Ursula K. Le Guin on the Future of the Left

  • Posted on: 5 February 2015
  • By: worker

From Motherboard Vice

“The Left,” a meaningful term ever since the French Revolution, took on wider significance with the rise of socialism, anarchism, and communism. The Russian revolution installed a government entirely leftist in conception; leftist and rightist movements tore Spain apart; democratic parties in Europe and North America arrayed themselves between the two poles; liberal cartoonists portrayed the opposition as a fat plutocrat with a cigar, while reactionaries in the United States demonized “commie leftists” from the 1930s through the Cold War. The left/right opposition, though often an oversimplification, for two centuries was broadly useful as a description and a reminder of dynamic balance.

In the twenty-first century we go on using the terms, but what is left of the Left? The failure of state communism, the quiet entrenchment of a degree of socialism in democratic governments, and the relentless rightward movement of politics driven by corporate capitalism have made much progressive thinking seem antiquated, or redundant, or illusory. The Left is marginalized in its thought, fragmented in its goals, unconfident of its ability to unite. In America particularly, the drift to the right has been so strong that mere liberalism is now the terrorist bogey that anarchism or socialism used to be, and reactionaries are called “moderates.”

So, in a country that has all but shut its left eye and is trying to use only its right hand, where does an ambidextrous, binocular Old Rad like Murray Bookchin fit?

I think he’ll find his readers. A lot of people are seeking consistent, constructive thinking on which to base action—a frustrating search. Theoretical approaches that seem promising turn out, like the Libertarian Party, to be Ayn Rand in drag; immediate and effective solutions to a problem turn out, like the Occupy movement, to lack structure and stamina for the long run. Young people, people this society blatantly short-changes and betrays, are looking for intelligent, realistic, long-term thinking: not another ranting ideology, but a practical working hypothesis, a methodology of how to regain control of where we’re going. Achieving that control will require a revolution as powerful, as deeply affecting society as a whole, as the force it wants to harness.

"The Next Revolution" cover art courtesy of
Verso Books.

Murray Bookchin was an expert in nonviolent revolution. He thought about radical social changes, planned and unplanned, and how best to prepare for them, all his life. A new collection of his essays, “The Next Revolution: Popular Assemblies and the Promise of Direct Democracy,” released last month by Verso Books, carries his thinking on past his own life into the threatening future we face.

Impatient, idealistic readers may find him uncomfortably tough-minded. He’s unwilling to leap over reality to dreams of happy endings, unsympathetic to mere transgression pretending to be political action: “A ‘politics’ of disorder or ‘creative chaos,’ or a naïve practice of ‘taking over the streets’ (usually little more than a street festival), regresses participants to the behavior of a juvenile herd.” That applies more to the Summer of Love, certainly, than to the Occupy movement, yet it is a permanently cogent warning.

All we have, we have taken from the earth; and, taking with ever-increasing speed and greed, we now return little but what is sterile or poisoned.

But Bookchin is no grim puritan. I first read him as an anarchist, probably the most eloquent and thoughtful one of his generation, and in moving away from anarchism he hasn’t lost his sense of the joy of freedom. He doesn’t want to see that joy, that freedom, come crashing down, yet again, among the ruins of its own euphoric irresponsibility.

What all political and social thinking has finally been forced to face is, of course, the irreversible degradation of the environment by unrestrained industrial capitalism: the enormous fact of which science has been trying for fifty years to convince us, while technology provided us ever greater distractions from it. Every benefit industrialism and capitalism have brought us, every wonderful advance in knowledge and health and communication and comfort, casts the same fatal shadow. All we have, we have taken from the earth; and, taking with ever-increasing speed and greed, we now return little but what is sterile or poisoned.

Photo by
​ Jack Liu.

Yet we can’t stop the process. A capitalist economy, by definition, lives by growth; as Bookchin observes: “For capitalism to desist from its mindless expansion would be for it to commit social suicide.” We have, essentially, chosen cancer as the model of our social system.

Capitalism’s grow-or-die imperative stands radically at odds with ecology’s imperative of interdependence and limit. The two imperatives can no longer coexist with each other; nor can any society founded on the myth that they can be reconciled hope to survive. Either we will establish an ecological society or society will go under for everyone, irrespective of his or her status.

Murray Bookchin spent a lifetime opposing the rapacious ethos of grow-or-die capitalism. The nine essays in "The Next Revolution” represent the culmination of that labor: the theoretical underpinning for an egalitarian and directly democratic ecological society, with a practical approach for how to build it. He critiques the failures of past movements for social change, resurrects the promise of direct democracy and, in the last essay in the book, sketches his hope of how we might turn the environmental crisis into a moment of true choice—a chance to transcend the paralyzing hierarchies of gender, race, class, nation, a chance to find a radical cure for the radical evil of our social system.

Reading it, I was moved and grateful, as I have so often been in reading Murray Bookchin. He was a true son of the Enlightenment in his respect for clear thought and moral responsibility and in his honest, uncompromising search for a realistic hope. 

category: 

Comments

"Reading it, I was moved and grateful, as I have so often been in reading Murray Bookchin. He was a true son of the Enlightenment in his respect for clear thought and moral responsibility and in his honest, uncompromising search for a realistic hope."

... wtf ...is bookchin the new anarchist bob avakian now?

I never regarded Bookchin as having any respect for the Enlightenment's narrative. Clear thoughtfulness, moral responsibility and a realistic hopefulness are what proles have been doing for millenia in their everyday life.

