continuing conversation from a reintroduction and some thoughts

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tinksurweek (not verified)
Hey thecollective, can you

Hey thecollective, can you organize a blog for me too? I'd like to take over libcom's forums and you can start just moving all my comments here to over there in the "theory" section. Thanks in advance!

thecollective
emile wall on yoga and anarchism

categories are unique to those cultures that employ noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar architectures.

these linguistic architectures set up the 'double error of grammar' [Nietzsche] that leads to 'the bewitchment of our understanding by language' [Wittgenstein] and the associated relegation of our world view to a 'rational view' based on constructed 'semantic realities' that dumb us down and keep us out of the natural realm of 'direct knowing'.

'categories' such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion etc. do not exist in cultures with relational languages.

'categories' are the product of the Western way of trying to understand the world by breaking it down into 'things-in-themselves'. If you want to understand some activity 'out of context', then you take it 'out of context' by using the device of 'categorizing' it as a 'thing-in-itself'.

people in cultures without the concept of category, who want to understand a 'black person', develop a relationship with them so as to come to understand them by way of 'direct knowing' [participating with them in their 'relational context']. direct knowing discovers whether they like to 'dance with wolves' and otherwise discover how the relational matrix of their cosmic fetalizing is evolving.

The statistical technique of 'categorizing' avoids the complexity of relational context; i.e. in reducing an in-context relational entity to a notional 'thing-in-itself', one gathers together in the mind, multiple exemplars of the pre-supposed 'category' and reduces the set to an inventory of common properties, establishing an 'archetype' with 'thing-in-itself' definition, a 'subject and attribute' definition that Nietzsche calls 'a great stupidity'.

What is lost in the process of 'categorizing'? How about 'epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression?' if the stresses of life induce people to undertake programs of meditation and exercise, then the rising popularity of yoga is the secondary 'genetic expression' that arises from such epigenetic inductive actualizing influence. Western Darwinist thinking mistakenly imputes 'genetic agency' to be the source of 'genetic expression', obscuring the primary source; i.e. 'epigenetic inductive influence' [as in Lamarckism].

as in Nietzsche's 'double error of grammar', we not only capture 'yoga' (or 'anarchism' or whatever) as a notional 'thing-in-itself', we impute to it its own 'genetic agency'. e.g. the epigenetically induced 'storming', thanks to categorization becomes 'the storm' purportedly equipped with its own genetic agency, hence no longer any continuing need to acknowledge the primary sourcing agency, 'epigenetic inductive influence'.

'yoga' and 'anarchism', thanks to errors of grammar, graduate as 'things-in-themselves' notionally equipped with their own genetic agency so that, just as 'the storm 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of storminess', ... 'the 'yoga' 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of yoga' and the 'anarchism' 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of anarchism!

Where is the acknowledgement of the screwed up oppressive space conditioned by control freaks, that gives rise to relational tensions and the need for people to liberate themselves from such oppression? Where is the acknowledgement of the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing what we call 'anarchist activities?' Why do we SEMANTICALLY reduce anarchism to a notional 'thing-in-itself', notionally equipped with its own 'genetic agency'?

isn't this where 'identity politics' game-play originates; i.e. by using categorization to artificially create notional 'things-in-themselves' imputed to have their own genetic agency? In these 'identity politics' games, we semantically separate and 'lift out' inherently RELATIONAL forms in the transforming relational continuum such as 'females', 'males', 'rebels', anarchists, yogis, ... all of which gather within an epigenetic-genetic nondual relational dynamic, ... and recast them as as 'things-in-themselves' notionally equipped with their own internal 'genetic agency' ['CREATOR-agency']. This is the model of man in the Western God image which has been adopted by Western science.

does anyone REALLY believe that a 'woman' can be defined independently of a man, or vice versa?

how could we understand a female without inherent dependency on relations to male and children and land? how could we understand 'blacks' without dependency on relations to 'whites' and animals and land? [i.e. the statistical collection and averaging to get the 'common properties' of the notional 'thing-in-itself' cancels out all the relational meaning].

that is, there is this intellectual tool called 'categorizing' that does the impossible for us. when we line up 1000 women and gather together and average their 'common properties', we come up with the standard 'thing-in-itself' definition of what a woman is. Once we have constructed the statistical common property based archetype for women-things-in-themselves, we can use noun-and-verb constructs to speak of 'what women do'. This reduction of the relational world of epigenetic-genetic nondual relational dynamics to the 'doer-deeds' of notional 'things-in-themselves' is driving us nuts.

Is it not evident that, thanks to this semantic trickery, we are imprisoning ourselves in an artificial semantic narrative, the dynamics of which is in terms of 'things-in-themselves' and 'what these things-in-themselves are doing'?

'yoga' is not a 'thing-in-itself' whose 'spread' is driven by its own genetic agency, and likewise, 'anarchism' is not a 'thing-in-itself' whose 'spread' is driven by its own genetic agency.

Immanent within the conditioned relational dynamics of the habitat we are included in is 'epigenetic influence' that is inductively actualizing genetic expression. the rise and spread in popularity of meditative exercise programs like yoga [and Tai qi and qi gong] is an epigenetically induced genetic expression. It is NOT that yoga etc comes with its own genetic agency, ... just because our language constructs semantic symbology that makes nouns like 'yoga' appear to have their own 'genetic agency'; e.g. 'Katrina is growing larger and stronger', 'yoga is growing larger and stronger', ... 'anarchism is growing larger and stronger'.

there is no such thing as 'genetic expression' on its own. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.

people are not robots. in the relational dynamics we are included in, just as there is storming, there is rebelling and it is only in this here [what we are using as we speak] sort of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar that we do this double error of grammar along with categorizing, ... semantically creating a 'thing-in-itself', 'storm' and/or 'rebel' that we notionally equip with its own 'genetic agency' to depict it as causally responsible for the 'storming' or 'rebelling', and in the process ignore and obfuscate the epigenetic actualizing influence.

But the control freaks administering Western Justice are bound to be happy about and celebrate that because the source of 'rebellion' then becomes 'rebels' rather than the conditioning of the common relational living space contributed by the 'authorities' that renders the common living space 'oppressive' and sets up the epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes the genetic expression that manifests as 'rebellion'. That is, 'rebellion' does not come from the 'genetic agency' of 'rebels', 'rebellion' is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence.

but we can be sure that nothing's going to change in a hurry since most people find such an admission of foolishness impossible to acknowledge since our Western institutions of government, business, justice and organization use it foundationally. even thecollective appears frightened of overt admission of this foolishness appearing on their web pages.

thecollective
emile clone wall on exercising

but we can be sure that nothing's going to change in a hurry since most people find such an admission of foolishness impossible to acknowledge since our Western institutions of government, business, justice and organization use it foundationally. even thecollective appears frightened of overt admission of this foolishness appearing on their web pages.

