' is essentially non-dualism, ... the rejection of a division between the conscious mind of man and an 'objective material world out there' that exists independent of the consciousness of man.

in the terms used in this forum discussion, Lenin wanted to declare that SCSR was the primary reality. in this case, Marxism could proceed on a logical, scientific [mechanistic] basis.

the following comment might well have been written by @critic;

"Lenin demonstrated that Mach and other bourgeois philosophers, while proclaiming theirs to be a new philosophy, were palming off the old idealistic rubbish in a new guise. Under the abstruse name of "empirio-criticism", they were resurrecting, in a somewhat refurbished version, the philosophy of Berkeley, the eighteenth-century English bishop and militant opponent of materialism. Lenin proved that the underlying premise of Berkeley's philosophy and of empirio-criticism was one and the same, namely, subjective idealism. This means that the idealist philosophy essentially preached the helplessness and capitulation of man before Nature. Marxist philosophy, on the other hand, proclaimed that science and human knowledge are omnipotent and their development has no limits.

for more on this, see Marxist Update 'The making of Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'

Machism, while coming from modern physics, is a layover to indigenous aboriginal belief tradition. programs of cultural genocide have been launched by the colonizing settlers of North America, to eliminate, for good, this troublesome, 'beyond good and evil', nondualist philosophy that is heresy to Western culture conditioned philosophical gatekeepers.

the predominant interest in emile's comments in this forum seems to be oriented to their discrediting. why bother? why did Lenin bother? perhaps there is something believable about 'Machist revisionism' that could undermine the orthodoxy. in that case, it is not enough to simply call bullshit; ... one must come up with a fairly convincing showcase of refutation, taking it to a level where most people will simply defer to 'majority rule' shepherded by a few of the more vocal reactionaries.

if the non-orthodox ideas are not 'dangerous' [having the potential to be understood and assimilated and thus undermine the orthodoxy], there is no need to challenge them.

so, yes, "It's not really your model that interests us anymore, how could it possibly still be interesting after all this time?, ... the continuing interest is in apprehending, surrounding and stabbing the beast to put an end to it. the gatekeepers of the orthodoxy, like Lenin, wouldn't want 'others' who are not as astute as them (according to them) to be misled into straying from the orthodoxy.

@critic (not verified)
a wooden stake through the heart

Emile atop his mountain dislikes wooden stakes. Dracula, too, lives atop mountains in a schloss in Transylvania, from where he climbs upwards in the shape of a featherless bat or lizard to escape the eternal danger of a stake through the heart. Dracula is undeath, the refusal of life and the plateau, of sunlight and all that grows therefrom, yet he lives from the blood of those whom he trolls, sucking the meaning from their comments until they scream in ecstasy. Dracula will listen with his heart to the wooden stake, for the wooden stake dissolves his ego when it is heard through his heart. Like the Illuminati rulers of the world whose power is clearly predicted in the testament of Nostradamus, Emile pretends to be a featherless lizard atop his mountain, in denial of the findings of modern palaeontology that all living things have feathers and that the featherless being is a delusion of nineteenth-century dualistic metaphysics. Emile is truly, we know, the child of Rousseau, the daemoniac inventor of totalitarianism whose demand for dualistic Spartan devotion to the nation is enacted atop the mountain on his dream-child Emile, even while his real children lay abandoned on the plateau. Enacted like Ibrahim sacrificing Abel in the Old Testament, and the conveniently trapped sheep which he mistook for his son. But if your child was Emile, would you not also mistake him for a sheep? For like a prodigal sheep, Emile believes he has no feathers, and climbs in the mountains, when his place is on the plateau.

@critic (not verified)
yeah yeah yeah... bye Emile

3285 words. Nice one, Emile.

Here's my favourite parts:

>the willingness to set aside preconceived ideas and listen not only with your mind but with your heart
>the willingness to set aside preconceived ideas and listen not only with your mind but with your heart
>the willingness to set aside preconceived ideas and listen not only with your mind but with your heart
>the willingness to set aside preconceived ideas and listen not only with your mind but with your heart
>the willingness to set aside preconceived ideas and listen not only with your mind but with your heart
>the willingness to set aside preconceived ideas and listen not only with your mind but with your heart
>the willingness to set aside preconceived ideas and listen not only with your mind but with your heart

HAHAHAHA Emile needs to read this. And READ IT. And LISTEN WITH HIS HEART.

I just got another earful of Emile's preconceived ideas.

>the pursuit of truth through reasoned debate is futile
>the pursuit of truth through reasoned debate is futile
>the pursuit of truth through reasoned debate is futile
>the pursuit of truth through reasoned debate is futile
>the pursuit of truth through reasoned debate is futile
>the pursuit of truth through reasoned debate is futile
>the pursuit of truth through reasoned debate is futile

Reasoned debate with Emile is futile and he admits it.

>i..e. anyone can check it out through their own experience

OK. *checks it* - - - Emile's wrong, my experience doesn't tell me that. That means Emile is violating MY experience-based intuitive understanding. What an evil dualist colonial little Custer he is.

>we’re not finished learning and at the know-it-all point are we? are you?

We're at the point where Emile admits his claims are non-verifiable and non-falsifiable, are nothing more than his personal preference, and my “logical” bias is also my personal preference, and that equally cannot be verified and falsified, and reasoned debate is futile, and therefore, there is nothing to “learn” from the discussion between us. There is no truth, no reality, therefore there is nothing to “know”, therefore “learning” towards a point of “knowledge” is futile, meaning we are always at the “know-it-all point”, which is also the “know-nothing point”.

I'm tired of feeding this particular troll, now we've established that he has nothing to say which could change my mind, and I have nothing to say which might change his mind. Off to do something less boring now.

Random Lurker (not verified)
Hey, for what it's worth,

Hey, for what it's worth, Think I learned something watching you perform a vivisection.

emile
nonduality puts one on a mountain looking down on the foothill

as einstein says, when one views things from a field-matter nonduality, it is like seeing things from the top of a mountain where the dualist material view is still visible, but as a tiny foothill far below that gives only a much constrained viewing perspective. this transcendence of perspective cannot be set aside when someone wishes to debate things from a foothill-level perspective that is blind to mountaintop perspectives.

as Poincare observes, the dimensionality of non-euclidian relational space is higher than the dimensionality of standard euclidian space. non-euclidian relational perspectives are beyond the reach of euclidian independent object based viewing. when space becomes the energy-charged plenum that sources relational forms, one can see the inherent non-independence of the forms in the plenum whereas, those same forms viewed in euclidian space can be regarded as 'independent'.

it is pointless for two people to keep trying to get on the same page when one is employing the non-euclidian relational view of the same phenomenon that the other is viewing through euclidian independent object based viewing lenses..

Anonymous (not verified)
Here we see him continuing to

Here we see him continuing to grasp for his feelings of superiority, his main motivation for posting. I personally think it's a mix of obsessive-compulsion and ego-tripping pedantry, which is why I don't feel bad about calling bullshit.

Hey Emile, I'm using a wooden stake again! Which makes you a vampire? I thought you were a victim, that's a pretty weird metaphor ... Is it because you feed off of attention?

@critic (not verified)
Like Moses on a hill

Emile says, 'when one views things from a field-matter nonduality, it is like seeing things from the top of a mountain where the dualist material view is still visible, but as a tiny foothill far below that gives only a much constrained viewing perspective. this transcendence of perspective cannot be set aside when someone wishes to debate things from a foothill-level perspective that is blind to mountaintop perspectives'. This shows once again Emile's inability to escape dualistic arborescent structures of modern reason, based on an antagonistic logic in which perspectives are arrayed as “us-and-them”, in much the same way as how the American media depicts the war in Afghanistan. The “us-and-them” frame is necessarily transcended in a nondualistic understanding of the construction of opposites. For example, the Taleban in Afghanistan is seen as “them”, but is in fact an outgrowth of “us”, the American state operation to support the anti-Soviet mujahideen guerrillas in the 1980s, with the support of the Saudi salafi global education infrastructure and the Pakistani intelligence service. Emile acts just like President Trump when he invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, claiming that the Taleban as “them” had carried out the Twin Towers attack, and “you are either with us or you are with the terrorists”, without realising that a nondualist is always both with us AND with the terrorists, which are nothing more than a nonduality committing suicide a thousand tiny cuts at a time.. Like President Trump, Emile situates himself as the superior prophet on the mountaintop, contrasted with the plateau below, ignoring the fact that the plateau and the mountaintop are co-constitutive, the mountain is only a mountain through tis relation to the plateau, and the mountain is only “higher” than the plateau from a modern colonial dualistic point of view.

In typical masculine manner, Emile treats the “peak” of the phallus-mountain as superior to the “plateau” of the feminine plane of consistency, and ignores the fact that molar aggregates are epigenetically actualised by molecular assemblages, not the reverse. In privileging molar aggregates, Emile recreates the phallus-logic of the First Emperor and the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the God-King Gilgamesh slays the Rainbow Serpent (symbol of indigenous plateaus of becoming) in order to create the modern state and initiate the colonisation of the world. Deleuze and Guattari clearly realised this when they wrote: “A plateau is always in the middle, not at the beginning or the end. A rhizome is made of plateaus. Gregory Bateson uses the word "plateau" to designate something very special: a continuous, self-vibrating region of intensities whose development avoids any orientation toward a culmination point or external end. Bateson cites Balinese culture as an example: mother-child sexual games, and even quarrels among men, undergo this bizarre intensive stabilization. "Some sort of continuing plateau of intensity is substituted for [sexual] climax," war, or a culmination point. It is a regrettable characteristic of the Western mind to relate expressions and actions to exterior or transcendent ends, instead of evaluating them on a plane of consistency on the basis of their intrinsic value.” In his commitment to dualistic colonial reason, Emile refuses to recognise the intensive stabilization of the plateau, continuing to assert the independence of the mountain and the superiority of its royal perspective.

Emile privileges the peak of the mountain, without realising that biodiversity thrives in the jungles at its base, and the life at the peak of the mountain could not survive without the ways in which it is sustained by the life of the plateau. For example, scientific dualists like Emile have always claimed that only birds have feathers, the privilege of flying high from the peak of the mountain, yet today, even scientists have to admit that all dinosaurs have feathers, when dinosaurs lived in the jungle at the base of the mountain. A brachiosaurus at the base of a small mountain could reach a bird at its peak, thus proving the primacy of plateau over mountain and the incompatibility of Emile's narrow-minded nineteenth-century naturalism with the latest findings of palaeontology. Far from birds being alone in having feathers, palaeontology has proven that everything has feathers including human beings, and that we, too, can fly on the plateau without unnaturally subordinating it to the primacy of the mountain.

With his naïve faith in the immediately apparent intuitive naturalistic common sense of late-capitalist modernity, Emile repeats the standard fallacy of modern reason which led Columbus to conquer the Americas, secure in his knowledge that he possessed the peak of the mountain from which he could survey the plains and crush the tiny dots he saw there. Yet when Columbus captured Tenochtitlan, he was able to do so only because the Aztecs saw in him an incarnation of Quetzalcoatl, the feathered god who would return from beyond the eastern sea bearing the sign of the cross. Like all living beings, as proven by contemporary palaeontology, Columbus had feathers, and was therefore able to step into the shoes of Quetzalcoatl, not realising he was in fact simply allowing his possession by the spirit of the feathered god of the plateau as an agent of internal transformation of the Aztec people themselves. Yet Emile continues to refer to common sense, to his so-called “direct experience” and “intuition”, just as Columbus believed he was simply acting on common sense in putting the view from the mountaintop in unnatural primacy over the view from the plateau. As Gramsci argues:

“What was said above does not mean that there are no truths in common sense. It means rather that common sense is an ambiguous, contradictory and multiform concept, and that to refer to common sense as a confirmation of truth is a nonsense. It is possible to state correctly that a certain truth has become part of common sense in order to indicate that it has spread beyond the confines of intellectual groups, but all one is doing in that case is making a historical observation and an assertion of the rationality of history. In this sense, and used with restraint, the argument has a certain validity, precisely because common sense is crudely neophobe and conservative so that to have succeeded in forcing the introduction of a new truth is a proof that the truth in question has exceptional evidence and capacity for expansion.”

