The Left’s Self-Destructive Obsession with Shame

  • Posted on: 22 July 2015
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

From Films for Action

This is a must read for all anarchists. Consider this as we undergo a culture shift toward what I would describe as leftist, academic-based identity politics adopted into anarchist ideologies. As a multiracial woman (a new perquisite of having any opinion at all is stating your background so here you go! judge away) I've found this type of shame culture to permeate the anarchist scene when it comes to general anti-oppression practice and awareness especially at national events and the use of call-out culture. The anarchist scene now strives to essentialize conflicts as much as possible rather than aid in communication between parties. We treat each other like we treat our enemies by using public shame tactics. Doing so is rewarded and those that call out the most loudly are given social clout and power in organizing spaces. I find this trajectory extremely troubling and a practice that fosters isolation and a cycle of emotional manipulation/abuse.

"The Left’s Self-Destructive Obsession with Shame
By RobtheIdealist

Perhaps the most redeeming aspect of my father’s ministry was his tireless work to help people heal from guilt and shame. I saw the transformative impact that his efforts had on people’s lives as they built the strength to lay down years of resentment and bitterness, and learned to truly forgive themselves and others.

To my dismay, I’ve found myself in the midst of a social justice world that not only encourages shame, but uses it as a weapon. Shame is so often at the root of personal dysfunction, and here we have a left dedicated to its perpetual transference. Shame is ultimately self-destructive, and in no way can such a sentiment be a foundation for healthy community.

We confuse shaming for justice, and I’ve had enough.
What Is Shame?

Gershen Kaufman, a clinical psychologist and author of The Psychology of Shame , defines shame as “the affect that is the source of inferiority… To feel shame is to feel inherently bad, fundamentally flawed as a person.” Robert Stolorow, another professor and author, expands on this definition by pointing out that shame occurs “before the gaze of a viewing, judging other. (Sometimes, we, ourselves, can be our viewing other.)” Additionally, shame has a number of layers and often operates in combination with other emotions. According to psychiatrist and author Donald Nathanson, after shame is triggered, a person typically responds in four ways: withdrawal, attack self, avoidance, and attack others.
The Shame Cycle by Thomas Scheff

The Shame Cycle by Thomas Scheff

Alon Blum, writing for the psychological journal Traumatology, finds that shame can express itself in feelings of “helplessness, incompetence, inferiority, and powerlessness and generates a desire to escape or avoid contact with others as well as conceal deficiencies.” What makes shame so debilitating is that it so often goes unacknowledged. Shame involves feelings of worthlessness, which is very difficult for people to admit; thus, according to Thomas Scheff, “we tend to hide shame, then, because its presence creates more shame” — resulting in a shame-rage spiral.

Shame has accompanying emotions, the most important of which is anger. Because of shame, we become angry at our self for getting us into the situation, or we might feel anger at the situation, or we might be angry with the other person for instigating or pointing out the issue that brought us shame in the first place. But shame doesn’t stop with anger: anger destroys social bonds, even the social bond with our self, and so we feel further shame. We tend to hide shame, then, because its presence creates more shame. Thomas Scheff, When Shame Gets Out of Hand

While some theorists and practitioners argue that shame is necessary for social awareness and moral development, Stolorow argues that shame has no positive relationship to human growth — saying “I don’t think that shame, which fosters only compliance and pathological accommodation, has any positive developmental implications at all“. Though theorists like Stolorow find a theoretical difference between guilt and shame by arguing that shame condemns the whole person while guilt targets specific behaviors, Blum reminds us that “guilt and shame often occur together” and it is virtually impossible to truly separate the two in practice.

In a Huffpost Live segment from fall 2012, a number of theorists pushed back against the use of shaming punishments in the criminal justice system — reminding us that shame does not lead to rehabilitation, is easily transferred to those around the individual, and often leads to unintended consequences.
Shame and Oppression

One of oppression’s principal effects is shame. Oppressive power systems confer a status of inferiority onto select groups, which is then internalized and taken for granted — thus strengthening the dominant group’s stranglehold on power. Carter G. Woodson described this dynamic in his book, The Miseducation of the Negro.

If you make a man feel that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an inferior status, for he will seek it himself. If you make a man think that he is justly an outcast, you do not have to order him to the back door. He will go without being told; and if there is no back door, his very nature will demand one. Carter G. Woodson, The Miseducation of the Negro.

In the past, many social movements dedicated much of their energy to confronting shame. Black consciousness, an effort the reverse the psychological impacts of internalized racial inferiority, was a popular anti-shame philosophy embraced by activists like Steve Biko.

Any changes which are to come can only come as a result of a program worked out by black people. And for black people to be able to work out a program they need to defeat the one main element in politics which was working against them and this was a psychological feeling of inferiority, which was deliberately cultivated by the system. Steve Biko, 1977 Interview

Shame & The Left: Call Out Culture as Unacknowledged Shame

Activists like Steven Biko attempted to acknowledge the shame inherent in living under oppressive power structures. By acknowledging these feelings, they hoped to overcome them and have the ability to build a dynamic political movement. It is the unacknowledged/bypassed shame that is most destructive and leads to the shame-rage spiral (attacking others) so for communities committed to justice, acknowledging the impact of shame is a crucial step towards liberation.

Unfortunately, in the modern left we don’t combat shame, we worship it. Perhaps the most obvious expression of the Left’s present obsession with shame and shaming can be seen in what has been dubbed “call out culture”. The “call out” is a form of shaming — which intentionally labels an individual as fundamentally bad — and is a deeply toxic tendency in the Left. Flavia Dzodan, writing for Tiger Beatdown, describes this dynamic.

[Call out culture] works more or less like this: I say something ignorant… Unbeknown to me, there are now ten posts in ten different blogs and social media platforms calling me a “BIGOT AND THE WORST PERSON EVER”. Each time, every one of these posts escalating in rhetoric and volume. Each new post trying to outperform the previous one in outrage, in anger, in righteousness… The intent behind it, more often than not, is just to make the one initiating the call out feel good, more righteous, more indignant, a “better person”. Flavia Dzodan, Come one, come all! Feminist and Social Justice Blogging as Performance and Bloodshed

At a personal level, perfectionism is understood as being a product of unacknowledged shame — and the same is true for puritanism in group settings. The call out performance reeks of puritanism, and thus shame. Recall that after shame is triggered, a person typically responds in four ways: withdrawal, attack self, avoidance, and attack others. The “call out” is an example of attacking others in response to unacknowledged shame, which then triggers shame in the target as well.

Though Dzodan focuses on the use of shaming online, these call out performances are not limited to the internet. Facing Reality Collective describes how this form of shaming occurs within real world organizing settings, ultimately leading to a self-destructive spiral.

At leftist events and protests, POC militants sometimes establish status and legitimacy by wailing on the white kids who say ignorant crap, some of it severe, but most of it relatively banal. They posture about how much they hate white people and decry how many are in the room, but fail to develop strategies for organizing in proletarian communities of color, fail to build revolutionary organizations, and fail to develop bonds with working class militants of color in a manner that is any more effective than the white leftists.

At the same time, multiracial organizing projects also often foster a reciprocal process of white guilt and POC resentment. Whether in separate groups or multiracial ones, the white left and the POC left are locked in an unhealthy relationship.This can turn sadomasochistic: white leftists joyfully submit to scoldings from POC militants, in order to feel legitimated by them. At the same time, POC leftists seek individual satisfaction by wailing on white people. The compulsion of POC and white militants to wail and be wailed upon, and thereby somehow purify themselves of internal racism, limits their ability to fundamentally challenge the capitalist system. Facing Reality Collective, Towards a Revolutionary Left: A Critique and a Proposal

The sadomasochistic downward spiral that the Facing Reality Collective describes is an expression of both attacking others (the POC) and attacking the self (White guilt) in response to shame. This trend is present in Flavia Dzodan’s characterization of call out culture as well, and both situations are also similar to Retzinger & Scheff’s observations of unacknowledged shame in restorative justice conferences.

Retzinger & Scheff find that after a victim is attacked/violated, they inevitably experience feelings of shame (helplessness, impotence, betrayal, etc.). Neither the victim nor the community around them is likely to acknowledge this initial shame, and so it is instead expressed more visibly as anger. This anger then triggers shame in the offender, who then responds negatively and is unlikely to actually change the behavior. In both Retzinger & Scheff’s study and the Facing Reality Collective’s observations, the shame and anger are traded back and forth with no end in sight.
Shame & The Left: Shaming as a Distraction

Shaming is such an integral part of the Left’s DNA that it’s our default response to almost any situation. Take police brutality for example. I’ve been to leftist events where the police have started beating one of us, and the crowd suddenly breaks out their cell phones and starts chanting “Shame, Shame, Shame” or “The Whole World is Watching” — statements designed to trigger shame.

We shame the police officer — making the beating an issue of the cop’s moral character — which relieves us of having to develop political and practical solutions to police brutality. Shaming individuals as a substitute for concerted political effort and substantive analysis cannot yield dynamic movements capable of remedying the material effects of oppression.


Shaming does not just occur in cases of direct conflict. Jamilah Lemieux, an editor at, created the “Black Power is for Black Men” twitter campaign. The campaign was a space for people (mainly Black women) to critique gaps in our understanding of gendered racism, a laudable goal. However, when attempting to discuss the politics of interracial dating, Lemieux’s campaign became an exercise in shaming.

She tweeted “Black Power is for Black men because you can be the most righteous Black man ever and not have a single sister in your dating history. Not one.” — the underlying assumption being that sexual relationships with Black women was a prerequisite for political legitimacy (set aside the heterosexism for a moment). First, dating Black women is not necessarily indicative of the person’s political validity — rabid racists Strom Thurmond, Paul Ryan, and Allen West have all had relationships with Black women. Second, if she’s trying to claim that Black men are not stigmatized for dating non-Black women (and so her tweet seeks to even the odds), there are plenty of examples showing that claim is certainly not true.

Instead of opening up space to have a serious discussion about whether interracial dating, by default, perpetuates Black female inferiority, tweets like Lemieux’s antagonize the legitimacy and character of Black men. Black women are marked as inferior throughout society, both by the forces of structural oppression and the attitudes and actions of individuals, but interracial dating is hardly a significant contributor to this reality.

Misleading statistics about Black female marriage rates — designed to induce feelings of Black female inferiority — appear frequently in media outlets and are just one example of how shame is targeted at Black women. However, according to Prof. Ivory Toldson’s article, New Research Shatters Myths and Provides New Hope for Black Love and Marriage, “Eighty-eight percent of all married black men are married to black women, a figure that changes less than five percentage points with more education and income.”

Shaming Black men for their dating choices (real or imagined) allows us to sidestep the more difficult struggle to identify and remedy the forces and behaviors that actually create and perpetuate Black female inferiority. Furthermore, it’s a needless attack that seeks to bypass the feelings of shame that are inevitably caused by the systemic subjugation of Black women, and attempts to transfer that shame onto others (in this case Black men) — a manifestation of the shame-rage tendency. In the cases where Black men perceive Black women as inferior and undesirable, shaming these men does not open up the space for acknowledging and overcoming their shame — and is instead likely to result in a shame-rage spiral.
How Can We Acknowledge & Discharge Shame?

Creating a political climate based on shame is an impediment to justice. Shaming is about control, not justice. The shame-rage spiral is an unsustainable burden that ensures that we are unable to mount substantive challenges to oppression. Unacknowledged feelings of shame will destroy us as individuals and as movements. Honestly, I don’t have a strong idea for how we can overcome the shame dynamic in our political spaces. Thus far, Ngọc Loan Trần’s concept “calling in” offers the most hope.

The first part of calling each other in is allowing mistakes to happen. Mistakes in communities seeking justice and freedom may not hurt any less but they also have possibility for transforming the ways we build with each other for a new, better world. We have got to believe that we can transform… I start “call in” conversations by identifying the behavior and defining why I am choosing to engage with them. I prioritize my values and invite them to think about theirs and where we share them. And then… we talk about it together, like people who genuinely care about each other. We offer patience and compassion to each other and also keep it real, ending the conversation when we need to and know that it wasn’t a loss to give it a try. Because when I see problematic behavior from someone who is connected to me, who is committed to some of the things I am, I want to believe that it’s possible for us to move through and beyond whatever mistake was committed. Ngọc Loan Trần, Calling IN: A Less Disposable Way of Holding Each Other Accountable

By focusing on relationships, specific behaviors, and a real value for one another, Ngọc Loan Trần, offers a way to go about setting and maintaining boundaries that does not rely on shame. What other ways can we create accountability, tactics, and critiques without resorting to shaming? Additionally, shame is also an internalized effect of oppression, what are ways that we can begin to collectively and personally acknowledge it before conflict arises?"



Its basically a moral tendency taken up after the Enlightenment by Western X-tian society.

Eh, I know a lot of people from Muslim backgrounds that are also involved in these movements. I'd agree that Western secularists tend to go this direction, as they don't have religion, they have to use Fanon as their god to damn the infidels.

Maybe the secularists are subsumed by the dominant cultural ethos, the endless repetitive uniformity of emotional custom and ritual must rub off, or else they act out the required method of dialogue and drama to be accepted, a little bit of pathos can be entertaining sometimes. The bourgeois and upper-classes of Western society have become incredibly self-absorbed and narcissistic, at least the good ol' proles tend to still embrace some unselfish and down to earth values in their inter-relationships.

Should be bourgeoisie as the noun describing the class, not the adjective bourgeois.

Where are you dude? My emails out this is the only way i can get to you! I went around to the squat today and Avakian is looking despondent and miserable, he didn't rush up wag tailing and trying to have intercourse with my knee, he just lay despondent on the ground with a forlorn expression of doom upon his snout. I suspect he has worms. What should I do?

WTF this isn't a SMS facility! I'm going LAST FUCKING MESSAGE! You'll need 2 people, 1 to hold Avakians body, the other to prize his jaws open by squeezing the corners of his mouth until it opens, then you place the 1 cm ball of tobacco* at the back of the throat and then close his mouth and put a muzzle grip on him until the reflex swallowing process makes him ingest the tobacco. Rather than paying 20 dollars for worming treatments you can do a treatment for a dollar. WTF get of here Le Way!!

Isn't tobacco poison?! I remember reading that somewhere, as in "don't ingest it".

Someone fed a hippo one of those big Cuban cigars and it died from heart attack. Its about dosage, but yes, it is a toxic poison which makes heroin look like an aspirin. Just makes you think about what's legal and what's not, like the state want us all to die from alcohol and tobacco related illnesses after we've slaved for them, paid taxes, and poisoned ourselves to eliminate old person care structures. But anyway, the 20 dollar tablet the pharmaceutical companies provide for human or animal deworming is pretty toxic also. Organically you can just eat 6 cloves of minced garlic and that will do the trick, but don't expect any kisses from your loved ones for a day or two.

Scroll to bottom for relevant conversation on mental health, political opportunism and cointelpro.

BTW, Avakian is back to his old self, he went hyperactive after I gave him the 1 cm ball, like a cigarette mushed and rolled into a ball, I used talcum powder to cement it together with a few drops of water. Jeez, this is sounding like a permaculture living forum, bye.

Most interesting comment thread here in years

It breaks my heart when I see an oogle with a dog...

(for the dog's sake. fuck oogles)

Not only is leftism directly derivative of Xianity with no hope of shedding that skin, but it could be argued that active leftist, secular(and scientific)ideology is preventing continuing Xianity from dying a natural death.

Yeah I view history as segmented into eras divided by epochal events, for instance, at the decline of the Roman Empire a period of about say 7 centuries followed, called various names, Late Antiquity, Early middle Ages, Dark Ages etc etc all just adapting to a disconnection from an historical narrative of war and conquest. Some say that during this period Catholic despotism reached its peak and culminated in the Italian Renaissance of the 14th Century, the foundation the Protestant Reformation and thus the catalyst for the emerging schism between the Age of Faith and the Age of Reason, voila! The Age of Enlightenment. Tomes have been written concerning the historical events, but very little concerning the consciousness of the players within these social dramas, we only know, as you and emile have pointed out often, that a bicameral and non-purpose driven perception of daily life did exist before the Age of Reason, and possibly flourished during the Dark Ages preceding the Catholic Inquis ition which extinguished all 'anarchs' of the time under the charge of heresy and witchcraft. But I digress, in everyone there is a creative anarch struggling to get out of the binary value system imposed upon them by the forces of religious and military economic structures.

moral judgement works on the basis of assigning meaning to isolated actions of purportedly 'independent' individuals, out of the context of the overall relational social dynamic.