"VICE"

A blue flag... wow.

I heard she'll be holding a lecture with a yoga session in some coastal villa in the Southwest. Tickets going up from 460$.

Bookchin's gains with the Kurds will mean a constant rehashing of SOLA and all the awlfulness, until next century, when we all realize that it was Bob Black, Hakim Bey, Wolfi Landstreicher and John Zerzan we should've been listening to. #fullcircle #repeatinghistoryisslavery #marxspreadthoughtbakuninrussianspy

Watch out for 2018 when YPG fighters pissed off by the neverending assemblies form their nihilo-anarchist armed faction and then Istanbul gets raided by unstoppable neo-scythians!

"Fuck democracy... kill the bastards!"

Sad to think those men will be dead when they get their acknowledgment.

What of her critiques of Bookchin though? Surely Ursula can still cut the the bone.

Or, just as importantly, what were Bookchin's critiques of her? Surely science fiction would fall under the rubric of lifestyle anarchism. I've heard that scifi conventions are full of subcultural bs. Also, one of Bookchin's mortal enemies, Peter Lamborn Wilson wrote some (professionally published) scifi stories, (and a lost, unpublished scifi novel).

Le Guin goes along with Bookchin in setting up a binary between the ‘rapacious ethos of grow-or-die capitalism’ and an ‘egalitarian and directly democratic ecological society’,... and gives praise to Bookchin’s ‘moral responsibility’.

As Nietzsche has pointed out, morality is the problem [it is a binary trap].

MORALITY AS ANTI-NATURE
.
The error of confusing cause and effect. There is no more insidious error than mistaking the effect for the cause: I call it the real corruption of reason. Yet this error is one of the most unchanging habits of mankind: we even worship it under the name of "religion" or "morality." Every single principle from religion or morality contains it; priests and moral legislators are the originators of this corruption of reason.
.
...Anti-natural morality — that is, almost every morality which has so far been taught, revered, and preached — turns, conversely, against the instincts of life: it is condemnation of these instincts, now secret, now outspoken and impudent. When it says, "God looks at the heart," it says No to both the lowest and the highest desires of life, and posits God as the enemy of life. The saint in whom God delights is the ideal eunuch. Life has come to an end where the "kingdom of God" begins.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

Like Emerson and Lamarck, Roux and Rolph, and like Mach, Nietzsche recognizes the natural precedence of relational space over ‘things’ and ‘what things do’.

Farmers do not ‘cause’ the production of wheat. That is not a ‘cause-effect’ relation. Nature (the relational activity continuum) is the source not only of relational forms called plants but nature is also the source of relational forms called ‘humans’. Man watches how nature works; e.g. how plants grow [he learns how to do flower arranging], and the dynamics of nature outside-inwardly orchestrate man’s actions. Men scurrying around on the land engaging in activities called ‘farming’ is the effect, not the cause, of plants growing [it is ‘arranging the flowers’]. If plants didn’t grow the way they do, men wouldn’t be scurrying around on ‘farms’ the way they do. The scurrying around on farms is the effect that is caused (orchestrated and shaped) by the seasonal growth cycles of plants (cyclic transformation within the relational activity continuum).

It is, as Nietzsche points out, an ‘error in grammar’ that unnaturally inverts this, and the only people who get it upside-down this way are people who use noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar. This language architecture starts with an ‘activity’ [lightning, farming], uses grammar to give the activity ‘being’ [lightning as a noun, farmer as a noun] and lets the noun inflect a verb to impute that the noun is the source of the activity [lightning flashes, the farmer farms]. The relational space that is the primary source [‘cause’] of these activities [effects] goes missing in this ‘error of grammar’ while the noun in this ‘intellectual representation’ is notionally given the God-like power of local jumpstart sourcing of an activity.

Lightning DOES NOT produce a flash, and ‘the farmer DOES NOT produce wheat’.

Man does not jumpstart-author ANYTHING. ‘man’ is a relational form in a relational activity continuum, in the same sense as ‘Katrina’ is a relational form in the relational activity continuum called ‘atmosphere’. And yes, we can SAY that ‘Katrina is destroying New Orleans’, and yes, we can SAY that ‘man is destroying the planet’ but that is an ‘error of grammar’ that gives NOTIONAL God-like power of local authorship of cause-and-effect results to ‘man’, which is BULLSHIT. 'Relational forms such as 'storm-cells' or men can ‘mess things up’ but the reality is that the relational activity continuum is the mother of the relational forms called storm-cells [and/or men] so 'the power to mess things up' is not local jumpstart power possessed by the relational form; i.e. the relational forms [e.g. storm-cells] that gather in the transforming relational activity continuum [e.g. atmosphere-flow] are not the cause of the atmosphere-flow. They are sailboaters that derive their power and steerage from the flow they are included in, they are NOT powerboaters with their own internal process driven and directed behaviour that reside and operate in a habitat that is independent of the inhabitants that reside and operate within it AS WESTERN SCIENCE AND WESTERN RELIGIOUS CREATION MYTH [yes, Christian, Muslim and Jewish creation myth] contend.

“The error of confusing cause and effect. There is no more insidious error than mistaking the effect for the cause: I call it the real corruption of reason. Yet this error is one of the most unchanging habits of mankind: we even worship it under the name of "religion" or "morality." Every single principle from religion or morality contains it; priests and moral legislators are the originators of this corruption of reason.”