The crudely conservative and neophobe common sense of Emile is in fact the crudely conservative and neophobe common sense of late capitalist modernity, which elevates the capitalist hive-mind of spectacular production, flighting as Hakim Bey observes into the numisphere at the top of the mountain, into an unnatural primacy over the earthly world of the plateau, without realising that the production of value in the numisphere remains invisibly dependent as it shall always do on the creative assemblage-formation of the plateau. As Bey explains:

“But now there is only one world – triumphant “end of History”, end of the unbearable pain of imagination – actually an apotheosis of cybernetic Social Darwinism. Money decrees itself a law of Nature, and demands absolute liberty. Completely spiritualized, freed from its outworn body (mere production), circulating toward infinity & instantaneity in a gnostic numisphere far above Earth, money alone will define conciousness. The 20th century ended five years ago; this is the millenium. Where there is no second, no opposition, there can be no third, no neither/nor. So the choice remains: – either we accept ourselves as the “last humans”, or else we accept ourselves as the opposition. (Either automonotony – or autonomy.) All positions of withdrawal must be re-considered from a point of view based on new strategic demands. In a sense, we're cornered. As the oldtime ideologues would have said, our situation is “objectively pre-revolutionary” again. Beyond the temporary autonomous zone, beyond the insurrection, there is the necessary revolution – the “jihad.”

This is to say, the dualist actualisation of the perspective of the prophet on the mountaintop – always the forerunner of the emperor-priest and the philosopher-king – in unnatural primacy over the life of the plateau, a life which cannot be grasped even as dots from afar, is identical with the hysterical sublime as conceived by Fredric Jameson, who recognises such a circular pleasure of repetition in the numisphere as the particular ideological structure of late or “postmodern” capitalism. The divorce from the “empirical”, which is to say, from what Gramsci termed “good sense” in distinction from the “common sense” with which it is nonetheless entangled, is no more or less than the hysterical sublime as it circles the mountain peak, ignorant in its delusional separation from the life of the plateau which it no longer sees even as dots. But life on the plateau cares not for the separation of the numisphere, which is nothing but itself elevated to the ultimate degree of what Bergson would call “relaxation”, the loosening of the adhesive force of life itself. Just as Columbus is consumed by the spirit of Quetzalcoatl and becomes a puppet of the self-transcendence of the Aztecs, so Emile's dualism must necessarily serve simply as a means for the self-transcendence of the life-force of the plateau through its own autopoietic reproduction.

See, wanker, two can play.

Random Lurker (not verified)
So we're drinking tonight,

So we're drinking tonight, hmm?

gel-oberon 3
Speaking of drinking

A certain family member began to spontaneously detox from alcohol about a month ago. About 5 days ago his suffering became acute with convulsions and dry heaves so I took him to the ER where they gave him a couple bags of IV solution and some meds and wrote prescriptions for Ativan and Zofran and sent us home. He's on day 5 without alcohol and doing better, he can walk now and get his own newspaper. I'm trying to get him back in the kitchen into Jaques Pepin mode, I'm more a fan of Anthony Bourdain myself.

Le Way (not verified)
Hey kiddo, don't mean to

Hey kiddo, don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but Anthony Bourdain's diet may make you highly dependent on modern capitalist Western medicine, and the excuse to indulge oneself at an early age, to live fast and die young, is a sentimental hangover from the 19th century Romantic peroid made popular by a class of privileged self-indulgent aristocracy. I'm in my early 20's and totally changed my whole mindset when I excluded alcohol from my diet. Why do you think most hunter/gatherer societies functioned harmoniously, because alcohol or the need to numb the anxieties of living in a capitalist society were not present.

gel-oberon 3
Anthony Bourdain

Sans the drugs and alcohol. I like his open mindedness toward other cultures, new people and experiences. I've abstained from alcohol and drugs for about 25 years now so I'm with you on that one.

Anonymous (not verified)
if you think "hunter/gather"

if you think "hunter/gather" societies didnt partake in intoxicants, in some cases ones that make alochol look light, you need to study ethno-botany.

Also, whats with the anarchist obsession with "hunter/gatherers" or they myth of a monolithic way of life known as such. Its like early 19th century anthropology.

Le Way (not verified)
H/G societies never did

H/G societies never did chronic heavy alcohol, bah, their psychosomatics are ancient party drugs, after a good hunt lay back in a hammock with your babe and party on without causing organic cellular damage. Umm, ethnobotany is boring, fragrant flowers do it for me, I'm more into Neanderthal intersubjectivity and homo-erectus culture,,,,,

gel-oberon 3
Papillon

Got his gusto back today, he was up early with the TV on, got his own newspaper and diet coke and just walked by my room and offered to cook me a poached egg. He thinks he's old but I told him it's just the vampires sucking the life force out of him. I think we can make it, one more time!

emile
@critic butchers einstein's mountain-foothill metaphor

the mountain-foothill nonduality metaphor was einstein's, which i merely quoted, which @critic has reduced to a dualism, implying that emile intended a dualist understanding of it. fine, this @critic tactic has become very familiar.

rather than deal with @critic's obfuscation, it may be more informative to review what einstein was intending and to show how it relates to current science-in-society problems.

as Ackoff would say; 'every system is included in a relational suprasystem'. the foothill perspective corresponds to the local view of a system-in-itself while the mountain perspective allows us to see the local system in the enlarged relational context of the much broader landscape [relational suprasystem] it is included in. our understanding of the 'system' is deepened by seeing it within the geomorphological field of influences it is included in which shape its development. i.e. as with Ackoff's example of the university, which can be seen and studied as a system-in-itself' and also as a relational activity within the broader context of the relational dynamics of the community it is included in, the system-in-itself-with-its-own-llocal-agency GIVES WAY to broader perspective of the relational dynamic it is included in. in fact, if the vantage point of the perspective shifted from the mountaintop to an orbiting space-station, to a distant star, the understanding of the 'local system' continues to 'deepen' in a relationally nesting (fractal) kind of way, changing our understanding that started with a 'local system-in-itself view.

if we start with the foothill perspective of a 'black human' as a 'system-in-itself', we can study his behaviour and come up with a list of attributes that capture his functioning as a 'system-in-itself'. we may find that he has a propensity to be 'schizophrenic'. if we move up to the mountain perspective, we can now see him in the relational context of the suprasystem he is included in which could be 'majority white' or 'majority black'; i.e. we begin to understand HIS behaviour in the context of the epigenetic influences which are inductively actualizing, orchestrating and shaping them.

In the paper; ‘Mental Health and Ethnic Minorities’ by Cochrane and Sashidharan, the authors show that the incidence of schizophrenia in non-native born blacks in the U.K. is 3-5 times higher than native born blacks. As the researchers point out, this effect cannot be due to genetic difference.
.
“From the outset it will be clear that most of the research in this field has followed the conventional epidemiological or medical paradigm by focusing on mental ill health as the dependent variable. It is, therefore, not surprising that there is a lack of empirically grounded research on mental well-being or the psychological resilience and survival of minority groups in this country” — R. Cochrane (University of Birmingham) and S. P. Sashidharan (North Birmingham Mental Health Trust) in ‘Mental Health and Ethnic Minorities’

What these authors are saying is that the standard perspective is the foothill perspective where, when a person becomes ill, his illness is investigated as if he is a 'system-in-himself'. this 'foothill perspective ignores the relational suprasystem he is included in and how epigenetic influence immanent in the relational suprasystem is inductively actualizing his 'emotional distress' termed 'mental illness'.

evidently, our understanding of 'the same thing' is enlarged by enlarging our perspective to include and address influences in the relational suprasystem that the 'system-in-itself' is included in, since the relational suprasystem is the source of epigenetic influences that are not only inductively actualizing, orchestrating and shaping the dynamics of the so-called 'system-in-itself' [e.g. 'the black man'] but are, as seen from the ultimate universe-eye-view, the source of genesis of the black man (and everything else in the self-actualizing universe or 'transforming relational continuum'),

the foothill view of the indigenous aboriginal may show him to be a lazy, depressed, neer-do-well alcoholic who has ten times more likelihood than his white counterpart (as also seen from the foothill perspective) to wind up in jail or commit suicide.

the mountain perspective, meanwhile, which shows the indigenous aboriginal 'system-in-itself' in the context of the relational suprasystem he is included in, leads to a different assessment depending on whether the relational suprasystem is majority indigenous aboriginal or majority white colonizing settler.

einstein's nondualist mountain-foothill perspective metaphor [which compares the relational view of modern physics with the logical object view of mainstream newtonian physics] raises the question as to whether it is 'realistic' to study and understand humans as 'systems-in-themselves'; i.e. as 'logical objects' that are ostensibly animated by 'their own local agency' as in the SCSR real

in fact, western culture is characterized by its confusing of SCSR reality 'for reality'.. that is the basis of Western moral judgement based justice, forensic science, medical science, Darwinist evolutionary theory, and the Western institutions of governance and commerce (capitalism).

the foothill perspective of a European as a system-in-himself is lacking the understanding that comes with the broader mountain perspective that shows him in the context of the relational suprasystem he is included in. if he is situated within an overcrowded European ghetto, or if he is situated within the open hills and prairies of Oklahoma, our measuring of HIS ATTRIBUTES may come out very differently, raising the question of whether there 'really is' such a thing as a 'system-in-itself'. or, in other words, questioning whether Lamarck may not have been correct in his assessment that 'epigeneic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression' so that the genetic expression we are observing and measuring is a 'secondary phenomenon', ... 'schaumkommen' as Schroedinger puts it.

Does the relational suprasystem perspective, from the mountaintop, form the space-station, from the consciousness of the universe predominate in shaping our understanding of 'the local system'? Mach believes so;

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

in other words, SCSR (semantically constructed scientific reality) is PRAGMATIC IDEALIZATION, NOT REALITY.

meanwhile, SCSR is the cultural default basis for establishing the 'objective truth' in contradiction to the Machist revisionism detested by Lenin and detested by those who would put logic into an unnatural primacy over intuition (PEIR), ... physically experienced intuitive reality ... like the intuited reality of the black in the UK whose immersion in social relational tensions gave him a 3-5 times greater likelihood of developing the behavioural syndrome termed 'schizophrenia', which medical science insisted was a problem with him, coming from defectiveness within his local, biological-system-in-itself components and processes [neuro-transmitter deficiencies and all that]..

if the foothill perspective is assumed to deliver 'objective truth' in terms of the assumed existence of 'systems in themselves' with their own 'local agency' that is seen as the local source of 'genetic expression' [a view that is blind to epigenetic influence originating in the relational suprasystem the system-in-itself is included in, ... what then is objective truth? as Nietzsche says;

"to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all..." --'On truth and lie in a beyond-moral sense,'

this sheds light on the 'problem' that @critic has with my citing of Nietzsche's point that rational debate does not lead to 'the objective truth' as enlightenment thinking teaches, it merely bins people into various camps based on their common biases and emotional needs [e.g. the OCD need for crisp and certain logic that closes in with finality on 'the truth' such as the 'truth' of the black-rebel's full and sole causal responsibility for violence that is, in reality, inductively actualized by epigenetic influence immanent in the relational dynamics of the (white majority) relational suprasystem he is situationally included in.

what does the jury do with this situation? it does what it is obliged to do as a truth-seeking body "to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all..."

you can read and trust in @critic's butchery of the mountain-foothill perspective if you wish, a ramble that is like most of @critic's anti-emile rambles, very nicely logically structured,, such as the arguments of intelligent and articulate politicians whose objective is to smother alternative perspectives rather than to open up to them. as Nietzsche said, the difference in perspective is valuable and not to be debated away so that a single perspective remains which is supposedly 'the true perspective'. instead, all perspectives are valuable;

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

one would have to say that this forum, like most Western forums, is not exactly 'beyond good and evil' and that there are purificationist forces in the forum that orient to smoking out and purging perspectives that are deemed 'false'. the most serious of the false perspectives is the 'heresy' of 'nonduality', a 'beyond-good-and-evil heresy' that eschews moral judgement based purificationism.

getting people to buy into a commonly perceived objective 'truth'; i.e. getting them to "lie herd-like, in a style obligatory to all", was the aim of Lenin which was being undermined by 'Machist revisionism'.