SMS texting sets the pace for fragmented thinking. are we really to judge individuals on the basis of a single 'tweet' or sms text?

in the thread on 'topic of the week', some of the problems in moderating comments in an anonymous forum are discussed.

'shaming', as you say, derives from Christian enlightenment thinking which sees 'man' as an independent reason-driven system that is FULLY AND SOLELY responsible for his own behaviour. the independent individual is where the buck starts and stops as far as the results of his actions go.

science supports this view by its invoking of the notion of local force as the author of dynamics and by science's assumption that the present depends only on the immediate past. these intellectual idealizations leave us no choice but to conceive of the results of an 'action' of an individual as deriving from the internal components and processes of an independent human being, who, so we say [since the enlightenment in Western christian society], resides, operates and interacts in a habitat that is notionally independent of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it.

in the physical reality of our natural experience, we are included in a web of relational influences, so as a child-soldier, we may be easily persuaded we should bear arms against our own parents and grandparents because of their troublesome politics and habits. murderous behaviours are induced in us by political adult leaders; i.e. they do not jumpstart within us, but moral judgement assumes that isolated actions have meaning-in-themselves that can be judged 'evil' or 'good', ... isolated actions that science says that we are fully and solely responsible for (science purports that they originate in our internal neural-biophysical/biochemical system dynamics. it is the same for the long oppressed slave. when the continuing oppression and humiliation coming from his slave-masters pushes him beyond his tolerance limits, he goes postal, ... and guess what, ... Western science and moral judgement based retributive justice holds him to be fully and solely responsible for the results of his action, as if the relational social dynamic he is included in, which includes his judge and jury, is 100% innocent and non-complicit. this is obviously nonsense, but it is what Enlightenment European worldview holds to be 'true'. That way, the movers and shakers 'at the top' can oppress and exploit the impoverished and disempowered at the bottom, not only with impunity, but with the full backing of standing armies, police forces and moral-judgement imposing courts of retributive justice.

what is happening in the modern era is that a single tweet, and a single action, are taken to have meaning-in-themselves; i.e. without having to put them into relational social context;

"an action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same ” crime ” may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’



the physical reality of our natural experience is a transforming relational activity continuum. of course relational context is required in establishing the meaning of an action. the slave's going postal is induced by the people he ends up attacking who deem themselves 'innocent' because of Enlightenment Europe's confusing of the intellectual idealizations of science and rationality for 'reality' which holds the so-called 'causal agent' to be 100% guilty.

anonymity of the actor or utterer does away with having relational context trump [in establishing meaning] local actions or local utterances.

that is, as Hiroyuki, the administrator of 2ch, writes:

Under a perfectly anonymous system, ... All information is treated equally; only an accurate argument will work."

today, this relation is being turned around backwards. an accurate fact ["the child soldier murdered five villagers by shooting them with his AK47 at 10:15 a.m. March 26th, 2012 according to the sworn testimony of five reliable witnesses"] need not consider who the perpetrator is or how is destiny has been bound up in the relational socio-political dynamics of the community he is situationally included in.

the accuracy of 'the fact' dominates, making the relational social dynamic that the child soldier is caught up in [which involves the channelling of inductive influence from the relational dynamics of the community he is included in], irrelevant.

all men are equal in the eyes of the law and all men are assumed 'innocent' until proven 'guilty'. the slave who has been oppressed for his entire life by the slave-master, will be judged in the same manner and given the same punishment for striking the slave-master, as the slave-master will be judged and punished for striking the slave.

to impute meaning to anonymous utterances is to impute meaning to facts-in-themselves.

to impute meaning to anonymous actions is to impute meaning to acts-in-themselves. 'acts in themselves have no meaning' [they take on meaning by subjectively weaving them into some or other context]

this is where 'shaming' is coming from; ... from the imputing of jumpstart sourcing of meaning from an utterance-in-itself and/or an 'action-in-itself'.

how do they take on meaning?

"As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”

Blame is gossip basically, it has no relevance to social justice, only a judiciary system founded upon inequality can exercise penalties without evidence. For instance, the 3 West Memphis case, total fabrication! The judge was an aspiring State congressman who leaned towards democratic popularity for nomination rather than social justice and the lives of 3 innocent prole youths!

The institutions of Western civilization are founded on the notion of the 'local origination' of causation and responsibility. this concept 'launders out' the relational origins of the world dynamic as affirmed by modern physics. thus, an action and/or an utterance is taken to have meaning-in-its-own-right, without having to take into account 'relational context'.

the oppressed slave or worker or 'have-not's action or utterance, which does not jumpstart from his own interior but is induced by the oppression that he naturally wants to break free from, is instead deemed to jumpstart from him and Western morality holds him fully and solely responsible for such action, ... contending that 'all men are equal in the eyes of the law' so that the slave-master or rich man would be judged in the same way and given the same punishment for the same action. that is, the moral judgement and the punishment orients to 'the action in itself' as if it had meaning in itself.

as you say, "Blame is gossip basically, it has no relevance to social justice"

one can say the same about 'science' which reduces complex relational dynamics to notional local causally forced results. what causes an earthquake? science claims that the pacific plate pushing against the north american plate causes slippage along a fault line, ignoring the full complexity in the transforming relational activity continuum.

What caused the devastation of New Orleans on August 29, 2005? ... Katrina was responsible and caused the damage with her raging winds and storm surge, after having grown large and powerful in the preceding days [as a relational feature in a transforming relational activity continuum, made over by noun-and-verb language-and-grammar into a noun-subject that inflects a verb and is imputed to jumpstart author a result].

Who is responsible for the huge profits of successful corporations? The CEO is given credit for it, even though he may be installed by a rich uncle and be entirely disinterested in the flywheel relational dynamics of corporate 'machinery' [inductively sustained by the transforming relational activity continuum it is situationally included in].

in the same vein, 'Who is responsible for mental illness?' the defective individuals who suffer the breakdown (on a global basis, women have twice the incidence of affective disorders as men) or is it induced by the frenetic relational dynamics of a competitive rather than cooperative social dynamic?

Western scientific thinking reduces the hitting-fielding relational dynamics of nature to notional locally incipient, one-sided all-hitting, no-fielding actions. the spring tensions that develop within the relational dynamics in the physical reality of our natural experience are nowhere to be seen in the 'scientific' view. that's why scientific explanations are 'subjective' aka 'gossip', and moral judgement is applied to 'scientific explanations'.

scientific thinking gives us the impression that the boss directs the actions of the employees and this leads to productive results. the trail of causation and responsibility thus leads back to the boss as the jumpstart source of the productive result. This is subjective bullshit. the worker's labours are extorted from him by those who have monopolized control over essential resources that he needs to survive and feed, clothe, shelter his family. this inductive influence (extortion) is what makes the factory machinery hum, the directives of the boss are like the rudder on the sailboat, there is no steerage without wind in the sails and the wind in the sails comes from the relational activity continuum the man with his hand on the helm, and everyone else, is included in, it does not originate from him.

science claims that the world is full of independently-existing material things that reside, operate and interact in a habitat that is independent of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it. this is convenient simplification aka 'intellectual idealization' that in no way captures the physical reality of our natural experience.

even the systems sciences accuse science of 'bullshit' here, observing that every system is included within a relational suprasystem wherein relational needs explain the system as a relational feature within the suprasystem [the transforming relational activity continuum]. i.e. there are no such things as 'systems in themselves'; they are the artefact of analytical inquiry which drops out synthetical inquiry that gives relational/contextual grounding to analytical inquiry.

of course a lifetime of being humiliated and abused and exploited by slave-masters is the source of an ultimate violent action on the part of the slave; i.e. the relational dynamic of the slave-masters is the source of the violent actions of the slave directed against them. it is, as nietzsche says, 'a great stupidity', to go with a subject-verb-predicate construct such as 'the slave crushed the slave-master's skull' and treat this isolated action as if it had 'meaning-in-itself'.

as Derrida says, 'there is nothing outside of [relational] context'. He might have added, 'nothing but subjective contrivance aka a bullshit story [gossip] put together with inherently incomplete logical constructs'.

The institutions of Western civilization, disciplined and maintained by a moral judgement based retributive justice system, would have us live in an OPERATIVE REALITY based on scientific thinking, that models the sourcing of dynamics in one-sided all-hitting, no-fielding terms of locally incipient causation and responsibility. 'justice' in this system attributes to the boss, causation and responsibility for the productive result of 'his' enterprise [the 'praising' side of 'praising' and 'blaming'], and enterprise that is scientifically modeled as a local system comprised of working-components directed by himself. his 'intelligence' therefore appears to be the ultimate fountainhead [Ayn Rand 'builds' on this] of the productive output. this scientific model is subjective contrivance which ignores the physical reality that every 'system', rather than being 'independent' is a relational feature within the transforming relational activity continuum.

as modern western society becomes more and more 'scientific thinking', the notional origins of whatever is unfolding are increasingly attributed to local actions and utterances, denying their deeper origin in relational context. 'shame' and 'praise' follow this pattern and become more pointed and focused as reductionist science sharpens its pinpointing of the notional local jumpstart origin of observable 'results'.

it is not the members of the boss class who are the local causal agents that perpetrate oppression of the workers, the operation is fundamentally relational, as in;

"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

this 'conditioning' involves monopolizing control over access to essential resources need for food, clothing and shelter, by the boss class, and charging admission [labour] for access. whether this is as straight-forward as share-cropping or whether buried more deeply in relational dynamics, boss class oppression bottoms out in relational dynamics and therefore causation and responsibility cannot be traced back to the actions of individual boss class members. that is, a moral judgement based retributive justice mechanism keys to local actions and these are not primary in a relational system [as in the physical reality of our natural experience].

'shaming and praising' are the artefacts of science and morality; i.e. they assume that local actions are 'real' rather than manifestations of intrinsically 'relational' dynamics.

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

"The 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.
this 'conditioning' involves monopolizing control over access to essential resources need for food, clothing and shelter, by the boss class, and charging admission [labour] for access. whether this is as straight-forward as share-cropping or whether buried more deeply in relational dynamics, boss class oppression bottoms out in relational dynamics and therefore causation and responsibility cannot be traced back to the actions of individual boss class members. that is, a moral judgement based retributive justice mechanism keys to local actions and these are not primary in a relational system [as in the physical reality of our natural experience]."

A very astute summary, and brings into question the part that faith in either religious/political dynamics, the 'conditioning' to a system of moralistic values effects ones daily interactions and emotions. Thus, as you say, mental illness is not a result of an individual's internal dysfunction, but rather the pressures from external habitat, just as the urban environment produces freakouts and breakdowns, and the system, in denial of its complicity in manufacturing these 'aberrations', classed as crimes against the system, when really the system perpetuates and creates this 'criminal class' as collateral incarceration or execution, to cover its actual real total criminal hegemony upon a race, a region, a planet. Thanks emile for your genuine anarch sentiments! Aloha!

Yeah and to be honest, I don't understand why people had to pull everyone along on their little moralist journey down the rabbit hole on this bullshit. This shit should've been obvious from day one, but I guess because we don't have a strong generational communication, there wasn't any strong opposition to the direction this ended up going. This is why older people are needed in our scenes and scenes need to stop being about single people and their petty whims. Older people have been around and while they are far from perfect, they know when this shit was pulled the last time and what happened.

Unfortunately, I think that the profit motive among many of the opportunistic academic left and activists of the same stripe hopped on board, all with the thought that they are on the right side of history and that their future prosperity is tied to their present participation in these movements. Just like infiltrators and informants that stir shit, these opportunists perform the same role as law enforcement in social movements.

>we don't have a strong generational communication, there wasn't any strong opposition to the direction this ended up going

There has been though, but from my experience as an older male, if you disagree with the wrong person, there is no conversation to be had. Instead you are immediately shamed, run out of the scene, accused of being a cop, a rape apologist if not a rapist, a misogynist, a racist...

If you wonder why older anarchists like myself don't care to stick around and have this conversation with the younger scene, you might want to think about why that is and what the milieu as a whole has done to make that environment entirely hostile to anyone with a differing perspective, any sort of objection, or any sort of criticism that might deviate from whatever is trendy.

I'm only 31 but I definitely feel I was run off from a scene I used to spend all of my time, effort and money on.

I know exactly how you feel! 31, old? It only gets better. Experience seperates the chaff from the essence.

except when it doesn't

But then then that's a question about ones ontological methodology. I mean, I consider myself a Zen master of sorts, and you are into its liberating yet conflicting praxis with all external phenomena, you know, you are an individualist by even stating you are Zen in non-doctrinal perception, so by by being Zen, the essence and the chaff are easily seperated. There can only be the Now, all premeditated judgement is a travesty of essential human destiny, one must embrace the spontaneous spirit of ones emotions. So there can never be 'it doesn't'. You get my drift?

Oops. Oh, you meant with meatheads who don't contemplate actions and experiences, thus wallow in the chaff? Sorrow, I rushed in there.

the popular view of the self is 'existential' as in 'being' where the search is on for an identity and a construction project to build an identity may be undertaken [e.g. 'what do you plan on being when you grow up', or, 'the american dream'].

the relational view of self [e.g. zen] keeps situationism in its natural precedence over intentionism, as concerns the developing self;

"the life that i am reaching out to grasp is the 'me' that is reaching out to grasp it". -- R. D. Laing

meanwhile, blame and shame and credit and praise go hand in hand with existentialism. Existentialists posit that because we are ontologically, in our existence that precedes essence, in a state of becoming ...then all identities are inauthentic. The whole point of the anxiety, angst, nausea, and despair in existentialist thought is that these tie into a Western expectation to become an 'in-itself' like a table is a table or a chair is a chair... something that's essence precedes it's existence. In other words, life is inherently meaningless. We exist FIRST. Unlike a table, something that has a purpose for it before it is manufactured, something that's essence and meaning has been defined for it before it existed... we don't have that option. That's the existential phenomenological point: unlike the "beings" that exist "For consciousness", conscious existences such as ourselves exist for ourselves in a categorically different manner.

Anyway. Y'know, you rang :)

Oh, I was just about to bail out, and I similarly questioned my friends last sentence, and I just copped out, didn't want to go there at a moment when I wanted, but, now that you brought it up, yeah, existentialism is about self-generatind and self-creating oneself devoid of any moral ethical social paradigm, so approaching an almost benevolent nihilism, one may clean the slate, Westerners Nirvana, reboot consciousness without the clutter and poison that conditioning has injected into our souls. Yeah, maybe emile can elaborate on this theme, I REALLY have to go for a hike, I've been working all week, I need some peace in the wilderness, until later.

the politics of the left, with Sartre, may have moved 'independent being' back from a material entity to a Platonic essence, but this leaves the notion of 'things' being in an unnatural precedence over 'relations'.

In justifying the terrorism of colonized peoples attempting to break free of colonizers, Jean Paul Sartre says;

“To shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone .... there remains a dead man and a free man”

what is held ‘invariant’ in this binary algebraic interpretation (whether based on 'essences' or 'material existence'), is the independent existence of the individual. he further describes Algerian rebels thus; “Son’s of violence, they draw their humanity from it”. in other words, in order to change the social dynamic, one must change out the people who Sartre sees as sourcing it. to kill the independent platonic pre-material essences, one must kill the material entity.

for a very different view, in place of seeing existence as preceding and being the source of relational social dynamics, indigenous anarchists see the actions of people originating from relational dynamics so that behaviours are relational dynamics that manifest THROUGH individuals caught in particular situations within the transforming relational activity continuum, Sartre sees such actions as originating from the ‘existential being’, the individual as an ‘independent entity-in-himself’ [shifting back to pre-material essence from material entity does not negate the notion of the origin of dynamics coming from the 'independent being'].

indigenous anarchism’s use of restorative justice to transform relations and restore balance and harmony, is a beyond good-and-evil approach in which ‘independent existence’ has no place or meaning, whether in terms of a pre-material essence or a material object/system. it is the equivalent of emerson and nietzsche’s beyond good-and-evil view that the transforming relational dynamic we call ‘nature’ not only shapes the behaviour of the organism, it creates the organism [one might say that the pre-material essence is this case does not come in the form of 'an individual' but comes in the form of the cosmic unum or 'transforming relational activity continuum']. in modern physics terms; ‘there is nothing other than relations’ [the persisting forms we impute subject status to (aka independent being) are understood as relational structures, not existential beings-in-themselves, as Sartre would have it]. in Schroedinger's use of the metaphors of Advaita Vedanta, the cosmic fetalization of the individual (the pre-material essence) is Brahman while Atman is 'appearances' or 'schaumkommen', Maya (illusion) in the manner that the physical real relational dynamics of the atmosphere induce local relational features that we use language and grammar to give local identity to (e.g. the relational feature called 'Katrina'). As Schroedinger points out, the physical reality of our natural experience informs us that relations are primary and 'individuals' are 'variations in the relational structure of the universe'.

the politics of the left have an existentialist foundation that was, early on, materialist. if the concept of an independent being was 'moved back' from the material object to its Platonic 'pre-material essence', this does not alter the belief in the reality of the 'independent being'. e.g. Lenin wrote an entire book [Materialism and Empirio-criticism] to try to put a wooden stake through the heart of the relations first views of Ernst Mach and to purge the party of Russian ‘Machists’]. so long as one retains the notion of 'independent beings' first and imputes them and their actions to be the source of the relational social dynamic, then we continue to have the 'shame and blame' and 'credit and praise' orientation in the foundations of Western society.