So, Le Guin is saying;

“He [Bookchin] was a true son of the Enlightenment in his respect for clear thought and moral responsibility”.

The ‘enlightenment’ with its ‘clear thought’ and ‘moral responsibility’ is the fucking problem!

The ‘enlightenment’ is ANTI-NATURE;

“Reason equals virtue and happiness, that means merely that one must imitate Socrates and counter the dark appetites with a permanent daylight — the daylight of reason. One must be clever, clear, bright at any price: any concession to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downward” – Nietzsche

What we naturally have that is ‘Beyond Good And Evil’ is our natural experience-based intuition. That is the only way to understand life in a relational space. Living on the basis of moral laws prescribing and morally judging ‘what we ought to do’ is anti-nature; ... it is a ‘revolt against life’;

Once one has comprehended the outrage of such a revolt against life as has become almost sacrosanct in Christian morality, one has, fortunately, also comprehended something else: the futility, apparentness, absurdity, and mendaciousness of such a revolt. .... anti-natural morality which conceives of God as the counter-concept and condemnation of life is only a value judgment of life — but of what life? of what kind of life? I have already given the answer: of declining, weakened, weary, condemned life.” ... Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

Le Guin reaffirms Bookchin’s ‘enlightenment values’ which put ‘reason’ into an unnatural precedence over our natural experience based ‘intuition’.

Murray Bookchin (1921 – 2006) was a staunch defender of Enlightenment values (in a time when those values have become, if not reactionary, at least passe. Throughout his life he worked toward a libertarian socialist vision, divorced from the more individualist ethos of the anarchistic tradition, and more in alignment, and harkening back, to the early communalism of the Paris Commune.
.
His legacy is his commitment to a vision of life that entailed realignment of social values toward the goal of harmonic balance between human need and natural world. He termed this Social Ecology:
.
“Social ecology is an ecology not of hunger and material deprivation but of plenty; it seeks the creation of a rational society in which waste, indeed excess, will be controlled by a new system of values; and when or if shortages arise as a result of irrational behaviour, popular assemblies will establish rational standards of consumption by democratic processes.”

Sure, a ‘rational society’ that is run on the basis of “clear thought and moral responsibility” , ... but ‘whose clear thought and whose moral judgement’? Here comes the principle of Lafontaine once again; ‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’.

Bookchin’s formulation [and Le Guin’s??] is nothing like ‘indigenous anarchism’ which operates on the basis of natural, relational experience-based intuition that is 'beyond good and evil' and beyond all other binaries of Aristotelian logic that elevate 'idealization' and 'rationality' into an unnatural precedence over the physical reality of our natural, relational experience.

Hey emile and others, two things:

How much of the argument around confusing cause and effect is equivalent to the argument for determinism (as an argument against the existence of free will)?

And, I'm quite interested in indigenous anarchism though I know little of it - could you (or anyone) point me to a good introductory text and/or some good advanced texts on the topic.

confusing cause n effect was like confusing a symptom for its "cause" and free will was some christian shit made by politicians. like nietzsche mah nigga said: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/friedrich-nietzsche-twilight-of-t... (da 4 great errors)

pretty sure emiles @news comments are the main source of "indigenous @" texts, maybe along with some shit on his blog.

free-will implies that there are God-like powers of locally jumpstarting instantiation of action, and determinism implies that the future is pre-determined from out of the past. both of these concepts depend on linear-in-time movement.

the relations based understanding of modern physics is timeless [e.g. see Julian Barbour's 'End of Time']i.e. 'change', in the physical reality of our experience, is transforming spatial-relations, and our observations that 'things change over time' is language-based intellectual representation that captures and synthetically concretizes/reifies secondary appearances.

as in the physical reality of our natural relational experience, it is impossible to construct a house in the forest without at the same time destroying some forest. unlike the flow-based timeless languages of indigenous aboriginal peoples (indigenous anarchists since the way of timeless understanding is 'anarchism'), our noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar allows us to 'split apart' 'construction' and 'destruction' although it is impossible to do so 'in real life'. Howard Zinn hits on this in 'A People's History of the United States', pointing out that the colonizing peoples always speak of 'progress' (linearly advancing change over 'time') and of 'having, over the years, constructed a wonderful new world in America', ... while the colonized peoples speak of the same actions in terms of 'destroying a wonderful established world on turtle island'. Le Guin gets into this in her 'non-euclidian' essay of 1982.

in the physical reality of our natural experience, there is no way to split apart 'construction' and 'destruction'. That is to say 'relational transformation' is the only real, physical possibility.

the Western mindset [imposed around the globe by colonization, operationalized through political and economic institutions, law courts, police enforcers and mainstream media] is to go with the splitting apart so the colonizers and the colonized argue interminably over whether the colonizers are 'improving' on things like they say they are [i.e. with 'progress' brought about by their 'advanced civilization'], or whether they are screwing things up [i.e. by putting their new stuff in place, destroying something which was better that what the colonizers are replacing it with].

reflecting on our natural experience brings forth the realization that our living space is 'one thing' [the relational activity continuum] so that 'MAN'S' messing with it is not putting into place 'new construction' but is like messing with a continually unfolding sculpture that is characterized by a relational completeness or 'gestalt' by giving it a superficial make-over here and there, moving the nose over and changing it to a cube-shape, adding more pairs of ears etc. like the farmer who claims that 'he is producing wheat' when the fact is, he is simply rearranging some plants to entrap some energy flow from the seasonal waves of growth supported by sun and cosmos in their continual rising and falling.