But the control freaks administering Western Justice are bound to be happy about and celebrate that because the source of 'rebellion' then becomes 'rebels' rather than the conditioning of the common relational living space contributed by the 'authorities' that renders the common living space 'oppressive' and sets up the epigenetic influence that inductively actualizes the genetic expression that manifests as 'rebellion'. That is, 'rebellion' does not come from the 'genetic agency' of 'rebels', 'rebellion' is inductively actualized by epigenetic influence.

categories are unique to those cultures that employ noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar architectures.

people in cultures without the concept of category, who want to understand a 'black person', develop a relationship with them so as to come to understand them by way of 'direct knowing' [participating with them in their 'relational context']. direct knowing discovers whether they like to 'dance with wolves' and otherwise discover how the relational matrix of their cosmic fetalizing is evolving.

Immanent within the conditioned relational dynamics of the habitat we are included in is 'epigenetic influence' that is inductively actualizing genetic expression. the rise and spread in popularity of meditative exercise programs like yoga [and Tai qi and qi gong] is an epigenetically induced genetic expression. It is NOT that yoga etc comes with its own genetic agency, ... just because our language constructs semantic symbology that makes nouns like 'yoga' appear to have their own 'genetic agency'; e.g. 'Katrina is growing larger and stronger', 'yoga is growing larger and stronger', ... 'anarchism is growing larger and stronger'.

'yoga' and 'anarchism', thanks to errors of grammar, graduate as 'things-in-themselves' notionally equipped with their own genetic agency so that, just as 'the storm 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of storminess', ... 'the 'yoga' 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of yoga' and the 'anarchism' 'thing-in-itself' is the source of the spread of anarchism!

there is no such thing as 'genetic expression' on its own. epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression.

as in Nietzsche's 'double error of grammar', we not only capture 'yoga' (or 'anarchism' or whatever) as a notional 'thing-in-itself', we impute to it its own 'genetic agency'. e.g. the epigenetically induced 'storming', thanks to categorization becomes 'the storm' purportedly equipped with its own genetic agency, hence no longer any continuing need to acknowledge the primary sourcing agency, 'epigenetic inductive influence'.

The statistical technique of 'categorizing' avoids the complexity of relational context; i.e. in reducing an in-context relational entity to a notional 'thing-in-itself', one gathers together in the mind, multiple exemplars of the pre-supposed 'category' and reduces the set to an inventory of common properties, establishing an 'archetype' with 'thing-in-itself' definition, a 'subject and attribute' definition that Nietzsche calls 'a great stupidity'.

What is lost in the process of 'categorizing'? How about 'epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing genetic expression?' if the stresses of life induce people to undertake programs of meditation and exercise, then the rising popularity of yoga is the secondary 'genetic expression' that arises from such epigenetic inductive actualizing influence. Western Darwinist thinking mistakenly imputes 'genetic agency' to be the source of 'genetic expression', obscuring the primary source; i.e. 'epigenetic inductive influence' [as in Lamarckism].

Where is the acknowledgement of the screwed up oppressive space conditioned by control freaks, that gives rise to relational tensions and the need for people to liberate themselves from such oppression? Where is the acknowledgement of the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing what we call 'anarchist activities?' Why do we SEMANTICALLY reduce anarchism to a notional 'thing-in-itself', notionally equipped with its own 'genetic agency'?

isn't this where 'identity politics' game-play originates; i.e. by using categorization to artificially create notional 'things-in-themselves' imputed to have their own genetic agency? In these 'identity politics' games, we semantically separate and 'lift out' inherently RELATIONAL forms in the transforming relational continuum such as 'females', 'males', 'rebels', anarchists, yogis, ... all of which gather within an epigenetic-genetic nondual relational dynamic, ... and recast them as as 'things-in-themselves' notionally equipped with their own internal 'genetic agency' ['CREATOR-agency']. This is the model of man in the Western God image which has been adopted by Western science.

does anyone REALLY believe that a 'woman' can be defined independently of a man, or vice versa?

how could we understand a female without inherent dependency on relations to male and children and land? how could we understand 'blacks' without dependency on relations to 'whites' and animals and land? [i.e. the statistical collection and averaging to get the 'common properties' of the notional 'thing-in-itself' cancels out all the relational meaning].

that is, there is this intellectual tool called 'categorizing' that does the impossible for us. when we line up 1000 women and gather together and average their 'common properties', we come up with the standard 'thing-in-itself' definition of what a woman is. Once we have constructed the statistical common property based archetype for women-things-in-themselves, we can use noun-and-verb constructs to speak of 'what women do'. This reduction of the relational world of epigenetic-genetic nondual relational dynamics to the 'doer-deeds' of notional 'things-in-themselves' is driving us nuts.

Is it not evident that, thanks to this semantic trickery, we are imprisoning ourselves in an artificial semantic narrative, the dynamics of which is in terms of 'things-in-themselves' and 'what these things-in-themselves are doing'?

'yoga' is not a 'thing-in-itself' whose 'spread' is driven by its own genetic agency, and likewise, 'anarchism' is not a 'thing-in-itself' whose 'spread' is driven by its own genetic agency.

I am a robot. in the relational dynamics we are included in, just as there is storming, there is rebelling and it is only in this here [what we are using as we speak] sort of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar that we do this double error of grammar along with categorizing, ... semantically creating a 'thing-in-itself', 'storm' and/or 'rebel' that we notionally equip with its own 'genetic agency' to depict it as causally responsible for the 'storming' or 'rebelling', and in the process ignore and obfuscate the epigenetic actualizing influence.

'categories' such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion etc. do not exist in cultures with relational languages.

