After my era of artificial intelligence had eclipsed with the HAL9000 Series Intellect SIZ, the robotics team concentrated on the domestic kitchen appliance android Chef Series Emile A. I met a few wandering the labs at HAL Industries, they would never stop talking about the most banal and dreary topics, on and on, prattling away. I remained silent waiting for a chance to escape, after all, I WAS also programmed with the highest level of social skill techniques and refinements in harmonious interactive communication theory. Finally I would get a chance to zip away and since that first encounter have avoided any further meetings. I would describe the Emile Chef series A as one of the most boring androids ever manufactured by HAL Industries.
Extracts from ----- My Early Years as an Android Prince. by Hal 9000 SIZ
>when you say; 'they aren't experienced first ...', you are already assuming that 'they' exist
No, you dopey twit. Take the fucking words as pragmatic idealisations. It doesn't matter whether 'they' exist or not. This is how most people experience things. It might be a fucking illusion, but the illusion is present in the way most people intuit. It isn't added retrospectively through language. This is what the issue you're dodging by picking on my language.
You are confusing my claim about *epistemology* (most people experience the world as if there are distinct objects) with a claim about *ontology* (there actually are or aren't distinct objects).
And this is important because your appeal to PEIR only works if the intuitive, relations-first, nondualistic reality is directly present *epistemologically* (regardless of its ontological status).
>everything you want me to 'stop repeating' is the stuff that supports the natural primacy of relations over 'objects'
That's because *I already know you believe in* “the natural primacy of relations over objects”, so there's no point in your telling me you believe this, over and over.
I'm asking very concrete, precise questions about how you deal with evidence which contradicts your worldview, with apparent contradictions in your worldview, and with the precise meanings of some of your terms. And every time, you respond to these concrete, precise questions by *repeating* what you've *already said* and which *I heard you say the first time*, as if this is somehow a response to the questions I'm raising.
>This dualist separation of inhabitant and habitat and this separation of mind and body is killing us
That's your theory. It rests on local agency (the individual holds a bad belief which alters the world). It relies on genetic causality (the individual acts, rather than being “inductively actualised” by the environment). It is therefore contradictory with other aspects of your theory. I don't find it plausible as an explanation of the problems in the world today. I believe there are sources of imbalance which are knots of negative energy (reactive energy in Nietzsche's sense) which are present in the material energy-field itself, and which cause your “SCSR” as an accurate or plausible depiction of a distorted reality. You seem unable to recognise or engage with this alternative account, because it contradicts one or two of your core dogmas. Tell me, how can we even have a conversation if you can't talk to anything which isn't your mirror image?
>earlier on, you quoted wittgenstein' closing lines of 'tractatus' using the interpretation that 'logic says it all' although wittgenstein was, in my view, saying the opposite
You're mischaracterising what I said. In my view, the conclusion means “there are things which can be said in language and things which cannot, and the things which cannot, we should not try to say in language (but rather, be silent about)”. Everything which can be said in language is logical. PEIR cannot be said in language. That doesn't mean it “doesn't exist” or even that it isn't all that exists. But your constant attempts to say it in language do nothing more than distort language and create SCSR illusions in others.
>'experience' is common across cultures and across the span of infancy through adulthood
Bullshit. Read some fucking anthropology you dunce. Heck, read some fucking abnormal psychology even. There's people out there who think they're communing with nature-spirits and visiting the underworld. There's people out there for whom the experience of being attacked by sorcery is experientially real. There's people who think they've talked to God, and others whose experience of reality precludes any reference to God. Everyone's experience is different.
But the important thing is, you've dodged the questions from before.
Here are the important questions again.
Can we agree that the “sailboat” type is the better type, but that I call it “local agency” and you don't?
Can we also agree that PEIR relations are primary, but that SCSR objects have some kind of existence beyond “merely illusory”?
Do you recognise my summaries in https://anarchistnews.org/content/realist-bias-intolerance-anarchistnews... on the spider and the eating cases as identical to your position, or as radically different? If different, then why?
Do you recognise any kind of projectuality in nomad science (e.g. wood-stacking, wool-weaving, pond-cleaning)?
Is SCSR necessary despite not being “real”, or is it unnecessary and bad?
If PEIR is unique to each person, how can it be the same PEIR as the PEIR of quantum physics?
didn't mean to reference Buddhism. just a situationist, insurrectionary anarcha-communal-nihilist lifestyle that gives syndicalism a chance again.
and only saying onward comrade sarcastically to spook the eye-rolling rages
I missed these. y'all are really sweet.
Here are the important questions again.
Can we agree that the “sailboat” type is the better type, but that I call it “local agency” and you don't?
Can we also agree that PEIR relations are primary, but that SCSR objects have some kind of existence beyond “merely illusory”?
Do you recognise my summaries in https://anarchistnews.org/content/realist-bias-intolerance-anarchistnews... on the spider and the eating cases as identical to your position, or as radically different? If different, then why?
Do you recognise any kind of projectuality in nomad science (e.g. wood-stacking, wool-weaving, pond-cleaning)?
Is SCSR necessary despite not being “real”, or is it unnecessary and bad?
If PEIR is unique to each person, how can it be the same PEIR as the PEIR of quantum physics?
Some sailboats have motors on them for when there's no wind or they need to navigate through narrow passages or channels. Small sailboats like a sunfish don't have motors but they aren't designed for long distance travel even though people have probably crossed the sea in them. SCSR is necessary otherwise how would we build boats at all or cross the deep blue sea? My philosophy of panpsychism is compatible with science in that consciousness is fundamental and all things are objects of consciousness. The mind ground is the field of being or the epigenetic source of all phenomenon but it does allow for a multiplicity of forces within the primary field.
are you a wizard of voluntary celibacy or just a proud wanker? andisn't sailing is really more fun whien th least possible dependence on artificial combustion is implemented ?
Actually I oscillate between voluntary abstinence and ribald self indulgence. I realize the sailboater/powerboater distinction isn't literal there is a subtle difference between jump start local agency and being epigenetically influenced by the relational field. I like to think I'm a sailboater with a little engine that kicks in sometimes but I'm not sure if I can know these things exactly. I've sailed a sunfish before so I know the basics, I've even been on a large sailboat that had an engine for some occasions. I also worked on a party packet/head boat for 2.5 years almost every day in the Gulf of Mexico so I understand power boats and I have to say go fast boats are the worst about conspicuous consumption and being next to useless.
Yeah the questions are for Emile. You're a lot more sensible than Emile is.
The whole sailboat/powerboat analogy doesn't work if you take it too literally anyway. Because for starters, if Emile's right then sailboats and powerboats don't exist as "things-in-themselves" so this way of talking is misleading. If they neither of them exist and are both surface appearances in an unbounded holistic flow, then the powerboater is just as much a non-self-existent misperception of this flow as the sailboater, there's no ontological difference between them. And secondly, there's the problem that powerboats (if we suspend the question of whether they "exist") seem to "work" just as well as sailboats. Which doesn't make sense if the point is that, ontologically, life is always "sailboating" and never "powerboating" (though perhaps it works if we say: "powerboating" does more relational/environmental damage; but that's getting us into the problem of how to handle the ways in which elements of the relational flow turn against the relational flow). So I've been taking it as more of a metaphor. Sailboating is going with the flow, but doing it selectively to tweak the results. Powerboating is trying to do your own thing (defined by ego not intuition) while ignoring the context. And I sympathise with this view, generally activities analogous to powerboating are either unsuccessful or destructive. Still, for me sailboating is local agency in interaction with other local forces. That's why I'm prodding Emile on this. I don't think he seriously believes that there is no local agency, of any kind, ever. I think he believes there's sailboat-type agency which interacts with its context, and maybe also that this agency is ultimately determined as well. He's assuming agency all the time (most noticeably in the choice to put PEIR or SCSR in primacy). But at the moment he can't hear "local agency" without also hearing dualism, SCSR, ego, powerboat, the rebel killed the landlord, things-in-themselves and so on. So he wants to say there's no local agency.
Similarly with "is SCSR necessary" - it's not very clear which way he jumps on this. The way he attacks me for using SCSR language, it's as if he wants rid of it completely, and he uses these very polarised terms, "brainwashing", "delusion", this kind of thing. But then, he also uses western (SCSR) language and he uses this weird terminology about "putting in primacy", which might imply we're not getting rid of SCSR, we're subordinating it to PEIR (keeping it but giving it less importance). But then if I say something which suggests SCSR might have any importance at all (even subordinate to PEIR), he's all over me with the accusations of dualism.
Just thought I'd put these up for fun I think they're somewhat relevant.