Mach's inhabitant-habitat nondualism acknowledges that man is included in a natural relational suprasystem that is 'greater' than the NOTIONAL (SCSR) local man-built systems-in-themselves. This nondualist view undermines the Marxist materialist view which essentially equivalences semantically constructed scientific reality with 'reality' (physical reality of natural phenomena). this 'equivalencing' of SCSR with physical reality puts man [portrayed as an independently-existing biological system-in-himself with his own local agency] into a perceived primacy over nature. the error in this assumption shows up as unanticipated 'externalities' that arise in making the SCSR reality the 'operative reality', ... 'externalities' that impinge on the experienced lives of many that bring on suffering that is neither anticipated nor addressed.within the narrow and constrained perspective of the dualist, logical object based world of SCSR.

One might say that the political control that is gained by having the masses "lie herd-like, in a style obligatory to all" was the motivation in Lenin's attempt to eliminate the mountain perspective of 'Machist revisionism';

"Lenin demonstrated that Mach and other bourgeois philosophers, while proclaiming theirs to be a new philosophy, were palming off the old idealistic rubbish in a new guise. Under the abstruse name of "empiric-criticism", they were resurrecting, in a somewhat refurbished version, the philosophy of Berkeley, the eighteenth-century English bishop and militant opponent of materialism. Lenin proved that the underlying premise of Berkeley's philosophy and of empirio-criticism was one and the same, namely, subjective idealism. This means that the idealist philosophy essentially preached the helplessness and capitulation of man before Nature. Marxist philosophy, on the other hand, proclaimed that science and human knowledge are omnipotent and their development has no limits."

agree with it or not, this comment is to capture the intended understanding of the metaphor of the mountain-and-foothill perspective comparison cited by einstein in 'The Evolution of Physics'. what one may or may not glean from @critic's meandering misinterpretation of my remarks will bear very little resemblance to my intended meaning as expressed in this comment.

Anonymous (not verified)
Get over yourself jackass

No Emile, you aren't the "most serious false perspective". Nobody cares that much, you're just annoying and insult a lot of people so you occasionally experience some push back. Very straightforward stuff.

anonymous
The trouble with 'intuition'

is that it is a loaded word. It has appeared that emile and @critic are speaking a different language when invoke 'intuition' and this has been confirmed by @critic's latest response to the mountain-foothill metaphor when they say "intuitive naturalistic common sense" as if emile means 'common sense' when they say 'intuition.' emile seems to mean 'intuition' the same way as defined in the dictionary: "the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning." This definition strips the word of its historical and cultural baggage but also shows the split in understanding. As long as each clings their own idiosyncratic definition of the term 'intuition', among other things, there will be no fording the river between.

"What do you mean by intuition? We use that word, don't we?...Let us find out what it means.

What do we mean by intuition? Don't introduce what other people say. You use that word intuition. What is an intuitive feeling? Whether it is right or wrong, you have a feeling that it must be so or it must not be so. By intuitive feeling, we mean a feeling that is not rationalized, that is not very logically thought out, a feeling which you ascribe to beyond the mind, which you call a flash from higher consciousness. We are not seeing if there is intuition or not, but we want to find out the truth of it.

First of all, it is very easy to deceive oneself, is it not? I have an intuitive feeling that reincarnation is true. Don't you have it? Not because you have read about it, but you have a feeling about it; your intuition says so, and you grant it. I am only taking that as an example; we are not considering the truth of the matter whether there is or there is not continuity. Now, what is involved in the intuitive feeling? Your hope, your desire, continuity, fear, despair, feeling of emptiness, loneliness, all these are driving you; all these urge you to hold on to the idea of reincarnation. So, your own desire unconsciously projects that intuitive feeling. Without understanding this whole process of desire, you cannot depend on intuition which may be extraordinarily deceptive. In some cases, intuition is deceptive. Don't talk about scientists having intuitive perception of a problem; you are not scientists. We are just ordinary people with our everyday problems. The scientists work impersonally about a mathematical problem; they work at it, work at it, can't see an answer and then let it go. As they work, they suddenly see the answer, and that is their intuition. But we don't tackle our problems that way. We are too intimate with our problems; we are confined, limited by our own desires, and our own desires dictate, consciously or unconsciously, the attitude, the response, the reaction. We use the word intuition in this connection.

Understanding is the whole perception of the problem - which is understanding the desire and the ways it acts. When you understand, you will see there is no entity as the examiner who is looking at the examined problem. This understanding is not intuition. This understanding is the seeing of the process of how the desire works, entirely, not just at the superficial level; it is going completely into the thing, in which every possibility of deception is revealed.

Understanding is an integrated process whereas intuition, as we use it, is departmental. The latter operates occasionally; the rest of the time, we are all stupid. What is the good of having such intuition? One moment, you see things clearly, and for the rest of the time, you are just the old, stupid entity that you were. Understanding is an integrated process, functioning all the time, and that comes into being when we are aware of the total process of desire." -Jiddu Krishnamurit, Mardras, India 1952

That is the problem with the word 'intuition.' It is unfortunate that emile has chosen this word to hang their hat on for explaining a non-dual/relational worldview as the baggage and lack of a shared definition only obfuscates and distracts from the more important and finer points, primarily being the necessity for a reorienting of consciousness towards the pre-symbolic actuality are all inextricably part of.

Anonymous (not verified)
,,,,,,actions one is doing on

,,,,,,actions one is doing on the 'spur of the moment, yet still having to make the reason to surrender to the uncertainty which intuition carries with it. In a way, intuition in fact is a function of the ' instant moment ' and an action performed, simply speaking, it is spontaneity, like the impromptu music performance, unwritten, unthought, like animal sounds devoid of language or premeditation. One could not function in this modern world if one lived completely with intuition, and would most likely get hit by a bus on ones first outing away from the keyboard. To survive, all people must learn empirical reasoning, even with simple tasks like boiling a pot of water, which could never be achieved intuitively. Even making babies could not be performed intuitively by the man, but by the woman it could be entirely intuitive, if she didn't know where babies came from. This is one of the most incredible

Anonymous (not verified)
,,,,,,,natural processes

,,,,,,,natural processes which make rocket science look like leggo. The creation of life within the female body. The complexity of the female physiology and when the instance of life begins inside her is sometimes an unknown occurence, a spontaneious moment, and this would have to be the only real complete intuitive event, because everything else which purports to be intuitive is actually still a choice, even a random choice needed just one tiny moment of cognitive reasoning, whether to go with the flow now, or wait and reason with an idea. I cannot think of one other single action which qualifies as intuition, even emotions need a conscious thought to bring them about. It seems that women are the sole possessors of any truly intuitive capabilities,,,,..

emile
good point, but krishnamurti introduces his own definitiion

there is no meaning in a word-in-itself. krishnamurti gives us his definition of 'intuition' which distinguishes it from his definition of 'understanding'.

meanwhile, it is evident, as you point out, that among the many definitions one may have for 'intuition', those 'understood' by @critic and emile are very different. you say;

emile seems to mean 'intuition' the same way as defined in the dictionary: "the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning."

yes, this comes directly from understanding 'things' as 'relational activities'. this is point made by nitezsche, watts, schroedinger whereby all 'things' are basically relational activity and it is 'errors of grammar' that impute 'being' to them. the convection cell is inflow-outflowing; i.e. a nonduality. to speak of 'influx and outflux as a duality is to impute some sort of local agent with local agency' that is doing the inputting and outputting. without such semantic construction with its 'errors of grammar [Nietzsche], everything is in flux and the relational forms such as 'mannings' |Watts] undergo immediate experience. using semantic constructs and grammar to reduce relational activities [which we see as forms such as human forms] to things-in-themselves forces us to assume that all experience is understood through some sort of 'intelligence' that inhabits the 'form' and is continually sensing, interpreting, deciding, acting. this is 'pragmatic idealization', in my view, but it is 'realism' to assume that understanding relational forms such as humans (organisms) are not semantically constructed realities but are 'real' in the same sense as the 'physical reality of our actual experience'.

i don't buy that, and neither does Emerson, Nietzsche, Mach, Schroedinger. so long as we understand that relations are in an inherent, natural primacy over 'things-in-themselves', we will understand the 'human' as a relational form with "the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.". once that form has a noun-and-verb language to express so as to share his 'immediate understanding', he will make use of the subject 'I' and have it inflect an action verb such as 'think' or 'sense' so as as to impute the 'existence' of a 'thinking being' that is doing the 'thinking'. as in Descartes 'cogito ergo sum', 'I think, therefore I am', of which Nietzsche says;

""Something is thought, therefore there is something that thinks": this is what Descartes' argument amounts to. But this is tantamount to considering our belief in the notion "substance" as an "a priori" truth:—that there must be something "that thinks" when we think, is merely a formulation of a grammatical custom which sets an agent to every action. In short, a metaphysico-logical postulate is already put forward here—and it is not merely an ascertainment of fact.... On Descartes' lines nothing absolutely certain is attained, but only the fact of a very powerful faith.
.
If the proposition be reduced to "Something is thought, therefore there are thoughts," the result is mere tautology; and precisely the one factor which is in question, the "reality of thought," is not touched upon,—so that, in this form, the apparitional character of thought cannot be denied. What Descartes wanted to prove was, that thought not only had apparent reality, but absolute reality." -- Nietzsche, Will to Power 484

to constrain our 'understanding' of man as a 'thinking-machine' is what Western culture does. this leads to putting 'reason' into an unnatural precedence over 'intuition' [immediate experience]. this means that logical arguments are seen as having the power to prevail over intuition in 'rational debate'. meanwhile, the path to understanding does not have to be assumed to be by way of rational debate, discussions can also allude to immediate experience aka 'intuition'; einstein's mountain-foothill metaphor points to the subjectivity of logical perspectives; i.e. does the understanding derived from the foothills perspective 'hold up' without revision when compared with the understanding derived from the mountain perspective. this is where the issue of 'impredicative logic' versus 'predicative logic' comes up; i.e. when we add members to a set, do we have to redefine the members of the set defined prior to this addition? if we define the university and the construction company as members of a set of 'systems-in-themselves', when we seek to understand them from the mountain perspective of the overall relational dynamics of the community they are included in, do we need to 'understand them differently' from our foothill definitions of them as 'systems-in-themselves'? how about when we have three hurricanes in the atlantic and a fourth contemporaneous hurricane appears, do we have to redefine the previously defined trio, since they share inclusion in a common relational space and are developing under one another's simultaneous mutual influence? how about the university and the construction company if we add an electronics manufacturing plant as a third system-in-itself?

my point is that this 'simultaneous mutual influence' which is characteristic of 'field' and 'field' and which is in a natural primacy over matter within a field-matter nonduality [matter is a condensation of field] is, in physical reality, available to us through our immediate experience, and our thoughts and semantic constructions are secondary phenomena which will be unable to capture our raw immediate experience since rational thoughts are built on the back of notional 'things-in-themselves' used as 'logical elements' in our semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR). e.g;

Direct experience or immediate experience generally denotes experience gained through immediate sense perception. Many philosophical systems hold that knowledge or skills gained through direct experience cannot be fully put into words."
.
... Bergson is known for his influential arguments that processes of immediate experience and intuition are more significant than abstract rationalism and science for understanding reality.
He was awarded the 1927 Nobel Prize in Literature "in recognition of his rich and vitalizing ideas and the brilliant skill with which they have been presented". In 1930 France awarded him its highest honour, the Grand-Croix de la Legion d'honneur. Bergson's great popularity created a controversy in France where his views were seen as opposing the secular and scientific attitude adopted by the Republic's officials."-- Wikipedia

Krishnamurti's definition of 'intuition' is HIS definition and everyone is free to 'divide things up' the way he wants. i am not arguing with his definition, just saying that there are many definitions of words that we can make up, that are suited to the 'understanding' we are trying to share and these 'pragmatic idealizations' are the map but not the territory so the question is whether the 'understanding' is arrived at and not whether it came by this combination of words and definitions or another since these semantic constructs are just ladders to 'get one to the understanding'.. as Wittgenstein says, we must transcend the words and definitions to get to the 'understanding' and then discard the words as nonsense [or the usual stupidity in Krishnamurti's terms].