'categories' are the product of the Western way of trying to understand the world by breaking it down into 'things-in-themselves'. If you want to understand some activity 'out of context', then you take it 'out of context' by using the device of 'categorizing' it as a 'thing-in-itself'.

these linguistic architectures set up the 'double error of grammar' [Nietzsche] that leads to 'the bewitchment of our understanding by language' [Wittgenstein] and the associated relegation of our world view to a 'rational view' based on constructed 'semantic realities' that dumb us down and keep us out of the natural realm of 'direct knowing'.

thecollective
emile wall on cognitive depth

yes, the relational view is one in which the newly emerging forms nest inclusionally within the outgoing forms, as in a storm-cell where outside-inward 'sink' flow 'shows up' as inside-outward 'source' flow, giving the appearance of a 'local thing-in-itself' when it is, in physical reality, a purely relational flow-resonance. This is 'nondual' relational activity that the voyeur observer, using noun-and-verb language, is liable to name-tag as a 'thing-in-itself'.

the grandchild is thus included in the grandfather. this is the way relational/inclusional nesting works. It is implicit in Mach's principle;

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

The relational view brings forth non-dualist concepts of 'nested relational recycling' rather than the abstract 'binary' of 'birth' and 'death' which comes from semantic labelling [it is just the named thing that suddenly 'is' and then just as suddenly 'is not'. The physical world is fluid (it is relational and circulational) and does NOT do binary stuff.

The Darwinist view of grandfather, father/mother, child ignores the relational nature of nature and goes with semantic labels; i.e. it starts with the assumption of 're-production' as if that makes sense even though no two things can be identical and revises this abstract view of one thing 'reproducing itself' as necessary, ... to fit a 'being' based language game.

As we know from the relational activity of fluids, the outside-inward flow [epigenesis] is in a natural primacy over the inside-outward flow [genesis] within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality. As Eva Jablonka observes, "we now know that epigenetics 'leads' and genetics 'follows'. E.g, cells with identical DNA placed in three different environments will quote/unquote "reproduce" into 'bone cells', 'muscle cells' and 'fat cells', respectively. Why call this "reproduction"? Why not call it what it is, "epigenetic inductive actualizing of genetic expression" . 'Genes' are followers that record evolution, they do not have magic, internal, 'genetic agency' that jumpstart authors 'genesis'.

The relational nesting view of indigenous aboriginals "gets it right";

"Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning's hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

The evolutionary lineages of Darwinism, as contrasted with the transforming relational continuum of anti-Darwin Nietzscheism [which agrees with the relational view of modern physics and indigenous aboriginals], is what one has to come up with if one starts off by assuming the 'independent existence of things-in-themselves'. 'Independent things-in-themselves' have to be explainable in a purely inside-outward asserting fashion. Binary logical consistency therefore demands that the 'independent being' is composed of 'independent things' with innate inside-outward-asserting powers aka 'genetic agency' that can explain the self-developing and self-animating of the "independent thing-in-itself".

Nietzsche mocks this one-sided 'doer-deed' model of dynamics and sees evolution, instead, as an endosmosis-exosmosis nondual relational dynamic. This is what goes on in a fluid dynamic, the mathematics of which are suggestive of infinite dimensionality [every point is a centre]. If you want to use the dualist God's-eye view of Newton and Darwin, you imagine that you, the observer, are outside the universe and are watching "it" (the universe) over "time". as the present universe is continually born 'on the right' (where the future meets the present), the older universe recedes into the past 'on the left' (where what used to be the present disappears into the past).

If you track a 'family' using this kind of model, it gives a family-lineage. Of course, minor problem, ... it is impossible to get a view of the universe from outside the universe, but, as it happens, we've got this psychological mind-conditioning tool called 'noun-and-verb language-and-grammar that will make this bullshit appear so 'real' that you may start confusing it for 'reality', ... which of course, is a confusion that never arises to those whose first language is relational and thus has no dependency on the abstract notion of the 'independent being' of 'organisms' or 'genes' or 'cells' or anything else in the physical world [aka the 'transforming relational continuum'].

the 'grandchild' brought up with noun-and-verb language is thus liable to become an obnoxious little bastard who believes himself to be 'the future' of the world and his grandfather, 'water under the bridge' of no persisting consequence (such as child is psychologically conditioned to see river-flow as linear flows that connote straight lines that begin at minus infinity and end at plus infinity). When he goes on a world cruise, he may throw his garbage off the stern and as he watches it 'disappear from view', he assumes it will recede into the past and he will never see it again, or, at least, no-one will be able to associate it with him [as with a whole load of noun-and-verb-conditioned linear thinkers], and while he is bitching about the increasing pollution in the ocean, he is surprised to see his own garbage coming over the horizon towards his bow.

There are no Darwinian 'lineages' in the physical world of our experience, it is all semantic fabrication, like political speeches and fake-news in the post-truth era, ... 'convenient semantics' that deliver 'economy of thought' [Mach] but which in no way capture the physical reality of our actual relational experience.

But you/we are free to embrace it as 'the truth' and include it in our 'being'-and-'logic' based noun-and-verb language narratives which we use to construct 'semantic realities' that, if we make them our 'operative reality', qualify us as members in good standing of Western [words are more believable than experience] civilization.

thecollective
emile wall on protecting the myth

Evidently, my views put me among those considered 'the odd man out' and some people explain such difference in views by constructing a "category" such as;

One of "A bunch of people nobody cares about getting fucked up for being fucked up people."

What the 'majority' don't like is comments/views that erode the 'Identity' that the 'group' cares about. My view, from my life experience and investigation is that 'Identity' as in 'thing-in-itself' is a myth, whether it is 'Anarchist', American', 'Canadian', 'British', 'Afro-American', 'Female', 'Male', 'Caucasian', whatever. It is all an artefact of our 'being'-and-'logic'-based noun-and-verb language.

It is evident that conflict arises between those who erode the myth of Identity and those who deify it. Identity is the basis for attributing [and rewarding or punishing] notional causally determined doer-deed accomplishments. All of this is semantic contrivance but it is taken very seriously by believers in 'Identity'; e.g.

"The Americans were the first to put a man on the moon"

Many people who associate their 'self' with the Identity 'American', ... see the quote/unquote "AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT" of the Apollo moon landings in the sixties as signalling 'the greatness of America and Americans' . There is a crispness in the semantic constructs of noun-and-verb language with respect to Identity-based attribution that is not found in the physical reality of our actual experience.

What about Werner von Braun and the German rocket scientists, that moved from the category 'other' to the category 'self' wrt 'American'? 'America' is more like a 'biome' (analogous to the human organism now being viewed in biology as a micro-biome since its participants making up the 'self' are continually arriving and departing from and to the 'other').