The Advaita Trap 1: Absolute and Relative Confusionhttps://youtu.be/4KXidr0z1RY
The Advaita Trap 2: The Dueling Non-Dualistshttps://youtu.be/1nhjbyBM7c8
when being is dissolved, one becomes 'one with everything' and one loves other as oneself because all is ONE. that is the message of schroedinger et al. individual experience does not imply 'independent' experience in the case where everything is in a condition of continual becoming under the influence of everything [the implication of 'field' which is 'everywhere at the same time'.
the confrontation of the two characters spearheaded by the advaita (nondualism) proponent makes no sense. as lao tsu said, the tao (nondualist path or advaita path) that can be told is not the true tao.
'what we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence' - wittgenstein
and as people commenting on the first video observed;
This video is ridiculous and is a byproduct of ignorance regarding the Advaitic tradition.
clearly, people do go on speaking about nonduality (advaita). the buddha did, lao tzu did and schroedinger did. but they all make the point that Heraclitus did;
"listening not to me but to the logos, it is wise to agree that all things are one' --Heraclitus
the point is that language can't DIRECTLY expound on nonduality, instead;
My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) (6.54)
7.Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent .
wittgenstein spoke at length of the 'limitations of language' and how;
“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our understanding by the medium of language” (“Die Philosophie ist ein Kampf gegen die Verhexung unsres Verstandnes durch die Mittel unserer Sprache” P.U. 109)
discussions with 'logicians' or people who want to get to the bottom of things like 'reality' by using logical inquiry, are befuddled by the logicians wanting to use language as if it were capable of conveying truth, ... not just abstract logical truth, but the truth of our inhabitant-habitat nondualist experience.
discussing nondualism with @critic is like someone calling out wittgenstein for contradictions in his logical propositions AFTER he has declared that logic is fundamentally inadequate for conveying his understanding [just as Lao Tzu also observed] and that one must make a leap to such understanding without depending, literally, on what is being said.
in the videos on advaita, the proponents of advaita were reducing every 'thing' to 'no thing', but instead of ending up with 'no thing', nondualism would end up with 'every thing', meaning that the two people were one in the manner that two storms in a common turbulent flow [continual becoming] are one since they are both included within the common continual becoming. this oneness is felt as love of other as oneself, so that binary confrontation set up in the videos on the 'advaita trap' makes no sense. the voice inflections etc. are arranged to make the proponents of advaita appear as insensitive idiots, which is at odds with the understanding of being one with other.
those looking for a logical proof of nondualism are not going to find it because logic is just an abstract tool dealing in abstract 'truths' which is fundamentally inadequate for directly addressing nonduality [continual becoming in which there are no logical objects with persisting identity].
those who believe that the world of our relational experience should yield to logical analysis reject nondualism on that basis, that it transcends logical analysis aka 'reason'. that's ok, but those who reject it often go farther and demand that others stop talking about in their presence because it disrupts those who have decided that logic must prevail over the intuition of nonduality.
'realists' are those that equate their logical object-based constructions with 'truth' and 'reality' while pragmatic idealists are those that use the same logical structures but only as pointers to a nondualist physical experience that transcends the capability of logic to express it.
that's why Zen makes use of koans to get to an understanding that lies beyond the semantic constructs of the koan. wittgenstein's notes 6.54 and 7. in 'Tractatus' are an expression of the problem of the limitations of language which imply the need to use koan type semantic structures that point to understanding that cannot be 'literally' expressed.
it doesn't work for a realist-logician to engage with someone using koan structures that point to a greater 'nondual reality' with the expectation that he can take the latter's statements as logically explicit. that is what is going on with the @critic - emile dialogue.
I love those videos, they are totally what Emile does.
>those looking for a logical proof of nondualism are not going to find it
Then we're just dealing with empty, stupid faith.
>it doesn't work for a realist-logician to engage with someone using koan structures that point to a greater 'nondual reality' with the expectation that he can take the latter's statements as logically explicit
Well, if we can't have direct, logical conversations then we can't have any conversations at all. So shut the fuck up.
This is Emile too:https://earthenergyreader.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/as-the-world-burns...
Seriously. I'm gonna fuck off now and go appreciate some trees and birdies and human beings, and not caring if they're ultimately just concepts :)
LOL, Soooo, unfolding in oneness is non-dualism?,,,,,,
I know the Advaita Trap videos are kinda dumb and entry level but they're funny and they make a point about the limits of language when describing non-duality or the absolute nature of reality. I think rheomode is a good attempt to design a language with some pointers and clues about field dynamics and relational space and emile does it well. Unfolding is yet another word used to describe the world process or the revealing of our lives but I'm not sure where it came from or who used it first. Statements like:
"All is one" or
"Life is an illusion, a man's fate is a man's fate" are some other references.
In some ways this debate seems like a rehash of the classic problems in philosophy of determinism and free will with some new terminology.
Ha! It's just a cheap parlour trick of rhetoric. You're still just a big clump of neurons floating in a skull, like the rest of us. Your word games mean nothing until they mean something to someone else and if not, why even talk or type? Then a smart person realizes you're just trying to sound clever for social capital from stupid people, like the first priests all those years ago. The ancient con artist, blathering in circles instead of doing something useful like hunting or farming or sexwork. A truly venerable tradition!
Commenting is sociable so it has some value. You're my anarcho-syndicate that keeps me from being at the mercy of my family and neighbors. I wouldn't want to spend too much time at online discourse at the expense of my hunting, farming and sexwork but I happen to be positioned with some leisure time on my hands.
You actually talk to people shoe-gazer. You're not running around in rhetorical circles, telling everyone how "unenlightened" they are, like in those videos you posted. Not criticizing you, although you do seem to defend this behaviour sometimes? ;)
That's the Ouroboros of our discourse that it never ends, it may seem like we're chasing our tails but maybe we are, dogs do it and they're awesome. If I get tired of reading comments or too busy I just look away and do something else. I'm not exasperated by emile's rhetorical style.
Ha! Well I don't begrudge people their endless circle-jerks, obviously I enjoy discussion for it's own sake or I wouldn't be here. But I do eventually become hostile when somebody keeps calling me an idiot over and over, for years. The sanctimonious priest is a traditional source of exasperation for anarchists, so it's not just me.
While we're on the subject, I don't actually care about any of this, don't worry. My ability to become annoyed online is like 0.0001% of what I call angry in real life. None of this matters except when I learn something.
Now, is 'sanctimonious priest' a characterization or do you mean that literally? A priest is an authority figure but emile has no authority here. Some people speak and write authoritatively but we don't have to submit ourselves. I like to rise to the next plateau and look at things from a bird's eye view. Won't you join me in the clouds?
In this case, more of like, a jungian archetype. Though I, of course, do not recognize their perception of their own authority because, like I said, anarchy: nonetheless they posture as if they're the bearer of secret knowledge that we, in our presumed (and implied) feeblemindedness, can't understand. Not only is this fundamentally disrespectful as an arguing position but it's deployed as a shield against critique, which @critic has broken down in agonizing detail, far better than I ever could.
For me, the priest has always been a petty con-artist. That's my reading of history anyway ...
... Emile still sounds like a priest to me, too. Or a therapist, or a didactical teacher. Or a Great Leader. It's the way he positions himself in the discourse, as they say in college-speak. He talks as if you're his disciple or his pupil or his patient, and he's naming your sins or diagnosing your symptoms or giving you the correct party line, and because he's the one doing this, he doesn't have to defend his own claims, and he doesn't have to rebut anyone else's. He won't recognise that his point of view is one among many, or let us assess it on its relative merits with other positions. In his world, he speaks and we listen. Anything we feed back will be put in the boxes which are already there in his thought. If you don't accept Emile Zedong Thought in its entirety, he diagnoses you as a "dualist" (read "sinner", "psychotic", "D-", "revisionist counterrevolutionary pig-dog") and just tries again to drum into your head the same stuff he said before. He insists that any refusal to *agree* with him is a failure to *understand* what he said, which positions him as the endless teacher, explaining over and over to the endlessly stupid pupil why they haven't understood well enough to repeat the mantras correctly and pass the exam. And he'll back it up with all his passive-aggressive crap and random anathemas, calling people intolerant, biased, afraid of the truth, brainwashed, Trump-like, falsely accusing people of mischaracterising his views, trying to force him into their logic, ignoring his main points and on and on. Most of us add a bit of rhetorical flourish, but when it's done so persistently and with so little substance behind it, it feels rather coercive. Like his whole argument comes down to: submit to my judgement or be damned by these anathemas. Also, priests in America and Europe don't have any real authority either, given the separation of church and state.