"Understanding is an integrated process whereas intuition, as we use it, is departmental. The latter operates occasionally; the rest of the time, we are all stupid. What is the good of having such intuition? One moment, you see things clearly, and for the rest of the time, you are just the old, stupid entity that you were. Understanding is an integrated process, functioning all the time, and that comes into being when we are aware of the total process of desire." -Jiddu Krishnamurit, Mardras, India 1952

Krishnamurti is using 'intuition' in the same sense as a 'thought' which is what Nietzsche was complaining about, but instead of a rational thought, a kind of illuminating thought about a particular phenomena or a 'particular experience'. this is an assumption about the relationship between the whole ('understanding') and the 'part' ('intuition'). Krishnamurti treats this as a duality since we drop down from an intuition to stupidity and back up from stupidity to intuition.whereas we could understanding the relatioinship as an intuiting-understanding nonduality as if 'understanding' was the real landscape hidden by the fog-bank of stupidity breached only by the exposed peaks of intuitions. 'intuition' and 'understanding' would in this case be like a peak and landscape non-duality.

So, 'intuition' and 'stupidity' don't have to be seen as two separate things whereby we flip back and forth between one and the other. 'intuition' [immediate experience] can be seen as a glimpse of understanding where the fog of rational-stupidity parts so as to expose a glimpse of 'understanding'. the fragment of the hologram contains the 'whole image' but at low resolution. the more fragments of the hologram, the more the resolution of the whole image builds [the more that intuition is put into its natural primacy over reason, the more that the resolution of holistic understanding builds.

to return to the question of impredicative logic [disallowed in mathematics] versus predicative logic [mainstay of mathematical thinking] and einstein's mountain-foothill metaphor, our reason says that if we use the foothill perspective for examining the childsoldier murdering the innocent villagers, and then use the mountain perspective which sees the 'system' in the context of the relational suprasystem it is included in. if we use predicative logic, the meaning of the system does not change by this expanding of our view. if we use impredicative logic, we must redefine the previously defined foothill-perspective viewed systems within this enlarged mountain perspective context . in the enlarged mountain perspective context, we can see how 'it takes a whole community to raise a child-soldier' so the whole meaning-giving analysis changes and the members of the community deemed 'innocent victims' become 'responsibles' together with the child-soldier; i.e. the view becomes a beyond-good-and-evil view where the binary concepts of 'guilty offender' and 'innocent victim' are subsumed as the understanding that relations are in a natural primacy over systems-in-themselves' is restored.

Western culture indoctrinates those raised within it, with a belief in the 'reality' of 'systems-in-themselves', the understanding of which does not change if we re-examine them from the perspective of their inclusion within a relational suprasystem. where they are no longer 'doers of deeds' who are purportedly animated by their own internal local generative agency, but are instead, Emersonian 'transmitters of influence from the vast and universal to the point on which their (nature's) genius can act. Western moral judgement based retributive justice comes from this unchanging foothill perspective of notional 'systems-in-themselves' who are purportedly fully and solely responsible for their own actions and deeds. this is the semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR) treated as if it is 'reality'.

in my own 'immediate feeling experience' there is intuitive understanding of how relational tensions are developing within the matrix of relational associations i am included in that are inductively actualizing, orchestrating and shaping the relational dynamics i am included in [the transforming relational continuum].

there is clearly a 'different' source of understanding here, that departs from the cultural default, however we invent and define words to describe it. i understand how forensic science works. i could do the job of prosecuting attorney and establish the 'guilt' of the 'child soldier' of a criminal offence (murder) as if it were the 'truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth', without a shadow of a doubt.

i know that this foothill perspective mode of understanding views that child-soldier as an independently-existing 'thinking-machine' that is running SCSR protocols who is 'fully and solely responsible' for his own actions and deeds.

i also know that, in the mountain perspective [system seen as development within relational suprasystem], that the doer-deed model dissolves in the relational flow and the child-soldier as a machine-in-itself is instead understood as a relational activity in the transforming relational continuum.

without rushing to invent terms here that refer to different sourcings of understandings, we can see that one source of understanding, the Western cultural standard/default, is SCSR (semantically constructed scientific reality' which assumes that the child-soldier is 'really' an independently-existing system-thing-in-itself).

what is the alternative source of understanding that leads to the aphorism 'it takes a whole community to raise a child-soldier'? is it 'soft-heartedness', 'pity', 'forgiveness'? those sources would only mitigate punishment of the criminal offender and let everyone else off the hook. the alternative source of understanding admits that epigenetic influence inductively actualizes generated expression; i,e. it acknowledges the primacy of 'real' inductive influence in sourcing 'genetic expression'. this means that what we all do; i.e. the relational dynamics we all contribute to, are the source of epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes the relational dynamics of we who are included within them [Mach's principle of inhabitant-habitat nonduality].

my point is that the 'symmetry' of my views does not rest dependently on the word 'intuition' or on any other word or words because this symmetry implies the primacy of relations over things; i.e. 'there is nothing but relational context' . this is the same understanding as comes from modern physics and is in Nietzsche`s tuning in to Boscovich on the non-existence of matter as in field-matter nonduality. in world in which relations are in a natural primacy over things, so it must also be with language that deals with such a world. yet logical analysis and rational thinking has a hard dependency on the existence of things-in-themselves used as `logical elements`in logical propositions.

as we have seen, trust in words is exposed to the fact that anyone/everyone can subjectively apply their own definitions to any word. relational understanding bypasses dependency on words-in-themselves and/or things-in-themselves and makes use of the reality that there is nothing but context.

“The phrase which for some has become a sort of slogan in general so badly understood, of deconstruction (‘there is nothing outside the text’ [il n’y a pas de hors-texte]), means nothing else: there is nothing outside context. ... Once again (and this probably makes a thousand times I have had to repeat this, but when will it finally be heard, and why this resistance?): as I understand it (and I have explained why), the text is not the book. “ --- Derrida

'intuition' is what it needs to be as determined by the relational context that defines it. no-one, not Krishnamurti, not Bergson, not @critic, not emile, is entitled to insist on their own definition of 'intuition'. just as relations are in a natural primacy over things-in-themselves, context is in a natural primacy over text (content).

,

@critic (not verified)
Pwned. N00b

I can't believe Emile actually took that post seriously. I was so obviously just parodying his style.

Also, I swear his posts are getting even longer as his failure becomes more clear.

I'm tired of rebutting his shit so will limit this to:

>logically structured
Hahahahaha... didn't you notice that I completely made up the stuff about all living things having feathers, and tagged it onto some science which says no such thing? Also that several of the key signifiers slip constantly, and the whole thing is like some kind of weird dream-narrative interspersed with semi-relevant theory quotes?

>there is no meaning in a word-in-itself
Therefore @critic cannot be criticised for butchering Emile's words, and Emile is a dualist for objecting to this.

By the way, I want to clarify again that *Emile contradicts himself* on whether PEIR/EZT is larger or smaller than SCSR, as he has both said “everything that can be seen/said in SCSR can be seen from the wider perspective or PEIR” and also “there are things which can be seen/said in SCSR and not in PEIR” (i.e. local agency and things-in-themselves). This time he's back to the former. Last time I called him on this, he denied ever having said the former.

Anonymous writes:
>It has appeared that emile and @critic are speaking a different language when invoke 'intuition'
>"intuitive naturalistic common sense" as if emile means 'common sense' when they say 'intuition.'
>the same way as defined in the dictionary: "the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning."

Yeah, that's because I'm not sure there is really such a thing as “understanding without conscious reasoning”, or at least “understanding without unconscious perceptual bias”, and if there is such a thing, then it needs to be very carefully unpacked from all the millions of cases where people think they've just “intuited” some ridiculous socially-constructed schema or other, because it doesn't rely on a conscious thought-decision (e.g. “slim women are just naturally attractive to men”, “shit stinks”, “people have to work to survive”, etc). Hence the need for logic and empirical reasoning to attempt to unpack the two, and critique the latter. Emile seems to think that everyone has access to a direct intuitive experience of a world in which things-in-themselves do not exist, everything is epigenetically generated and nothing has local agency. I don't know what mental illness he has or how often he does drugs, but I know that most people have no such direct intuitive experience. If Emile has such an experience then his experience is rather unusual. Nothing wrong with that, but acting like everyone else is putting their arbitrary rational judgements ahead of their intuitive experiences is just absurd projection of his own experience onto others.

Random Lurker (not verified)
He really does seen to be

He really does seen to be trapped in wall texting semi-fugue state where you're only kind of barely getting through to him and it only confuses him when you do, then he doubles down on his mantras or whines about persecution. I'm starting to feel like I'm watching you kick somebody in a coma

@critic (not verified)
Yeah, wonder if I should

Yeah, wonder if I should leave him alone for awhile

Anonymous (not verified)
sometimes emile IS heavy.

sometimes emile IS heavy.

emile
@critic declares ‘victory’

after thrashing his own emile-strawman by interpreting content instead of context when emile’s relational message was in the context rather than the content, @critic stands triumphant, with one foot on the torn and distorted body of his emile-strawman, hoisting his right arm and declaring final victory, satisfied that he has established the supremacy of his own content-based views.

sir einzige seems also to acknowledge the supremacy of @critic’s views.

meanwhile, as Nietzsche points out, there is no objective truth and thus no standard or reference to judge whether one person’s perspective is superior to another person’s perspective so that agreement on the superiority of a particular perspective turns out to be nothing more than a banding togetherd of ‘like minds’ on the basis of common bias and/or common emotional need.

the answer to the ambiguity associated with this ‘perspectivism’ is to accept [honour, respect] all perspectives and to bring them into a connective confluence so that relational coherency across and among them, yields a holistic image that transcends any and all particular perspectives born of the unique relational-situational experiencing of the individual. in this ‘learning circle’ approach, the differences in individual experiences are respected and contribute to a ‘holistic’ understanding. in this manner, the purificationist ‘distilling’ of perspectives is avoided, which ends up selecting ‘the most truthful’ perspective on the basis of people banding together and supporting a particular perspective on the basis of their common biases and emotional needs, as in the process called ‘democratic election’.

as Giordano Bruno pointed out, a majority has no monopoly on ‘the truth’ but as our internet culture has shown, the ‘like’ ‘dislike’ voting process can quickly destroy particular ideas or particular people and, in the popular view, ... progressively ‘improve’ the remaining ‘gene-pool’ of ideas or people, winnowing out the chaff and proceeding towards perfection, in the sense of ‘correct thinking’ or ‘correct behaving’. Such purificationist approaches are in basic denial of relational understanding as in; ‘it takes a whole community to raise a child-soldier’.