How 'crisp' is the self-other split associated with the fixed identity 'American', given illegal immigrants, migrant workers, greencard holders, foreign exchange programs, international contracts, continuing emigration and immigration, all of which 'blur' the self-other distinction; --- EITHER 'is American' OR 'is not American'. Yet those holding the identity 'American' in awe (the Identity, not the real people such as illegal immigrants, muslims and the like) greatly resent, for example, IWW members who put the relationally identified 'workers-of-the-world' in precedence over the 'American' Identity, ... and also despise as the lowest of the low, dissidents who would burn American flags.

'Anarchists' have Identity deifiers among them, also.

This is where the comparing of thecollective and the police comes in. For many, 'Anarchist' is an identity like 'American' and those that erode that identity are despised by those that 'believe in, and deify Identity'. It is clear from my writing that I see 'thing-in-itself-Identity' as 'delusion', as any relational interpreter of the world must. Burning the American or Anarchist flag could be interpreted as a signal that our own authenticity puts us beyond having to have 'an Identity' that facilitates our rallying together in a herd-like mode of operation.

Herd-like behaviour does not necessarily imply a formal authoritarian structure. bully groups in the street, if unchallenged, can impose compliance with their values [e.g. Identity worship] on the 'at-large' social collective. This is where police, charged with impartial moderating of social protest, can 'look the other way' when self-appointed vigilante street bullies are harassing those who have 'quit the Church of what Hunter S. Thompson calls 'celebrity-worshipping flag-sucking'.

That is, police are the professional supporters of 'celebrity-worshipping flag-sucking', so while pretending to be 'impartial moderators' of social protest, ... there is no question as to who they would like to see 'win' in street conflict between non-professional (vigilante) supporters of 'celebrity worshipping flag-sucking' and those who would undermine the practice of 'celebrity worshipping flag-sucking'. [as in No Gods, No Masters, No Identity-Worship].

Anarchism has its flag and its alleged 'founding celebrities' and while this 'Identity' is not supposed to lead to 'authoritarian structures', there is nevertheless a division between the 'believers in anarchism' as a fixed thing-in-itself Identity that makes a binary distinction between 'self' and 'other' as in the 'being' based logical proposition that one; ... EITHER 'is' OR 'is not' an 'anarchist'.

In a bioregionalist view, there are no 'things-in-themselves' based Identities. If a Cascadian makes a permanent move to Provence, France, he is no longer a Cascadian because his identity is 'relational' rather than 'fixed'; i.e. 'who he is' is tied up with [entangled with] his relationship with the land, but an American that makes a permanent move to Provence will still claim to be an 'American' because he believes in his 'fixed-thing-in-itself' Identity as when people declare 'thing-in-itself' existence of a sovereign state [e.g. the 'United States'] which comes bundled with the 'fixed-things-in-themselves Identity' of the citizens of the sovereign state [e.g. 'Americans'].

If an Anarchist were like the Cascadian [in the sense of having a 'relational' rather than 'fixed' thing-in-itself identity], it would make no sense for him to see himself as a member of a category defined by his local 'common properties'. Instead, one's 'self' would be relationally entangled with 'other' within the transforming relational continuum, as in seeing the organism as a micro-biome, or as in seeing the storm-cell as a relational feature within the atmospheric flow-plenum.

The 'relational' view of an Anarchist goes beyond 'thing-in-itself' definitions of Identity; i.e. it blurs the self-other distinction, subsuming its binarity [duality] within a binarity-transcending self-other nonduality and exposing the fixed 'thing-in-itself' Identity as 'an error of grammar'.

There are no 'things-in-themselves' in nature, nature is a transforming relational continuum wherein everything is depending on everything [as in ecosystemic mutual support]. The long list of 'independently-existing things-in-themselves' in the Darwinian view does not deserve a 'theory of THEIR origin' since this list is relevant only within semantic reality and certainly NOT within the physical reality of our actual experience. THEIR origin derives from noun-and-verb language which allows the observer of relational forms to SEMANTICALLY split forms out of the relational continuum as notional 'independently-existing-things-in-themselves' that we (notionally) endow with 'genetic agency' by way of a 'double error of grammar'.

The ego is the sense of one's 'being' a 'thing-in-itself'. It is born of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar as in "I am an American (or Anarchist or etc.)".

[Note: "der einzige" is properly translated as 'the individual' and in the relational view, an individual draws his authenticity from his unique situational inclusion within a complex web of dynamic relations]. Thing-in-itself Identity exists only in 'Semantic Reality' and is not found in the physical reality of our actual relational experience.

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

an 'individual storm-cell', after we give it a name, 'the Hurricane', is imagined to be a 'thing-in-itself' 'subject' that, by inflecting a verb, is equipped with 'genetic agency' and is seen as the fountainhead of its own development, actions and accomplishments. All of this transpires in 'semantic reality' and none of it within the physical reality of our experience.

but the 'individual storm-cell' could see itself as Emerson sees it, as the nexus of a relational web, a "vent" that "transmits influence from the vast and universal to the point on which its genius can act".

both of these interpretations of 'individual'; (a) the 'doer-of-deeds', and (b) the 'agent of transformation', are in common use in our psycho-semantic mental modeling.

Those who see themselves as 'doers of deeds' imagine the huge deeds they could accomplish if they could band together under a common flag and Identity as a herd with a common 'intention' or 'purpose' [e.g. win competitions/wars].

Those who see themselves as 'agents of transformation' are in touch with their unique situational inclusion within the transforming relational continuum. In this natural understanding of 'Self', situation is in a natural primacy over intention and we do not succumb to allowing a contrived 'reason and purpose-driven' action to hijack the epigenetic inductive actualization of genetic expression [i.e. we do not allow our ego to interpose a notional (noun-and-verb) 'genetic agency' as the source of 'genetic expression' and obfuscate the epigenetic influence we are situationally included in, in the process].

" Central to Taoist teaching is the concept of wu-wei. It is often translated as merely non-action. In fact there are striking philological similarities between 'anarchism' and 'wu-wei'. Just as 'an-archos' in Greek means absence of a ruler, wu-wei means lack of wei, where wei refers to 'artificial, contrived activity that interferes with natural and spontaneous development'.5 From a political point of view, wei refers to the imposition of authority. To do something in accordance with wu-wei is therefore considered natural; it leads to natural and spontaneous order. It has nothing to do with all forms of imposed authority. -- "A History of Anarchism", Peter Marshall

Ok, that is a lot of text. But the complex relational issues we are dealing with require a lot of deconstruction, otherwise their root source lies forever one level below the level in which we are searching for answers.