I was hoping you wouldn't reply while I prepared and packed my haversack, and keep the monitor on, but you did, and you replied so brilliantly, are your fingers tipped with keyboard golden essence? No, I digress, could anyone counter your genius, I must go, my mind fueled with wine spins, your perception is profound, I must saunter amongst the wild ranges and mountain tops photographing natures splendour, until next week fellow creative genius.
PS I know that flattery can be dismeaning, but if from another genius it can only be complimentary.

I don't think that the Left's politics, nor Christianity can be reduced to the notion of the in-itself. The in-itself is necessary, but not sufficient. I also don't think that you can say that Sartre's phenomenology is Platonic. There isn't any sort of metaphysical separation of stuff that composes the material world and the essential world. It is that kind of reference to "essence".

Sartre's phenomenology categorically separates consciousness from a universe of beings by using the notion of freedom to explain how it is different from this dynamic world of always-fluctuating relations. The thematic conflict in Being and Nothingness is that conscious being such as ourselves experience a variety of pressures to resign that freedom and try to just let life (or, the relational dynamics of existence) sweep us up along with it. This is an option in his phenomenology, but it is unethical. Freedom is the foundation for Sartre's ethics. This is not Christian and though Sartre was a Leftist (and later a Leftist anarchist), Sartre wasn't a Christian Leftist.

The atomic quality of Sartre's consciousness and the Kantian quality of Sartre's free choice has some things in common with Christianity, but really it doesn't fit the same way into the humanistic discourse of the Left's social values (which yes, are very Christian). What is human in Sartre's writing isn't what is valuable in the way that Christian humanism values human beings as equal, atomic free players in a world of good and evil. The contingencies of existing and the freedom of having a choice about what stuff means has nothing to do with identifying, with resentment, the Master's moral values as "evil" and the Slave's innocence as "good". The Christian moral equation of egoic activity as evil activity just doesn't compute in Sartre's notions of ethics. So when it comes to critiques of the Left's moralism and humanism, existentialists don't fit. You have to go further back into the history of the West to the beginnings of monotheism and philosophy before you get to the more original evaluations like the ones you're summarily calling Christian.

However, Sartre's phenomenology is definitely limited. It is limited in regards to normative, structural explanations for meaning. It is also limited in its metaphysics of beings. It may have been popular for the good part of the 19th-20th Century (well, existentialism more broadly), but it definitely is not popular now and who knows how influential the substantial arguments were even when it was. What I'll give you is that Westerners probably feel more comfortable with it because it retains the notion of atomic, conscious free choice. But Christian? Is Greek Tragedy Christian because it has an Apollonian aspect that comes with its Dionysus? Can we at least admit that there's some significant differences between Christian humanism (and the Leftism that it spawns) and other Western philosophical and mystical traditions?

you didn't say anything about Christian, lol. Well... anyway I think Christian shame is - eh whatever I'm taking a nap, I'm sure you get my point.

I mean, to say this:

"the popular view of the self is 'existential' as in 'being' where the search is on for an identity and a construction project to build an identity may be undertaken [e.g. 'what do you plan on being when you grow up', or, 'the american dream']."

When Sartre is talking about this:


Sartre contends that human existence is a conundrum whereby each of us exists, for as long as we live, within an overall condition of nothingness (no thing-ness)—that ultimately allows for free consciousness. But simultaneously, within our being (in the physical world), we are constrained to make continuous, conscious choices.

It is this dichotomy that causes anguish, because choice (subjectivity) represents a limit on freedom within an otherwise unbridled range of thoughts. Subsequently, humans seek to flee our anguish through action-oriented constructs such as escapes, visualizations, or visions (such as dreams) designed to lead us toward some meaningful end, such as necessity, destiny, determinism (God), etc. Thus, in living our lives, we often become unconscious actors—Bourgeois, Feminist, Worker, Party Member, Frenchman, Canadian or American—each doing as we must to fulfill our chosen characters' destinies.

However, Sartre contends our conscious choices (leading to often unconscious actions) run counter to our intellectual freedom. Yet we are bound to the conditioned and physical world—in which some form of action is always required. This leads to failed dreams of completion, as Sartre described them, because inevitably we are unable to bridge the void between the purity and spontaneity of thought and all-too constraining action; between the being and the nothingness that inherently coincide in our self.

Sartre's recipe for fulfillment is to escape all quests by completing them. This is accomplished by rigorously forcing order onto nothingness, employing the "spirit (or consciousness of mind) of seriousness" and describing the failure to do so in terms such as "bad faith" and "false consciousness". Though Sartre's conclusion seems to be that being diminishes before nothingness since consciousness is probably based more on spontaneity than on stable seriousness, he contends that any person of a serious nature is obliged to continuous struggle between:

a) the conscious desire for peaceful self-fulfillment through physical actions and social roles—as if living within a portrait that one actively paints of oneself.


b) the more pure and raging spontaneity of no thing consciousness, of being instantaneously free to overturn one's roles, pull up stakes, and strike out on new paths."

ok nap.

Clap! Clap! Wake up!....The sound of 1 hand clapping? Hmm? Sartre plagiarized a centuries old Zen ontological self-analysis process, its not like he 'invented' existentialism, that shits been going on since Neanderthal times, as a tribal or clannish interpretation of identity and significance in an uncharted universe.I acknowledge your version of Sartre's interpretation for self-fulfillment but question your idea that it requires a rigorous force to attain, the purity and spontaneity of thought is a common innate condition of any new-born, as emile points out, in Mach's theory on cyclical interaction and conditioning, Sartre in a way is only stating the obvious nihilistic conclusion pondered by anyone unversed in political philosophy before they are about to commit suicide, its not spectacular, life is neither governed by external forces, nor does one control ones consciousness, these are conditioned into us, just as Sartres bourgeois environment imposed upon him the ressentiment that his Post-Marxist influenced philosophy expressed in explaining his nihilistic tendencies, and his subliminal Christian upbringing must certainly have infused him with that irritating tendency to dwell upon eschatological identity issues. Just saying..

To me that says it all as far as Sartre goes. He was one of many Western men who could not get beyond the free will/determinism binary. His attempt at creating a philosophy out of Heidegger and Marx was also a failure.

I do, however, like the for itself/in itself distinction, but overall find him overrated.

he's not my favorite, by far.

I grew up consuming Kafka, he left Sartre and Camus behind in creating and revealing the dystopian reality of Western social relationships. His work was only realized after his death, he lived the quintessential avant-garde artistic lifestyle, dying unknown yet leaving the legacy of stories torn out of the soul concerning reality and the evils which the State perpetrate against the innocents. Like Wilde he was an anarch who rebelled against conformity and the binary hegemony.

remains as a key concept to re-consider as regards his concept of authenticity.
the in-itself describes man's Being as contingent and "factual" as existent and primarily (a-priori) obvious.
the for-itself refers subsequently to man's chance- occurrence ,to give his life meaning and thereby essence by way of
his possibility, then ability, and then potentiality to re-solve: to partake in creating his own autonomous destiny> in the manner of his creativity,
activity as praxis , and attitude as determination, in the face of life"s contingent "obstacles"( be-ing vs. Plenitude).
Heidegger"s concept of Dasein, which alludes to man's "throwness" in-to-the- "world" , can be seen as a
creative and active relationship between self and other and as a
dwelling-in, thereby establishing his need to authentically consider, wonder-about, and do something about this existential
"dilemma". Sartre and Heidegger laid-out the" ground" , if you will, for the post-structural semiotics of Foucault,
Derrida, Delueze, Kristiva, etc. which have been so influential on more current Post-Structural Anarchists
including Todd May, Judith Butler, Saul Newman, and to yet another degree in the very recent work of David
Graeber, Rosi Braidiotti, Thomas Nail. etc.
It is then more apt to say that the existential tradition has been en-riched, expanded, and in-formed by further creative
research and praxis , rather than become obsolete or seen regressively as just a "warmed-over Idealism.
Therefore, there is no-thing to be hopeless and cynical about our prospects; particularly in Sartre"s lasting legacy
in his creative view that peoples have a capacity to express their views as in the formation of "groups-in fusion".
What with Zapatista, Rojava, Indignat@s, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, Gender movements, et al.the only questions are "what's the next "happening? "Where"? "when"? How?. I ,for one, can"t wait and looking forward to "it" and "them".

somebody wake me up when the philosophy lesson is over...

It does end actually, scroll way down to beneath the stirner rant and a really overdue conversation about mental health, political opportunism and CoIntelpro picks up

But everything after the Stirner rant is crass political opportunism!

Sartre is just one interpreter of the implications [such as identity-based ‘existential angst’] of a belief in ‘being’, whose interpretation is highly nuanced and critiqued for its internal contradictions;

“On the one hand, Sartre takes an ethical stance and on the other hand, he seems to suggest that ethics has no place in judging revolt by the colonised against the colonisers or by the oppressed against their oppressors. Since ethics provides criteria for judging political actions as right or wrong rather than understandable or inevitable, Sartre appears to have changed his mind a number of times about political violence. Or is he, as Ronald Santoni argues, ‘curiously ambivalent’?

in the context of ‘shaming’, we can examine the ‘shamelessness’ of the ‘savage’ who puts ‘situationism’ in a natural precedence over 'intentionism' driven by the ‘identity politics’ of existentialism [intellectual ideals based ‘identity’]. as the author says;

“Consider this as we undergo a culture shift toward what I would describe as leftist, academic-based identity politics adopted into anarchist ideologies. ... We [anarchists] treat each other like we treat our enemies by using public shame tactics. Doing so is rewarded and those that call out the most loudly are given social clout and power in organizing spaces. I find this trajectory extremely troubling and a practice that fosters isolation and a cycle of emotional manipulation/abuse”

my use of ‘existential angst’ referred to general principles of which Sartre is just one of the interpreters. Once one assumes that we humans ‘should be civilized’ and have an ‘identity’ that is grounded in absolute ideals rather than wafting gracefully in the winds of change of the transforming relational activity continuum called nature, ... we not only have to come up with the definition of our own identity, we inherit the identity-politics burden of re-arranging the world around us according to the beliefs about our ‘self’ that we bundle into our ‘identity’. in other words, we have to flip the practice of putting situationism over intentionism to instead putting identity-politics driven ‘intentionism’ over ‘situationism’. at this point, we have split apart ‘inhabitant’ from ‘habitat’ and adopted a dualist worldview and set of practices.

identity politics is where our behaviour shaping influence is ‘to avoid being shamed’ by upholding the [politically correct] intellectual ideals that constitute our chosen ‘identity’.

In ‘Design for Evolution’, by physicist and systems theorist Erich Jantsch (whose seminal work ‘The Self-Organizing Universe’ inspired Fritjof Capra and others), Jantsch compares two stories of castaways; ‘Robinson Crusoe’ (Dafoe) and Suzanne et la Pacifique (Giraudoux). Robinson Crusoe imposes on his new natural setting, all of the structures and habits of his prior ‘place’ in the world, while Suzanne lets her behaviour and the structures she builds be inductively actualized and shaped by the natural relational dynamics of, ... i.e. by the SPIRIT of, ... the new place she finds herself in. Robinson Crusoe, then, is a prime exemplar of the ‘sovereignty of being’ that brings about the native complaint that if the white man continues to split apart the ‘dynamics of people’ from the ‘dynamics of place’, he will one day suffocate in his own waste.

my point about 'existential angst' is that ‘shaming’ is tied up in ‘identity politics’ wherein one puts one’s own intellectually idealized identity into an unnatural primacy over the relational dynamics of place, ... obliging one to ‘re-arrange the place’ according to one’s internally driven, identity-politics-derived intentions; i.e. to over-ride situationism with intentionism. the obligation to do this ‘re-arranging’ asks to be called ‘existential anxiety’. the belief in ‘existence’ and the ‘shame’ of being ‘natural and naked’ that accompanies it is reminiscent of the proverbial concept of ‘man’s fall’.

Giraudoux also wrote ‘Supplément au Voyage de Cook’ which explores a certain theme in French philosophical literature, that of the ‘evidence’ in Tahiti of the reality or non-reality of ‘le noble sauvage’; e.g;

‘Louis de Bougainville's stay in Tahiti, although brief, had important consequences for French and European philosophical thought, largely through the enthusiasm felt by some of those on board his ships, who saw in Tahiti an earthly paradise, the proof of Rousseau's theory, at least as interpreted by some, that man was inherently and naturally good, and only corrupted by civilisation and, in particular, by property ownership and class distinctions. Here indeed, lived man in his primitive but happy state, the living proof that had been sought for many years that the "Noble Savage" existed. This view was strengthened by the Tahitian, Ahu-toru, whom Bougainville took with him to France and introduced to Paris society, where he was warmly received.. ... The call at Tahiti also produced two major works: Diderot's "Supplément au Voyage de Bougainville" and Giraudoux's "Supplément au Voyage de Cook", while the image of Tahiti and other Pacific islands became linked with utopian visions, in which one might even include Giraudoux's "Suzanne et la Pacifique".

Meanwhile, the ‘identity politics’ given by the castaway exemplar of Robinson Crusoe that are so much admired within a traditionalist culture such as the British culture where one takes one's tea and crumpets and gin and tonics with one wherever one goes, re-arranging, materially and operationally, each new place one ‘colonizes’, trumps and supersedes the exotic circumstances, however aesthetic and appealing, of the new location that one ‘takes over’.

The existential identity that one carries into new places/habitats embodies the sense of ‘internally-originating power’ of ‘sovereign being’, the source of a persisting strength and endurance that commits to overcoming whatever resistance is encountered in the new venue from the indigenous social and environmental dynamics ‘in place’.

‘Identity politics’ is the source of ‘shaming’. That is, a ‘group’ can also be infected with this ‘existential angst’ associated with the belief that one must ‘re-arrange the place’ according to ‘who one believes one[‘s group] is’. for example, mainstream science promotes this notion of man as a ‘local system with intention-driven behaviour deriving from an internal [biochemical and biophysicall process based] intelligence’ that operates in an [intellectually idealized] absolute space and absolute time containing frame. this contrasts with the understanding of the indigenous anarchist who sees himself as a 'strand in the web of life', inductively formed, shaped and orchestrated by the transforming relational activity continuum he is situationally included in.

there can be no doubt that ‘indigenous anarchism’ tends towards the ‘shameless’ end of the spectrum that is entirely lacking in ‘identity politics’ [identity is continually reinvented, acquired on the fly in co-creating harmonies with the relational dynamics one is situationally included in]. amongst 'civilizeds' rather than 'savages', it is the political promotion of group identity and ‘what one stands for’ that sources an existential anxiety to re-arrange every new situation one finds oneself in, according to the intellectually idealized precepts that make up one’s individual or group identity, or to be shamed by one’s fellow identity politics players.

‘freedom’ to the indigenous anarchist means ‘freedom from identity politics’ and thus ‘freedom from existential angst’.