the child soldier’s direct experience is of situational inclusion within a dysfunctional relational dynamic infused with relational tensions that inductively actualize his actions and deeds. however, the outside Western observer [e.g. @critic] will attribute his actions and deeds to ‘conscious reasoning’ [otherwise Western society would not have moral judgement based retributive justice which holds the individual fully and solely responsible for his actions and deeds]. epigenetic influence associated with relational tensions is ‘directly experienced’ and does not have to undergo thought and language based processing as in sense-interpret-decide-act SCSR protocols.

ingesting-pooping is innate in an infant ‘manning’ and adults use SCRS protocols to convert this to intention-driven doer-deed semantics; “i waited until i got to a toilet and decided to take a poop there”. this description of ‘pooping’ is not local agency, this is just ‘putting the brakes on’ epigenetic influence, in the manner of the sailboater; i.e. the epigenetic sourcing of power and direction is not ‘locally originating’ but is inductively actualizing ‘genetic expression’ that ‘appears’ to be locally originating since relational influence is non-local, non-visible and non-material and what attracts our attention [visual and tactile sensing] is secondary appearances which are local, visible and material.

for example, while the storm and flow are a nonduality wherein epigenetic influence immanent in the flow is inductively actualizing the genetic expression we call ‘storming’, the apparent ‘local agency’ of the storming attracts our awareness to the point that we ignore the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing such ‘genetic expression’. once we have semantically constructed a scientific reality which ‘seals the deal’ and notionally relocates animating agency from the flow into the storm by imputing to the storm its own local agency, the physical real epigenetic sourcing agency ‘goes missing’ and we are left with logical objects which are notionally animated by their own local agency.

a primary point of difference between ‘realists’ and ‘pragmatist idealists’ is whether ‘local agency’ is ‘appearances’ or whether it is ‘real’. the realist affirms its ‘reality’ while the pragmatist idealist affirms the convenience and ‘economy of thought’ of semantic constructions that treat ‘local agency’ as if it were ‘real’. ‘such realism’ is the basis of newtonian physics aka ‘mainstream science’ which depicts the world dynamic in dualist, being-based logical terms.

epigenetic influence is ‘immediate experience’. it is ‘understanding’ that comes immediately and directly, does not ‘negotiate its entry’ and does not wait for thought and language to ‘catch up to it’. meanwhile, @critic seems to view ‘understanding’ in the narrower terms of our post-experiential ‘reflecting on our experience’ that we reflect on after-the-fact of our experience, that we massage and squeeze into semantic constructions; i.e.

“Yeah, that's because I'm not sure there is really such a thing as “understanding without conscious reasoning”, or at least “understanding without unconscious perceptual bias”, and if there is such a thing, then it needs to be very carefully unpacked from all the millions of cases where people think they've just “intuited” some ridiculous socially-constructed schema or other, because it doesn't rely on a conscious thought-decision’”

‘thinking’ is not the source of the ‘intuitions’ as associate with ‘immediate experience’. therefore ‘intuitions’ that ‘come from ‘thinking’ are not the ‘intuitions’ of ‘immediate experience’ that emile and bergson et al are referring to.

@critic’s ‘thinking-machine’ view of a ‘manning’ dualistically splits apart ‘mind’ and ‘body’ and sees the body’s movements as being directed by the mind; i.e. this view of ‘understanding’ is the basis for Western moral judgement driven retributive justice, and, as Bergson pointed out, the institutional structures of Western society. once this view is ‘in place’, it obviates any possibility of ‘understanding’ by way of mind-body nonduality and inhabitant-habitat nonduality.

so, yes @critic has correctly captured emile’s understanding in saying;

“Emile seems to think that everyone has access to a direct intuitive experience of a world in which things-in-themselves do not exist, everything is epigenetically generated and nothing has local agency.”

but @critic’s follow-on sentence seems to suggest that @critic believes he has the power to get inside the experiences of other and ‘check it out’ and thus reject the view that people are capable of immediate, pre-lingual experience;

“I don't know what mental illness he has or how often he does drugs, but I know that most people have no such direct intuitive experience.”

this is a clear case of belief in ‘objective truth’ available to the voyeur observer.

nietzsche would say that that the conjecture of common objective truth is delusion, and that the voyeur observer’s perspective is not delivering ‘objective truth’ but is superimposing his own biases and emotional needs on the object of his observations.

this parallels Derrida’s claim that there is no objective content in a ‘word’ (“the book is not the text”); i.e. there is nothing but relational context so that the items of content such as words or logical objects as simply secondary ‘appearances’ that ‘infer’ the primary reality which is purely relational. In the bootstrap theory of quantum physics, “particles are held together by forces consisting of the exchanges of the particles themselves”. in other words, relations are in a primacy over things.

while it is necessary to mention ‘things’ to express ‘relations’, such ‘things’ are not the primary reality. this is what @critic ‘misses’ in his misinterpretation of Wittgenstein’s;

In ‘Tractatus’, Wittgenstein shows that the problems of meaning in life transcend the limits of language. Claims about self, death and the meaning of life are outside what can be meaningfully said: “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence”.

Wittgenstein says;

“My works consists of two parts: the one presented here plus all that I have ‘not’ written. And it is precisely this second part that is the important one.”

As Engelmann says;

“A whole generation of disciples was able to take Wittgenstein for a positivist because he has something of enormous importance in common with the positivists: he draws the line between what we can speak about and what we must be silent about just as they do. The difference is only that they have nothing to be silent about. Positivism holds – and this is its essence – that what we can speak about is all that matters in life. Whereas Wittgenstein passionately believes that all that really matters in human life is precisely what, in his view, we must be silent about. When he nevertheless takes immense pains to delimiit the unimportant, it is not the coastline of that island which he is bent on surveying with such meticulous scrutiny, but the boundary of the ocean.”

@critic has interpreted Wittgenstein in the ‘positivist sense’ wherein ‘what we can speak about is all that matters in life”.

emile is of the view, as are Wittgenstein and Lao Tzu are, that “all that really matters in human life is what we must be silent about”.

@critic (not verified)
that didn't sound much like silence to me

>emile is of the view, as are Wittgenstein and Lao Tzu are, that “all that really matters in human life is what we must be silent about”.

Says the textwall guy who is never silent. (1500 words this time)

FFS STOP TALKING ABOUT STUFF YOU MUST BE SILENT ABOUT

I'm bored of Emile's troll physics, so I'm gonna have some fun.

> accept [honour, respect] all perspectives and to bring them into a connective confluence

Practice what you fucking preach!

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

>‘it takes a whole community

Do you ever get tired of repeating THE SAME MOTHERFUCKING SLOGANS

“I think that people are surprisingly insensitive to the way in which the world, in certain periods, takes on the forms of the dominant metaphysic. No matter how daft it may seem to us to believe in God and the Devil, this phantom pair become a living reality the moment that a collectivity considers them sufficiently present to inspire the text of their laws. In the same way, the stupid distinction between cause and effect has been able to govern societies in which human behaviour and phenomenae in general were analysed in terms of cause and effect. And in our own time, nobody should underestimate the power of the misbegotten dichotomy between thought and action, theory and practice, real and imaginary… these ideas are forces of organisation. The world of falsehood is a real world, people are killing one another there, and we’d better not forget it. While we spiel and spout ironically about the decay of philosophy, contemporary philosophers watch with knowing smiles from behind the mediocrity of their thought; they know that come what may the world is still a philosophical construction, a huge ideological foozle. We survive in a metaphysical landscape. The abstract and alienating mediation which estranges me from myself is terrifyingly concrete.” (Raoul Vaneigem

>the outside Western observer [e.g. @critic]

The more you pull shit like that, the averse I become to everything you say.

So this is what I have to say
I am sorry but there is no other way.
IF you don't want to listen then okay,
Just leave me the fuck alone and go on your way.
That it is not my fault
Maybe I should lock these feelings away in my personal vault
But I can't so listen to me as  I say
"Fuck you and the horse you rode in on"
And get the hell out of my way
Sure I may be different
But thats not your fault
So don't take time out of your day to call me a freak
Just becasue all you do in your day is critique
You judge me and it makes me sick to my stomach, damn
Because its me, it's who I am
And if you can't get over that, Well too goddman bad
At least I don't dress to follow some stupid fad

>power to get inside the experiences of other and ‘check it out’

I fucking talk to them. I fucking listen to them. I fucking read the shit they post. I'll trust that over Emile's claims to OBJECTIVE TRUTH (“everyone has direct intuitive access to PEIR”) any day.

They told me not to take the Briggs’ Hill path
That used to be the highroad through to Zoar,
For Goody Watkins, hanged in seventeen-four,
Had left a certain monstrous aftermath.
Yet when I disobeyed, and had in view
The vine-hung cottage by the great rock slope,
I could not think of elms or hempen rope,
But wondered why the house still seemed so new.

Stopping a while to watch the fading day,
I heard faint howls, as from a room upstairs,
When through the ivied panes one sunset ray
Struck in, and caught the howler unawares.
I glimpsed—and ran in frenzy from the place,
And from a four-pawed thing with human face.

>@critic has interpreted Wittgenstein in the ‘positivist sense’ wherein ‘what we can speak about is all that matters in life”

@critic thinks that if we cannot speak about something then WE CANNOT POST 1500-WORD TEXT WALLS ABOUT IT. Whether it matters is irrelevant. If we can't speak about it, we can't speak about it.

'At this we were greatly troubled, and we gave no answer. And then his fell voice was lowered, and he would have sweetened it if he could. "As a small token only of your friendship Sauron asks this," he said: "that you should find this thief," such was his word, "and get from him, willing or no, a little ring, the least of rings, that once he stole. It is but a trifle that Sauron fancies, and an earnest of your good will. Find it, and three rings that the Dwarf sires possessed of old shall be returned to you, and the realm of Moria shall be yours for ever. Find only news of the thief, whether he still lives and where, and you shall have great reward and lasting friendship from the Lord. Refuse, and things will not seem so well. Do you refuse?"

> as are Wittgenstein and Lao Tzu

I prefer Shih Tzu to Lao Tzu. According to Shih Tzu, idiots need barking at. You're an idiot. WOOF WOOF

Old Jones' nicknameA man moves to a village in Wales and gets talking to an old man from the village.He asks the old man what his name is, but the old man gets very irate at this point and says:- See that line of houses over there? I built them all, but do they call me Jones the house builder? Do they hell!- See those railway lines over there? I laid them all, but do they call me Jones the engineer? Do they hell!- See those bridges over that river? I built them all, but do they call me Jones the bridge builder? Do they hell!- But, a long long time ago, I fucked ONE sheep..

emile
the limitations of language and the tranvaluation of all values

two people speak ‘the same language’. or so it appears.

one person [@critic] regards the words used as conveying the understanding.

another person [emile] regards the unspoken relations among the words as conveying the understanding.

Wittgenstein describes this situation as follows in ‘Tractatus’;

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands
me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out
through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw
away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world
rightly.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” – Wittgenstein

“The difference is only that they [positivists] have nothing to be silent about. Positivism holds – and this is its essence – that what we can speak about is all that matters in life. Whereas Wittgenstein passionately believes that all that really matters in human life is precisely what, in his view, we must be silent about. When he nevertheless takes immense pains to delimit the unimportant, it is not the coastline of that island which he is bent on surveying with such meticulous scrutiny, but the boundary of the ocean.” Paul Engelmann

This ties to Nietzsche’s ‘transvaluation of all values’.

The person that puts primary value on precise logical propositions and the person that puts primary value on what cannot be expressed by logical propositions and which ‘lies beyond logical propositions’ are not going to ‘connect’ in their ‘communications’ with one another. they will be constantly at odds with one another because the one finds meaning where the other finds none, and the other finds meaning where the former finds none.

the doer-deed view of the world can be expressed in noun-and-verb language; e.g. ‘the child-soldier did the dirty deed’. one person puts primary value/meaning on these positive-causal semantic constructs that imply local agency of a local system-in-itself.

what cannot be put into words is the epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes such ‘generative expression’. another person puts primary value/meaning on this negative-causal immediate experience or ‘epigenetic influence’.

for example, the October 1st las vegas shooting left 58 people dead and 546 injured. the detailed description of this assault is not what matters. what matters is what we are passing over in silence in saying this., as with the accounts of the deeds of the child-soldier.