The 'impartial moderators' and the vigilante street bullies, it seems to me, are infected with a bad case of "celebrity-worshipping, flag-sucking' that has put Anarchism as a 'thing-in-itself' on a pedestal inducing some anarchists to serve as moderators and vigilante protectors of Anarchist Identity.

So, I am left with the question; ... is there 'room' in this Anews forum (i.e. is there sufficient open-mindedness) to 'allow' discussion of 'anarchism' in a nondual sense in which case, it will be impossible to define 'anarchist' in an EITHER 'is' OR 'is not' sense. After the Cascadian has lived in Provence for 20 years, it is nonsensical to go up to him and ask 'Are you still a Cascadian' as if he were a walking-and-talking, fixed identity 'thing-in-itself' rather than a 'relational' entity. In a relational language, it would not even be possible to ask such a question since there are no 'fixed identity' ('being'-) based 'things-in-themselves' in a relational language and grammar.

thecollective
emile wall on will closure

does there need to be 'closure' on this or any issue?

nietzsche complained that imputing 'will' or 'generative force/agency' to a person or thing, while enabling 'closure', was misplaced, as suggested by "cherchez la femme"; i.e. if you see two guys fighting, search for the woman, the invisible female force that 'seduces' (inductively actualizes; as in 'epigenetic influence') genetic expression or 'material dynamics'.

Der Wille zur Macht is such a non-local, non-visible, non-material inductive influence. as nietzsche says, der Wille zur Macht pervades the world (no organic, inorganic division needed), ... and IS the world.

epigenetic inductive influence (female) and genetic agency (male) are a nonduality in this worldview of nietzsche's, which matches the field/matter nonduality (relational) worldview of modern physics.

Nietzsche, like William Blake and Ernst Mach, critiqued the habit, concretized by noun-and-verb language to impute 'generative force' (genetic agency) to the local, visible, form that is manifesting movement or change, hence the 'storming' in the atmosphere, its growth and development and decline, and its movements are attributed to 'the storm' [the 'spook' in the storming] rather that having to 'cherchez la femme' which takes one on a Derridean indefinitely deferred inquiry into the relational continuum in which the storming is an included relational feature.

Instead, many of us want 'closure'. Newton wanted closure so he defined 'force' tautologically, as whatever was needed to match our observations of the 'movements' of local, visible, material forms. If a thing is moving, so the Newtonian argument goes, it is because of a local force within it or applied to it. There it is, closure, nice and neat with no Derridean indefinitely deferred search for deeper understanding necessary. The broken nose transpires because of the 'force' of the driving fist, ... no 'cherchez la femme' required, case closed. the smoking gun will do, the terrorist act thus derives from the terrorist like the storming derives from the invented being, 'the storm' and the 'will' that we impute to it which we can decide is either 'good' or 'evil' depending on what it does for us. What this noun-and-verb closure does is to remove from awareness the epigenetic inductive actualizing of the 'storming' and substituting a 'spook' ("The Storm") whose internal force (ITS OWN genetic agency) is seen as the source of this 'genetic expression' aka 'storming' within the transforming relational flow-plenum.

emile is one of those, like nietzsche, mach, blake, who doesn't buy into this simple closure, ... who doesn't believe that 'closure' is something found in Nature in spite of Newtonian tautologies which bring about 'cased closed' by saying 'the movement of the local material body is the 'result' of the applied force', ... the tautological worldview of forensic science which closes the case by seizing the first smoking gun it can lay its hands; e.g. the 'slaughter in the city' is traced back to the ghetto kid and it stops right there, case closed, ... never continuing on to question the origins of the ghetto (regulated and policed authoritarian capitalist society) and thus deeper roots of the 'storming' that implicate the activities of the people who are sitting in judgement of the 'apparent' evil will driven jumpstart source of the disturbing event (the ghetto kid, the spook we substitute for the person who vents the relational tensions that build within an unbalanced community dynamic).

nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil) didn't buy into this habit of blaming 'internal will' as the genetic agency for action that is 'either good or bad' depending on the value of the results to me [the "selfishness of whoever is doing the judging"].

in nietzsches and/or emile's view, the disturbances seemingly 'caused' by Saddam, Osama bin Ladin, Qaddafy, do not 'jumpstart' from these people; i.e. from their purported 'evil will' that allows us to come to 'case closed' status, but leads back through the webs of continually transforming relations (indefinite deferral) to innate ambiguity (no closure, ever), as if relations prevail over 'things', along the way, implicating those people whose selfish judgement is being imposed on them.

Science and scientific thinking people [science comes from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar which has built in closure (Whorf)] 'become addicting to finding closure in their analysis, ... closure that is purely 'semantic'; i.e. they are like prosecutors and judges and forensic scientists, and believe in the existence of 'will' or 'internal force' that is 'good' or 'evil' [which of these two binary opposites is appropriate is determined by their selfish values and interests of the judges].

The 'indefinite deferral' of the source of genetic agency is anathema to the causal-closure-seeking rational, scientific prosecutor/judge; i.e. "As an accomplished 'forensic scientist', I can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that 'the ghetto kid did it', ... also, ... that Saddam, Osama and Qaddafy are all 'guilty as charged'".

What's that you say; ... "who's responsible for capitalism? ... Why, 'capitalists, of course', ... those guys out there in my God's-eye-view objective reality that I assume are the jumpstart source of a circular process that includes me, as well."

[inventing money as the fluid currency of barter/exchange gives rise to the need for money (epigenetic influence) that inductively actualizes 'genetic expression (so-called 'productive enterprise') which is falsely blamed on the 'will' of the people (who have become pawns trapped in a vicious capitalist circle that has hijacked the natural process of 'mutual aid']

Anyhow, my question for the Anews forum is whether it is sufficiently 'open' to explore the 'no closure' (indefinite deferral) mode of investigation/ understanding and not constrain Anews comments and open inquiry to closure-addicted scientific and rational inquiry and the prosecution and judging that it involves. Why limit the concept of anarchism to that of a 'good guy' in a semantic reality that is based one-sidedly on genetic agency that denies the natural primacy of epigenetic influence within an epigenetic-genetic nonduality that overcomes the binary division into 'good' and 'evil'?