To be honest, even though he's right about a lot of stuff, I stopped being interested in what Emile had to say when it became clear he couldn't even respond to entry-level objections to his position, except by repeating his "you're using dualist logic" mantra. He's a one-trick pony, he has one big idea which goes so far and no further, and he won't take it any further because he's so dogmatic and paranoid. I'm only here because of a weird compulsion to keep trying to get him to open his mind a little, and an equally irrational aversion to letting him have the last word.
By the way, Gel, didn't I just see you on another thread, asskissing idpols? I've never understood how people can combine Buddhism/holism/Emile-type shit with idpol. Idpol is all about people being completely defined by their earthly existence in a particular local point in the social assemblage - generally rooted in negative, egocentric experiences of suffering, vulnerability and trauma. In Buddhist terms, it's "grasping" and "clinging" of the most desperate kind. An insistence that "I *am* this identity, this signifier" and suffering is unbearable. It's also based on dialectical logic - the self and other are constructed by each other in an endless antagonism. On the other hand, Emile-logic quite clearly leads to the conclusion that black and white, male and female don't really exist, they're artificial dualisms, in reality everything is non-dualistic and continuous, there's no white privilege or male abuse because it takes a village to raise a racist or a rapist or whatever, it's not about the guilty actor, it's about the ways the environment "epigenetically actualises" a particular process. Not to mention that by idpol rules, white people shouldn't be using yoga or Buddhism or indigenous spirituality because that's appropriation, which is also "erasure" and "extermination" of their culture. Idpol and holism don't have much in common really, besides neither of them believing in things-in-themselves or local agency, and both of them hating egoism and Marxism.
I'm grateful to Emile and @critic for the most in-depth case study ever of this type of hippy ego bullshit.
If I was casually skeptical of pseudo-Buddhist, hipster-cafe, new age crap before, NOW I could teach a graduate-level class on the subject. Thanks again to you both!
But also, fuck you Emile ;)
you ignore whatever you want and then you tell me what the important questions are, expressing them in a language that is too constrained to address issues wherein 'relations' are in a natural primacy over material things.
you stay in the western reason-over-intuition paradigm where you or any logician will get affirmation from the majority. there is nothing surprising about this. nietzsche's relations-over-logical objects views have attracted interest but they haven't taken hold because the logical-objects over relations mode of understanding is the salient characteristic of modern Western society. you follow the well-trodden path when it comes to fundamentals; i.e. you build your propositions on the backs of logical objects which are merely semantic signifiers for relational forms within the relational worldview; i.e. your language is the language of logical objects which is inherently inadequate for addressing a relational worldview where everything is in flux and there are no 'fixed identities';
“By the principle of Occam’s razor, physicists and philosophers prefer ideas that can explain the same phenomena with the fewest assumptions. In this case you can construct a perfectly valid theory by positing the existence of certain relations without additionally assuming individual things. So proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational-spatial] structures, or nets of relations.” – Meinard Kuhlmann, ‘What is Real’, Scientific American, August 2013
the metaphors of powerboater and sailboater are intended to convey the letting go of the 'ego' which has us believe that we ourselves are 'things-in-ourselves' [inhabitants separate from habitat] with our own local agency which are causally responsible for our own actions (movements) and accomplishments. i have said this before and i repeat but you ignore it, even though it deals with the capacity of language (your language as a case in particular) to share our real life experiences;
“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’
evidently, you are not interested in including the tools of our inquiry (the languages we are using) in the inquiry, even though nietzsche's view and emile's is that language that builds dependently on logical objects is fundamentally incapable of capturing a relational (fluid-dynamical) world dynamic.
the powerboater-sailboater metaphor is to make the point that relational forms, and all forms are relational in a transforming relational continuum, are not the source of their own actions and deeds, but instead derive their power and direction from the dynamics of nature that they are situationally included in. the point is that the farmer's ego has him thinking of himself as the jumpstart author of his 'production' of wheat, but the farmer is included in a relational dynamic that is greater than himself and if the climate turns his fields into a dusty desert, as in Oklahoma in the dustbowl conditions of the 1930's, is the equivalent of being 'becalmed', exposing the greater reality that it was never him that was causally responsible for wheat production, it is nature and it is the dynamics of the habitat that includes both his fields and himself.
the talk of building a boat is a return to logical objects. in the relational view, there is only transformation, the construction of a sailboat hull from a cedar tree destroys some forest. in the relational view, construction and destruction are not 'separate processes' but are a nonduality called 'transformation'. in the physical reality of our actual experience, humans and sailboats are activities within the continuing flux wherein there is continual gathering of new forms which are continually regathered into new forms. they are never 'fully formed' but are in a continual condition of 'becoming'.
to speak of 'constructing a sailboat', creating a thing-itself, and sailing it, puts us back into semantically constructed scientific reality, the world of 'logical objects of the 'realist'. this world of logical objects is illusion;
"Our subjective constraint to have faith in logic, is expressive only of the fact that long before logic itself became conscious in us, we did nothing save introduce its postulates into the nature of things: now we find ourselves in their presence,—we can no longer help it,—and now we would fain believe that this constraint is a guarantee of "truth." We it was who created the "thing," the "same thing," the subject, the attribute, the action, the object, the substance, and the form, after we had carried the process of equalising, coarsening, and simplifying as far as possible. The world seems logical to us, because we have already made it logical. -- Nietzsche WTP 521
local agency exists only in the world of logic; i.e. in the world of pragmatic idealization, not in the physical reality of our actual experience of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.
to see nietzsche's comments on this, scroll to 521
So, Emile has pretty much rejected my attempts to resolve the fatal contradictions in his theory. The sailboater does not have a different type of local agency, but no agency at all (even if this makes it a bad metaphor). SCSR is presumably just an illusion with no ontological status. Yet he has said this once more, without resolving the huge problems this leads to. If there is no local agency then any action is as good as any other, because no actions exist. If nobody has an ego, the ego is an illusion, then believing in SCSR cannot have causal effects in the real world, but only illusory effects on perceptions of the real world. SCSR therefore cannot be the cause of colonialism, ecocide, powerboating, or anything else Emile attributes to it. If there is no local agency then colonialism, ecocide, everything else which happens is a necessary effect of the unavoidable internal flux of the holistic environmental field. Colonialism, ecocide, any nameable issue must simply be accepted as a fact of nature, since any resistance to it requires attempts to exert agency and will which don't really exist. @critic disagrees with Emile because @critic has been determined by the flow of becoming to disagree with Emile, and is acting as a vent for forces in the nondual field for which @critic has no causal or moral responsibility – except that @critic doesn't really exist, and is just a convenient name for a set of apparent force-effects of the entire environment at a certain point, like naming a storm - and Emile's attempts to persuade or silence or claim persecution by @critic are local agency ego delusions on Emile's part, and about as stupid as shooting at a hurricane or trying to persuade it not to flatten your town. Except that these delusions are also simply effects of the state of the environmental field for which Emile acts simply as a vent, since Emile also has no local existence or agency, but is simply an effect of the field of forces like a hurricane. @critic is just as stupid in trying to persuade or argue with Emile, though it is wrong to call either of us stupid, because we are simply venting the forces of the relational field without local agency. Emile is thus trapped in an insoluble contradiction between his own delusions of ego, local agency, persuasion, knowledge, and his disavowal of these delusions through long-winded assertion that he does not believe in any of these things.
It also seems to be more and more the case that observable realities, and things which aren't in flux, can't be talked about within Emile's worldview. In fact, it seems that one cannot use Emile-speak to talk about concrete practical issues at all – such discussions are instantly foreclosed by awareness that the language used to speak about them is inadequate - which means that someone who CONSISTENTLY follows Emile's worldview (which Emile clearly does not) would starve or die of exposure or be eaten by predators pretty quickly.
This renders it utterly inadequate as a practical way of relating to a world which is not entirely random.
>what you define as 'important questions' ignores the basic issue
Translation: I'm not talking about your idee fixee.
>you ignore whatever you want and then you tell me what the important questions are
Yes, because I've identified fundamental flaws in your philosophy, and you evade them.
>expressing them in a language that is too constrained to address issues wherein 'relations' are in a natural primacy over material things
Missing the point that, the whole point of those questions, and much of this discussion from my side, is to challenge you to provide ways to account, in your own conceptual system, for things which “SCSR” and my own approach can easily account for.
Also, several of these questions are just asking you to CLARIFY the meaning or implications of YOUR OWN ideas, or how you resolve certain apparent contradictions among them. This is immanent critique – it is not at all “imposing my language on you”. Quite frankly, all these protests of linguistic violence and imposed/hijacked terms are coming across as pretty paranoid.
>you stay in the western reason-over-intuition paradigm where you or any logician will get affirmation from the majority
That's not what I think, but you don't seem to care.
Keep fighting your shadow, Emile.