@critic doesn’t seem to understand what Wittgenstein is saying about ‘what matters’ because, it seems, what matters most to @critic, is logical propositions, the stuff that doesn’t matter in life. i.e. @critic says;

“>emile is of the view, as are Wittgenstein and Lao Tzu are, that “all that really matters in human life is what we must be silent about”.
.
Says the textwall guy who is never silent. (1500 words this time)
.
FFS STOP TALKING ABOUT STUFF YOU MUST BE SILENT ABOUT

@critic may be intending this as a joke, but at the same time it is obfuscation.

what is being obscured is that there is a question here of the limitation of language and the transvaluation of all values. positivist logic is not what matters, how our relations with one another and the common living space are transforming is what matters. understanding of this lies beyond logical propositions. our semantically constructed scientific realities are not what matters, but descriptions of hurricanes and their actions imply, but cannot speak directly to,,the transforming relational continuum they are included in, in speaking of the forms in the flow in positive logical terms [genetic expression] one cannot speak at the same time, of epigenetic influence [that which matters most].

thecollective
come back next thursday -

come back next thursday - you're on cooldown until then

thecollective
let us clarify - at LEAST until thursday

it might take longer for us to get over being irritated by your shit.

@critic (not verified)
you can't say the unsayable

Not sure if thecollective has blocked one or both of us?

But, for some unknown reason, I'm biting again.

>another person [emile] regards the unspoken relations among the words as conveying the understanding.

But the UNSPOKEN relations among the words ARE NOT SPOKEN and CANNOT BE SPOKEN, because they are UNSPOKEN. Therefore they are invisible to everyone except Emile (and anyone who can mind-read Emile), and it's frankly unfair to expect anyone else to pick them up. If you want to be heard then speak through your words.

It doesn't matter in the slightest – from the point of view of conversation – whether meaning or value is THERE or not – it matters whether meaning or value can be BROUGHT INTO THE CONVERSATION from this site.

All Emile is saying here is, “this conversation can't reach the things which really matter, because the things which really matter can't be talked about, can't be brought into the conversation”.

Which is a tenable enough position.

What is NOT tenable and makes Emile infuriatingly self-contradictory and annoying, is firstly that Emile PERSISTS IN TRYING to bring into the conversation things he ADMITS CANNOT BE BROUGHT INTO IT, and secondly, he attacks @critic, and anyone else who disagrees with him, for not “hearing” the things HE ADMITS HE CAN'T SAY (and therefore, others can't hear).

I can't explain the smell of a rose to a person with no sense of smell. The smell of a rose may well be important, meaningful, valuable to me. But no amount of logic or reason can convey it, to someone for whom the sensory referent is not only absent but unimaginable.

The closest I can come to explaining the smell of a rose to a person with no sense of smell, is to use language which draws analogies to things about which we seem to share a language. So I can say: the smell of a rose is like a sweet taste, but appreciated by a different sense. Or I can say: my experience of the smell of a rose is like your experience of touching something soft.

So basically I have two choices. I can accept that the smell of a rose is valuable to me, but cannot be talked about, and that it cannot be a value for this person, because it is beyond their range of possibility. Or I can create *approximate* meaning through analogy – a process which, apart from its imprecision, functions exactly like any other kind of logical, empirical language.

Emile wants neither of these things. He does not want to shut the fuck up. And he does not want to engage with others in a language they can understand. He wants to stand his ground, pointing at what HE thinks he can experience, shouting “LOOK, here here here, ME ME ME”, and spews slogans and phrases which are just names for this experience which others can't see, and when other people say “there's nothing there”, or “what I see there is something other than what you're describing”, the defence-mechanisms kick in, he acts persecuted, he repeats what he just said, he throws around slurs like “dualism” and “colonial”, he whines about how he's talking about something which can't be communicated and other people act like he's trying to communicate.

>what matters most to @critic, is logical propositions, the stuff that doesn’t matter in life

That's a vicious calumny, because my position has always been that *what can be communicated and understood between people* (across difference) are logical propositions and descriptions referring to empirical objects/events, and not that this is *all that matters* in life. And of course, Emile can see nothing of the things I don't speak of, because they cannot be spoken of, or because Emile would not hear them. What Emile does not understand, is that what matters to me may not be something I choose to foreground *in language*, to drone on about endlessly even though it can't be said and no-one's listening. Does Emile know if @critic enjoys drugs or novels or riot porn, if @critic has close friends or lovers or family he cares about, if @critic feels horror at the destruction of nature or the atrocities of the state, what it feels like for @critic to lose a game of chess or to make a work of art? No, because these things can't be expressed in a language Emile recognises, they can only be expressed in logical propositions with implied things-in-themselves and subject-object relations. But isn't it instantly obvious that none of these things *are* logical proposition, and that enjoyment of the practice or the relation or the thing *is not* enjoyment of the logical proposition?

But, yes, logical propositions matter to @critic.

And why not?

Even if *all that mattered* to @critic was logical propositions, how can Emile pass a universal judgement which renders this wrong? How can Emile deny that @critic is epigenetically actualised to value nothing but logical propositions, that this is therefore @critic's place in the big relational scheme of things, and that to criticise it is exactly the kind of punitive-restrictive denial of the relational field which Emile elsewhere denounces?

Anonymous (not verified)
for sure.

Though I agree with the general thrust of your wall, Krishnamurti, over the course of his life, tried to avoid invoking the word 'intuition' for the very reason you sum up with:

no-one, not Krishnamurti, not Bergson, not @critic, not emile, is entitled to insist on their own definition of 'intuition'.

Because the word 'intuition' often has a strongly relatable sensibility to it, people's own idiosyncratic meaning obfuscates the actuality you are trying to expose. Obviously you go on and on explaining precisely what you mean when you use the word 'intuition' and that you do not mean an understanding that comes about through the movement of thought. However, a lot of folks will discard your other words and trust their own sense of what 'intuition' feels like, which typically includes the very things Krishnamurti is talking about when he speaks negatively of intuition. 'Intuition', in the parlance of my experience with folks who use that word, almost always involves desire based on ego-centric thought, not a movement of understanding in the pre-symbolic actuality. Particularly when you use 'PEIR' nomenclature, you are baking this loaded word into a "convenience of thought", so you instead no longer convey the short-hand you wish (although we all know how much you hate short hand anyway). By avoiding words that blow smoke up in front of what one is trying to convey, communication improves. You are accidentally planting illusion when you use such words, despite your labored explanations otherwise. Whenever one's idiosyncratic experience of 'intuition' is sourced by fear or hope or anything symbolic it is not the intuition of which you speak. Obviously you'll continue to use whatever words you want because you are correct, no one owns any definition, and there IS nothing outside of context except for the illusions produced when one discards it.

emile
i see your point about the pitfalls of using the word 'intuition

this point raised by Krishnamurti seems to be part of the struggle with the limitations of language that Wittgenstein has explored.

because 'relations' are in a natural primacy over 'things' [and relational context is in a natural primacy over words', relationality lives in the realm of silence. physically, relational influence [as in 'fields'] is non-local, non-visible and non-material. in language, relational influence [as in consciousness] is non-explicit, non-articulable and non-substantial.

this is where Wittgenstein is coming from with his;

"6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands
me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out
through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw
away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world
rightly.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” – Wittgenstein

that is, in order to share, one must use words in order to develop relational context which is the real message/understanding which is 'beyond the words themselves'. but the reader is free to interpret the words 'literally' as if they are logical element based logical propositions, as @critic tends to interpret them.

this is like sharing nondualist understanding in language that can be interpreted as if it contained a dualism based meaning.

my life experience points to two modes of interpretation for the same collection of words. it could be that the word collective is developed from a dualist (being-based) perspective or from a nondualist (relations-based) perspective. if one party (emile) wants to share understandings in a nondualist reality while another (e.g. @critic) insists that the only legitimate/sense-making discourse, is dualist, communications will be impossible.

from my experience, these alternative levels of communication (dualist and nondualist) crop up in many situations including the following;

1. the 'learning circle'. there can be no 'learning circle' unless the participants "suspend their head-voice and let their 'heart-voice' speak for them". in doing this, one has to hold the talking stick and wait for heartfelt messages to vent through one. it is no good to be coming from a calculating intellect and describing what is wrong with the world 'out there'. the 'learning circle' degenerates into a debating forum if participants invoke their 'head voice'.

[Note: this @news discussion forum is not a 'learning circle' and can't be unless all participants suspend their logical head-voice so as to give vent to their heart voice. it is not possible for an individual who believes that the way to go is the 'learning circle' can 'set the pace'. it is a 'spiritual' ritual and not an intellectual exercise'.]

2. Wittgenstein identifies these same two realms. logical propositions are what matter least and what we cannot explicitly say which can nevertheless halo and transcend the positive-causal logical propositions, in the manner that the global atmosphere halos and transcends the positive-causal logical picture of the storm-cell, and is what 'matters the most'; i.e. the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing the 'genetic expression' is what 'matters the most'.

3. Nietzsche identifies these same two realms. logical propositions capture positive-causal 'doer-deed' actions and events thanks to 'errors in grammar' that give local forms God like powers of 'local creationist agency'. Nietzsche sees the logical-mechanical realm as 'Apollonian' and the situationally induced [epigenetic inductively actualized] realm as 'Dionysian'. This is the same symmetry as in Wittgenstein's two realms. the nondualist realm is purely relational, implicit and inarticulable while the dualist realm is the explicit, articulable realm since it is based on logical objects with fixed identities.

4. David Bohm, in 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' identifies these two realms of 'implicate order' and 'explicate order' in the physical world, wherein the 'implicate order' (relational, and implicit order) is primary and 'explicate order' is secondary 'appearances'.

5. Leo Tolstoy, in 'My Religion' and 'The Kingdom Within', writes about peasant revolts and how these violent explicit acts are morally judged as 'evil' while the 'implicit' acts of landlords who deny peasants access to the essential resources of the lands they (the landllords) have monopolized is 'what matters most' [is an epigenetic inductive influence that is primary while the genetic expression of the peasant revolt is secondary [a symptom rather than a locally sourced pathology-in-itself].

6. Marshall McLuhan in 'Understanding Media', writes about how the logical-mechanical actions of constructing a factory 'matters little', and what 'matters most' is such an intervention into the relational dynamics of community living space, 'transform one's relations with one another and the habitat'. The aphorism 'the medium is the message' conveys the notion that the common living space is a transforming relational continuum and interventions therein can only be in terms of transforming relations in spite of being expressed in language as logical doer-deed actions and their results. The point is that the 'results' of such logical doer-deed actions of factory-building are only what words say they are in 'semantically constructed scientific reality'. in the physical reality of our actual experience, the transforming of the relational continuum that we all share inclusion in, is 'what matters most', the logical reality of factory construction being 'pragmatic idealization'. the 'transforming relation medium is the message'.

7. Eastern thinking in the writings of Nishitani and others, points out that 'fire cannot burn' and 'water cannot 'wash' since it must extend beyond itself [transcend itself], in order to have the doer-deed capability we ascribe to it. The doer-deed action capability is purely logical semantics based.. the gravity field filled valley inductively actualizes that convergence and synthesis of snowmelt and rain runoff which comes into connective confluence in 'the river' and then we attribute 'power' and 'agency' to the river and ignore the primary role of the valley and its epigenetic influence inductively actualizing the 'genetic expression' which we see and are impressed by and call 'the river'.