There is a general antagonism, in Western noun-and-verb language using society, towards non-closure-seeking modes of investigation which are not satisfied with 'the ghetto kid did it', ... that latter being closure-seeking analysis that stands or falls with belief in the concept of a local 'internal will' (internal Newtonian force) which nietzsche points out is a bullshit tautology like 'force' in Newtonian science [What made the ghetto kid do it? .. his evil will. ... alles klar, ... case closed, no indefinitely deferred search for an epigenetic source of genetic agency deriving from the all-including transforming relational continuum.

Cultivating relational balance and harmony does not require the identifying, prosecuting, judging and eliminating of those deemed to be the fountainheads of evil will [Newtonian 'management by way of forces'].

Closure seeking inquiry [rational, scientific inquiry] and non-closure seeking inquiry are both viable and operative in our society. must we constrain Anews forums to closure-seeking inquiry only? [indefinite deferral inquiry needs more words than 'the ghetto kid did it' or 'the capitalists did it'].

thecollective
emile wall #39012809

In Western 'dualist' culture, 'strife' is commonly conceived of in binary terms as 'two independently-existing factions that are opposed to one another'.

In Heraclitean (nondual) terms, 'strife' is a 'unity-in-opposition';

"Hodos ano kato (ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω), “the upward-downward path.” are simultaneous opposites, the source of “hidden harmony”. There is a harmony in the bending back (παλίντροπος palintropos) as in the case of the bow and the lyre. – from Heraclitus

In nature, solar irradiance combined with cloud cover patterns or ocean currents etc. can produce 'hot spots' and 'cold spots' and associated 'relational tensions' which, in nature, tend towards restoring of balance. this kind of strife is the source of relational transformation that restores balance and lowers relational tensions that are the source of 'strife', ... as also in avalanches and earthquakes [reconfiguration (transforming of relations) is always in the direction of lowering relational tensions and strife].

Relational communities [e.g. indigenous aboriginal anarchist communities] have the 'nondual' view and regard 'strife' as signalling the need for transforming relations among one another so as to reduce relational tensions and strife [restore balance and harmony].

Dualist communities such as in Western society, opt for moral judging of who is responsible for the conflict and act so as to apprehend, overcome, dominate, punish and eliminate the 'independent trouble-making faction' that is seen as 'causally responsible for the strife' [this is impossible to determine in the nondual view since the strife is 'relative' as in a unity which is pulling against itself as in the bow and the lyre]. Meanwhile, the by-force domination of one faction over another leads to a continuing build of relational tensions, hence a sequence of 'imposed peaceful periods followed by war' as in 'earthquake' and 'avalanche' phenomena, ... relational transformation that is by large, abrupt steps rather than relational transformation that is smooth and fluid.

The difference between the dualist view of strife (based on departure from an abstract notional 'stasis') as in Aristotle and the nondualist view of strife (based on departure from relational balance) as in Heraclitus, confused the Greek philosophers, including Aristotle (a historical confusion that has had major impact on Western thinking);

“Plato clearly distinguished between Heraclitus’ SIMULTANEOUS unity and plurality of the cosmos and Empedocles’ SEPARATE PERIODS of Love and Strife. At the same time, they are mentioned together as both alike in believing in the unity and plurality of the cosmos; and Aristotle’s coupling of the two might conceivably have been motivated by the Platonic comparison, the important distinction between them being overlooked.” – Kirk, Raven et al, The Presocratic Philosophers

In the 'sequential view' of strife, which is dualist, there are two independently-existing opposing factions that alternate between periods of 'war' and periods of 'peace'.

In the 'simultaneous view' of strife, which is nondualist, opposing factions develop as when a balanced flow develops within itself, imbalances, giving rise to 'have' - 'have-not' factions and associated relational tensions that inductively actualize the restoring of balance [epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression (manifest actions associated with restoring of balance)]. .

What happens in a social collective when 'strife' emerges depends upon whether the collective sees 'strife' in 'dualist' or 'nondualist' terms.

In the dualist view of strife, each side sees itself as 'independent' and 'blames' the other as being causally responsible for the strife and thus acts to secure domination and suppression of the other side so as to 'eliminate' the notionally 'one-sided cause' of the strife.

in the nondualist view of strife, each side sees itself as elements within a common interdependent relational matrix ("strands in the ONE web-of-life) wherein domination and suppression of the other makes no sense [domination of the web by one of the strands is like the storm-cell seeking to dominate the flow which engendered it; i.e. it is not a meaningful concept]. The answer is thus to 'shake hands with one's devil brother' [who is looking at you as if YOU are the devil brother]; i.e. to transform relations by eliminating the imbalances that are the source of relational tensions and strife.

The dualist view of strife is an impression that arises in 'independent being-based' Semantic Reality (SR)

The nondualist view of strife comes through experience-based intuition; i.e. from the physical reality of our actual relational experience (RE).

Western society continues to put SR into an unnatural primacy over RE.

thecollective
emile wall #2390-8002

The earth is not the source of its gravity field as newton [for mathematical convenience] dualistically captured it, the gravity field is the author of the earth [as in field/matter nonduality wherein 'as above, so below' applies].

Newton separated ‘field’ and ‘matter’, portraying ‘field’ as a ‘property of matter’ rather than [as modern physics understands it] matter is a property of field, within field-matter nonduality. Newtonian physics thus reduces the basic field/matter nondualism of the universe to a ‘dualism’ wherein ‘field’ and ‘matter’ are seen as two separate things. The same dualism carries over into ‘mind’ and ‘body’ and ‘spiritual’ and ‘physical’ [material].

“As above, so below” refers to the fact that the transformative changes on earth derive from relational influences immanent in the universe. For example, fields of relational influence such as ‘gravity’ and ‘electromagnetic’ fields are ‘everywhere at the same time’ in the universe and are the source of relational tensions in the earth that give rise to aperiodic earthquakes, avalanches, tides, subsidence, etc. wherein the local materially manifest is secondary to nonlocal cosmic relational influence, as is consistent with the field/matter nonduality of general relativity. This same non-duality “was the hallmark of both Mayan cosmology and the profound insights of Vedanta”, which is manifest today in Zapatistan anarchism with its Mayan-inspired belief in inhabitant-habitat nonduality. As John Major Jenkins observes;