The Western mindset has locked onto 'appearances' thanks to the intellectual representations of its noun-and-verb European/Scientific language-and-grammar. It has put a split-apart 'space' and 'time' 'shadow-reality' into an unnatural precedence over the physical reality of our natural, relational experience. What we talk about is certainly NOT reconcilable with what we experience.

as for 'indigenous anarchism', the 'way' of the indigenous aboriginal peoples is 'an-archist' [decolonization is indigenous anarchism]. e.g;

"all the articles of this edition of Affinities Journal explore the intersections of three well-established, but often separately considered traditions: anarchism, indigenism and feminism, and the praxis potential therein. While anarchism typically focuses on capitalism and the state form, indigenism on racism and decolonization/anti-imperialism, and feminism on gendered relations and patriarchy/heterosexism, each of these traditions also deals with the primary concerns of the others, and all of them have engaged with other analyses. This interplay of diverse traditions, what some are calling ‘anarcha-indigenism’ (Alfred et al 2007) forges intersectional analysis and fosters a praxis to de-center and un-do multiple axes of oppression. In other words, anarcho-indigenism attempts to link critical ideas and visions of post-imperial futures in ways that are non-hierarchical, unsettling of state authorities, inclusive of multiple/plural ways of being in the world, and respectful of the autonomous agencies of collective personhood (Alfred 2005; Aragorn! 2005; Arthur 2007; Churchill 2005; Day 2001; MujeresCreando 2002; Weatherford 1988).

p.s. don't be confused by the impersonator-'emile'.

Sounds like ravings from an intellectual life-stylist on crystal meth!

Thanks emile, hopefully I'll find a way to make this sort of thinking sink in. I'm still not connecting enough dots for the moment to feel sure about it. A recommended reading or two here (I assume by Nietzsche?) would be welcomed.

Do you know of any decent texts that refer to and analyse/comment on those 'flow-based timeless languages' of which you mention? I'm even more interested in this for the moment because of a project I'm working on.

a good starting point is benjamin whorf’s ‘The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language’ (click on this to take you to a copy)

In this essay, Whorf summarizes the difference between the ‘two-tense’ (earlier and later) timeless languages, using Hopi as an example and comparing it to ‘SAE’ languages (Standard Average European languages) which are ‘three tense’ (past, present, future).

In the two-tense languages, there is just one world in the same manner as there is just one consciousness (with everything included in it) that includes experiential sensuousness and non-sensuous memory. This world that is given only once is a world of continually transforming relations.

The three-tense SAE language ‘objectifies durations of time’ and ‘lines them up in a row’ as a linear sequence of eras or durations; e.g. Precambrian, Jurassic, Cretaceous that provide ‘containment’ for ‘want went on within these eras’; i.e. what creatures were alive and how they interacted with one another WITHIN THESE ERAS. In this worldview, thanks to being able to use objectified time periods as containers or reference frames, our impression of dynamics starts from the local, visible, material entities which we intellectually animate using verbs and grammar.

As Whorf notes;

“Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.”

In the two-tense ‘timeless’ language of Hopi or Nootka (the indigenous aboriginal languages of Turtle Island), there is just one world, a continually transforming relational world. Since it is continually transforming, we can TALK and WRITE about it, distinguishing between earlier and later but not in terms of it possessing a ‘present state of being’ as in the three tense SAE language-and-grammar. In other words, in the two-tense language, the world is never-beginning and never-ending, it is kind of ‘treading water’, relationally transforming ‘in-place’. It is as Heraclitus describes it, made of transformation (eternal fire) so that;

“No-one steps into the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he’s not the same man.” – Heraclitus

This is also the world of Emerson and Nietzsche;

“The new world conception. —The world exists; it is not something that becomes, not something that passes away. Or rather: it becomes, it passes away, but it has never begun to become and never ceased from passing away — it maintains itself in both. —It lives on itself: its excrements are its food.” ... And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income …” –Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, 1066/67

Understanding Nietzsche’s worldview is like tuning in to the worldview of indigenous anarchists. Nietzsche openly mocks the orthodox Western belief in ‘cause-effect’ (which is the underpinning of moral-judgement based justice), and points out the stupidity of confusing ‘subject’ and ‘attribute’ for ‘reality’ and for imputing ‘being’ to an ‘activity’ such as the relational forms in the relational activity continuum that we, in our SAE language conventions, call ‘human beings’.

Fortunately, we have the physical reality of our own natural relational experience as a ‘go-by’ to ‘ground’ ourselves in ‘what is real’, so we don’t have to buy into the talk of politicians, government authorities, commercial moguls, supreme court judges [they will always convict someone who, they say, is the ‘cause of a violent act’, forgetting all about the state oppressing him ‘relationally’ since the three-tense pseudo-reality that comes from the intellectual constructs of SAE languages, excludes all acknowledging of relational influence [since relational influence is non-local, non-visible and non-material and does not show up on the radar screen of a moral judgement based justice system, since the latter deals only in the local, visible, material action (the manifest symptoms of the relational sourcing)].

For example, use your visual sensing to look at a video of the anarchist who is just reaching his tolerance limit of years of being suffocated in his life and development by state oppression. Do you have a picture of him in your mind? You can get such pictures from surveillance camera video used as evidence in his trial. You can see him standing alone, right? (the circle of riot police who have him ‘kettled’ is too big to fit into the frame, and besides, we are interested in ‘what he is doing’). We watch him push a policeman and then, in the scuffle, punch the policeman and break the law enforcer’s jaw.