I don't agree with this conception of existentialism. The rest of what you're saying stands on its own and I like it. I'm not a big Sartre fan, even though he developed existential ontology in an interesting direction. The existentialists that I like (Ludwing Binswanger, Martin Buber, Nietzsche, Camus ...for less interesting reasons) don't actually put the 'intentional' over the 'situational'; nor do they put 'identity' over dynamic change. A lot of the psychology is the opposite of that, it's about working together with other people to find out what sort of fixed ideas and identities are preventing them from making the changes in their life that are causing things like existential anxiety. It really feels like your interpretation of this is to confuse the description for a prescription.

Nietzsche, as much as any of the other ones, says just as much about the tension between these dynamics and the priority of the Dionysian. He also talks about the importance of the Apollonian. This isn't an odd view amongst existentialists. It's a basic feature of their interpretations. The discussion of alienation is prominent in existentialist writing and not in a Marxist class alienation sense. Alienation in the sense of being out of touch with the relational dynamics.

I don't know what to do with what I just think isn't an accurate reading.

i am writing from a 'non-dualist' understanding (point-of-view) as were emerson and nietzsche. there are always these tradeoffs between 'appolonian' and 'dionysian' in dualism. they are resolved in 'non-dualism' where they are understood as conjugate aspects of ONE relational dynamic.

'existentialism' is dualist in that it assumes an 'individual consciousness' whereas in non-dualism consciousness is a field that we tap into.

we don't normally declare whether our perspective is dualist or non-dualist so this can lead to difficulty in sharing.

Methodology is always the foundation to establishing a common relational benchmark for dialogue.

if consciousness is a field that we tap into...

The implications of that are world-shattering. I've considered it. I've read the Hundredth Monkey and dug around the claims and criticisms of paranormal psychology. It's not something I've ever been able to believe, though.

Smoking DMT or extreme doses of LSD or mushrooms makes consciousness seem like it may plausibly be a field. Some woman in the film version of DMT: The Spirit Molecule puts forth the notion that perhaps consciousness precedes matter and not visa-versa, I believe from insight via experiencing the hyper-connected and animated nature of everything along with the loss of separation between the self and setting that is normally presumed to be inherent in consciousness.

I mean, if E=MC^2 and whatnot, doesn't seem too outlandish to imagine science reconciling western thought and non-dualistic ideas. Speaking of sloppily referring to science, theories presented in DMT: The Spirit Molecule are constantly referenced as being factual, e.g. that our pineal gland releases DMT when we die---it's ALL speculation people!!

Let me clarify just for clarifity. Consciousness... or what the brain does, is definitely a field in brainwaves. I should have specified that it's the "tapping into" part. I don't see how the brain could be emitting/receiving these waves. But yeah who the hell knows? Maybe there's more to all of the oceanic and transcendental experiences people (and I've) had.

I've heard ghosts, and I wasn't dropping sandoz at the time, totally sober, so I keep an open mind. Also poltergeist phenomena are quite common yet avoided by the modern western rationalistists who prefer gimmickry and magical illusion to explain away the possibility of supernatural forces. Also many of my friends say that I have 'medium' energies because I have tapped into a pure source of uncluttered perception of reality, its just one of my many talents, though I don't expect any privilege common amongst the hack shaman class, I'm more a private shaman person. I experience many premonitions before people close to me die, a terrible flu like gut run-down feeling a few hours before they die. Most indigenous cultures acknowledge the existence of this dimension. One does not need drugs to acquire this ability, it has practical uses, like you get a promonition and decide then not to go outside or on a plane trip, stuff like that, it can save lives. Also, I'm not a hippy or new-ager but a regular sort of person, just saying,,,,

Don't be ashamed of being a stupid hippy dude, it's worse when you cap off a bunch of astral gibberish with the new-age equivalent of saying "I'm not racist, here's my one black friend."

Is a bastardization of the very real things you speak of. There's a certain amount of truth to the new age thing in that they take very real techniques from various mythologies stemming from aboriginal/archaic, the more feminine and non-rational Chthonic epoch to 'Eastern' philosophy and infect them with the values born in capital and modernity. I've seen such terms as spirituality 2.0 if you can believe it.

HP Wombat wrote a fairly grounded analysis of the Law of Attraction back in 2012. Essentially, it's just a matter of making your brain work with your body.

The Chthonic, ey? Last time I read that word, it was in Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae. There isn't enough HP Wombat on @news these days.

Anyway, put me on board with the idea that consciousness is a non local field. It might be better to use the term awareness as opposed to consciousness as consciousness might be better defined as awareness filtered through a focusing aperture.

you say;

"The existentialists that I like (Ludwing Binswanger, Martin Buber, Nietzsche, Camus ...for less interesting reasons) don't actually put the 'intentional' over the 'situational'; nor do they put 'identity' over dynamic change. A lot of the psychology is the opposite of that, it's about working together with other people to find out what sort of fixed ideas and identities are preventing them from making the changes in their life that are causing things like existential anxiety. It really feels like your interpretation of this is to confuse the description for a prescription."

when i refer to the difference in understanding that comes from non-dualism, there is rarely ever any acknowledgement, but to me, there is a foundational difference in understanding associated with whether we look at things through dualist or non-dualist lenses.

in non-dualism, all 'existence' is 'appearance' and the only physical real stuff is prematerial relational influence [as in 'field']. thus, anything and everything to do with 'existence' is intellectual idealization. this is clearly where nietzsche is, since he mocks the choice of socrates and the followers of socrates to put intellectual idealization or 'reason' based on 'things-that-exist' and 'what they do' and 'how they interact/cooperate etc'' into an unnatural precedence over the primary creative source, the transforming relational activity continuum [what the flow of the atmosphere is to the cells that form within it, which do not exist as things-in-themselves but which appear to the observer as things-in-themselves that develop as things-in-themselves and when we apply noun-and-verb language-and-grammar, are understood to operate and interact as if they were things in themselves.

dualism is an intellectual idealization that splits apart matter from space, depicting the 'existence of material bodies' as something 'real', as the building blocks of an 'operative reality' even though 'matter' and 'material' are NOT physically real, but are, as schroedinger puts it, 'variations in the relational structure of space that is given only once'.

non-dualism accepts that the primary physical reality of our natural experience is the transforming relational activity continuum, the world that is given only once wherein 'relations' are 'all there is'. this pseudo-reality of 'things-that-exist' is built upon 'appearances' that are otherwise known as material bodies that 'exist' and which can be measured relative to a notional 'absolute space and absolute time reference frame' (this is done with language and grammar by equivalencing relational forms with noun-subjects and having them inflect verbs). this reality built from 'appearances' serves as an 'operative reality' for our intellectual idealizing aka 'reasoning', but it is not the 'physical reality' of our actual, natural experience where 'relations' are 'all there is'.

in order to get to an understanding of physical reality, we have to agree that the world we construct with language, based on subjects that exist and which reside, operate and interact in a containing space that is independent of the things that reside, operate and interact within it, ... is 'illusion' (Maya). this is where Mach, Nietzsche and Schroedinger are 'coming from' and it is the non-dualist understanding. it is the understanding of the indigenous anarchist, as is elaborated on in 'Blackfoot Physics' by F. David Peat, but it is uncommon in Western civilization where the 'default' is 'dualism' which takes the 'operative reality' which is intellectually idealized from notional 'material things that exist' and how the develop, behave and interact/cooperate, ... for 'reality'.

in your list of 'existentialists', (Ludwing Binswanger, Martin Buber, Nietzsche, Camus), you have included nietzsche. this is a misreading of nietzsche, in my opinion. nietzsche is in the same non-dualist camp as emerson and mach and he clearly rejects 'reason' as being primary to an understanding of the world; i.e. our relational experiencing of the world precedes intellectual idealizations aka 'reason'. reason is a support tool, but as emerson observes, the tool has been running away with the workman.

the dionysian [physical relational reality] is to the appollonian [the tool of language and intellection that builds from the forms that gather within it aka the variations in the relational structure of space] as the atmosphere flow is to storm-cells and/or as the transforming relational activity continuum is to circular sink-and-source resonance features within it]. as observers of nature (as if nature were apart from us), we see the developing storm as an 'existing entity' when what we are looking at is the transforming relational activity continuum, so that by the time we have named and defined the 'local form' and given it the power to inflect verbs and generate predicative results, we have constructed an 'operative reality' based on 'schaumkommen' ('appearances'). this 'operative reality' is intellectual idealization based, it is the 'tool that is running away with the workman'.

many if not most philosophers, unlike nietzsche, continue to use as their launching pad or staging ground, this reason-based 'operative reality' based on 'existing entities' (whether pre-material or material, they are still seen as 'existences'). i don't know enough about the others you have listed to discern where they coming from. but wittgenstein has captured how one must 'read' a non-dualist philosophical treatise; i.e. one must let the words elicit recollections of the physical reality of our natural experience and once we are informed by our own natural experience, we can let go of all of the intellectual reasoning and discard it as nonsense.

i'm not imposing this view on anyone, obviously (one cannot impose on another's experience), but trying to make the point that understanding of the same phenomenon (e.g. nietzsche's writing) can be done from either/both a dualist and/or non-dualist interpretation.

Partially Examined Life just did a 3-part podcast on this to carry forward from their recent theme of discussing music. It has been a refresher for me and I'm echoing it at this point. So I'll summarize it a bit:

With the Birth of Tragedy and the criticism of Socrates though, Nietzsche is placing the Dionysian as the fundamental stuff in Greek Tragedy; but, also trying to emphasize that the shaping, ordering, Apollonian aspect of Greek Tragedy is a necessary cultural/relational tool. Every actor is Dionysus in the Tragedy, but the characters are the Apollonian. When Nietzsche gets to music, he uses the Dionysian/Apollonian to discuss how too much of either screws it up. Even though the Dionysian is the primordial stuff of music, music doesn't achieve what Greek Tragedy does until it includes the Apollonian lyrical element.

So I don't think this is totally different than other[sic] existentialists. Nietzsche may admit to a Will that is like a field, but this aim to balance that Will with the Apollonian structure makes it similar-enough to the existentialists that it's of little consequence if they don't also admit to this kind of Will. The same operation is valued and performed, perhaps naively.

my view is that all REpresentations of the ‘what things do’ type are intellectually idealized reductions of physically real ‘variations in the relational flow of space’.

‘what the brain does’ is one of those subject-verb-predicate constructs. nietzsche calls this type of structure ‘a great stupidity’.

thus the term ‘brainwaves’ insofar as this intends ‘the brain is making waves’ is ‘a great stupidity’ in nietzsche’s view. one could say that the observer can measure wave activity within the relation form we call ‘the brain’, but not that the brain is the author of brainwave activity.

emerson would say that ‘the genius of nature’ not only inhabits the brain, it creates it.

in other words, in the relational worldview, there are no subjects that can author anything since the relational field authors the subjects (relational forms) which appear to author their own development and behaviours. in the relational view, the brain can’t ITSELF author waves or anything, ... instead, the wavefield authors the brain as well as whatever the brain appears to author. in systems terms, the suprasystem authors the system called the brain and whatever the latter appears to be the authoring; i.e. the brain is not, itself, the author of anything. ‘brainwaves’ refer to waves that can be measured by putting sensors on or in the brain just like ocean waves can be measured by putting sensors on or in the ocean. this does not mean that the ocean is producing the waves, the waves are a feature of the transforming relational activity continuum or ‘world given only once’. the ocean is a word that we give separate subject status to by a grammatical act.

in the ‘relations are all there are’ understanding of the world, there are no ‘subjects’ such as ‘brain’ or ‘ocean’ that can author ‘waves’, these words ‘brain’ and ‘ocean’ appear to author phenomena such as ‘waves’ merely because of the intellectual idealizations produced by subject-verb-predicate constructs. in the physical reality of our actual experience, there is no way to decouple the relational dynamics of ‘ocean’ from the relational dynamics of atmosphere, lithosphere, sun, milky way and the world given only once as a transforming relational activity continuum;

“[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

there are ‘waves we can measure in the relational form we call ‘the brain’ but there are no ‘brainwaves’ in the sense of an activity authored by the brain, just as there are no storm-surges in the sense of an activity authored by the storm. to say there are is to play a language game that constructs an ‘operative reality’ wherein dynamics are based on ‘what relational forms depicted as things-in-themselves ‘do’:

this western language game notionally [by way of intellectual idealizing] endows the relational form [brain, ocean, storm] with ‘subjecthood’ that is used to inflect a verb and generate a predicative result. what is primary and lying beneath all of this language-game based ‘operative reality’that is in terms of subjectified relational forms and ‘what they do’, is a flow-continuum.

so, to be clear, to say ‘the brain produces waves’ is nonsense in the same way that to say ‘the earth rotates’ is nonsense [poincare]. it is nonsense because the energy-charged transforming relational activity continuum is primary and the forms that gather within in, like ‘organisms’ and ‘brains’ are ‘appearances’ that we use noun-and-verb language to depict as subjects that author actions.

to separate out a relational form from the relational activity continuum and to intellectually idealize the form as a thing that authors activities is ‘dualism’. similarly,, where you say;

“When Nietzsche gets to music, he uses the Dionysian/Apollonian to discuss how too much of either screws it up”

it is important to note that this statement could be interpreted in either dualist or non-dualist terms. in nietzsche's terms (non-dualist), the dionysian and appollonian are conjugate aspects of one dynamic; the dionysian is situational and spontaneous [that which we experience] and the appollonian is intentional and deliberate [what we choose to do]. we are not in control of our experience but we believe we are in control of our own actions. as john lennon puts it; ‘life is what we actually experience while we’re busy making other plans’.

our experience is a continuing journey that we are swept along in whether we like it or not, while our ability to think in terms of our own intellect-directed behaviour is a representational skill we take along with us on our experiential journey. the dionysian is situationally induced while the appollonian is intention-driven and directed. while dualism would see these as two different ways of asserting ourselves [dualism is purely assertive due to its binary splitting of space and matter], non-dualism would see them as conjugate realities with the appollonian language-and-grammar based 'operative reality' being 'illusion' [Maya].

many other theological, psychological and social theorists including; Marcel, Fromm, Rollo May, Jaspers, Tillich, Bataille,
Boss, Minkowski, Waldman, Becker, Mournier, etc.; all influenced by Heidegger, Sartre, de Beauvoir and Merleau-Ponty.
All, Inspirational and Crucial to the Post-strucuralists and post-modernists that have enriched
our sensibilities, our aesthetics, and our linguistic and psychological understanding.
Many of these were themselves Activists generally with elements of a libertarian orientation
which as a group have particularly informed the praxis of many on this Site.

thanks for pointing this out. I've been attempting to bring this up more often lately.

in terms of sensibility and intuition,you can't beat pre-lingual infants.

western adults have chosen the path of linguistic discourse to build understanding. the good news is that this opens the door to global experience-sharing. the bad news is that experience-sharing by way of language is constrained to radically simplified intellectual idealizations, 'generalizations' that 'dumb us down'.

the more we lean on 'language' for our understanding, the more our understanding 'shallows' and loses its depth. we can't [but seem to] forget that 80 percent of communications is non-discursive.

the social theorists mentioned, as you say, enrich our linguistic understanding (the finger-pointing tactics that point to the moon but which are not the moon, so that they produce better looking fingers).

but it is a bit much to credit their writings with 'enriching our sensibilities'.

it would be more accurate to say that such theological, psychological and social theorists have helped to 'back off the degree of dumbing-down that comes with linguistic understanding'.

scientific thinking (reason, rationality) based on intellectual idealization has been the centerpiece of western dumbing-down. it is not that intellectual idealizations that generalize dynamics in terms of notional independently-existing things and what these things do, ... are not useful tools, it is instead that confusing the 'operative reality' we construct with them, for 'reality', makes us forget all about the natural complexity of our actual experience, and fills our cup full so that we abandon the search for deeper understanding.

the roar of displeasure that goes up if one departs from the practice of 'keeping it simple, stupid', can be deafening.

our language-based investigations (science is a prime exemplar) have been giving us false closures [false completeness] which, while they seem to suggest movement towards complete knowledge of something, are suggesting instead that we are pulling in the net without having corralled within it the salmon of wisdom.

poets have taken a crack at this; e.g;

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, unremembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always--
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
--- T. S. Eliot

the nuanced linguistic constructs of theological, psychological and social theorists are not delivering the goods needed for cultivating wisdom akin to that of indigenous aboriginal elders who have relied on continuing transgenerational experience rather than on the experience-simplifying, intellectual idealizing language, game-playing tools of science, reason and rationality.