8. Derrida writes about 'differance' and 'deconstruction' wherein word-meanings are based on differences between word-meanings and we follow this back to get to the bottom of where the meanings start their build, we never get to the bottom, and the trail runs out because the matrix of words is a transforming relational continuum. the matrix of words that show up in the deconstruction looks like a collection of explicit things with explicit meanings, but in the end, the relations between the words are in a natural primacy over the words themselves. this is the same symmetry as in 'bootstrap theory' in quantum mechanics where, as wikipedia puts it;

"Bootstrapping" here refers to 'pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps,' as particles were surmised to be held together by forces consisting of exchanges of the particles themselves." -- Wikipedia

9. Continental Drift vs Ocean Basin Opening tells of two ways on interpreting the same dynamics. the lithosphere and hydrosphere deform as a unity within the overall transforming relational continuum. 'continents' are give 'their own names' as if they are separate things, but this is just 'pragmatic idealization' where boundaries are established around the discrete islands which 'matter less' while these boundaries describe, at the same time, the opening and closing oceans;

"When he [Wittgenstein] nevertheless takes immense pains to delimit the unimportant, it is not the coastline of that island which he is bent on surveying with such meticulous scrutiny, but the boundary of the ocean.” -- Paul Engelmann

In geophysics, it has been argued that relational dynamics of the opening and closing of ocean basins are the primary physical phenomenon while the 'drifting of the continents' or the 'plates' is 'pragmatic idealization'.

10. in the theory of logic, there are two types of logic, 'predicative' and 'impredicative'. here again, the same two symmetries (dualism and non-dualism) show up. suppose we have one biosphere that includes 10,000 organisms, and then we notice that this number has grown to 10,001. do we have to redefine the 10,000 organisms when we define the new 10,001st organism? yes we do if we assume that the biosphere is like a 'field' that includes the organisms in the nondual manner that the atmosphere includes storm-cells [impredicative logic], ...wherein "the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time that the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants'. in logical terms, if we have the organisms A, B, C, D and E, and it so happens that each of those is included in a common field 'F', then the identity of A=F, B=F, C=F, D=F, E=F, such that the identities of A=B=C=D=E; i.e. they are not mutually exclusive things-in-themselves. in predicative logic, the condition must be met that THERE IS NO 'F' SUCH THAT A=F, B=F, C=F, D=F, E=F, so that each of these organisms can be logically viewed as independently-existing things-in-themselves.

modern physics says that field and matter are a nonduality which means that predicative logic and the independence of organisms does not hold.

* * *

My point is that these two possible modes of understanding; 'nondualist' and 'dualist' crop up everywhere; i.e. in science (between newtonian and modern science) and in literature (between literal passage of information and literary passage of relational understanding that transcends logical propositions constituted by explicit logical object-based statements.

so, to close the loop re 'intuition', ... i think it is clear that semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR), captures the 'explicate order' that assumes the 'reality' of independently-existing 'things-in-themselves'. if we employ this as our 'operative reality' as is the standard or norm of current Western society, we are 'realists' [although such 'scientific reality' is synthetic and superficial, being based on the semantic reification of relational forms/activities].

if we regard the 'implicate order' as the reality to employ as 'operative reality', as in the case of indigenous aboriginals and their stateless 'anarchy', then by using noun-and-verb language to try to convey this, we are 'pragmatist idealists'.who are using noun and verb language in a non-literal, nondualist way, as explained by Wittgenstein. one should therefore not 'take the words literally' but understand them in the context that;

"My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly." -- Wittgenstein

finally, since we are using this inherently constraining noun-and-verb language to convey what it cannot directly convey, ... we need some 'shorthand' to complement the term 'semantically constructed scientific reality' (SCSR) which seems to be rather clear enough, except that Western society's default/norm is to employ this as the 'operative reality' which is the source of 'incoherence' [Bohm].

For this 'other shorthand' term as needed to describe the nondualist reality, I have used 'physically experienced intuitive reality (PEIR) and suggested, as is the suggestion of the philosophers i have mentioned above, that this be used as the 'operative reality'.

I am 'not fussy' about what shorthand term is most effective here ...I am simply trying to flesh out these alternatives and their relationship so to as to be able to discuss them with some facility.

I would welcome alternative suggestions in place of PEIR if you, or anyone else may have a suggestion on how to better fill the slot described above; i.e. the experience-based pre-lingual understanding of the physical reality of our actual experience..

anonymous
Enfoldment and others

I love how Bohm uses Laminar Flow as an example of enfoldment, as a tool to understand the implicate and explicate order(s).
--
Eastern thinking in the writings of Nishitani and others, points out that 'fire cannot burn' and 'water cannot 'wash' since it must extend beyond itself [transcend itself], in order to have the doer-deed capability we ascribe to it.

That's interesting. I was unfamiliar with Nishitani. I was always fascinated in physics class with the fact that because of an electron's repellent nature, nothing ever actually touches anything else...that seemed so counter to how I was conditioned to understand my relationship to the world (hint hint young me: there are no thing-in-themselves so there are no things to touch). Nishitani is clearly pointing to the (unreal) paradox that language produces when discussing such subjects.
--
You might find this of interest. I could do with less of the reification-of-localized-energy-as-'soul' bit at the end.
--
I would welcome alternative suggestions in place of PEIR if you, or anyone else may have a suggestion on how to better fill the slot described above; i.e. the experience-based pre-lingual understanding of the physical reality of our actual experience.

If a clear, concise way to communicate this subject matter appears, I will certainly share.

@critic (not verified)
On Practice and Contradiction in Emile Zedong Thought

Emile is a fascist. Spot the similarities:
“relations are in natural primacy over things”
“PEIR is in natural primacy over SCSR”
“intuition is in natural primacy over logic”
“Aryans are in natural primacy over Jews”

Emile wants to gas our thoughts with his hot air!

I called him Hitler! Now we get to beat him up!

What a stupid thing to say? Maybe. Emile's not a fascist – though the language of “primacy” worries me in this regard. But calling him a fascist is no more stupid than the stuff Emile comes out with over and over. Such as this:

>that is, in order to share, one must use words in order to develop relational context which is the real message/understanding which is 'beyond the words themselves'. but the reader is free to interpret the words 'literally'

No. Wittgenstein believes there are things which can be talked about (between any dyad A and B) and things which can't. The things which can be talked about are things about which A and B have a similar prelinguistic “form of life” which allows them to make propositions referring to the same prelinguistic phenomenal objects. Where there is not a similar “form of life” or the experiences are not communicable, language cannot be used. “If a lion could speak, we wouldn't understand it”. Notice that these are epistemological, not ontological claims. They say nothing about whether the sayable or the unsayable experiences are more important.

Using language just to “develop relational context” (e.g. business “networking”) is stupid hugbox herd-morality bullshit.

It is also possible that Emile is talking about the “connotative level”. In which case, Emile needs to read Roland Barthes' “Mythologies” to understand why connotation is neither extra-social nor non-oppressive.

Also this:

>dualist

Every time you call me a dualist, a puppy dies.

Emile is unable to see that there may be MORE THAN TWO possible ontologies (Emile Zedong Thought and EVERYTHING ELSE, grouped under the label “dualism”).

>it could be that the word collective is developed from a dualist (being-based) perspective or from a nondualist (relations-based) perspective

Emile is conveniently unable to explain what it means to use English words – which according to Emile, are arranged in a dualistic, subject-object structure – in a nondualist way. However, it is clear that he believes it is possible for readers to see in words something which is not actually present in the words. Clearly this is not possible.

He also continues to throw these words at me, knowing I will see only the words he says, knowing that the mystical incantations he's hidden out of sight are invisible to my corrupt logical brain. Why does he bother doing this, when he knows this is exactly what I will do?

Please also be aware, Emile, that, whatever it is you think I'm not seeing, might be something I *can't* see. Your insistence that everyone has intuitive experience is nothing more than a gesture of faith. What if you're basically yelling at a blind person to just open their eyes and fucking look and they'll see the colours and shapes? That'd be pretty fucking ableist, right?

>"suspend their head-voice and let their 'heart-voice' speak for them"

I wish “unconscious denialist” was a term.

Emile hasn't the foggiest idea how the unconscious works. People can't just “decide” to speak with their “heart-voice”. Their deepest meanings are hidden under many layers of crap. And by Emile's axioms, people's capacity or incapacity, disposition or indisposition to speak with their “heart voice” is itself epigenetically actualised. It is only possible when certain social relations are already in place. In absence of these enabling conditions, people are FORCED to use SCSR instead.

>it is no good to be coming from a calculating intellect and describing what is wrong with the world 'out there'

This sounds just like typical Facebook ego-massaging and navel gazing. People talking about themselves and their feelings without any real context. Memememememe. As if there isn't enough of that already.

Is there anything wrong with those of us who feel little need for such exercises, who prefer “logical” language about material things beyond the narrow frames of a few human beings and their confabulations about their lives?

I have a guess as to what you're doing, psychoanalytically, Emile. You're fixating on the che vuoi mechanism which exists among “normal” (neurotic, obsessive/hysteric) subjects, focused on believing “I am what the Other desires” or “I desire what the Other desires”. The che vuoi mechanism creates a false appearance of a direct intuitive connection of self to other without an intersubjective gap – a fantasy of the restoration of prelinguistic fusion (as it is imagined retrospectively). Yet in fact, the che vuoi mechanism is simply an illusion arising from the functioning of language for normal/neurotic users. Hence how it ends up in the same sad repetition and impotence.

People like Ludwig, Friedrich and me have found a backdoor into language which doesn't rely on che vuoi because the relationship to objects is primary over the “intersubjective” social world created by the che vuoi relation.

>Derrida 

See? I knew you were pomo.

>I am 'not fussy' about what shorthand term is most effective here

Not the point. You are ignorant of epistemology. There is no directly experienced intuition which is directly available separate from SCSR or other socio-culturally conditioned assumptions. It feels like the attractiveness of slim women to straight men or the stinkiness of shit are prelinguistic intuitions (PEIR), but in fact they are demonstrably socio-culturally conditioned (SCSR). We can't unpack what's PEIR and what's pseudo-PEIR without logic and scientific knowledge – in this case, of intercultural differences.

SirEinzige
seems emile has met his match

I've much appreciated this exchange though I find @s position overall more convincing. Emile may well be the opposite end to the Aristotelian Objectivist fundamentalist Randian. He should consider the obvious possibility of relative(not absolute) locality in phenomena and phenomenon.

I still like him through.

Random Lurker (not verified)
Seems strange to me to

Seems strange to me to conceive of this place as a political arena. What's the point of a contest of rhetoric? What is there to gain?

We're a tiny minority of anarchists, anarco-curious and of course, the people who are only here to grind their axes. You can share and discuss and maybe learn from each other but there's really nothing to "win".

gel-oberon 3
Desiring machines

The social field is invested by desire, the website is a desiring machine and we are connected to it as a machinic assemblage producing our own becoming. The intensity of this becoming varies with the person, some comment vigorously others lightly with corresponding affects. In a complex game there may be no clear winner or loser just varying levels of emotional intensity and transformation for the players. What I get out of it and what emile gets and what @critic gets are subjective experiences of the self and are meaningful only to each his own.

@critic (not verified)
I found an article about Emile!
Anonymous (not verified)
"They said the religious

"They said the religious dogmatist's mind appears to be dominated by empathy..."

You think Emile's mind is dominated by empathy?

Anonymous (not verified)
Beneath that impersonal cold

Beneath that impersonal cold writing style there exists a highly emotional and insecure young man who has never been hugged his whole life. Non-dualism is his cry for help, he is an island on a lonely storm swept sea. He is harmless and never uses abusive language, be gentle with him.

SirEinzige
That's the wrong read on emile

He's a formed career scientist/physicist who had a spiritual awakening it looks like. I don't think he's a young man and he probably has recieved hugs. The world is certainly not the worse because of him.