Your intuition is informing you on the whole progressive development of this phenomenon and is saying to you; “I am surprised that he has suppressed his anger for this long, given the continuing harassment by the authorities that he has been subjected to”. But the pictures on the screen are representations of him and ‘what he is doing’ in the time box called ‘Wednesday’, in the time interval between 15:22 and 15:47. What we are looking at here, as the prosecution will bring forth, are the violent actions of a man, who like all men [so Western science says], is a local, independently-existing material system with internal process driven and directed behaviour that resides and operates within a habitat that is independent of the inhabitants (such as himself) that reside and operate within it. His spatial extension limits can be measured in absolute units referenced to the local containing space he is situated in, and his actions can be measured relative to the space frame he is included in, and relative to the time interval that contains his actions of note. These are, in fact, RE-PRESENTED in the video footage.

In the two-tense language system, the world is one thing, there is only ‘earlier and later’, but in the three tense system, the present is objectified and broken out as a differential that lies between the past and the future. This is part of the convenient simplifying that science builds into its foundations;

“Origin of Mathematical Physics. Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics. We recognise at the outset the efforts of men of science have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena, and that in three different ways.
.
First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton.
.
Next, we try to decompose the phenomena in space. What experiment gives us is a confused aggregate of facts spread over a scene of considerable extent. We must try to deduce the elementary phenomenon, which will still be localised in a very small region of space. — Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics”

So, the Supreme Court Judge is using this ‘three-tense’ language system that objectifies boxes of space and time so that it can capture ‘actions’ within them, calling them ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’, ... wherein the ‘action’ of the anarchist is seen as jumpstarting from the interior of the anarchist in that local space and local interval of time. Of course, our experience-based intuition is screaming out, ... that is not the physical reality of our experience; ... the physical reality of our experience is that the world is only given once and there is only earlier and later in its continuing relational transformation and the anarchist was experiencing the continuing relational tensions of his situational inclusion in a relational matrix or ‘relational fielding’ and, as things go in nature [like earthquakes, avalanches, volcanic eruptions etc.] the relational tensions reached a limiting threshold where something had to give and reconfigure, relationally, and it is this ‘letting go’ in the ‘progressive development of a phenomenon’ that manifests as a violent eruption, the violent eruption is not locally jumpstarting from the interior of the volcano, or from the local faces of a fault, ... the relational tensions sourcing the eruption of violence are non-local, non-visible and non-material; i.e. they are relational ‘fielding’, as in the relations-first view of modern physics.

Any group of cronies can use relational influence to suffocate/oppress/exploit non-cronies with the full protection of moral judgement based justice, since the justice system uses the three tense SAE system to isolate its analysis of dynamics to what goes on in little containing boxes of space and time enclosing events of interest such as eruptions of violence. Those who have an upper hand on manipulating relational influence are happy to have this moral judgement based system of justice since it makes INVISIBLE their relational influence based manipulating and exploiting that are the source of eruptions of violence amongst those being manipulated and exploited.

When Nietzsche is mocking the ‘stupidity’ of belief in ‘subjects and attributes’ (nouns and adjectives), he is in fact mocking the ‘three-tense’ architecture of SAE languages;

“That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force–in will, in intention–it is belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the “subject.” Is this belief in the concept of subject and attribute not a great stupidity?” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’ 484

Another place to read about this problem with our three-tense SAE language [which is foundational to science, and the reason why those with two-tense languages ‘didn’t get science’] is in Alan Watts; e.g;

“How can a noun, which is by definition not action, lead to action?
.
Scientists would be less embarrassed if they used a language, on the model of Amerindian Nootka, consisting of verbs and adverbs, and leaving off nouns and adjectives. If we can speak of a house as housing, a mat as matting, or of a couch as seating, why can't we think of people as "peopling," of brains as "braining," or of an ant as an "anting?" Thus in the Nootka language a church is "housing religiously," a shop is "housing tradingly," and a home is "housing homely." Yet we are habituated to ask, "Who or what is housing? Who peoples? What is it that ants?" Yet isn't it obvious that when we say, "The lightning flashed," the flashing is the same as the lightning, and that it would be enough to say, "There was lightning"? Everything labeled with a noun is demonstrably a process or action, but language is full of spooks, like the "it" in "It is raining," which are the supposed causes, of action.
.
Does it really explain running to say that "A man is running"?” – Alan Watts, The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

I hope this helps {;-}

alan wots was superificial

youre dumbin it down nigga, hopis got somethin like nuans but not MASS NUANS, phrases indicating validity instead of time not earlier n later wtf.

no language is DA LANGUAGE. you already left lingusitcs long ago when u saying in these languages theres just "one consciousness" lel ur just cherry pickin 4 advancin your agenda

we experience one consciousness. what we can do with 'thought' is quite another matter; i.e. we can create split-apart intellectual RE-presentations.

experiencing consciousness is beyond capture in thought and language, [the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao] but some languages can give more messed up RE-PRESENTATIONS than others; i.e. like the three tense [past, present, future] noun-and-verb SAE language-and-grammar as compared with the two-tense earlier/later in the continually transforming relational space [flow-based] languages.