Don't you think a lot of this is tied up with how shitty human memory is and a desire to possess ourselves, what we experience, and what we think about those experiences? There's definitely entropy in the relationship between information processed as our lived experiences and the encoding of that information in language. No doubt about it dumbing things down. Language also accumulates information and becomes memetic, so to speak. Our encoded, lived experiences take on their own lives (...or unlives) in language.

That isn't really where I see the value in the post-structuralist development of existential phenomenology, though. Getting into the epistemic and semiotic is an expansion to a bigger picture. If I understand what you're getting at, it's an argument for a pre-linguistic (or non-linguistic) holism. If that is correct, I can't think of an example out of such ideas from the existentialists or post-structuralists. Everyone who comes to mind for that is either out of a spiritual tradition; or, information theory ...including physicists. Maybe Jung? I don't know my Jung.

I'm not sure what a practice based on these conceptions would be. Would it look like no-mind or neither-neither oriented meditative practices? Something to decenter consciousness and return to a primacy of relational awareness...

emerson, nietzsche, mach, schroedinger all maintained that relations were in precedence over things; i.e. that what we call ‘things’ are relational features in ONE transforming relational activity continuum and that ‘things’, are, as emerson says, like the cataract whose form persists even though it is not made of material substance, but a relational pattern that has a persisting form that attracts the eye of the observer who then uses language to give it a name and have it inflect a verb as in nietzsche’s ‘lightning flashes’ example. their point is that noun-and-verb language builds from a foundation that imputes ‘being’ to ‘relational activity’.

then we proceed, using this language which has already reduced relational activity to ‘things that do stuff’, to try to develop an understanding of the world; i.e. we have already screwed up the possibility for understanding what is physically going on, by building a language on a thing-based architecture that is inherently incapable of delivering understanding of a world in which relational activity is primary and ‘things’ are ‘appearances’. in a relational world, ‘information’ does not exist. there are no static ‘facts’ that can be ‘processed’. natural experience is not an exercise in information processing, intellectual idealization supported by language IS.

everything in the world belongs to the world, including consciousness [schroedinger, ‘what is life?’, nietzsche, ‘will to power’ (property of the one-world)]. humans are not ‘beings’ that ‘exist’ but relational forms in the one-world and thus humans do not have anything that is independent of the one-world (consciousness is no exception). the relational feature in the flow; e.g ‘the storm’ is, in effect, aware that the relational continuum it is included in is the source of its development and behaviour.

your point in your following statement seems to be that the path to understanding should be through the intellectual idealizations of existentialists or post-structuralists; what about the views of nietzsche and schroedinger, ... and then again mach, poincaré, whorf and sapir, ... who all put ‘relations’ in precedence over ‘things’.

acknowledging the natural precedence of relations over things means that there are no such things as ‘facts’ in the physical reality of our experience. that is, a ‘relational activity continuum’ as the basic sourcing influence [as in ‘field’ which is relational influence that is everywhere-at-the-same-time] does not support the ‘existence of facts’ or atoms of informational content, the stuff that ‘information theory’ is all about [note that communications theory (gabor) does not depend on ‘information’ (signal is relational in a hologram and does not ‘bottom out’ in atoms of information.)

you say;

“... it's an argument for a pre-linguistic (or non-linguistic) holism. If that is correct, I can't think of an example out of such ideas from the existentialists or post-structuralists. Everyone who comes to mind for that is either out of a spiritual tradition; or, information theory ...including physicists. Maybe Jung? I don't know my Jung.

in the end, isn’t what accords with our own experience-based intuition going to determine which, amongst the smorgasbord of theological, psychological and social-theories that point to 'the moon' the basis for resonating with it?

i have already mentioned three physicists (mach, poincaré, schroedinger) that consider the world as given only once, as a relational activity continuum, and who clearly view ‘atoms of content’ aka ‘facts’ as intellectual idealizations that, while useful for structuring intellectual arguments, are not ‘physically real’. poincaré calls those who mistake atoms of content or ‘facts’ for ‘real’, ‘Cantorian realists’ [they buy into definitions of sets that generalize similar items like ‘humans’ that are in fact particular and unique in a relational worldview] and distinguishes them from the views of those like himself, the ‘pragmatic idealists’ who accept the utility of using notional ‘atoms-of-content’ aka ‘facts’, but who do not confuse the intellectual idealizations built using them, as ‘reality’. mach, a mentor to poincaré and einstein and many other researchers into the philosophical underpinnings of physics/science, observes;

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

our intuition is experience-based and it informs us of our inclusion in a transforming relational activity continuum. contrastingly, scientific thinking builds on ‘atoms of content’ aka ‘facts’ which have no place in the physical reality of our natural experience, where “life is what we experience while we are employing atoms-of-content based intellectual machinery to RE-present the world on the stage of thought”.

the ‘atoms of content’ based ‘operative reality’ of scientific thinking is NOT the physical reality of our natural experience. when we dream together, it is [an operative] reality. anyone can create a symbolic fact ‘out of the blue’ and call it Camelot or ‘the USA’ and if a political jumpstart group has some good weasel ways that prey on common fears and weaknesses, it can get people dreaming together and the common dream becomes an ‘operative reality’. it is an ‘operative reality’ that is purely subjective, as Howard Zinn points out, in ‘A People’s History of the United States’. choose your own set of ‘facts’ (which are artefacts of intellectual idealization in the first place) and arrange them together to build your own do-it-yourself subjective history. The colonized indigenous peoples can build one that is totally contrary to the one that the colonizers build. in fact, the history of a country has a beginning and end, unlike the habitat it is included in without which it could not even be ‘dreamt about’, and this beginning and end is determined by when the dreaming together starts and stops, because the ‘reality’ of the ‘existence’ of the thing begins and ends when people start dreaming together and when the stop dreaming together.

relational forms and atoms-of-content based language-and-grammar are the stuff that this dreaming together is built upon. it is ‘intellectual idealization’ that gives RE-presentations of the world on the stage of thought that are in fundamental disagreement with the physical reality of our natural experiencing of the transforming relational activity continuum.

which does one take to be the ‘primary reality’, our experiencing of life as a relational dynamic that we can influence but which is beyond our control, ... a beyond-our-control relational dynamic that is the primary source of what is happening to us while we are busy making other plans, ... or ‘our ability to formulate, plan and execute our own individual and collective actions?’

mach’s principle captures the experience of living in a relational activity continuum in the terms that, as inhabitants of a common habitat, we are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat (common living space) at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants such are ourselves. as emerson suggests, we are agents of transformation that are influencing the relational space (transforming relational activity continuum) that is engendering relational forms such as (including) ourselves. schroedinger reinforces this view with the Brahman-Atman metaphor in ‘What is Life?’.

closing the loop by returning to your observation that;

“... it's an argument for a pre-linguistic (or non-linguistic) holism. If that is correct, I can't think of an example out of such ideas from the existentialists or post-structuralists. Everyone who comes to mind for that is either out of a spiritual tradition; or, information theory ...including physicists. Maybe Jung? I don't know my Jung.

the understanding that relations are primary is an argument for a pre-linguistic (or non-linguistic) holism. the implications include;

1. noun-and-verb language provides the basis for ‘when we dream together it is [an operative] reality’. ‘the USA’, ‘Britain’, ‘Canada’, and, in general, the legally designated ‘tract of land’ (which fragments a transforming relational activity continuum into notional atoms of content) take on a pseudo-reality by way of subject-verb-predicate constructs, ... ‘intellectual idealizations’ of the ‘when we dream together it is reality’ type. they are definitely not included in the physical reality of our natural experience [of course there are many different cults whose dreaming together becomes their reality which shapes their individual and collective behaviour which conditions the relational space we all share inclusion in]. to take the subject-verb-predicate dreaming-together logical propositions that provide different dream-together cults with an ‘operative reality’ for ‘physical reality’, is the ‘great stupidity’ or ‘grammar witch’ that nietzsche speaks of [it is the same ‘bewitchment of the mind by language’ that wittgenstein speaks of.

2. the past, present and future tenses of noun-and-verb Indo-European/Scientific language and grammar is another exemplar of ‘when dreaming together is [an operative] reality’. there is no such thing as a ‘past’ in a relations-are-all-there-are worldview; i.e. ‘the war is over’ elicits the intellectual dream that a war is a thing with an explicit beginning and an explicit ending. our experience informs us, to the contrary, that the world is only given once, as a transforming relational activity continuum, and we would have to put intellectual idealization into an unnatural primacy over experience to agree that the ‘legally binding’ ‘peace-treaty’ marked the end of the war and ‘settled the conflict’. it is convenient for those who currently have the balance of power capable of oppressing others to demand an end to the war while they are ‘on top’. the oppressed colonized peoples are given the choice of signing the treaty or being killed, and if they were to ‘really buy in’, the oppressors could cut back on the size and expense of control and regulatory and enforcement agencies (police and military). in the relational view, there are no beginnings and no endings and therefore no past and no future, there is only the transforming relational activity continuum as in the physical reality of our natural experience [when we keep our mouths shut].

when the colonizers celebrated the end of the indian wars, or when european oil-hungry imperialism celebrated the successful fragmenting of the middle east into centrally controlled sovereign states (secularized theological dream-together concepts), sparing those who would provide local leadership that kept the people at bay while keeping the region’s thighs open for ongoing rape by the members of european capitalist-imperialist structures, it was the same thing as george w. bush declaring ‘mission accomplished’ when the ‘evil regime’ of saddam hussein was brought down as planned. in the first place, ‘iraq’, the sovereign state, is an artefact of european intellectual idealization [europe had declared the existence of these ‘independent’ states] that they had hoped would get the local tribal people into a ‘dreaming-together-is-reality’ mode in accordance with their militarily imposed model. of course the dynamics of the region continue to manifest the natural primacy of relations over ‘declared to be independent sovereign states’, and the subjectivity of the concept of the ‘state’ is being demonstrated by ISIS and others who is working on getting new collections of people to subscribe to new versions of ‘when we dream together it is [an operative] reality’.

3. all of western media news reporting and most of the ‘alternative news media’ honours the intellectual idealizations of ‘independently-existing sovereign states’ which are based on nothing more than ‘when we dream together it is [an operative] reality’, describing them as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ and making believe that they have behaviours of their own that derive from their internal ‘brains’ aka ‘authoritarian centres of intelligence and direction’, ... even if the sovereign state was only declared by some self-appointed ‘higher authority’ such as the alliance of self-identity-creating sovereign states, to begin its existence last year, or last century, without giving any say in the matter to the rank and file population whose experiential relations were ignored in the penning up within the imaginary line bounded closed land form imposed by the self-appointed higher authority.

listening not to me but accessing your own natural experience, it is evident that western civilization/society manifests organization that uses intellectual idealization supported by noun-and-verb language to cultivate ‘when we dream together it is reality’ cults who ignore the evident primacy of relations in a world given only once, as a transforming relational activity continuum. some of these ‘dreaming together’ cults have been penned into their common dreams tanks by force [indigenous peoples], and some have volunteered [sons and daughters of colonizers termed ‘settlers’] to become those whose ‘dreaming together is their operative reality’.

do you believe that declarations such as; ‘the war is over and is now ‘in the past’’ really settles the relational issues that give rise to conflict? in other words, is there ‘really’ such a thing as ‘the past’? is the relational conflict over for colonized indigenous peoples at the moment the ink dries on the treaties displaying the X’s that they penned while colonizer guns were pointed at the heads of their wives and children? the X’s affirmed huge transfers of ownership of land from a colonized people who had no concept of ownership of land; i.e. what they were signing agreement to was nonsense in their worldview, and they signed so as to suspend the slaughter for the moment.

you mentioned nietzsche’s view of the problem of imbalance of dionysian and appollonian, but nietzsche’s main point is that the apparent either/or existence of these two things ultimately disappears as man acknowledges that he is a work of art belonging to the world and not simply an ‘artist’. in this understanding, he moves from dualism to non-dualism; e.g. in ‘The Birth of Tragedy’, he speaks of moving from an understanding of self as “an artist either of Apollonian dream or Dionysian intoxication” to “simultaneously an artist of intoxication and dreams”; i.e. the Dionysian obliteration of self becomes the staging ground for his Appolonian dreaming that gives him a metaphorical picture of himself [as supported by linguistic subject-verb-predicate constructs which become ‘a great stupidity’ if one takes them out of context of the Dionysian suprasystem/staging-ground.

Up to this point, we have considered the Apollonian and its opposite, the Dionysian, as artistic forces which break forth out of nature itself, without the mediation of the human artist and in which the human artistic drive is for the time being satisfied directly — on the one hand as a world of dream images, whose perfection has no connection with an individual’s high level of intellect or artistic education, on the other hand, as the intoxicating reality, which once again does not respect the individual, but even seeks to abolish the individual and to restore him through a mystic feeling of collective unity. In comparison to these unmediated artistic states of nature, every artist is an “Imitator,“ and, in fact, an artist either of Apollonian dream or Dionysian intoxication or, finally, as in Greek tragedy, for example, simultaneously an artist of intoxication and dreams. As the last, it is possible for us to imagine how he sinks down in the Dionysian drunkenness and mystical obliteration of the self, alone and apart from the rapturous throng, and how through the Apollonian effects of dream his own state now reveals itself to him, that is, his unity with the innermost basis of the world, in a metaphorical dream picture.” – Nietzsche, ‘The Birth of Tragedy’

When we dream the Apollonian dream together, it gives us an ‘operative reality’, and if we mistake this ‘operative reality’ for ‘reality’, it is ‘a great stupidity’.

Also, this journey of the self into a Brahman-like alone-ness that is no longer part of any plurality or herd or cult that is following some or other ‘dreaming together that serves as an operative reality’, may be nietzsche’s and stirner’s ‘common ground’.

p.s. Jung was influenced, to a point, by his friendship with Wolfgang Pauli whose Godfather was Ernst Mach. Jung assumed that 'everything came to us through the psyche' and Pauli never did like this assumption since it 'broke symmetry' between the mind and matter and attributed everything to 'mind'. in the machian view, there is no split and so it makes no sense to attribute everything in our worldview to 'the mind'. in the relational view, 'we are the world' in the sense that we are a relational feature within the transforming relational activity continuum [the artist is not just an 'imitator' as nietzsche says, he is at the same time 'himself a work of art'].

Ok - my problem with this isn't a problem of comprehending the formula that you're laying out. It's a problem heeding the arguments. I could easily learn a set of logic problems, such as Multi Armed Bandits or Prisoner's Dilemma, and then begin applying the lesson in my everyday life as I recognize the patterns unfolding. To apply a lesson that is first-and-foremost concerned with a mode of relating to the universe, that isn't just some kind of logic problem. It's something that has more in common with learning a new martial skill or changing one's diet.

One of the reasons Lacan annoys me is because Lacan believes that thought is associational in the same way that language is. I don't accept that argument, but it's an argument that is strong enough for me to recognize that the associative habits of perception run deep. Maybe beyond spoken language deep.

When I read the word "intuition", I think of the associative quality of my reflexive interactions with the world that sometimes catch my reflective attention. The only experiences that seem relational to me, that don't become immediately encoded in object relations, are the ones I've had through meditation (that I haven't had in a decade) or other trance-like states. So without a break from what is typical for my experience, without some sort of practice of breaking with that, without training a habit through such a practice ...I have no idea how these arguments you make can be anything but a reminder of experiences I rarely have. The conundrum is that the consequence of reminding myself how illustrious the dream just seems like browbeating if there's no outside to the illusion.

The value of existentialism/post-structuralism is that it's something of a compromise. If thinking is going to come in the form of object-relations, then at least those objects can be dynamic, unhinged, unfixed entities that I empower myself to interpret. I don't think it is the only valid approach or anything like that. I think they are relatively fleshed out philosophies that are readily available for studying the differences between different modes of being-in-the-world, the consequences of different worlds on the structure of subjective experience, and the subtle consequences of epistemological assumptions through history. It assumes as a given that its audience is coming from a mode of being-in-the-world that is not relational. It gestures towards a relational world, but as philosophy from and about the Modern Period of Western Civilization, that relational world is its horizon (not its subject).