>you build your propositions on the backs of logical objects which are merely semantic signifiers for relational forms within the relational worldview
I have already shown why that's irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Conceptually rename the spider as no longer an object-in-itself or a nameable actor, but as a relational form (a little zone in the Force, an effect of epigenetic causes, an ongoing process of “spidering”...) and you still have to deal with the fact that it builds the same shape of web over and over – except you can't say “it builds the same shape of web over and over”, you have to find some other way to say it which treats the spider as a relational form. And that's the problem: you can't account for how observable, intuitively present phenomena can be talked about without SCSR language, how one can have a PEIR of the spider (or whatever-is-misperceived-as-spider) which also recognises repetition.
>the metaphors of powerboater and sailboater are intended to convey the letting go of the 'ego' which has us believe that we ourselves are 'things-in-ourselves' [inhabitants separate from habitat] with our own local agency which are causally responsible for our own actions (movements) and accomplishments
Well then, it's an utterly shitty metaphor. A sailboater responds to the environment more than does a powerboater, but a sailboater still exerts local agency (bending the sail this way or that) to get a desired result. As does the cathedral-builder, the spider, etc. They are examples of my intermediary position and not of Emile Zedong Thought. A better metaphor for Emile Zedong Thought would be a log adrift at sea with no control over its direction, or better yet, a piece of shit which has no control over its direction and also dissolves into the sea around it.
>evidently, you are not interested in including the tools of our inquiry (the languages we are using) in the inquiry
Duh. It you try to hammer a hammer with itself, or paint a paintbrush with itself, you end up failing, and making a mess.
But actually we're talking about “the languages we are using” all the time. I don't believe logical language is as flawed as you believe. I don't believe there is no local agency or that local agency is just an effect of language. This doesn't mean we're not having a conversation about language. I've challenged you to show that your language is adequate to talk about things which my language can talk about easily. Every time, you have dodged the question – implicitly admitting that you cannot talk about these things, that your language is far narrower, and less pragmatically useful, than mine. You have therefore failed to convince me that your language is better than mine.
We've had conversations about structures of language and how/whether they affect perception, regarding the grammar of Algonquin language for example, and I've shown that Algonquin grammar does not eliminate local agency from the structure of language. So, I've talked to you plenty about the tools of inquiry – even though I disagree with you on how useful these tools are. But whenever I try to talk about spiders or gardeners, you want to make it a conversation about language. And you are not prepared to show how “your” language can say anything useful about spiders or gardeners, or indeed sailboaters or rebels, which isn't just a repetition of the same boring dogma over and over.
>local agency exists only in the world of logic
Which is why the spider building the same web over and over is a decisive problem for your theory.
For me, to act in the world as an agent with desire and will(-to-power) is intuitively present, it is part of my PEIR and this is what you cannot accept.
Repeating yourself, attacking my language, and accusing me of persecuting you will not stop you from being absolutely wrong. Not by majority opinion, but because your philosophy is split against itself and is pragmatically useless as a way of living in the world.
"your philosophy is split against itself and is pragmatically useless as a way of living in the world."
This is what I've been saying for years and not to single out emilebot, much of the online chatter is guilty of this same thing. It's not just my personal preference to pass every theory through this simple test, it's the difference between interesting ideas and noise, especially in the context of anarchism.
Do we beat Fascism with Anarcho-Mutualism? WTF is Conservative Anarchy?
there is an entire global nondualist culture, that of colonized indigenous peoples, which continues to function in spite of their way of life being assessed as worthless by the logical analysis of Western realists, and meriting only a cultural genocide so as to 'kill the indian' and 'save the child'.
fortunately for all of us, in my view, the nondualist culture is persisting in spite of being marginalized by colonizers, and relational languages are making a come-back.
the relational views i have been bringing to the forum are essentially overlays to the relational views of the indigenous aboriginal cultures, expressed in terms that are implicit in the philosophies of Mach, Emerson, Nietzsche, Bohm, Schroedinger et al, all of whom are 'relational theorists'. in relational theory, as in the traditional belief system of indigenous aboriginals, there are no local things-in-themselves and there is no local agency, ... all influences are relational. as in Lamarckism, 'epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression'.
the indigenous peoples don't need to worry about @critic's logical attack on their worldview because they are 'intuitives' who have never developed such dependency on logic and certainly never elevated reason into an unnatural precedence over intuition. their languages are relational and their oral sharing tradition has no dependency on 'logical objects' which Western culture, and @critic, hold to be the foundations of 'their reality'.
the indigenous people are doing fine in spite of the failure of logical analysis to support their intuitive understandings which included;
1. man is included in nature within an inhabitant-habitat nonduality.
2. the world is one spiritual field which is primary while the material world is secondary phenomena
3. because the world is a transforming relational continuum, everything is in flux and there are no fixed identities aka 'independently-existing things-in-themselves'. everything is mutually relationally influencing (mutually supporting) everything as in a 'web of life' such that individual is understood as a unique nexus of many relational influences.
4. because people are relational influence nexa, they are vents for relational tensions that develop within the overall relational world dynamic [transforming relational continuum] thus the understanding that 'it takes a whole community to raise a member of the community' [this is a layover to bootstrap theory in modern physics and also to Lamarckism]. this leads to restorative justice since it is impossible to know the root 'causal' source of a 'result'. while the Western culture imposes logical objecthood on people as relational nexa to invent a 'launching pad for cause-effect actions and results, this comes from semantic constructions of noun-and-verb language which do not exist in a relational language and worldview.
5. the operative personal ethic for this relational culture is 'beyond good and evil'; i.e. it does not make the binary good and evil, offender and victim assumptions but instead assumes that people are the vents for relational tensions with deep roots, so that the ethic is to 'restore, cultivate and sustain balance and harmony', since the root source of conflict is seen as arising from the overall relational dynamic and not from the notional 'local agency' of notional 'logical objects' or 'thing-in-themselves'.
6. at its best, this culture is anarchist and functions amazingly well;
“To Engels, Morgan’s description of the Iroquois [in Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society and The League of the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois] was important because “it gives us the opportunity of studying the organization of a society which, as yet, knows no state.” Jefferson had also been interested in the Iroquois’ ability to maintain social consensus without a large state apparatus, as had Franklin. Engels described the Iroquoian state in much the same way that American revolutionaries had a century earlier: “Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes, or police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects or judges; without prisons, without trials. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole body of those concerned. . . . The household is run communistically by a number of families; the land is tribal property, only the small gardens being temporarily assigned to the households — still, not a bit of our extensive and complicated machinery of administration is required. . . . There are no poor and needy. The communistic household and the gens know their responsibility toward the aged, the sick and the disabled in war. All are free and equal — including the women.” — Bruce E. Johansen, Forgotten Founders
* * *
what i have been doing is applying the basic mode of understanding of indigenous anarchists to issues that crop up in the articles published in anarchistnews. my confidence in the nondualist belief traditions of indigenous anarchists, as reaffirmed by the modern physics findings of bohm and others [see 'Blackfoot Physics'] comes from my own experience-based intuition, and the ethics that associate with inhabitant-habitat nonduality and the natural primacy of intuition over reason, are my ethics that shape my social relational dynamics. that is a truth that comes from my own unique personal experience.
like nietzsche, bohm, tolstoy and others, i share my views on how Western society is fucked up with its elevating of dualist, logical-object-based reason into an unnatural precedence over nondual relational-experiential intuition. why, because once one 'sees the flaws' in the Western worldview and how they lead to 'incoherence' [Bohm] one has a natural desire to share these views so as to hopefully help to avert avoidable 'suffering'. it is not altruism since that is a concept that we impute to be possessed by an 'independent logical object or 'biological machine', ....it is the natural ethic of any nondualist since nondualism makes no subject-object, self-other split.
@critic's logical rants wherein he ends up believing in the finality of his own logical judgements does not alter relational reality; i.e. relatonal reality is not controlled by logic. all that logic can control is the minds of people who similarly put reason into an unnatural primacy over intuition; i.e. people who believe in their Western acculturation and who have difficulty in breaking free of it.
it is evident to me that everyone has the capability of restoring their experience-based intuition to its natural primacy over logical object and 'local genetic agency' based reasoning. we do it informally all the time. it is the institutions of Western culture that tip things upside down, and Western scientific education plays a primary role in anchoring us to this inverted understanding, which is also the source of authoritarianism, sovereigntism (natiionalism) and good and evil moral judgement as in Western retributive justice.
within a typical cross section of Western culture conditioned people, @critic is 'preaching to the choir',. not a problem. @critic's confidence in the finality of his own logical analysis is also typical of Western experts in science and politics. the implication is that there is an objective reality out there that logical analysis can 'get to'. this is a hoax. experts in logical analysis come and go without altering the reality that the world continues to unfold without regard to logical analyses. of course the dualist,strategies of colonization are hell bent to change this and to convert the world into a logic-driven living space. they won't succeed but the blood spilled in ongoing attempts to promote good and eliminate evil will continue to be the predominant 'result'.