"The three-tense, system of SAE verbs colors all our thinking about time. This system is amalgamated with that larger scheme of objectification of the subjective experience of duration already noted in other patterns--in the binomial formula applicable to nouns in general, in temporal nouns, in plurality and numeration. This objectification enables us in imagination to "stand time units in a row." Imagination of time as like a row harmonizes with a system of THREE tenses; whereas a system of TWO, an earlier and a later, would seem to correspond better to the feeling of duration as it is experienced. For if we inspect consciousness we find no past, present, future, but a unity embracing complexity. Everything is in conscious, and everything in consciousness is and is together.
.
There is in it a sensuous and a nonsensuous. We may call the sensuous-what we are seeing, hearing, touching-the "present" while in the nonsensuous the vast image-world of memory is being labeled "the past" and another realm of belief, intuition, and uncertainty "the future"; yet sensation, memory, foresight, all are in consciousness together--one is not "yet to be" nor another "once but no more." Where real time comes in is that all this in consciousness is "getting later," changing certain relations in an irreversible manner. In this "latering," or "durating" there seems to me to be a paramount contrast between the newest, latest instant at the focus of attention and the rest--the earlier. Languages by the score get along well with two tense-like forms answering to this paramount relation of "later" to "earlier." We can of course CONSTRUCT AND CONTEMPLATE IN THOUGHT a system of past, present, future, in the objectified configuration of points on a line. This is what our general objectification tendency leads us to do and our tense system confirms." -- Benjamin Whorf

Schroedinger makes the same point about experiencing consciousness as one thing and using SAE language and thought to construct pluralities;

"Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Even in the pathological cases of split consciousness or double personality the two persons alternate, they are never manifest simultaneously. In a dream we do perform several characters at the same time, but not indiscriminately: we are one of them; in him we act and speak directly, while we often eagerly await answer or response of another person, unaware of the fact that it is we who control his movements and his speech just as much as our own. How does the idea of plurality (so emphatically opposed by the Upanishad writers) arise at all? Consciousness finds itself intimately connected with, and dependent on, the physical state of a limited region of matter, the body. (Consider the changes of mind during the development of the body, at puberty, ageing, dotage, etc., or consider the effects of fever intoxication, narcosis, lesion of the brain and so on.) Now there is a great plurality of similar bodies. Hence the pluralization of consciousnesses or minds seems a very suggestive hypothesis.
.
Probably all simple, ingenuous people, as well as the great majority of Western philosophers, have accepted it. It leads almost immediately to the invention of souls, as many as there are bodies, and to the question whether they are mortal as the body is or whether they are immortal and capable of existing by themselves. The former alternative is distasteful while the latter frankly forgets, ignores or disowns the fact upon which the plurality hypothesis rests. Much sillier questions have been asked: Do animals also have souls? It has even been questioned whether women, or only men, have souls. Such consequences, even if only tentative, must make us suspicious of the plurality hypothesis, which is common to all official Western creeds.
.
Are we not inclining to much greater nonsense, if in discarding their gross superstitions we retain their naive idea of plurality of souls, but 'remedy' it by declaring the souls to be perishable, to be annihilated with the respective bodies? The only possible alternative is simply to keep to the immediate experience that consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different personality aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception (the Indian MAJA); the same illusion is produced in a gallery of mirrors, and in the same way Gaurisankar and Mt Everest turned out to be the same peak seen from different valleys." -- Erwin Schroedinger, 'What is Life?'

Here is an Ursula K. Le Guin piece from her younger years that serves as a good rebuttal to what she wrote above:
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-a-non-euclidean-...

I guess age will do that to you. She also wants her 'intellectual property' respected as well as far as her works go.

this paper by le guin reviews a variety of ways of homing in on 'what is real' and/or the operative animating force in different cultures (e.g. 'progress' versus 'persisting').

nietzsche is missing, which is a loss since his 'will to power' as the immanent animating source in the relational activity continuum (NOT simply 'in man') could have broadened the discussion; i.e. who says the utopian goal should be something formulable in human intellect? nietzsche's point, like Emerson's, is that experience-based intuition is a guiding influence associated with our transmitting of influences from the vast and universal to the point on which our genius can locally act.

did men and women run around together naked in a dwindling population until they discovered the knowledge of how to fornicate?

man has his prelingual intuitive animating source [he is born with it] and it doesn't go away with language and learning.

if one trusts one's intuitions, one needn't know where one is going and therefore one cannot 'get lost'.

if one does know where one is going (whether towards continuing progress and improvement as in Western institutionalized moralist mentality) or to 'utopia', then one CAN get lost, knowingly. not us, of course, but we can identify 'those others' who are lost, which places upon us the burden of 'missionary work'; e.g.

"I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so." -- Barack Obama

If we 'know' what we want the future to look like, then those who 'are lost' are not only 'not with us', they are 'against us' [they stand in the way of our achieving our desired future state of the world].

Bookchin knows what the future should look like (social ecology) which requires putting into an unnatural precedence over our natural experience based intuition, our intellectual knowledge of where we need to get there and what we have to do to get there [Enlightenment]. the young le guin would never endorse this, it seems,... but has she been, along the way, high-jacked by the accursed 'euclidian thinking' that she has earlier condemned? i.e. she now says;

"Either we will establish an ecological society or society will go under for everyone, irrespective of his or her status."

sounds solidly 'euclidian', and from whence comes this reversal? evidently, from a 'nostalgia' for Enlightenment man.