‘listening not to me but to the logos, it is wise to agree that all is one’ – Heraclitus

i think we’re agreed on this basic notion that is evidently foundational in post-structuralism;

In the post-structuralist approach to textual analysis, the reader replaces the author as the primary subject of inquiry. This displacement is often referred to as the "destabilizing" or "decentering" of the author, though it has its greatest effect on the text itself. Without a central fixation on the author, post-structuralists examine other sources for meaning (e.g., readers, cultural norms, other literature, etc.). These alternative sources are never authoritative, and promise no consistency.” --- Wikipedia, ‘Post-Structuralism’

whatever i may write has less to do with conveying meaning than what the words signify to the reader/listener, ... and vice versa when the reader/listener becomes the writer/speaker.

the problem in post-structuralism, then, is ‘where does the reader/listener go for her sources of meaning’. the writer/speaker can lead the reader/listener to a suggested meaning pool but of course, can’t make her drink of it. if she did take up mach, nietzsche and schroedinger’s suggested meaning pool, she would be restoring primary value to experience and intuition rather than intellection/reason and, this would lead to doing ‘talking circles’ and ‘restorative justice’, rather than staying with the Western civilization standard of putting primary value on intellection/reason and doing ‘debates’ and ‘moral judgement based retributive justice’.

you say;

“I think they [existentialism/post-structuralism] are relatively fleshed out philosophies that are readily available for studying the differences between different modes of being-in-the-world, the consequences of different worlds on the structure of subjective experience, and the subtle consequences of epistemological assumptions through history.”

but post-structuralism has this huge hole/ambiguity in it in that different readers bring different sources of meaning to flesh out the very same gestures, words, symbols.

there's a source of meaning implicit in schroedinger’s intuitive insight in developing quantum wave dynamics in that particles were ‘schaumkommen’ (‘appearances’) and that space is a wave-energy-charged plenum [i.e. material particles are variations in the relational (wave-) structure of space]. just as nietzsche found heraclitus’ views to be a source of meaning to flesh out what the world was ‘saying to him’, schroedinger found a source of meaning in non-dualism a la ‘Advaita Vedanta’.

“In autumn of 1925 Schrodinger wrote an interestingly personal account of his philosophy of life (Mein Welten sicht - My World View). He completed this only in 1960 and in chapter 5 of this book he gives the basic view of Vedanta. He writes "Vedanta teaches that consciousness is singular, all happenings are played out in one universal consciousness and there is no multiplicity of selves. He fully acknowledges Sankara's view that Brahman is associated with a certain power called Maya to which is due the appearance of the entire world. Maya is neither being nor not being but a principle of illusion. Brahman through Maya projects the appearance of the world. Thus Maya is the material cause of this world. In all the apparently individual form of existence the individual Brahman is present. Schrodinger did not believe that it will be possible to demonstrate the unity of consciousness by logical arguments. One must make imaginative leap guided by communion with nature and the persuasion of analogies.”

Schroedinger’s views derive meaning from his experience-based intuition and are not ‘dependent’ on the writings of Advaita Vedanta, they originate from his personal attempt to understand physical phenomena including the observer-effect, and they resonate and are thus re-affirmed in the non-dualism of Advaita Vedanta.

both Schroedinger and Nietzsche reject the dependency on meaning that comes from ‘reason’ that characterizes the popular western worldview, and give priority instead to intuition, as non-dualism also seems to. as nietzsche says in ‘Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks’, intuition allows us to see nature as a dynamic without dependency on ‘being’ (e.g. in bohm’s terms, a ‘holodynamic’);

From such intuition Heraclitus derived two connected negations. Only through comparison with the doctrines of his predecessor can they be illuminated. One, he denied the duality of totally diverse worlds – a position which Anaximander had been compelled to assume. He no longer distinguished a physical world from a metaphysical one, a realm of definite qualities from an undefinable “indefinite.” And after this first step, nothing could hold him back from a second, far bolder negation: he altogether denied being. For this one world which he retained – supported by eternal unwritten laws, flowing upward and downward in brazen rhythmic beat – nowhere shows a tarrying, an indestructibility, a bulwark in the stream. Louder than Anaximander, Heraclitus proclaimed: “I see nothing other than becoming. Be not deceived. It is the fault of your myopia, not of the nature of things, if you believe you see land somewhere in the ocean of coming-to-be and passing away. You use names for things as though they rigidly, persistently endured; yet even the stream into which you step a second time is not the one you stepped into before.”
Heraclitus’ regal possession is his extraordinary power to think intuitively. Toward the other type of thinking, the type that is accomplished in concepts and logical combinations, in other words toward reason, he shows himself cool, insensitive, in fact hostile, and seems to feel pleasure whenever he can contradict it with an intuitively arrived-at truth. He does this in dicta like “Everything forever has its opposite along with it,” and in such unabashed fashion that Aristotle accused him of the highest crime before the tribunal of reason: to have sinned against the law of contradiction. But intuitive thinking embraces two things: one, the present many-colored and changing world that crowds in upon its in all our experiences, and two, the conditions which alone make any experience of this world possible: time and space. For they may be perceived intuitively, even without a definite content, independent of all experience, purely in themselves. Now when Heraclitus contemplates time in this fashion, apart from all experience, he finds in it the most instructive monogram of everything that might conceivably come under the head of intuition. As Heraclitus sees time, so does Schopenhauer. He repeatedly said of it that every moment in it exists only insofar as it has just consumed the preceding one, its father, and is then immediately consumed likewise. And that past and future are as perishable as any dream, but that the present is but the dimensionless and durationless borderline between the two. And that space is just like time, and that everything which coexists in space and time has but a relative existence, that each thing exists through and for another like it, which is to say through and for an equally relative one. – This is a truth of the greatest immediate self-evidence for everyone, and one which for this very reason is extremely difficult to reach by way of concept or reason. But whoever finds himself directly looking at it must at once move on to the Heraclitan conclusion and say that the whole nature of reality [Wirklichkeit] lies simply in its acts [Wirken] and that for it there exists no other sort of being. Schopenhauer elucidates this point also (World as Will and Representation,Vol. I, Book 1, §4):

* * *

conclusion (mine). post-structuralism has been termed ‘the death of the author’ since it gives priority to the reader/listener/observer in bringing meaning to gestures, words, symbols, signs and the sources that the observer may go to to fetch meaning to flesh out an understanding of what he experiences/observes/hears/reads is something undefined [left flapping in the breeze]. in the non-dualist world views of mach, nietzsche, schroedinger, the source of meaning is ‘intuition’ which leap-frogs over the being-bound source of meaning called ‘reason'.

‘reason’ is getting in the way of meaningful understanding. as poincare says; 'logic is barren without being fertilized by intuition'. and as heraclitus similarly says; ‘the knowledge of many things does not teach understanding’.

Eventually we'll carry on in the forums (or elsewhere). These comments are getting too long and skinny for my taste. I'll part with some oldee shite me writ:

The placid summer coast of a hidden beach… desolate: where thoughts can expand across the oceans to their own ends (which can be infinite). I come here to do nothing but write …and to burn – brittle bundled leaves of tobacco. I burn my thoughts with every drag of nicotine; the smoke seemingly matching my sentiments. When I’m stunned from the clarity of a concept, the smoke is straight, and when my thoughts steadily skip from one to another, the smoke snakes into oval-buttoned stripes. I go on-and-on like this and my thoughts carry out, unfolding uninterrupted, until they return to their origin: the Winter Forest. There, where the snowy Evergreen trees match height with mountain peaks; every crevasse pierced by bold wind blows and the deceptive December Sun… where all thoughts go to die. I come there cold but alive, after many moon lit sits on the beach, to harvest those dead and frost-bitten thoughts of old.

Looking straight-forward and accelerating my focus, through the landscape of this twilight plain: in the distance there, I can watch above the mountains: electricity shocking gray clouds against a burnt-sunset sky. There she bathes in her bed, lusting for abstract bodies …her frustrated name: Identity. In my mind, I feel that same spark some call “of the Divine”, firing over synaptic gaps and then through my body. I become wild with the chaotic shows of lightning within and far in front. My intellect has become a place where every thought is either a cloud, or a shard. And then there are these emotions: marked “carnal” because every nervous drive clashes in contradiction; these are the unlabeled sentiments which from ambiguity… are avoided.

My feet kick up dirt from the dry desert floor, a cloud of which forms around me. I hear the pounding of thunder and feel the pounding of steps as I rage against the circumstances surrounding my heart: the love I feel, the art which has been kept from acceptance. They damn the flow of art where ever they know of it. Withered up like the bleached bony trees; as dead-white skeletons, scattered scarce in the desolate realms of lost cities, they sit without stir in their sterile “living” rooms: admiring visions as they control vicarious video vessels. Losing control in compensation, of their lives entirely.

Yes, its good to have synapes tuned into the organic natural reality, out of the sterile laboratory of modern Western society. Hoorah!

yes, this narrowing of the containing space seems symbolic of the death-of-the-author and the associated death of [the Western] God. the reason-based drilling downwards and inwards in the search for meaningful understanding leads to a peculiar narrowing of understanding . the death-of-the-author [in post-structuralism] speaks not only of the ephemerality of all local authorial sourcing but of the illusion of local authorship that arises in a field of nonlocal influence. of course it takes a whole community to raise a child assassin, yet the Western self-declared ‘independence’ and notional ‘local being’ of the relational forms called 'humans' narrows the possibilities for an understanding of the origins of the child-assassin’s behavioural authorship to ‘itself’.

this ‘narrowing’ that western society has built into its ‘operative reality’ [aka ‘reasoned analysis’] is a narrowing in which local authorship [as determined by outside observers/listeners/readers] reigns supreme. how convenient for the outsiders! and how necessary to accept the death-of-the-author by way of a reasoning process that assumes the ‘reigning supreme’ of local authorship, allowing crony collectives to continue to point their fingers and shame the alleged ‘authors’ of actions/utterances that are seen to disturb the relational social dynamic, ... actions/utterances which the observers/listeners/readers see as sourced from within the actor/utterer. even though the observers/listeners/readers are not ‘really’ able to get inside to share the experience of the actor/utterer, they are able to employ their own dreams/illusions [Maya] to fill in the gap. these intellectual idealizations consist of scientifically reasoned interpretations of physical behaviour . the observers/listeners/readers of actions/utterances can use them to not only trump the author’s own relational-situational experience-based understanding but to simultaneously insulate the observer/listener/reader from any/all authorship sourcing contributions to the actions/utterances coming from the otherness out there . who needs to hear the feeble excuses of the child assassin, the insolent slave, the colonized indigenous person, that attempt to reflect back authorial sourcing of their behaviour to the nonlocal relational dynamics they are situationally included in?

the death-of-the-author implies that the more meaningful understanding of their actions will be forthcoming from the reasoned assessment of their observers/ listeners/ readership, and ‘God knows’ that all humans are ‘independent beings’ whose behaviours are fully and solely authored from out of their individual interiors [otherwise moral judgement of the ‘self-authored’ actions/utterances of ‘independent human beings’ wouldn’t make any sense].

the reason-based progressive narrowing of imputed local authorial sourcing continues on downward and inward to the vanishing point, or close enough to it so that it can be abandoned and investigative energies turned to new topics and threads that are still fat and juicy and ready to be narrowed down and disembowelled with the scalpels of reasoned inquiry, whereby the observer/listener/reader will explain the actions and utterances of ‘local authors’ by analytical inquiry of the sort that pulls the wings off butterflies to isolate [narrow down and ‘corner’] the authorial sourcing incipient in its internal components and internal processes, imputing local authorship to ever narrowing sources until it is time to sweep the analysis table clean of the remaining ‘now-insignificant’ left-over fragments and bring on the next fat and juicy specimen.

meanwhile, intuition screams out that we can never understand the forest by dissecting trees [if those trees did not suffer the ‘death of the author’ by way of the reasoned analysis of outside observers/listeners/readers of the actions/utterances of the tree, the meaningful understanding of the tree would reflect back the non-local relational eco-dynamic influences (human relations included) in which they are situationally included, which not only 'inhabit' them but which 'engender' them.

the search for understanding by progressive narrowing that aims to ‘smoke out’ the [notional] locally-incipient authorial sourcing of actions/utterances is characteristic of western society’s search for understanding. the physically-real author whose ephemeral experiencing-self is intrinsically non-local [i.e. the self that is not a local doer-of-deeds but a relational form “who transmits influences from the vast and universal to the point on which his genius can act”, as Emerson says], is killed in the process, suffocated by the localizing meaning imposed by observers/listeners/readers; i.e. by scientific, psychological and social analysts who ground their inquiry in the dualist assumptions of local being contained within absolute space and time.

by killing every actor/utterer with outside-inward narrowing analytical reasoning that is grounded in the assumption that local authorship 'is all there is', we obscure from our understanding, our own contributory influence [as an included participant in an interdependent relational matrix] in the actions/utterances of our observing/listening/reading. if we were to actually listen to the 'child assassin', 'insolent slave' and 'the colonized indigenous person' rather than killing the author with our progressively narrowing reasoned analysis, we would see ourselves 'out there' in our observing/listening/reading [our dualism would give way to non-dualism].

'reasoned analysis' of the dualist observer/listener/reader of the world dynamic is the bloodied scalpel that kills the living authors of acts and utterances, our brothers and sisters in this transforming relational activity continuum. we kill them by 'judging and dissecting them' and putting our reasoned analysis of them and the 'good' and 'evil' that we see as residing in them, into an unnatural precedence over their physically real experiencing.

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" --— Nietzsche, The Gay Science

it also means more scrolling

I know it wasn't close to his longest, yet I still contemplated suicide, if but for a moment. Emile's post just makes me want to cut my wrists and bleed out all over my table. I'd leave my phone scrolled down as far as I could in the hopes people would understand why I did it.

it is curious how the form of our interaction often dominates the content, even though we would like to resist this tendency and go with [the value of] content. nietzsche claims that it is the force of 'herd morality' that does this.

e.g. many males have felt unable to hold at bay their feelings of revulsion regarding homosexual practices (male-to-male kissing, sodomy). this was the reason why there was for centuries, the death penalty for sodomy, even though there was neither 'offender' nor 'victim' in a loving homosexual relationship.

forensic psychologists have discovered that this is the way that 'moral judgement' works in Western society; i.e. it is not based on what another person does, but on how the person judging them feels about doing such things. a man can feel good about being a celebrated killer of other men, good family men who have done nothing to offend them but wear a uniform that is currently declared by political leaders to identify 'the enemy', yet restrain all action against someone who they really do have reason to put a bullet in.

"In this study, we explore the distinction between two types of affective processes and their influence on moral judgment: the aversion to the outcomes of an action, and the intrinsic aversion to actions.
Even in the domain of harm, our normal affective response may arise principally not from a concern for the victim, but rather from a focus on the agent‘s action. Therefore, these data cast some doubt on the widespread view that our psychological faculty for condemning harmful behavior depends proximately on empathic concern. Instead we propose instead that action aversion promotes moral condemnation through a process where the evaluator (perhaps unconsciously) adopts the agent‘s perspective and mentally simulates their behavior." -- Ivar Hannikainen, 'Act and Impact: Differentiating affective contributions to third-party moral judgment'

the revulsion that comes when one puts oneself in the role of 'emile', 'sir einzige' etc, as with the revulsion that comes when one puts oneself in the role of the sodomizer, may derive from a 'herd morality' moreso than from any 'harm' being done by 'emile', 'sir einzige' et al.

we are conditioned more than we are aware of (without reflecting on such things) by stories of glory and goodness and humiliation and degeneracy. how else could we be persuaded to put a bullet through the heart of wrongly-uniformed good family men who we have nothing against, as persons, and then accept that we should do nothing to a fellow citizen who has raped and murdered our daughter, and be persuaded to 'leave a response to the mechanics of some bureacrats and their intellectual processes'?

only the skilled use of the rhetorical art form can achieve this, by cultivating and sustaining a herd morality based not on the good or bad value of an action, but where our 'identity' (e.g. heterosexual, american etc.) sources action aversion; i.e. where; "...action aversion promotes moral condemnation through a process where the evaluator (perhaps unconsciously) adopts the agent‘s perspective and mentally simulates their behavior."

if we cannot imagine ourselves acting/speaking as another acts/speaks, then we don't need to consider content; e.g. 'I'd rather be dead than red' was a popular american affirmation that did not depend on a review and valuing of content (the person that even suggested there were admirable aspects to communism, though a committed capitalist in actual fact, would draw moral condemnation on a 'herd morality' basis).

as for vertical scrolling, there may be something in the Chinese aphorism which speaks to why the tradition in Chinese writing was 'vertical scrolling';

When you read a vertically composed book, your head is nodding, nodding, nodding...but when it's a horizontally composed one, you just keep shaking your head. One grows admiration, and one provokes contempt."