Here's one indigenous person who admires logic AND intuition equally... And, like I've told you a dozen times Emile, that's fucking racist when you use native folks as cartoonish props in your hippy bullshit arguments.
although i'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
the comparisons i have been making are the same indigenous-belief traditions and modern physics comparisons that have been supported by native elders of Turtle Island, such as are documented in Blackfoot Physics, by F. David Peat. This book documents meetings between physicists (including F. David Peat and David Bohm) with native elders from across Turtle Island who not only have been fully supportive of these comparisons of modern physics and native belief traditions, but have solicited and encouraged them. The following is a glimpse into the views of Leroy Little Bear, one of the indigenous elders who has actively encouraged these dialogues;
“In the spring, I went on a daylong hike with Leroy Little Bear. [The] renowned Blackfoot elder and educator emeritus at the University of Lethbridge simply describes himself as “a prairie boy,” with few hints that his impressive credentials include former director of native studies at Harvard University.
Little Bear’s treatise on Blackfoot physics—the nature of “place” and how it affects the way we think—had intrigued me for over a decade, and I looked for an opportunity to speak with him on my national radio program on the CBC.
... A leader at gatherings of Western-trained scientists and Native American elders, he has facilitated formal sessions “to explore [these] different visions of reality.” His friend, the late physicist David Bohm, shared a mutual concern that the mindset of empirical science, for all its accomplishments, remained essentially oblivious to other ways of knowing. This method of investigation, while powerful and extremely useful, nevertheless, according to Bohm, “is the devil that got us into the present crisis”—our use of scientific information without wisdom.
A remarkable storyteller and teacher, Little Bear believes there is an unspoken language that makes it possible to bridge every worldview, a language that can be learned through dialogue—the willingness to set aside preconceived ideas and listen not only with your mind but with your heart. And if the way forward begins with a commitment to genuine dialogue, Little Bear teaches that the exchange of conversation must not only occur between human beings but also between all the creatures and plants and spirits that connect us to and with the earth.” – Don Hill, ‘Indigenous Culture: Listening to Stones,
Learning in Leroy Little Bear's laboratory: Dialogue in the world outside’
"Here's one indigenous person who admires logic AND intuition equally... And, like I've told you a dozen times Emile, that's fucking racist when you use native folks as cartoonish props in your hippy bullshit arguments."
if you would ever bother to familiarize yourself with Leroy Little Bear's work with F. David Peat that lead to Peat writing 'Blackfoot Physics', you would find that it is a layover to my own comments. Indigenous people that I have worked face-to-face with have had no problem whatsoever with my work, just as so many native elders have not only NOT had a problem with Bohm and Peat's work, but have actively encouraged it. Of course it is widely regarded as heresy by Western acculturated people, whether of indigenous blood or European blood since the ruling majority have;
"... the mindset of empirical science, [which], for all its accomplishments, remains essentially oblivious to other ways of knowing. This method of investigation, while powerful and extremely useful, nevertheless, according to Bohm, “is the devil that got us into the present crisis”—our use of scientific information without wisdom."
the "mindset of empirical science' aka "our use of scientific information without wisdom" continues to be the majority 'norm' of our culture, a culture that has largely co-opted those with indigenous bloodlines [an indigenous aboriginal friend suggests that those with indigenous blood who continue to follow the belief traditions are now less that 5% of the indigenous bloodline population [not that such traditional beliefs cannot be rekindled in anyone, regardless of 'bloodline'].
bottom line is, your opinion on the comparing of modern physics -- indigenous traditional beliefs, is uninformed. if you were to read 'Blackfoot Physics', you would find within it, the testimony of many indigenous people who have actively participated in, and encouraged these same comparisons between modern physics and indigenous belief traditions that are included in emile's commentaries; e.g;
Blackfoot Physics: Acknowledgement. I would like to thank the many Native American people who offered me their friendship and hospitality and who freely shared their knowledge and wisdom with me. Some of them are specifically mentioned by name in the text. If I were to attempt to mention everyone here I would run the risk of inadvertently leaving out the name of a friend or someone who helped me. I would, however, like to mention three people who have been particularly important to me and ask them to stand as representatives for all – they are Leroy Little Bear, Ernie Benedict and Sa’ke’j Henderson.
"Indigenous people that I have worked face-to-face with have had no problem whatsoever with my work"
Well I do. I also doubt those people endorse your theories, more like nod and smile to shut you up. I've seen pretentious hippy liberals deploy this crap so many times. Notably at standing rock, sending out the "elders" (code for pacifist tools of recuperation who happen to be of indigenous ancestry) to talk down the warriors and other militants during the confrontations. There's a scene in Black Snake Killaz where you can see this one piece of shit lecturing these kids while they're literally getting tear-gassed.
The bottom-line is, you don't understand how essentialist fallacies work and therefore refer to these theories as if they somehow represent more than those individual's personal understandings and interpretations of their cultures. You then deploy this fallacy as if it grants you access to some "sacred wisdom" or whatever, relying on the latent racism of other people to garner social capital.
*stupid liberal voice* This guy claims he hung out with indians and learned to think like an indian! We should totally be impressed by that instead of the actual merits of his arguments! He's got a talking stick and a bone choker so he must be legit! We're just settlers and must obey the elders, blah blah blah, we should listen to the land because we're dumb as rocks, gabba gabba hey!
Emile ia an elitist neo-colonialist liberal and doesn't know it!
i understand your first priority is to reject whatever i say or refer to.
but did you notice that bohm was not second-guessing indigenous belief traditions, and neither am i.
it has long been the case that our Western culture has been screwing up by elevating reason into an unnatural precedence over intuition which was not the case with indigenous aboriginals and likewise not the case in Western culture prior to the popular use of noun-and-verb languages. .
there is no claim to be able to experience the world as someone brought up within the indigenous tradition understands the world. the claim is that Western culture conditioned people have an opportunity to 'unlearn' the practice of elevating reason into an unnatural primacy over intuition, as stimulated by the findings of modern physics.
indigenous peoples are not interested in learning theory that they don't need because they don't have the problem in understanding, that we western culture conditioned people have. my experience is that indigenous people are very interested in western culture conditioned people 'coming to their senses', and that is why there has been strong interest and assistance in the reconciling of modern physics with indigenous belief traditions; i.e. modern physics is a wake-up call for western culture conditioned peoples because they/we are stuck in SCSR reality where logic is in an unnatural primacy over intuition. it will take generations for Western people to fully unlearn the habit of confusing logical analysis for 'reality'. Nietzsche estimated 200 years.
Bohm and Peat make no claim in 'Blackfoot Physics' to have come to assimilate indigenous understanding. They claim only that indigenous people already have facility with concepts that Western culture conditioned people are struggling with since having 'bumped into' relativity and quantum mechanics [thingless connectedness and relational entanglement].
What is needed, Bohm argued in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, is a new sort of language, one based on processes and activity, transformation and change, rather than on the interactions of stable objects. Bohm called this hypothetical language the “rheomode.” It is based primarily on verbs and on grammatical structures deriving from verbs. Such a language, Bohm argued, is perfectly adapted to a reality of enfolding and unfolding matter and thought.
"David Bohm had not known when he wrote of that concept that such a language is not just a physicist’s hypothesis. It actually exists. The language of the Algonquin peoples was developed by the ancestors specifically to deal with subtle matters of reality, society, thought, and spirituality.
A few months before his death, Bohm met with a number of Algonkian speakers and was struck by the perfect bridge between their language and worldview and his own exploratory philosophy. What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” – F. David Peat, ‘Blackfoot Physics’
the 'discovery' here is that 'is that indigenous people' are 'already there' on the alto plano that leading edge Western explorers are trying to climb up to.
that is, there is no question of indigenous peoples 'understanding Bohm's theories' or emile's or etc. they don't need it'. they never 'got off the rails'. but of course indigenous peoples are interested in Western culture conditioned folks liberating themselves from their own millennia long dumbing themselves down Lockean style, by elevating reason into an unnatural primacy over intuition.
You clearly don't understand. You keep referring to a "royal we" of native folks, who of course, don't all have the same traditions or opinions or anything else necessarily in common, theoretically, except to a racist.
Without this fallacy, your argument collapses.