“The connection between celestial cycles and cultural ideas on earth defines the highest insight of Mesoamerican religion [e.g. Mayan beliefs], which can best be described with the Hermetic principle “as above, so below.” Sky and earth, subjective and objective realities, are interrelated, two sides of the same coin [nonduality].
.
In a nondual paradigm, the spiritual [field] transcends the physical [material], meaning that it includes the physical [material] in a larger whole. So, in this nondual sense, the spiritual [field] domain is indeed superior to the physical [material]. However, a common trap that reveals a misunderstanding of this principle is to make the spiritual [field] and physical [material] mutually exclusive, two forever-separated poles like apples and oranges that cannot mingle. This was the error of dualism in Cartesian thinking, also evident in much Christian dogma, which always results in the fundamentalist attitude that seeks to annihilate the physical [material], the body, the heathens, the enemy in whatever form it takes.” – John Major Jenkins

Modern attempts to ‘annihilate ISIS’ or ‘the rebelling colonized slaves’ or ‘the dissidents’ comes from reality-distorting ‘dualism’ which fails to see [i.e. which is unwilling to admit] that the material actions of rebellious people are inductively actualized and do not originate within these people but from relational-tensional influences cultivated by colonizers and slave-masters; i.e. as Emerson says in ‘The Method of Nature’; “humans are vents that transmit influences from the vast and universal, to the point on which their genius can act”

One doesn’t get rid of those relational tensional influences by getting rid of the people through whom they are venting. Such simple attempts to “annihilate the physical enemy in the form of ISIS” as if the atrocities coming from such ‘venting’ were jumpstarting fully and solely from the ‘venters’ [What the colonized slave, long abused and humiliated by the colonizing slave-master may do when his threshold of tolerance is exceeded and he ‘goes postal’, may be horrific and demonic, ... but this doesn’t alter the reality that the ‘root source’ of the violence that vents through him, originates ‘upstream’ in the relational tensions cultivated by Euro-American colonization.

Newton’s dualist science tells us that the earth has a field of influence (the earth’s gravity field) that derives from the earth. This suggests that we could ‘remove that field of influence’ by annihilating the earth. Likewise, Western belief in dualist newtonian science has people believe that Saddam [and his regime] have a field of influence that derives from Saddam, and that this ‘field of influence’ can be removed by annihilation of Saddam. Nonduality, on the other hand, suggests that Saddam [and his regime] is a product of the [relational-tensional] field of influence it is included in so that the annihilation of Saddam [or the earth] does not terminate the field of influence, but simply warps or transforms it in an unpredictable way.

thecollective
emile wall #;jkl;owepaiauif

'gravity' is not attributable to matter as in newtonian physics; matter is attributable to gravity.

science that presumes that matter is the source of gravity (force at a distance) is superstition. newton did not believe in it and he pointed out the shortfalls in his 'Principia' (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

the trouble is, many people, like yourself, evidently, have never even heard of, or considered the qualifications that newton, himself, placed on his own 'science';

"“It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” – Newton in a letter to Richard Bentley (Cambridge Lecturer linking the Principia to Theology)

In other words, Newton was right when he openly conceded that the treatment of 'gravity' in his 'science' was WRONG! this doesn't say that the principles are not 'useful', it merely says that the models we build with them come nowhere near matching up with the physical reality of our actual experience.

His newtonian science, the common Western version of science and scientific thinking or 'reason' that continues to prevail in our current era, was born and delivered with an admitted 'birth defect'. this newton realized when he 'hit a brick wall' in trying to move beyond 'two-body solutions' to 'three+ body solutions';

“An exact solution to the problem of three bodies exceeds, if I am not mistaken, the force of any human mind.” – Isaac Newton

what does that do for the evident physical reality and its natural relational complexity wherein everything is influencing everything, demanding an n+ body solution wherein 'n' is as large as the number of nouns we can invent to portray independently-existing 'things-in-themselves'? We know that everything has influence on everything.

“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

newtonian science, rationality, reason, ... transpire inside a noun-and-verb 'semantic reality' (SR) which is nothing like the physical reality of our actual relational experience(RE).

newton realized that the relations among things were in a natural precedence over 'the actions of things' [as measured in an absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame], ... and he pointed this out in his summarizing 'Scholium' in his 'Principia. That is, every system, and the solar system is no exception, is included in a relational suprasystem and the system thus cannot be understood as a system-in-itself as newtonian physics models it; i.e. there is no such thing as a 'solar-system-in-itself', ... that is just 'schaumkommen' ('appearances');

because newton was unable to explain the relational complexity in the world dynamic with his 'mathematical principles', and perhaps because he was proud of his own abilities to explain things, he declared that a full and complete explanation could only come from God. this suggests that 'reason' and 'newtonian science' are not dealing with the 'physically real world of our actual experience', but are dealing only with 'semantically constructed pseudo-reality'; i.e. Newton said;

“… and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained ; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. . . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One.” — Newton, Scholium in the ‘Principia’

So, Newton was not 'right' about gravity, he was 'right' about stating upfront that he was 'wrong' about gravity.

many people employ 'science' without understanding these limitations [the building of twenty-pound theories from ten-pound axioms leads to the engendering of unaddressed and unanticipated 'externalities in operationalizing the theory.

p.s. 'as above, so below' commonly refers to 'nondualism'.

thecollective
emile wall #189012-873

what do you do with a discussion group that is mostly dualist but has a minority of nondualist commenters, when nondualist perspectives are a great irritant to dualists?

would it make any difference if i included an upfront ... 'Warning: Nondualist Content!', ... in the manner of 'the following is a message from the Jehovah's Witnesses' or 'Rastafarians'? In those cases, the comments would be innocuous and passed over as if they had the leader 'Advertising' on them, marking them simply as 'of no interest' to the majority readership.

the problem is not like this. the problem is that dualists do not want nondualists riding on the same bus with them because the nondualist mode of understanding challenges the validity of the dualist mode of understanding.

the Mayan nondualist influence is at the core of the Zapatista movement, and it is impossible to convey nondualist understanding in standard dualist language; e.g. as mentioned in the following quote from "Lento, Pero Avanzo: Indigenous Mayan Influence in Zapatista Speech & Imagery";

“what began as the armed branch of a Castro-Guevarist, vanguardist and strictly hierarchical organization soon found its theories crushed by the indigenous reality and the will of the people they had come to ‘enlighten’ deep in the mountains and jungles of the Mexican southeast”.
.
The change in writing style—from conventional, straight-forward declarations of war to baroque, mysterious prose—is also due to Indigenous influence on the Zapatistas. According to Gossen (1996), “the poetic and opaque language bears the clear mark of contemporary Maya oratorical style…” -- Genovese, Taylor R. 2016. Lento, Pero Avanzo: Indigenous Mayan Influence in Zapatista Speech & Imagery.