"I was moved and grateful, as I have so often been in reading Murray Bookchin. He was a true son of the Enlightenment in his respect for clear thought and moral responsibility and in his honest, uncompromising search for a realistic hope."

in so saying, she turns her back on her trust in experience-based intuition and hoists the flag of Enlightenment intellect as it continues on in its unrelenting search for a 'realistic hope', ... a condition of knowing that things are going to come out fine in the end, ... that we are going to 'pull out of this dive' we are in.

le guin, even in her earlier (excellent) essay, while acknowledging the folly of using technology to differentially enrich one segment of nature; i.e. 'man', at the expense of the rest, ... and acknowledging that progress rushes by at too high a speed for us to be able to stop it and look at it and 'know it', ... she fails to grasp what nietzsche or emerson or schroedinger would have told her, ... that the world does not 'really' divide up into 'man' and 'all the rest of nature' [therefore it is impossible for man to use technology to enrich himself at the expense of 'the rest of nature'; i.e. it is 'illusion', 'Maya'].

man is 'the rest' at the same time as it is what it is. katrina is the atmosphere at the same time as she is what she is. the non-local, non-visible, non-material animating influence [purely relational influence] is primary, while the local, visible, material is 'appearances' aka 'shadow-reality'.

that would be the 'non-euclidian space' view [relational space view] that le guin said she was writing from back in 1982, ... but it seems she was trying to get to the nature of non-euclidian relational space via analytical inquiry [euclidian space based inquiry] which, as Wittgenstein notes, ... is like a ladder that merely puts you in position to see beyond the world of binary logic, and once one uses it to put oneself in position, one must make an intuition-based leap, and, on arriving on the other side, one can look back on the analytical inquiry that positioned one for the leap, as 'nonsense'. le guin did a splendid job of putting herself, and the reader, into position for the coyote leap, ... but could it be that on the way there, she became so enamored of her exceptional powers of analytical inquiry, that she could not bear to make that crossing and come out 'on the other side' where those elegant and sophisticated, noble and enlightening powers would now be considered 'nonsense'.

my guess is that ursula, who was great at putting herself in position for the leap, fell into the habit of 'balking';

“Back round once more. Usà puyew usu wapiw!
.
If the word [utopia] is to be redeemed, it will have to be by someone who has followed utopia into the abyss which yawns behind the Grand Inquisitor’s vision, and who then has clambered out on the other side.
.
Sounds like Coyote to me. Falls into things, traps, abysses, and then clambers out somehow, grinning stupidly. Is it possible that we are in fact no longer confronting the Grand Inquisitor? Could he be the Father Figure whom we have set up before us? Could it be that by turning around we can put him behind us, and leave him staring like Ozymandias King of Kings out across the death camps, the gulags, the Waste Land, the uninhabitable kingdom of Zeus, the binary-option, single-vision country where one must choose between happiness and freedom?
.
If so, then we are in the abyss behind him. Not out. A typical Coyote predicament. We have got ourselves into a really bad mess and have got to get out; and we have to be sure that it’s the other side we get out to; and when we do get out, we shall be changed.
.
I have no idea who we will be or what it may be like on the other side, though I believe there are people there. They have always lived there. There are songs they sing there; one of the songs is called “Dancing at the edge of the world.” If we, clambering up out of the abyss, ask questions of them, they won’t draw maps, alleging utter inability; but they may point. One of them might point in the direction of Arlington, Texas. I live there, she says. See how beautiful it is!
.
This is the New World! we will cry, bewildered but delighted. We have discovered the New World!
.
Oh no, Coyote will say. No, this is the old world. The one I made.
.
You made it for us! we will cry, amazed and grateful.
.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that, says Coyote.” – Ursula K. Le Guin, 'A Non-Euclidian View of California as a Cold Place to Be.'

There is a retirement house for 'balkers' called Utopia House and Bookchin lives there with other amazing builders of Wittgenstein ladders that can take one up through dizzying heights to put one in position for 'the coyote leap' to the other side where you will be caught in the strong and caring arms of your own intuition, and in this retirement house, their greatest pleasure is to talk about 'their children', the ladders they have given birth to which mean everything to them. They are not about to be letting go of those ladders.

man all you freaks are so spread out by your silly little factionalist micro narratives. Yes, Bookchin is imperfect. So is Ursula. But 'neo marxist' and all that gibberish he certainly is not. And Ursula K. Le Guin has managed to produce book after book of stunning sci fi brain food. Let's dispense with all this petty armchair ideological squabbling and realize that the kurds, despite whatever ideological shortcomings y'all might perceive, are still risking the actual, non ideological hair on their arises to fight all these fascist lunatics rampaging all over the region.

Make no mistake, the skill of splitting hairs becomes very useful when having to separate tobacco seeds in the slum factory.

guess you missed it when old man Murray finally renounced anarchism - and said he'd never really been one after all? much to the relief of plenty of anarchists. that's not ideological squabbling, it's calling people what they call themselves

" We are against all forms of oppression. We focus on workers’ movements and people’s movements that are oppressed due to ethnicity, we stand in solidarity against women’s oppression, and we are active in all of those movements. In Rojava, we were in touch with participants in the revolution since it started; when the resistance began in Kobanê, we immediately went to the region; our comrades organized solidarity actions on both sides of the border. We still have people there on a rotating basis, and we are still organizing actions. For example, recently, our women’s group organized an action in which they called for conscientious objection in support of the Kobanê resistance." --- Revolutionary Anarchist Action (Devrimci Anarşist Faaliyet, or DAF)

in discussion forums such as the anarchistnews.org forum, some people push 'ideologies' that they argue, should direct our individual and collective behaviour, such as Bookchin's 'social ecology'.