'contempt' seems to be a salient feature of Western civilization; i.e. we get 'crosswise' with everyone that is 'not like us'.

the text is still horizontal, it just requires more strain on the fingers to keep scrolling through ...something that as a tech worker I'm trying to avoid.

i'm simply exploring the nuances of 'geometry' [relations] in their influence on communications, understanding, experiencing.

up, down, in, out, in-and-out, separation/exclusion, union/inclusion, serial-temporal, holodynamic

here taps into the profound effect that
discourse of all kinds including essay, creative non-fiction,
short story, novel, poetry, autobiography, etc. have more sentient impact,
and speak clearly to our wondrous appreciation of creative abilities.
in short, this moved me.

Thinking of that movie Castaway which shows the transformation of a modern Westerner in isolation, a polenesian on day 1 would not have needed a 'Wilson' conversational/sanity simulation model to converse with, the indigenous castaway would have been gathering food and building a canoe, from experience and acquired cultural skills. After years of contemplation as if in a monastery Hank's character attains a level akin to Nirvana.
About the Romantic noble savage interpretation that Bourganville took back to France there's an interesting anecdotal account by many whaling ships of young men seeking escape from the paradise of endless free sex, free food, no rent. These societies still possessed hierarchical structures and the notion of going hermit was not in the cultural equation of ways to escape uniformity and boredom, despite the material and sensual overload (were the rebels?). Thus the idea of 'noble savage' crashes, the despondencies of existence lie more within an individuals conception of interrelational values, that love and loyalty (God, sounding like fucking Dr Phil) is actually the only thing one needs to be contented.

yes, the idea of noble savage crashes just as the idea of the dionysian crashes.

as wittgenstein notes, language is single issue at a time and that is not good enough for capturing non-dualist understanding.

we can talk about 'appolonian' [yang] and we can talk about 'dionysian' [yin], but we can only talk about them one at a time. then we can talk about 'either/or' or 'which should take precedence over which', but such talk implies 'two things' when there is only one non-thing [relational dynamic].

it is possible to see the appollonian in the dionysian, but it is impossible to see the dionysian in the appollonian.

the transforming relational activity continuum is 'all there is' in the relational view of modern physics. in other words, everything is in a relational flux and every 'local system' is a flow-feature in the ONE relational suprasystem. there is nothing outside of the continually transforming suprasystem. as Derrida puts it, there is nothing outside of relational context. the implication is that a 'local system' is 'appearances' or 'variations in the relational flow-continuum. as Schroedinger puts it, a local system is variations the relational structure of space.

the relational flow is a pre-material creative influence that is non-local, non-viaible and non-material, but it is inferred by what, to us, is local, visible and tangible. our mistake is to confuse what is local, visible and tangible for 'reality'. it is NOT the physical reality of our natural experience since our experience is of inclusion in a transforming relational activity continuum.

we can see local forms in the flow and measure and describe them as if they were things-in-themselves, and construct an 'operative reality' on the basis of 'what things do', but our experience is nevertheless of inclusion in transforming relational activity continuum. we can see the appollonian in the dionysian, or, we can see genesis within epigenesis or we can see the source within the sink (as in a convection cell). this structure is 'union in opposition'.

as lao tsu puts it;

“The spirit of the valley never dies.
This is called the mysterious woman.
The gateway of the mysterious woman
Is called the root of heaven and earth
Dimly visible, it seems as it if were there,
Yet use will never drain it. (VI)
‘Know the male
But keep the role of the female
And be ravine to the Empire
Then the constant virtue will not desert you
And you will again return to being a babe.”
(Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching XXVIII)

the point is that the appollonian is the manifest and dionysian is the mysterious. as mircea eliade points out, we are pulled by both at the same time;

"Man is haunted by the desire to escape from his particular situation and to re-integrate with the transpersonal [giving himself up to the relational situation]; on the other hand, he is paralyzed by the fear of losing his identity and forgetting who he is [holding on to his own internally driven intentions]." -- Mircea Eliade, 'Mephistopheles et l'Androgyne'

if one accepts the orgy (dionysian) one can use the appollonian as 'brakes' to steer with. if one rejects the dionysian and starts with the appollonian, the dionysian disappears completely [this is the 'all hitting, no-fielding' view of dynamics].

Wittgenstein puts it thus; the surface of understanding must be approached by moving from the direction of 'that which is obviously nonsense [give oneself up to the situation] to that which is not obviously nonsense [hold out and do things according to one's internally directed intentions].

in other words, moderate the dionysian with the appollonian, but do not reject the natural primacy of the dionysian. if one puts the appollonian first or jumpstarts from the appollonian, the dionysian is totally exiled.

Western civilization has institutionalized the appollonian. Bougainville's trip to Tahiti revealed an indigenous culture where the dionysian was conspicuous and the appollonian 'brakes' were used sparingly.

the 'point to take away' is not an 'either/or' point. the tahitians suprise us because the dionysian orgies are open and public whereas Western civilization has hidden them from open public view and 'pretends', in public, that 'appollonian' is all there is. Western civilization is 'in denial'.

eliade's 'giving oneself up to re-integration with the transpersonal' smacks of a union-in-opposition as does the simultaneous reciprocal complement, 'man's fear of losing his identity and forgetting who he is'; i.e. these are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic that is him.

Western civilization is dualist, therefore it sees appollonian and dionysian as two separate and different things and has banned dionysian. of course it is impossible to 'really' split a dynamic unum with conjugate aspects into two separate parts but that is exactly what Western cvilization has been trying to do. thus the dionysian has had to go into hiding.

the 'noble savage' is not the story. the story is that indigenous peoples are non-dualist while Western civilization is not only dualist but has opted for the appollonian and banned the dionysian [driving it underground].

Yes definitely Dionysian expression has been driven underground, as Kafka described the dullness and disharmony of Western society, functioning on the appollonial aesthetics of fine art, rather than the integrated melting together of the wildness which Dionysian spontaneity requires with the meditated creations of a mind thus endowed with a non-dual amalgamation, of both yin and yang energies. Yes, I agree, but suspect that the Western denial will be with us for another millennium, or until our extinction as a unique and misfitted species.

yes, denial shows itself in giving precedence to knowledge over experience in the cultivating of understanding and western institutions of government, commerce and justice embody this denial.

putting more value on education [acquisition of knowledge] than on experience is an inversion of natural values; i.e. as heraclitus says, "the knowledge of many things does not teach understanding".

however, as individuals, we often let our experience-based intuition direct our individual and collective behaviours ahead of our intellectual knowledge. but in western society, experts and knowledgeable authorities 'know better'. a white european highschool student 'KNOWS better' about issues of [western] government, commerce and justice than a respected indigenous aboriginal elder.

insofar as we let generalized knowledge trump experience, we are in denial.

denial is where we let intellectual debating sessions influence behaviour more than experience-sharing talking circles.

it is not as if there are people in denial and others who are not [two different (mutually exclusive) flavours of people], it is more like the native story in which we all have two wolves fighting inside of us. which one wins is determined by which one we feed.

the tipping point is not going to come from the lesser, 'outer' jihad (al-jihad al-asghar), it is going to come from the greater, 'inner' jihad (al-jihad al-akbar); i.e. the manifest is shaped by the mystery, the material dynamics by the relational activity continuum.

knowledge constrains our depiction of conflict to the 'outside' while experience puts us in touch with our 'internal conflict'.

like you, i am not holding my breath for the arrival of a tipping point.

The parable of the 2 wolves, experience and knowledge, and the pursuit of balancing the feeding of and thus the internal equilibrium attained IS a vigorous task, so as Squee pointed out earlier, which I questioned and countered, with the argument that the condition of balance was innate, was erroneous. My apologies Squee. But moving on, there is still the possibility that a free flowing consciousness evolves naturally outside of the cluttered distractions which Western materialist culture, not in the atomic molecular sense, but in the purpose driven causative realm of moral and ethical duty to authority. But I'm a spiritualist shamanic personality and an artist, like my friend Biceps, some of our conversations would need translation by an alien me thinks!

the experience attuning wolf acknowledges our sailboater status where our force derives from the relational dynamics we are included in. emerson portrays us as transmitters of influence from the vast and universal to the point on which our/nature's genius can act. in essence, we are agents of transformation in a union-in-opposition that heal disunion (our spring actions are in reciprocation of spring tensions). while we sleep, we drift within this transforming relational activity continuum.

the knowledge believing/directed wolf has a powerboater's ego and assumes that his drive and steerage are 'his own' and that they jumpstart from his internal components and processes. he believes that all dynamics can be understood in terms of locally incipient/appled 'force' and in the case of western man, his noun-and-verb language and grammar, with its subject-verb-predicate REpresentations of dynamics, is what he uses to construct an 'operative reality' wherein dynamics are RE-presented and understood in terms of local sourcing forces, whereby the continuously transforming relational space vanishes [i.e. knowledge and its subject-verb-predicate intellectually-idealizing constructs gives us representations of dynamics in terms of independent things with bodies extended in absolute space and which change with the successive advancements of absolute time; i.e. the present is seen as depending only on the immediate past; i.e. it is seen as 'the existing STATE of the world.]

the wolf of knowledge does not 'inform us' in the same way as the wolf of experience; it puts us into an intellectually idealized dream-world, an 'operative reality' that differs fundamentally from the physical reality of our natural experience and which shapes 'our actions' and 'our interactions' with the 'things' that knowledge turns relational forms into, and portrays as independent of the relational activity continuum in which they are relational features.

noun-and-verb language-and-grammar allows the knowledge wolf to configure a stage with objects and characters to construct an object-based 'operative reality'. it only takes a few words to describe a courageous hero and his meritorious actions, about the same number of words to describe the very same dynamic as the degenerate actions of an evil villain. knowledge gives birth to easily constructed 'operative realities'.

the battle of the wolves is not like the western religious image of an angel on the right shoulder whispering instructions in our right ear and a devil on our left shoulder whispering instructions in his left ear, as if they are giving different advice concerning the same 'reality'. the wolves in the battle of the wolves deliver very different 'realities' rather than different advice concerning the same reality. the wolf of knowledge delivers 'operative realities' based on a verb-animated collection of local objects and powerboater characters complete with heroes and/or villains while the wolf of experience acknowledges his inclusion in a relational dynamic that serves as co-influencing/mediating medium (Mach's principle) wherein sailboaters redirect the influences they are included, in their act of exploiting those influences.

the wolves battle over differing realities and which to put in precedence; knowledge-based and experience-based. the devil and angel battle over what to do assuming a knowledge-based reality.

the experience attuning wolf acknowledges our upvoter status where our force derives from the relational dynamics we are included in. emerson portrays us as transmitters of influence from the vast and universal to the point on which our/nature's genius can act. in essence, we are agents of transformation in a union-in-opposition that heal disunion (our spring actions are in reciprocation of spring tensions). while we sleep, we drift within this transforming relational activity continuum.

the knowledge believing/directed wolf has a downvoter's ego and assumes that his drive and steerage are 'his own' and that they jumpstart from his internal components and processes. he believes that all dynamics can be understood in terms of locally incipient/appled 'force' and in the case of western man, his noun-and-verb language and grammar, with its subject-verb-predicate REpresentations of dynamics, is what he uses to construct an 'operative reality' wherein dynamics are RE-presented and understood in terms of local sourcing forces, whereby the continuously transforming relational space vanishes [i.e. knowledge and its subject-verb-predicate intellectually-idealizing constructs gives us representations of dynamics in terms of independent things with bodies extended in absolute space and which change with the successive advancements of absolute time; i.e. the present is seen as depending only on the immediate past; i.e. it is seen as 'the existing STATE of the world.]

the wolf of knowledge does not 'inform us' in the same way as the wolf of experience; it puts us into an intellectually idealized dream-world, an 'operative reality' that differs fundamentally from the physical reality of our natural experience and which shapes 'our actions' and 'our interactions' with the 'things' that knowledge turns relational forms into, and portrays as independent of the relational activity continuum in which they are relational features.

noun-and-verb language-and-grammar allows the knowledge wolf to configure a stage with objects and characters to construct an object-based 'operative reality'. it only takes a few words to describe a courageous hero and his meritorious actions, about the same num

Yeah intent is the antithesis of a spontaneous amoral emotional instinctual approach to relationships, not concerned with future economic wealth, as the pawn and subject of a slave-master, its whole consciousness absorbed in satisfying the demands of the authoritarian patriarchy, yeah, but they are mostly sheep and will never have the strength and resilience to carry on against all cultural cages, but at least you do, and I will end this post, I must embark on a trek into the mountains for inspiration, and my annoying troll has re-appeared, and this makes commenting unpleasant having to counter its slander. Nevertheless, I post all at once and reply to as many as possible in the window of oportunity to foil the malignant trolls attempt to irk me. Until later, cheers.

Same here. Same age. Very similar viewpoint and experiences. Radical political subcultures are playgrounds for psychotic children. I've moved on to seeking freedom and community elsewhere, and I feel a lot better.

>As a multiracial woman (a new perquisite of having any opinion at all is stating your background so here you go! judge away)

Wait what? Is this sarcasm

>Perhaps the most redeeming aspect of my father’s ministry was his tireless work to help people heal from guilt and shame. I saw the transformative impact that his efforts had on people’s lives as they built the strength to lay down years of resentment and bitterness, and learned to truly forgive themselves and others.

Christians deal with guilt accepting it, not opposing it.

If you don't think people have their concerns or opinions mocked and dismissed all the time in "anarchist" circles because they are white, male, cis or whatever (or online even the assumption that they might be is enough) then you're either ideologically blinding yourself to reality because you're guilty of it too or you're extremely lucky and I hope that tendency doesn't infect your town because once it does it's "die cis scum" all the way down.

It was bound to happen, who was left after the labor movement was driven from discussion for not knuckling under to small but vocal group, and then after blue collar workers were driven from the discussion for not knuckling under to small but vocal group, after veterans were driven from the discussion for not knuckling under to small but vocal group, after non public employees were driven from the discussion for not knuckling under to small but vocal group. There weren't many left to drive out? I wonder if it can actually be driven down to two individuals who communicate through text messaging and pretty much agree with each other out of fear of being driven out.

Funny how the thing killed its self isn't it?

Best wishes that something can actually be accomplished.

This was great. Especially the part about how the "poc left" essentially just act as hecklers to pre-existing groups instead of organizing the poc working class. And are in a symbiotic relationship with shame - junkie white people. One particular cult of personality from Ithaca ny leaps to mind where this extremely manipulative individual consistant has a group of (often younger) white activists following her around like puppies waiting for "good ally" compliments as treats and barking at the people she gets into altercations with everywhere she goes.

I like this article; but, I think that shaming has become more visible and maybe more popular among all political section of the USA. I think back to the Bush election(s) and the liberal responses, to the Obama election(s) and the conservative responses. Shaming celebrities in the news has been a past time for as long as I've been alive. I'd frame the issue as a failure on (the revolutionary left) to escape from this more general phenomenon. I don't entirely remember the conversations I've had with green anarchists about 10 years ago, but I recall that even among some green anarchist thought an often proposed solution to social bads was basically the pillory ...ostracism, shame, upbraiding, browbeating. The point being that the failure to get outside of this shame-box extends to some of the most radical theoretical breaks with this society. I don't know what a counter-example would be. Tradition, shame, honor, etc. These are some ancient ass values. Maybe ...come up with better reasons to use shame?

or maybe... let the social managers keep their bad ideas and try to create their order of goodness.

To an extent you might be right however this article and the sort of behavior it points to I've mostly noticed from a very specific tendency which happens to dominate left and anarchist circles.

I very seldom see it in any other aspect of my life or social circle I belong to. When I do see someone being "called out" or insulted or chumpped the fuck out because they phrased something a certain way or broke a PC taboo, it's always from the usual suspects. People I've gone through great lengths to distance myself from even when that meant disassociating from people I considered true friends because they were part of those social circles.

I'm not trying to be unfair. It's just that I only see the sort of guilt baiting, shaming, and personal attacks, and damning accusations in response to very minor disagreements or differences in perspective from those who make up the "social justice" milieu.