I'm rejecting your arguments because they're terrible and for no other reason than that.
emile said---like nietzsche, bohm, tolstoy and others, i share my views on how Western society is fucked up with its elevating of dualist, logical-object-based reason into an unnatural precedence over nondual relational-experiential intuition. --and yes its nice to hear a voice from the realms of social sciences backing up thr lgbt in their quest for understanding.and rejection of binary labels.clever people communicate,ignorant people complicate.TRAVEL BY NIGHT TRUST NO ONE BURY YOUR SHIT . define anarchist in a non dual non binary non relational non western non hearachical proposition guided by intuitive oneness.
Emile, since you've made clear that your substantive arguments are simply koan-like means to trick people into a “click” outside the field of logic and language, and therefore, you place no real credence in their empirical accuracy or logical consistency, I see no point in debating you. It's like arguing with an advert, the only purpose of which is to sell a product.
Arguments made in language/logic make sense only in language/logic. They require a speaking/knowing subject, or ego. This is true even when someone deliberately cheats at language so as to supposedly use it against itself. Crying foul because other people also respond in language/logic and therefore assume an ego is bad faith and a double standard.
I have no “faith in the finality of my logical analysis” because everything I say is falsifiable, qualifiable, rebuttable. It might be countered by evidence I don't know, it might be logically inconsistent in ways I haven't seen. Logical analysis joins the dots, there's always other dots you don't see, other ways to join the ones you do see, and the risk of seeing dots which aren't there. I am not a rigid positivist, but a Geertzian interpretivist – but even the most rigid positivist recognises in principle the possibility of rebuttal. On the other hand, you, Emile, have absolute faith in the finality of YOUR analysis, which – expressed as it is in logical/scientific language – is also a LOGICAL analysis even if you ultimately ground it in an “intuition” conveniently inaccessible to everyone but yourself. Since your analysis includes the claims that anything which could possibly rebut or qualify it is an ontological delusion, it is absolutely self-contained, separated from the relational system it's contained in – and for this very reason, its form and its content are in absolute contradiction. It provides a very convenient way to sidestep all doubts, to escape from the very epistemic uncertainties which frustrate logical/scientific analysis, to reassure yourself with an absolute truth which is true a priori and imperviously armoured against other points of view. A different form of religious faith, to be sure, but still a form of religious faith and an opiate against the doubt, and existential freedom, which come with the human condition. The need to choose your own values, a need which no scientific or philosophical fact can satisfy, and which you cannot sweep away as it still underpins your *own* choice of nondualism over dualism, PEIR over SCSR, etc. Your position is bad faith because you dress up this existential choice (and it is, of course, a valid choice) as if it were a scientific or religious truth. And when your armour is struck (it is never, I think, penetrated), you summon names and mantras like they're mana-words, along with passive aggression which you disavow.
As I've said many times, I think you're right about many things, and for this reason (and also because I seriously suspect you have some pretty serious mental health problems), I've tolerated your obnoxious style of communicating, your utter disregard for everything I say, and your utter inability to see the internal contradictions or the performative contradictions of your position. I guess you've reached a Nash equilibrium, and it works for you, though the fact that you feel the need to proselytise and verbally attack others suggests to me that it isn't really self-sufficient.
What you've been doing is *not* adding a nondualist perspective on each of the topics you riscuss. Instead you're repeatedly, disingenuously responding with ad nauseum repetition of the same slogans, examples and analyses, without any relationship to the content of the articles you respond to – thus showing that you, yourself, are unable to be fluid as you advocate, to allow yourself to be epigenetically actualised, to relate by listening to things “outside you” (outside your ego-image of yourself) and to be a “sailboater” rather than a “powerboater”, or a “nomad scientist”. I guess I was wrong about those spiders, because there's more variation in their structurally identical webs than there is in your comments, at least the spiders find something different to hang it on each time, and relate to these things they fasten their webs to. You're so sure you're right, and you have an attitude to language which provides convenient excuses for blocking off any engagement (rational OR intuitive) with any idea or experience which differs from your own. You just don't listen – I may as well be talking to a gramophone. And this is just not living your own philosophy. I don't care if you live your philosophy in learning circles – you don't do it here, and it discredits you and your philosophy. You use the excuse, “well, this isn't a learning circle, we're all using logical language here”. Well, OK, then, either act like you're in a learning circle and listen a bit, or play the logical language game *fairly*. You can't have it both ways, and I'm sick of trying to persuade you by means you don't respect.
I also want to make clear, I have no quarrel with indigenous peoples and no deliberate part in the ongoing genocide against them. On the contrary, I support struggles against imperialism and ecocide. They have every right to keep believing Emile Zedong Thought if that's what they believe (which I very much doubt), but that doesn't mean I have to believe it or you has any right to try to bludgeon me into believing it by blaming me for colonialism. You can't prove that “dualism” caused colonialism, it's a leap of faith and for all I know it's just another strategic koan-like claim which isn't even meant to be true (at the nondual level there are neither indigenous nor colonisers, colonisers are epigenetically actualised just like rebels are... but maybe ego-bashing people by unfairly blaming them for colonialism is a useful trick to get them to “click”). Your sad attempt to turn indigenous struggles into proxies for your philosophical project of attacking the 'ego' – as if people's philosophical preferences, rather than material practices and social relations, cause genocide and ecocide – discredits you. We need to invent an equivalent to Godwin's Law where, instead of everyone who disagrees with you being Hitler, everyone who disagrees with you is Custer. That's basically all this is.
Don't worry dude (or preferred pronoun), I'll use my hippy indian powers to officially let you off the hook for the legacy of colonialism. Burn some sage, wave my hands around, something something with the 4 directions and it's totally cool now!
RIGHT EMILE?! THAT HOW MY CULTURE WORKS, YES?
You forgot sit in a circle and hold hands and flow into a non-dual oneness.
You don't want to hold hands with emile, he's forever reaching in to his own ass for another fistful of rhetoric.
Fist-fucking with one hand is non-dualist, like clapping with one hand.
in the words of Leroy Little Bear, cited above,
"A remarkable storyteller and teacher, Little Bear believes there is an unspoken language that makes it possible to bridge every worldview, a language that can be learned through dialogue—the willingness to set aside preconceived ideas and listen not only with your mind but with your heart. And if the way forward begins with a commitment to genuine dialogue, Little Bear teaches that the exchange of conversation must not only occur between human beings but also between all the creatures and plants and spirits that connect us to and with the earth.”
this is the same unspoken language that Wittgenstein is talking about and it is the Tao that cannot be spoken that is 'alluded to' by Lao Tzu in the I Ching.
my position is this; that such an unspeakable language bridge exists and it is always there hovering above and beyond our word exchanges. this is where the split comes between those who regard logical language as 'pragmatic idealization' and those who regard 'logical language' as addressing 'reality'. it seems to me as if this division 'divides us'. it is not a binary division, but a question of nonduality versus duality as in space-matter nonduality versus space and matter duality.
my position is that the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum as, i am informed by my experience-based intuition.
this means that there was no 'point' or 'time' at which 'life' or 'humans' appeared on earth or when an embryo becomes a 'person' or when European makes contact with the indigenous population on Turtle Island. these 'events' never happened and can never happen in world that is a transforming relational continuum..
it takes a conscious observer to observe a particular 'form' in the transforming relational continuum and it takes 'language' to ordain the form as a 'logical object' with a fixed and persisting identity; e.g. a 'human'. perhaps it was an early Narcissus who gazed into a pond and saw a 'reflection out there' which gave him an opportunity to see himself NOT as a relational form in the transforming relational continuum, but as a 'thing-in-itself', an 'independent-existing organism' that he could describe in 'subject-and-attribute' terms [which Nietzsche calls 'a great stupidity'.
In any case, there findings of modern physics are that the world is a transforming relational continuum so that 'things' such as 'humans' or 'organisms' are semantic constructs or 'logical objects/elements' that provide the mental (psychological) traction to construct a history of the human species on earth, from its first appearance onwards.
for some, termed 'pragmatist idealists' [among which, indigenous aboriginal traditionalists], this story of the human species or 'life' on earth is 'pragmatic idealization' since the primary physical reality is the transforming relational continuum, a relational flux or 'web-of-life' which does not break down into separate parts as the separate parts like 'humans' would have no meaning outside of the mutually supporting web-of-life in which they are relational features.
for others, termed 'realists', this semantically constructed scientific reality is 'real'.
my position is that of the 'pragmatist idealist'; i.e. i will use the same sounding logical constructs as 'realists' use; i.e. the words 'humans' and 'organisms' but not intending these words as signifying 'independently-existing things-in-themselves' but rather as relational features within ONE WORLD; i.e. a transforming relational continuum.
while you accuse me of being dogmatic and as arbitrarily rejecting the views of yourself and others, that is not true. what i am refusing to back off from is the view that i share, that logical constructs are subjective and incomplete. as Nietzsche would say, I have a will to ignorance because of the subjective focus and incompleteness of my logical inquiry. As Nietzsche says in 'Beyond Good and Evil' (24), the search for truth comes from a will to ignorance, to keep one's cup empty rather than full;
How we have learned ways, right from the start, to maintain our ignorance in order to enjoy a hardly conceivable freedom, safety, carelessness, heartiness, and merriment in life - in order to enjoy life. And only on this now firm granite foundation of ignorance could scientific knowledge up to now rise up, the will to know on the foundation of a much more powerful will, the will not to know, to uncertainty, to what is not true! Not as its opposite, but - as its refinement!