Anonymous (not verified)
“...island on a lonely storm

“...island on a lonely storm swept sea. ”

the island, sea, and atmospheric transformations we call the appearances of ‘storms’ all share the same space known as earth.

nice try though.

nice attempts at any time someone challenges western dogma there must be something seriously something wrong with the state of their soul (whatever that means), which is a weapon for categorally boxing one into a Self capital S fixed identity (based on brief moments you’ve witnessed out of their WHOLE life), and this fragment alone is proof enough as basis for social exlusion (on one lowly website on the internet.

western logic teaches many things, among them reductivism that in no way gives rise to understanding. it’s a reductivism that instead seeks to shoot the messenger as if that will make the message go away.

more puritanism from the anarchists. wonderful contributions! innovative! speaking of religions and the religious: both forms are alive and well on anarchist news. these forms aren’t radical at all. turns out just as boring as everyone else, to the point there’s not a lot worth reading that isn’t a mirrored continuation of most people’s ideologies and dogmatic hangups.

what’s my diagnosis? fuck you! that’s what. fuck your diagnoses, your boxes, and all other sacred cow illusions you cling to.

(ps, SE is right. this person is older, and has one or more children. so much for your diagnosis! medical errors are one of the leading causes of death now. points for being topical!)

emile hugger (not verified)
Firstly, have you met the man

Firstly, have you met the man in person? So YOUR diagnosis is also conjecture, and also to assume he/she/trans is a male was a sexist assumption we both are guilty of.
emile ----- 2
Critics---- 0
The scientific complexity of his dialogue/monologue, in this age of copy/paste, is no indication of any occupation or marital status or that he has ever been hugged. Newton was a 60 yr old virgin.
emile --- 4
Critics ---0
The defence will rest and thanks thecollective justice congregation for their time.

Anonymous (not verified)
So you can't tell the

So you can't tell the difference between word salad and complexity, huh? Sorry to hear that.

Anonymous (not verified)
I think there's some real

I think there's some real complexity in Emile's thought, it's not just a random arrangement of words, it's extremely repetitive and I suspect that the repetitive terms have some kind of reference-point, even though Emile's refusal of dialogue and empirical/logical reasoning makes it feel circular and empty. Actually there's a small dogmatic core to his worldview (see Red Book post above) which reappears in every post, and most of his discourse takes the form of circling around this core and reapplying it in slightly different language. This is typical of so-called "feminine jouissance" (Lacan) which is also found in mysticism, and is similar to the style of certain critical theorists, particular Zizek. (Of course the *content* of Emile's beliefs is rather different from Zizek's). Where it goes wrong IMO is the attempt to communicate something non-linguistic through language, while also rejecting empiricist and nominative language as a means to do this.

>emotional and insecure young man
>former career scientist/physicist who had a spiritual awakening
>never been hugged
>virgin

I don't know much about him, besides his posts here.

I'm rather uncomfortable with the negative stereotyping and especially the standard image of a low-achieving, socially-excluded and sexually-rejected young or middle-aged man. The image is pretty stigmatising, but actually this is the constituency which a lot of autonomous (and other) social movements come from today, and is a product of particular social conditions. It's a socially harmful stereotype and a handy excuse for not engaging with someone's arguments, though with Emile, the fact that no productive engagement is possible encourages this kind of metacommunicative response.

This said, I think we can hesitantly deduce a few things about Emile from the substance of his discourse. What I've parodied as Emile Zedong Thought is a kind of "idee fixee". His life probably revolves around this idee fixee to the exclusion of everything else. It thus may well serve as a substitute for sexuality, personal enjoyment, and human relations, though the content of his discourse implies that it is more of a supplement. We literally don't know whether there's "another" Emile we're not seeing, who's a loving member of a community, who enjoys communion with nature, or maybe takes far too much LSD - his discourse implies "another" Emile, as there's a lot of gesturing to absent fullness, but it's impossible to tell whether this is experiential or ideal. His tone carries a lot of frustration, passive-aggression and suffering. I believe much of this is being carried in from outside this site, as it seems "surplus" or "excessive" to the discussions at hand. There's a horrible contradiction in his discourse which he can't see, between an extremely rigid and logical mode of presentation backed up by strong binary oppositions and imputations of agency/guilt, and the content of his discourse, which advocates fluidity, responsivity, dialogue, empathy, nondualism, denial of agency, a rejection of punitive and stigmatising discourse, and extreme humility about knowledge. Evidently this is a "touchy nodal point" which sets off all kinds of symptomatic processes when poked at, as I've sadly found. When challenged he becomes extremely defensive and even paranoid, and often goes on the counter-attack, usually alleging mistreatment. His discourse also starts losing its consistency, twisting itself into knots which he then disavows and blames on others' misperceptions. So there's a strong externalising/projection dynamic going on here, where any internal issues are automatically attributed to others. Sometimes this "mistreatment" arises from the literal content of what he says or from his own attacks on others' egos, and so resembles the phenomenon of "crybullying" so common today. In Emile's case, however, I believe these provocations are either unintentional or unconscious. There's also an element of projection, i.e. Emile accuses others of things he does himself (misconstruing opposing positions, clinging rigidly to a particular doctrine, not adapting discourse to context, etc). This suggests that he's perceiving others as manifestations of parts of himself which he disavows and represses. Hence why for instance, the other is always the aggressor (his own disavowed aggression).

His discourse is characterised by a radical rejection of social separation/splitting, which at the same time entails an enactment of a harsh separation/splitting at the level of the utterance. I suspect that (like many people today) he feels a lot of anger derived from frustration and blocked opportunities (frustration-aggression in psychoanalytic parlance), but both represses this anger and is unable to identify its cause (which in neoliberalism is very much obscured, and also double-bound against). He unconsciously connects his repressed anger to SCSR, dualism, and modernity, and wages a kind of deconstructive war on these, in lieu of other outlets - so when he attacks an adversary for alleged dualism, he is actually venting all his life-frustration on the target. I don't know, but I'd speculate that a number of these frustrations involve being scapegoated or cruelly punished, or unfairly held responsible, probably at an early age (possibly a narcissistic or puritanical parent, or unmet special needs in a school environment, or early imprisonment). Others may involve experiences of being invisible to, or silenced by, rigid scientific discourses (possibly psychiatric oppression). Emile may be (unconsciously?) setting himself up to be victimised by doing things he (unconsciously?) knows to be annoying, or even intends to be "disruptive of western reason", and then acting-out an unconscious repetition-compulsion regarding victimisation. The rest of us tend to fall into this trap, thus "proving" in his mind that even anarchists are infected by the punitive, intolerant dynamics of western reason.

In addition to these provocations and accusations, I think there's a reason he's so unpopular: people don't like having other people's pain vomited all over them, especially when they haven't done very much to deserve it. I feel like I'll disagree with him about some technical point of philosophy or science, or suggest that animals have some kind of agency or something, and he'll vomit his anger and pain and frustration all over me, as if I just said he was scum. At the same time playing all these switching games of trying to put the blame on me, twist what I said and so on. I try to be patient because I don't believe he's doing this on purpose, and I'm not sure he can help it, but I also get extremely irritated when he does this to me.

Emile dislikes being seen as an agent - possibly because he dislikes being held responsible and punished. I can definitely sympathise with this. However, I believe the real situation is deeper than this. His accounts of enjoyment and peak-experience in his own life are exclusively passive. I believe he has a structure of enjoyment in which enjoyment while empowered is impossible due to guilt/shame. The only way guilt/shame can be negated is by entering into a position of passivity. This may be a masochistic formation.

Anger is a touchy nodal point. As has been observed, Emile doesn't use outright abusive discourse. But he exudes a lot of passive-aggression, and uses a lot of formulations on the verges of abusive (calling people delusional and brainwashed, comparing people to Trump or colonialism, etc), as well as very disrespectful discursive tactics (such as misconstruing what people have said, assuming bad faith, stereotyping opponents as "dualists", etc). These may or may not be unconsciously designed to produce aggressive responses from others and thus reconfirm the victimisation narrative. Some Freudian accounts suggest that mysticism is a variant of "perversion", which is an effect of the suppression of anger and of interpersonal boundaries in the sense of the separation of selves - the "pervert" fantasises about a perfect, conflict-free union with the other, and thus tends to suppress conflict, paradoxically causing conflict. This seems to be the function of Emile's idealised view of indigenous cosmology.

I don't know whether to take seriously Emile's claim to experience a direct intuitive reality unmediated by language. For normal/neurotic subjects, direct intuition of reality is socio-linguistically mediated, but ideologically misapprehended as extralinguistic. Hence for example, the widespread illusion that particular types of sexual attraction are "natural" and spontaneous. Emile might be doing this. This is suggested by the way he struggles to relativise or question his own presuppositions. On the other hand, psychotics (including autism spectrum, bipolar, schizophrenic, schizoid PD etc) often have direct experiences which fall outside the socio-symbolic order, and are not restricted to what's socially "sayable" in the same way. Emile's SCSR-PEIR binary might be a way of counterposing the "real" psychotic experience of relational reality to the socially-mediated linguistic world in which he's not properly "installed", or which is "foreclosed" for him.

At the level of the statement, he prefers intuitive and connotative communication to logical communication, but his utterances are structurally far closer to the latter than the former. Again this is something he disavows if challenged, and externalises onto the observer. I daresay I also come across as having quite a cold, impersonal style, though the dynamics behind this are rather different (I don't believe the full self can be present in discourse).

I believe his text walls serve mainly a warding-off function. Reaffirming this fortress of dogmas neutralises the pain caused by exposure to discourses he finds threatening. This is rather different from the discourse Emile advocates in principle, which is primarily a social bonding discourse (which it's quite likely that Emile wants passionately to engage in, but only feels able to engage in once the barrier of threatening/triggering discourse is removed - i.e. only among fellow nondualists). I also often write at great length, and I've also used words for warding-off, but I'm more often motivated by seeking to understand, and to either bridge differences, or conceptualise what/where they are. I think the warding-off function and the explorative/meaning-productive function collide very sharply, because the former requires an extremely rigid discourse with little or no empirical referent, whereas the latter requires a fluid but literal/pragmatic/empirical discourse.

>western logic teaches many things, among them reductivism that in no way gives rise to understanding. it’s a reductivism that instead seeks to shoot the messenger as if that will make the message go away

Not sure if Emile under anon ID or just an ally, but I don't buy the victim act either. Anyone who's controversial or annoying can claim that they're being scapegoated and censored because others can't handle the truth of what they're saying (Holocaust deniers, pedos, idpols, MRA's, etc).

These are the bits which relate to Emile:
>dominated by emotion over analytic thinking
>"cling" to certain beliefs in the face of evidence because those views are closely tied to their moral compasses
>Dogmatic individuals hold confidently to their faith even when contradicted by experts because those beliefs have "emotional resonance," researchers said. In contrast, militant atheists struggle to see anything positive about religion because their brains are dominated by analytical thinking, scientists found.
>Emotional resonance helps religious people to feel more certain - the more moral correctness they see in something, the more it affirms their thinking. In contrast, moral concerns make non-religious people feel less certain
>religious individuals may cling to certain beliefs, especially those which seem at odds with analytic reasoning, because those beliefs resonate with their moral sentiments

Emile is extremely hostile to logical, analytical, and scientific reasoning, and his reaction to it is one of moral outrage. Anything which triggers a reaction in him seems to make him more certain. I'm not sure how they operationalise "empathy" (there's at least two types of empathy in neuroscience) but I suspect they're talking about amygdala functioning, which also includes anxiety, fear, guilt, and remorse. I think that Emile manifests both an extreme demand to be empathised with, and a preference for empathetic communication such as learning circles and restorative justice, even though he often seems lacking in empathy himself. His idea of pre-SCSR intuition is basically a belief that direct knowledge is possible through empathy. Emile's stuff is basically feels-over-reals writ large, and ironically similar to what the article specifies in Trump, political Islam and so on, even though Emile has repeatedly likened me to Trump.

Pages

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.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
D
4
i
i
P
Z
C
Enter the code without spaces.