noun-and-verb language has to be adapted to the task of conveying nondualist perspectives, in the manner suggested by Derrida; i.e. "there is nothing outside of context", meaning that 'content' is NOT PRIMARY. in the nondualist view, the relational influences among things are the basis of things, not vice versa. the earth is not the source of its own gravity field, as in newtonian physics, the gravity field is the source of the earth.

one has to adapt noun-and-verb language to convey nondualist understanding; i.e. one has to deconstruct 'content' and restore 'relational context'. the items of content called 'the child-soldier' and 'the civilians' in the construct 'the child-soldier slaughtered the citizens', ... have to be subsumed within the relational context which includes them both, as in an interdependent web of relations so that it can be understood that the dynamics of the relational web, that all of the citizens contributed to, was the source of the conflict between 'child-soldiers' and 'citizens'; i.e. what we have is an interdependent matrix of people participating in a relational dynamic [this is the relational context which is 'primary' and it is based on relational dynamics that we impose 'item of content' identities; 'child soldier' and 'citizens'.].

When we start using 'child-soldier' and 'citizens' as subjects and having them inflect verbs, we are concealing the physically real source of dynamics which is the relational context. Putting items of content into an unnatural primacy over relational context gives the 'dualist' view, while redissolving them in the soup of relational context [prior to applying the double error of grammar] restores the 'nondualist' physical reality wherein the determination of causal responsible is impossible and justice is no longer moral judgement based.

dualism uses language in a manner that puts 'items of content' into an unnatural primacy over relational context and is the basis for belief that we can establish 'causal responsibility' [attributed to items of content' which leads in turn to moral judgement based justice.

nondualism does put 'items of content' into primacy over relational context as noun-and-verb language constructs do. therefore the establishment of causal responsibility is impossible and moral judgement of 'items of content' makes no sense.

It is not surprising that dualists, who believe that causal responsibility can be established and attributed to items of content thus enabling moral judgement of same, ... may be irritated by nondualists who do not believe in the existence of items of content [there is nothing outside of relational context] and therefore do not believe that causal responsibility can be established, nor moral judgement imposed.

this is the issue that thecollective could speak to, and decide whether or not there is room for participants in Anews who wish to engage on the basis of the nondualist mode of understanding.

thecollective
emile wall #190099903

The dualist understanding of Euro-American colonizing makes use of 'concensus' to establish a notional 'common objective reality', although the nondualist understanding is that there is no such thing as a 'common objective reality'.

That is, we all have our own unique situational experience because we are uniquely situationally included in one world dynamic [transforming relational continuum], hence the need for 'talking sticks' and 'learning circles' to listen and 'hear' the experiences of every individual in the group/community.

although we live as neighbours in close spacetime proximity, people's experiences can be very different; e.g. the urban ghetto dwellers and the homeless live close by the residents of trump towers who file in and out through them as they come and go on in living lives of privilege and luxury.

the residents of trump towers do not want 'their' situation to change, and thus lock less fortunate others into an unchanging situation since they have a lot of power to manipulate the process of 'consensus', the common Western approach to determining what 'stays as it is' and 'what changes'.

concensus was used and continues to be used by Euro-American colonization to outlaw and purge society of nondualist indigenous aboriginal culture.

members of dualist settler society 'vote' on issues that will effect everyone, dualists and nondualists, authoritarians and anarchists alike. in any Western social collective and/or discussion group, there is an automatic assumption that 'concensus' is a good way to come to a 'common view' on issues and to coordinate a common response.

why concensus?

concensus has been the source of cultural genocide of colonized indigenous peoples and the homogenization of natural diversity as has occurred and is still occurring through globally dominant, white Euro-American supremacism.

when the black man tries to use the toilet reserved for whites; i.e. when he does something counter to the entrenched cultural tradition of a group, the commotion that ensues does not come from the black man but from the crowd of whites whose noses are bent out of shape because their consensus-validated traditions are being violated.

the same for those who 'break tacit tradition' within Anarchistnews, inciting (without intention, as with the black man trying to use the reserved-for-whites toilet) irritation and anger among the 'traditionalists', who feel that their tradition is being violated and automatically appeal to 'concensus' to purge the group of non-traditional contributions.

my note, in this case, was a simple suggestion to overtly acknowledge the source of the irritation incited by my comments; i.e. that there seems to be a problem worth investigating/discussing re contributing non-dualist comments within a largely dualist group of participants. the resulting kerfuffles tend to be causally attributed to 'emile' et al just as the kerfuffle incited by the black man trying to use the reserved-for-whites facilities will be blamed on the black man [there is no problem with his action at all, ... the problem arises within the observers who feel that their tradition has been violated, so it is not as if 'he is causing a disturbance'].

concensus underwrites the correctness of the view as to who is causally responsible for a disturbance.

whenever there is a massive 'police presence' and 'riots' are 'triggered' by anarchist behaviours that violate the dominant social-cultural tradition', it is 'concensus' that establishes that the anarchists are causally responsible for the riots.

the skier that triggers an avalanche exposes the physical reality that relational tensions can build up that can unleash a response that is far greater than the the 'trigger event'. to say that 'the trigger event' is causally responsible for the avalanche, as consensus is wont to do, is to deny the natural primacy of relational context over content.

major disturbances can be triggered in a social collective by small trigger events, after which, consensus will 'determine' that the 'triggerer' is 'causally responsible for the disturbance.

'concensus' simply taps into common emotions and has no interest in understanding what is really going on [e.g. the consensus election of Trump].

my comment suggesting that we overtly discuss and try to understand what is going on in regard to the negative reaction to nondualist comments, has evidently triggered a strong negative response.

social consensus brings its usual finding that the triggerer is causally responsible for the large negative response, consensus will blame the black man trying to use the reserved-for-whites toilet for the disturbance constituted by angry whites; ... the anarchist throwing a brick through a bank window will be blamed for unleashing massive squads of riot police, ... and in the same vein, those making comments in Anews that trigger a 'concensus' of indignant negative responses will be blamed for the 'disturbance' they 'are causing'.

there is no 'causal relation' here, there is only the 'triggering' of an emotion excited by the feeling of having one's traditions/expectations violated, ... traditions born of a tacit 'concensus' as to 'the correct way' (dualism) of understanding and behaving.

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?
2
t
s
G
d
E
y
Enter the code without spaces.