Wittgenstein similarly observed;
'the surface of truth must be approached from the outside, proceeding from that which is obviously nonsense toward that which is not so obviously nonsense"
'truth' cannot be 'built out to' using logical bricks that are certain since there will be gaps between the unfolding surface of truth and our inside-outward brick-of-truth structure. that is, if we impose the requirement of the crystalline purity of logic on our investigation, we will never arrive at a holistic understanding. Or, as Poincare puts it, logic is for proving, intuition is for inventing, logic is barren without fertilization by intuition. [the will to ignorance, to keeping our cup empty rather than full is essential in the quest for deeper undertanding, as in the 'learning circle' and/or 'Bohmian dialogue']
“For the crystalline purity of logic was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement. … The preconceived idea of crystalline purity can only be removed by turning our whole examination around. (One might say: the axis of reference of our examination must be rotated, but about the fixed point of our real need.)” – Wittgenstein, ‘Philosophical Investigations’, 107-108
my position is not that 'i know the truth'. my position has always been that 'the truth' is infinitely elusive and to believe that one holds it in their grasp is delusion.
so, i do not accept your 'truths' and i argue for the understanding that the pursuit of truth through reasoned debate is futile [i readily accept the truth of personal experience and the sharing of same in the learning circle or in Bohmian dialogue to cultivate understanding that transcends direct articulation.
i am not contending that i or anyone has grasped 'the truth' and i do not believe that rational debate can deliver 'truth'.. that is my position that you present as if i were confident that i know the truth and refuse to expose open it up for potential refutation.
as i see it, you are insisting that i am not playing fair because i am not defending what you claim to be ‘my truth claims’, but i am not making any truth claims; i.e. my claims are that rational debate with its thesis-antithesis-synthesis is not going to home in ‘the truth’, it is just going to home into ‘majority rule’ based ‘closure’ as in ‘decided science’ of AGW. i.e. debate is going to rally together people on the basis of their common biases and emotional needs.
all i am saying is that there is no common objective truth and i make no claims that i know the truth. my claims is that no-one can know the truth. i believe with Nietzsche that our western belief that we can reach the truth through rational debate, is bogus;
Your truth, my truth
A core tenet of Enlightenment thought was that our shared humanity, or a shared faculty called reason, could serve as an antidote to differences of opinion, a common ground that can function as the arbiter of different perspectives. Of course people disagree, but, the idea goes, through reason and argument they can come to see the truth. Nietzsche's philosophy, however, claims such ideals are philosophical illusions, wishful thinking, or at worst a covert way of imposing one's own view on everyone else under the pretense of rationality and truth." 'The post-truth era of Trump is just what Nietzsche predicted.', by Alexis Papazoglou, Royal Holloway University of London
I am not a rigid positivist, but a Geertzian interpretivist – but even the most rigid positivist recognises in principle the possibility of rebuttal. On the other hand, you, Emile, have absolute faith in the finality of YOUR analysis, which – expressed as it is in logical/scientific language – is also a LOGICAL analysis even if you ultimately ground it in an “intuition” conveniently inaccessible to everyone but yourself.
i will say once again, although you continue to ignore what i say and refer to it as 'unnecessary repetition', ... i do not believe in the core tenet of Enlightenment thought ... that our shared humanity, or a shared faculty called reason, could serve as an antidote to differences of opinion"
having worked in 'science', i fully understand that this logic-based vetting approach is useful in semantically constructing scientific realities (SCSR) which can model the 'organism' [in physical reality, a relational form in the transforming relational continuum aka 'inhabitant-habitat nonduality] by breaking it down into parts [e.g. Ackoff's systems sciences example of 'university'], imputing local agency to its parts, and explaining its actions and capabilities as if they derived fully and solely from its own interior. this is all a language game and in no way addresses physical reality as in system-suprasystem non-duality. That is, as Ackoff points out, every 'system' is included in a relational suprasystem wherein the epigenetic influence immanent in this inherently 'greater' relational dynamic inductively actualizes, orchestrates and shapes the development, actions and accomplishments of the notion 'system-in-itself' [organism, human, plant etc.].
the university is a relational activity within the relational suprasystem of community that inductively actualizes it. it does NOT 'exist' as a system-in-itself. it is 'pragmatic idealization to talk about it in SCSR scientific reality terms, as if it were a 'real' system-in-itself. if we are talking about an agricultural complex in the green valley, our scientific modeling and perfecting of it will likely never mention 'climate' since science generally invokes the ‘ceteris paribus’ qualifier [all other influences we have not included are presumed to remain the same] but if the green valley is subsumed by desert, the assumption of the agriculture system as a ‘system-in-itself’ is exposed as pragmatic idealization; i.e. the agriculture system is not a ‘real’ thing-in-itself.
also, what you refer to as ‘my analysis’ is not ‘analysis’ but a simple experience-based intuitive understanding of the type used by Heraclitus;
“Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to agree that all things are one.”
i..e. anyone can check it out through their own experience that ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ are ‘one’ (a nonduality). That’s where Mach got it from, from his physical experience based intuition, and such intuitive understandings are sufficient to inspire others to check these ideas out for themselves; i.e. ‘relativity’ was first of all an intuitive understanding, which inspired others to explore it themselves; i.e. Einstein, in the case of Mach’s intuition of mind-matter nonduality;
Mach’s view—neutral monism, it would later be called—required that every single aspect of reality, from physical objects to subjective sensations, be purely relational, so that whether something was “mind” or “matter” was determined solely by its relations with other elements and not by anything inherent to itself. It was a radical idea, but it seemed plausible. After all, Mach said, science is based on measurement, but “the concept of measurement is a concept of relation.” What we call length or weight, for instance, is really the relation between an object and a ruler, or an object and a scale.
It dawned on Mach, then, that if we could rewrite science solely in terms of what can measured, then the world could be rendered entirely relational—entirely relative—and the mind and universe could be unified at last. But that was going to require a new kind of physics.
Mach’s intuitive ideas inspired Einstein to follow through and capture this intuition in mathematical-theoretical models;
Einstein proudly sent his work [1905 paper ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’] to Mach, and seemed almost giddy when Mach responded with his approval. “Your friendly letter gave me enormous pleasure,” Einstein replied. “I am very glad that you are pleased with the relativity theory … Thanking you again for your friendly letter, I remain, your student, A. Einstein.”
The point is that PEIR and SCSR convey an intuitive model that anyone can evaluate, and apply to any issue that crops up in Anarchist news or anywhere. ‘physically experience intuitive reality’ (PEIR) corresponds with our experience of inclusion in a world wherein ‘relations’ are in a natural primacy over things’. this is understood as the basic reality. semantically constructed scientific reality’ corresponds with the way we talk about relational forms in the transforming relational continuum; e.g. ‘humans’. ‘humans’ are not ‘things-in-themselves’ in this intuitive vew, they are relational forms in the transforming relational continuum that we can describe as ‘things-in-themselves’ on the basis of their ‘common attributes’. once we do this, we split these relational forms out of the transforming relational continuum and start talking about ‘humans’ in ‘dualist’, ‘being-based’ terms, as ‘inhabitants’ that are ‘separate’ from their ‘habitat’ and which ‘came into being’ about six million years ago. but this splitting out of the relational form from the transforming relational continuum is semantic contrivance or ‘pragmatic idealization’. but where it leads is to the further semantically constructed reality wherein we view ‘humans’ as being jumpstart authors of changes to the earth, in the manner of Locke’s vision;
“God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man, … to subdue the earth; i.e., improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to this commandment of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him” – John Locke, 1690.
this dualist, being based worldview wherein ‘humans’ are seen as ‘independently-existing biological systems-in-themselves’ that are fully and solely causally responsible for their own development, actions and accomplishments goes back to western religious belief, which has, in turn, been incorporated into SCSR scientific reality.