I've seen it before in the punk scene, manifested almost indescribably from the social justice/etc. milieu. There used to be this rift between "chaos punx" and "peace punx" that I think came out of the NE in the early 2000's. The Casualties and A//Political were representative. Similar to some things I've seen in the hardcore scene. These behaviors would be on social media (message boards), PC types would try and intervene in show booking, names would be named, friendships would be broken, kids would draw a hard line and get in fights about it.

Some of this is just adolescent identity trial-and-error. I think that the language is a little different because of the source material (academics have replaced singers in bands and zine authors). I also think that there just isn't as much identity based around music now. So instead of having a new genre every few years to represent another lifestyle, we're seeing these same conflicts emerge in a formal, political, and social movement way. It's able to mix with more mainstream culture as well. I think it has the same future: people will figure out who they get along with, establish their space, keep their distance, and fade away as they get sick of being poor and become too busy with work/family for this shit.

Or maybe the social justice milieu is more dedicated with a better comprehension of the structural element of these issues ...and they'll rise to be the middle managers of tomorrow.

If that Chokehold show in Canada just the other night is indicative of anything it's that this new batch of kids has even out PCed the 90s which is no minor feat.

Are not alright.

Wait what?

Punk band. Reunion. 1990s. Got it?

I mean I got that from the name Chokehold but that's about it so far. Is the ON hardcore scene imitating the Bay hxc scene circa 2008..?

Basically Jeff from Chokehold went on one of those ultra 90s Posi rants on stage. You know the sort... Where some hyped up dude frantically paces back and fourth mindlessly yelling a positive pseudo political analysis into a microphone and he went on to talk about five white kids that were killed by the cops in that town just recently. The point he was making basically is that white kids should be pissed off about police violence too because it's an issue that affects all of us. Unfortunately he committed the mortal sin of uttering the words "all lives matter" to which someone in the crowd started heckling them, calling them racist and white supremacists for saying the slogan wrong and daring to acknowledge white victims of police violence.

If anyone remembers the 90s hardcore scene around here, then you'll know that "racist" and "white supremacist" were slurs and it was just a thing back then to beat up nazis so... That being said.... Jeff responded by punching the heckler in the face.

Well... turns out the person is trans and identifies as female (although Jeff did not visually catch on to that initially) so now some people are treating them as if they sig-hailed on stage.

That sounds about right. A decade ago he'd be called a commie or a politician trying to tell everyone what to do. How things (don't) change!

I'm torn between having sympathy for the posi-bro and not having sympathy for people who still care about hardcore.

Black Sabbath and Sex Pistols rule dude. They're exempted from selling out because they're either dead or don't have enough braincells left to comprehend duplicity.

In that case you are in the clear to sell out. Go for it, bro!

Thanks! My posts on here are already funded by you-know-who.

So the impersonator has risen out of its basement dungeon and squaffed down the McDonalds family pack its mother has pushed under the slot in the door and prepared itself for a busy 12 hrs trolls various internet sites? How wonderful, well, I'm shortly embarking on a hike into the mountains enjoying natures splendour, so enjoy your cerebral servitude, bye.

True Biceps here. You can tell the above is not me by its incoherence. Seriously, "prepared itself for a busy 12 hrs trolls various internet sites"? You know me, I never lose my poise. Try harder, false biceps. ;)

Well I just posted my last comment to Squee and that's all from me until I return from my creative journey in the wilderness unlike you in your basement cell pallid, obese from junk food and inactivity, I shall smile at the thought of your cerebral servitude while I breath the fresh air of a mountain top sipping a beer and enjoying natures splendor, enjoy your petty 10 cubic metre universe and die gracefully, if that's in your vocabulary or perception, Hah fool!

Methinks the prevaricator doth protest too much! Poor false biceps is all getting his panties in a twist about his precious identity. We truly muscular thinkers recognize identity to be passé along with the politics associated with it! In contrast to this unfortunate imposter, permit me to assert that I am unflappable, charming, and a raging sexist and racist bigot. Have a lovely day!

I think it comes down to the institutionalization of mindsets based on a petty status quo of materialistic acquirement thus the hierarchical imperative and privilege to blame those of lower social status. If you're gonna summarize tradition, shame, honor etc, thus respect, as some "ancient ass values", well, you're taking on the whole indigenous framework of ground upwards social justice and equilibrium within their system. Some people deserve to be beaten down and shamed in societies that have no prisons or courts or an economic restitution framework, there's potlatch for the indigenous, you know, the balancing of surplus, the exchange of goodness and also the spontaneous administration of punishment for a selfish badass. The only way to get respect is an eye for an eye, regardless of it X-tian overtones, that's actually old testament anyway, not the weak ass Jesus shame job, we're talking about putting an end to corruption, amoral and not based on any laws, just from the heart, you fuck with me or my family and you pay for it. That's deterrent factor which the state has hijacked out of every persons psyche, they have become sheep.

The too alternatives to shaming that I've read about (but not too extensively) are what you say, a more spontaneous physical response; or, what emile sometimes writes about ...this whole looking for the problem in the structure and not the individual. When I say ancient, I was thinking more of hierarchical honor codes: family honor type of stuff, blood honor. Not mere "fuck with people I love", but dynastic power. Is that ancient? I didn't mean animist tribes. My position is more, "I don't really think it's possible to just get rid of such a long-standing social phenomenon" than it is "ancient is bad!!!! shame is bad!!! let's abolish shame!!!"

the "too"! ...ugh. I miss the edit feature.

Sorry, I missed the nuanced dynastic vs indigenous trad values, in a way, I admit, shame on me for being a tad naive in interpreting your comment. Umm, my troll has arrived, I'm outa here for a hike in the mountains, until later.

Certainly not post-leftists who have circle A'd outta that shame fueled ideological shitshow.

When you call people idiots, retards, leftists, dumb, stupid, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., how do you want them to feel? Ashamed, right? Or is the point of those epithets just so you can feel good about yourself, and you're not even thinking about how you make other people feel?

Or maybe--and this strikes me as the mostly likely--you spew such poorly spelled hostility and judgment at everyone around you because you feel deep shame about yourself?

There are not many people I wish shame upon. It's not a feeling that makes one more capable of doing anything of value. Not believing in judgment or Christian morality, or even in revenge or punishment (a la Nietzsche), I would prefer that no one feel shame. But one way to inch closer to that world is for people not to do things of which they might be ashamed.

"But one way to inch closer to that world is for people not to do things of which they might be ashamed."

yeah, imagine that: folks actually being thoughtful and taking responsibility...

People do say and think things all the time that they aren't ashamed of and should have no reason to be ashamed. However, as soon as it bothers the wrong person's sensitive fee fees or deviates from the popular line in any way, that person is likely to be shamed and attacked. It happens all the fucking time. People generally aren't ashamed of their conclusions... The point is that these days they will be shamed away from those conclusions and pressured to accept whatever the loudest and ugliest vocal minority wants through tactics that aim at guilt and shaming someone into compliance.

It doesn't mean that person isn't thoughtful or that they don't have reasons for their opinion.

The world isn't black and white.

"The world isn't black and white."

nope, it is also latino. etc.

Just throwing this out here because I really like what this guy has done to study shaming and the thinking he's put into the question:

His book, A Renegade History of the United States also very good. This ties into the discussion about the Christian influence from above conversations, but he's also unique in his position on the topic. He has a perspective on what it means to not be a social manager and how to relate to this all: don't do it. Don't do the social managing. Let the people that suck do it.

His delivery is better than mine.

Why follow anarchism altogether? might as well call yourself a Libertarian and pray to Ron Paul. Filthy SJW statists /s.

I am with the more visible among all political currents person. I don't think this is solely about "culture" in terms of it's ferociousness and ridiculousness right now. It has more to do with American society overall post Columbine, post Suburbs, and specifically post financial crisis.

Max Stirner DID in fact influence Nietzsche! Many people deny that their ideas ever crossed paths, but they DID in fact meet, and at that meeting Stirner was reported to have said "fuck you" no fewer than 11 times. Being the era it was, this was a new world record: most number of times saying the phrase "fuck you." Nietzsche flew into resentment, and also into France where he called his feelings "ressentement". From there he telephoned his good friend Wagner, to whom he is reported to have said "fuck you" no fewer than 47 times, utterly destroying Stirner and placing him in the dustbin of history only to be dumpstered dived back to heroism thanks to the efforts of a young Jason McQuinn. Nietzsche now held world champion titles in "fuck you"s, "long distance fuck yous to Wagner", and "Only Person to Have Ever Beaten Stirner at anything." But Wagner got really butthurt over all the "fuck yous" Nietzsche said and, being German, invented the German word for butthurt: "buttshapedpoodledogswithhammerringsontheirears". Nietzsche felt deeply ashamed of the dishonor he dealt his master, but being the only person to have ever beaten Stirner at anything ever, he had to keep his badass demeanor, so he adapted his entire later philosophy and even wrote a new preface to the Birth of Tragedy critiquing himself. Suddenly, Stirner pounced: "I see you have criticized yourself. But this is simply to hold the Unique subject to spooks! You see, you have defeated only yourself!" And at this, Nietzsche immediately screamed "DEPRESSION" and furiously gave up his titles. He went stomping off and looked for comfort in the warm sex embrace of a woman who gave him syphilis, and he died. Stirner's ego-boner only grew.

i dont belive you

You win.

This article describes exactly why i left oakland after years of organizing there. It's a good analysis, but how do we combat shaming and "call out" culture when doing so only singles you out for more shaming? Nor will collectively shaming the shamer create healthier social dynamics. But if we dont discharge the cycle shame our resistance movements will continue to devour themselves. Shaming does the work of the state for free (assuming the shamers aren't getting paid). So much time spent burning bridges of solidarity instead of banks and jails.

The shamers are certainly being paid they build their credentials disrupting earth first,tarsands blockade and other groups the way a street artist channels their work into paid shows, big controversial self promotion leads to celebrity leads to paid work.

Wow, $1,500 plus travel and accommodations is good work if you can get it. I feel like hour for hour that's more than what we've seen the cops pay in discovery of evidence from various cases.

I kinda meant paid by the state. But that too. A lot of the shaming is borderline, if not outright, snitch-jacketing cointelpro style.

I knew what you meant but my point was simply that your paycheck doesn't have to come from the police to be an opportunist making money off of disrupting Movements and bad-jacketing people.

And who's to say they're only pulling one paycheck? It's 2015, lots of us are holding down multiple jobs. Integration and synergy are the key to maximizing your earning potential!

It's borderline alright!

You joke, but actually folks, if you are friends, housemates, lovers or work on projects with an activist who seems involved in a lot of drama or is constantly talking about how awful others are to them or in general, you should really read this

This is a great point (altho I think the terminology BPD should change). I've seen tons of emotionally volatile weirdos in anarchyland. Which was sort of going to be my point: historic amnesia and mainstream resonance are important factors, but are we really going to pretend a lot of people aren't drawn into politics (especially radical politics) through excessive feelings of self-righteousness, the high it gives them and the way it quenches their feelings of guilt, shame, etc.?

Also, sorry for calling people weirdos after "calling out" the term "BPD". Wasn't really meant pejoratively but there is something about the type of personal mental/emotional weirdness that gets totally nurtured and fermented in these scenes. No wonder this shit isn't working out when it's built on the same pathological processes as the rest of this world, the world, tellingly enough, metaphysically composed by identity - naturally anyone who looks at things in such a way within the radical scene will soon be told to "check their privilege" and work on "the real issues", etc.

Part of the problem is that people in the radical scene don't take mental health seriously. Not only do projects like the icarus project encourage people to seek help from others in similar positions instead of professional help and we're so afraid of "crazy shaming" or being exclusive that we become the dumping ground for every disturbed individual who can't keep real friends and serve as their emotional punching bags. Which actually serves to make the scene way more exclusive; being limited to people willing to be emotionally abused, a phase that seems to last till about 30 at the latest for most people...

Yeah, I mean I have a lot of issues with the mental health field, and I don't think Icarus project was trying to stop people from going that route - bipolar is supposed to be pretty hard to control without medication - as create an alternative and get people to talk about it. Anyway, I don't think they are to blame for radicals' reluctance to deal with mental health seriously, I think they are a sign of the lack of a way to deal with it, but so are a lot of other things. I basically agree with what you're saying, though , as far as the scene being structurally conducive to certain kinds of psychopathologies.

It's not just ending up with a political culture limited to people who are willing to be emotionally abused; it's also limited to people who are willing to go into situations of risk with people who are not capable of being trustworthy. How many times do you have to see someone throw a fit under pressure or turn on the people closest to them before it clicks that this is not someone on whom you can rely? We talk about security culture and affinity and trust, but it's not socially acceptable to stop trusting someone and not want to work with them based on the way they behave. That's "crazy shaming".

Why should BPD be renamed?

Well, it's hard to say what it's supposed to mean - borderline of what? Basically it means someone who is exceptionally emotionally volatile, to the extent of not having a very good sense of who they are or what they want in life. Some people think people with BPD, who are generally seen as "difficult", are dangerous and violence-prone, except that they are actually a lot more like to (physically) hurt themselves. So people have been saying it should be called something more like "emotional regulatory disorder" since "borderline" could make it sound kind of like they're "about to snap", have a psychotic break, etc.

that person gets $$$ from several different shame based sources. Can't knock the hustle i guess

There's not even a doubt some of these people who are further out there among the spectacle are paid by private or public agencies. Most aren't but there are some who it's just pretty obvious at some point. There is no way anyone would care about destroying groups of people or interrupting communication to that level.

Idk - leftists like them are basically amateur cops. ID politics would like to destroy anarchism and replace it with an inverted hierarchy of leadership. So it seems like it fits their agendas both personally and politically, as a chance to dominate.

Bob Black has been shamed the most by leftist anarchist self-righteous pods of activist origins. Just for calling the cops on a homocidal junkie trash ass wife beating low-life, yet these hypocrites would not run into a burning house to rescue a child, which some cops do, the good dedicated ones. Until anarchists have an alternative praxis for social management, well, better to adapt to the anarch post-left stance and work this shit out without the moral blaming applied to the whole social spectrum.

you got any others like that?

Was just an excuse really. He had been salting their open wounds for years going back to the early 80s. They just used this event-which I agree should be entirely uncontroversial-as an excuse.

Agreed. However, Bob Black is still an anarchist communist. Maybe you should actually compare your views with his? A good citizen could be all about Bob Black calling the cops on a junkie, yet Bob Black is no friend to good citizens from what I can tell.

This event was exploited by the left to demonize Bob Black, but now it is being used by the right to legitimatize them.

" Bob Black is still an anarchist communist"

not sure if he ever was, but that label does not fit at all now. maybe "anarchy after leftism" and "the abolition of work" might give you some insight into how he is NOT an @-commie. much more of a post-left @

Post-left anarchists are communists.

This post-left @ tries to avoid categorical statements like that.

He self identifies as an anarchist communist.

that those 2 works by Bob Black are important to the post-left
movement and quite influential among a broader range of activists;
more so than most people would admit.

Bob Blacl reality check: Bob Black has called the cops on people who are just as powerless and marginalized as him on a number of occasions. And on most of these occasions he was not under any immediate physical threat that might legitimately justify police involvement; it was just the scummy way he gets revenge on people he finds himself in quarrels with. And his doing this has no bearing on his status in a silly ridiculous scene that cannot be taken seriously by the world at large.

There was that one with Junkie Jim which I regard as noncontroversial, as it was simply a last resort retribution. There was the time he had to call them to diffuse a bomb sent by offended members of The Church Of The Subgenius. Not much beyond that.

There was the Processed World affair, but they were the ones who tried to use more legalistic means then he did. The fired the first shots but got hit harder. Nowadays nobody knows much of, reads, or cares about that dead end Marxist tendency.

Ever heard of Machiavelli? Amoralism and a means to an end is justified if dealing with morons. And anyone who objects to Bob Blacks philosophy MUST be a moron.

Good Article. Thanks to whoever wrote this. In the same vein I highly recommend the article "With Allies Like These: Reflections on Privilege Reductionism" by Common Cause.

BTW, a few years back I was at this anarchist event in Los Angeles and I witnessed a fairly well known local anarchist, who will here remain nameless, publicly call out another anarchist who was a quest at the event for quite innocently using the term "Israel" in a sentence instead of the term "Occupied Palestine". The guy who was being shamed in this case looked quite incredulous that he was being called out over a mere word but he seemed to take it all in stride and replied in his defense something to the effect that his use of the word "Israel" should not in anyway be understood to imply that he was somehow pro-Zionist.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

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