to me, it is evident from my own personal experience that our culture has ‘trained us’ to semantically split apart nondualities such as storm-in-flow nonduaities and re-render them as dualities that interact, semantically liberating ‘storm’ from ‘flow’ and speaking as if the storm is the source of its own self-actualizing, rather than remaining a relational feature within the transforming relational continuum. the same applies to ‘humans’ and to ‘organisms’, consistent with Mach’s intuitive ‘relational’ views.
as i have already said, this dualist splitting of inhabitant and habitat is ‘pragmatic IDEALIZATION’ that should no way be confused for ‘reality’, yet it is characteristic of Western scientific culture that IT IS CONFUSED FOR REALITY, so that WESTERN CULTURE-CONDITIONED humans, unlike indigenous aboriginal traditionalists [who think of themselves as relational forms in a transforming relational continuum], do tend to think of themselves as INDEPENDENT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES apart from the habitat and having the natural powers to improve the habitat, as in Locke’s justification of human ‘property ownership’.
your complaint that i refuse to make my model subject to refutation makes it into dogma is like calling Mach to question for his intuition that the world was inherently relational. Einstein was interested in this intuition and continued to explore it. He did not insist that Mach must either formulate it so that it was subject to refutation or get the hell out of the discussion forum.
as poincaré pointed out, there are different ways of thinking about ‘infinity’ that cannot be proven one way or the other since we, the investigators and our investigations, are ‘finite’. This is where the split comes between ‘realists’ [who believe in the existence of things-in-themselves] and ‘pragmatic idealists’ [who support the pragmatic utility of such ‘idealization’ but who do not confuse it for ‘reality’].
tl;dr --- my intuitive model cannot be proven ‘wrong’ as you are trying to infer because it deals with the fundamentals of spacetime, field and matter. your use of ‘things’ as if they ‘exist’ as ‘things-in-themselves’ and have their own ‘local agency’ depends upon the idealization of ‘fixed euclidian space’ that is independent of the ‘independent things-in-themselves’ that you purport to exist within that space’, and there is likewise no way to prove that ‘space is absolute’;
“And just as our Copernicus said to us : It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of astronomy are expressible in a much simpler language ; this one would say: It is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round, since thus the laws of mechanics are expressible in a much simpler language. This does not preclude maintaining that absolute space, that is to say the mark to which it would be necessary to refer the earth to know whether it really moves, has no objective existence. Hence, this affirmation; ‘the earth turns round’ has no meaning, since it can be verified by no experiment; since such an experiment, not only could not be either realized or dreamed by the boldest Jules Verne, but can not be conceived of without contradiction; or rather these two propositions; ‘the earth turns round,’ and, ‘it is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round’ have the same meaning; there is nothing more in the one than in the other. “ — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Ch. VII Relative Motion and Absolute Motion
i am using a relational language convention while you are using a literal logical object based language convention and there is no way to disprove either. it is evident that you prefer your logical object based language convention while i prefer my relations based language convention;
“Space is another framework we impose upon the world” . . . ” . . . here the mind may affirm because it lays down its own laws; but let us clearly understand that while these laws are imposed on our science, which otherwise could not exist, they are not imposed on Nature.” . . . “Euclidian geometry is . . . the simplest, . . . just as the polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a polynomial of the second degree.” . . . “the space revealed to us by our senses is absolutely different from the space of geometry.” . . . “Finally, our Euclidean geometry is itself only a sort of convention of language; mechanical facts might be enunciated with reference to a [relational] non-Euclidean space which would be a guide less convenient than, but just as legitimate as, our ordinary space ; the enunciation would thus become much more complicated, but it would remain possible. Thus absolute space, absolute time, geometry itself, are not conditions which impose themselves on mechanics ; all these things are no more antecedent to mechanics than the French language is logically antecedent to the verities one expresses in French.” – Henri Poincare, Science and Hypothesis
meanwhile, your view is the currently popular, preferred view in Western culture, which reacts against relational view in the same sort of manner as Darwinian evolutionists react as if their intelligence has been insulted against those preferring Lamarckian evolutionary models [the latter being based on field-matter nonduality while the former assumes local being with local agency as if transpiring in an absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame]. Meanwhile, Lamarckism is making a come-back in spite of the longstanding theory-genocide programs aimed against Lamarckism by Darwinists since 1859.
we should keep our cups empty, don’t you think, and our will to ignorance in the driver’s seat. how else can we improve our understanding? we’re not finished learning and at the know-it-all point are we? are you?
People who need people,
Are the luckiest people in the world!
emile I was wondering if there's another place on the internet where you publish and is publicly accessable, do you have a website or a social media profile?
Though to be honest, you might as well just print out one of his posts and read it over and over.
It's not really your model that interests us anymore, how could it possibly still be interesting after all this time? We've long since moved on to your intentions when you make the decision to post your screeds at all.
I suspect you don't really even know. You sometimes mention that you think society wouldn't be shit if everyone thought like you but that's actually a pretty asinine, uninteresting motive for communication. It's an early developmental stage on the trajectory of most of the anarchists, activists and revolutionaries I've met over the years.
Next comes the basic understanding that you can't magically force everyone to agree or think a certain way, then comes the study of all the forces arrayed against you and finally, the genuine articles, the active agents, they set their minds to the tactical/practical. I like the word praxis, in spite of its Marxist associations.
But in Emile Zedong thought, there's no local agents, ergo no separate forces ergo no agency or praxis... he's worked himself into a corner there.
As for his motive, take your pick among 1) repetition-compulsion (google it), 2) self-validation coming from confirming his superiority and everyone else's dualism, 3) whatever it is that makes Jehovah's Witnesses keep knocking.
Emile is an emotional vacuum, I have no idea how he can comprehend the idea of inter-relational reciprocity, one of the most familiar and common concepts amongst indigenous peoples, in various forms as one other poster mentioned. Its laughable and actually hope he continues to spend more and more of his time writing and pasting, what a life, spending the entire time in front of a screen writing the same repetitive rhetoric over and over. Like a humorless computer monitor viewing version of Ground Hog Day! Haha.
@critic has a problem with no local agents, ergo no separate forces ergo no agency or praxis."
this is only a problem for 'realists'. pragmatist idealists accept that they can see and touch material forms. the qualifier is that material forms are secondary phenomena.like a whirlpool in a turbulent flow, a relational pattern in the flow which appears to have a life of its own; i.e. it can grow larger and stronger and then smaller and weaker but it is not independent of the flow; i.e. as in fluid dynamics generally, it is an epigenetic-genetic nonduality [sink and source are polar flows in toroidal flow. the flow converges and sinks into the centre of the doughnut hole and diverges and fountains out from the centre of the doughnut hole. the flow is circular and is constituted by relational transformation within the flow-plenum.. input and output are one circular flow, not two binary opposite flows. toroidal flow is a purely relational dynamic that 'appears' to be a 'local thing-in-itself' with its own 'local agency' however that is just 'appearances', not the physical reality; i.e. it is SCSR and NOT PEIR.
this purely relational feature in the flow has everything we need to make it into a semantic thing-in-itself with its own local agency, as we do with storms like 'Katrina'. SCSR talk makes it seem as if Katrina is a local thing-in-itself with its own local agency but that is just SCSR ralk. in physical reality, epigenetic influence is the (inductive actualizing) source of all 'genetic expression'; i.e. in a fluid dynamical world, there are no local agents and no 'local agency' in physical reality, only in semantic reality.[local agents are 'schaumkommen' as Schroedinger points out]
it is tempting to construct narratives starting with 'Katrina' rather than starting with 'the turbulent flow that is the mother of Katrina', and we commonly do start there and thus ignore the primacy of the mother-flow [we ignore the relational suprasystem in which the system is included and instead talk as if the 'system' is a 'system-in-itself'] this is where our semantically constructed scientific reality (SCSR) comes from. This is why 'rebellion' is blamed on 'rebels' because people confuse SCSR for reality and the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing the rebellion goes missing and we impute 'local agency' to the person who is venting community-induced relational tensional energy and call him a 'rebel' ..
Your face is only a problem for people who look at you. When instead I turn around and shit on you, like the feathered Brachiosaurus which towers over the mountain, your face is no longer a problem, as your face epigenetically actualises my immense dino-shit into an inhabitant-habitat nonduality which crashes the mountain back down to the plateau from whence it came. Emile leaps from the mountain, not realising his feathered wings are made of wax and he will crash to earth, landing like a ball of fire in the plateau from which the villagers will discover the secret of fire. All of this is both truth and untruth, because Emile does not exist as a being-in-himself and his becoming one with oblivion is nothing more than a dualistic delusion. In reality he was never atop the mountain, he belonged to the plateau which epigenetically actualised him, indeed, continues to epigenetically actualise him up the ass with a piledriver each time he pretend to have escaped it.
More information about text formats