others argue against using intellectual theory to drive and direct individual and collective behaviour [emile being one amongst them]. for example, the bioregionalism of indigenous anarchism lets outside-inward orchestrating influences shape the social dynamic.

the experience is very different. in defending against oppression, one is 'rising to the occasion'. we know what this 'feels like'; it feels like the world or nature is calling you [inspiring, inciting, eliciting you] to take your place with the naturally unfolding scheme of things. hey, there's three people fighting off a gang of ten bullies, they need a hand, ... let's go. the hunter-gatherer is also outside-inwardly inspired, and the oasis and fertile valley call to the nomad, inspiring the development of farming skills in him.

being driven and directed by theory is something entirely different. one wakes up every day, not hearkening to the call of nature inspiring one to take one's place in the naturally unfolding scheme of things, but with a list of things that the theory demands one must do.

the two 'positions' in such discussion forums as this, should not be confused.

Agree with you enough!

in the interim, because the emile impersonator saw my above comment expressing two views, one of which i favoured over the other, and blurted 'moralist' in response, i wrote a little blurb to clarify his confusing of the two types of logic [excluded third, and included third].

in case anyone might be interested, i will post it even though the 'moralist' comment by the emile impersonator has been removed.

* * *

Basic Logic Lesson for an emile impersonator

show that you know the difference between the logic of the excluded third [moralist logic] and the logic of the included third.

the logic of the excluded third assumes that A=A and B=B and A≠B and there is no third element C such that A=C and B=C so that A=C=B which would contradict A≠B

the logic of the included third assumes that THERE IS a third element C such that while A≠B is true, at the same time, A=C=B, so that A=B is also true.

this is sometimes termed the ‘yin/yang equation’ A = not.A

this logic fits well with the relational space of nature; e.g. the convection cell is A and everything that is NOT the convection cell is B so A≠B. however C is the energy-charged flow-space that the convection cell forms in so that A=C and B=C so that A=C=B or A=B. in other words, the convection cell is at the same time, the relational flow-space it is included in. one sees this in social-philosophical commentaries like;

“In extending his living space in a manner that destroys the space of others, he destroys his own space. Not initially his inside space, his ‘self’, but his outside space, this real outside-of-self which nourishes his ‘inside-of-self’. The protection of this outside space now becomes the condition without which he is unable to pursue the growth of his own powers of being.” — Frédéric Neyrat, ‘Biopolitics of Catastrophe’

‘logic of the included third’ aka 'quantum logic' is also embodied in Mach’s principle and of course, in the physical reality of our natural experience. there is no such thing in our physical experience as the logic of the excluded third since it requires the independence between the foreground elements or figures and the reference ground. it is not a coincidence that the foundations of gestalt psychology (the ‘gestalt’ is the unum of figure-and-ground) were developed by Mach.

impersonations of emile will look more authentic if one shows that they know where to use which logic. moralist logic is logic of the excluded third. for people with only the one logic (excluded third) in their logic toolbox to hammer on issues with, every A≠B looks like a nail.

here’s an exercise so that you can practice a more discriminating usage of logics.

Permission to have a life: a group of powerful people colonize and take control over the entire surface space of the globe and sell tickets of residency-entitlement to all the people of the world. everyone must buy a ticket. there is no choice. the tickets are in the form of passports and the price is swearing an oath of compliance to the directives of an overall authority, which may include a call-up for military duty if there is any uprising such as where a faction forms which refuses to buy residency-entitlement tickets.

The faction which refuses to buy residency is designated ‘A’ and the faction which supports the issuing of residency-entitlement tickets is designated ‘B’. The two factions are polarized against each other, or are they? The B faction insists that the enforcement arm of the overall authority must take control and force the A faction to buy residency tickets. The B faction sees the behaviour of the A’s as ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ and their own compliant behaviour as ‘right’ and ‘good’. The B’s feel deep animosity towards the A’s. the A’s on the other hand, don’t care diddly squat about ‘authority’ so they are not polarized against the B’s, they just think the B’s are stupid [and, of course, will defend against the B's trying to impose stuff on them].

The B’s are frightened as they watch the growth in the size and number of the A faction since the A’s need to be controlled and they are growing out of control. The A’s, meanwhile, do not see themselves as a faction, there is no theory driving them and no task ahead like having to re-establish control, as is burdening the B’s ['white man's burden?']. The A’s are refuseniks who don’t like theory and control. The A’s thus do not see any ‘growth in their numbers’ in the sense of a 'growing physical force' or 'growing military might'. that is , all the A's see is transforming relations; i.e. for every increment in the count of A’s, there is a reciprocal complementary decrease in the count of B’s. in other words, it is all the same thing (C). for the A’s, A≠B, but at the same time, A=B. There is no real physical growth associated with rising number of A's since they are not building an army to mount an attack against the B's.

But for the B’s, the growth of A’s is a physically real growth; i.e. it is the number of rebel bodies that are going to have to be brought back under control. This problem is growing larger and scarier as the number of A’s grows, ... real physical bodies that the B’s are going to have to get back under control. For the B’s A≠B and there is no common ground, ‘C’ such that A=C=B.

What the growth of A's induces in the B's is paranoid schizophrenia, as we see transpiring between oppositely polarized Christian and Islamic moralists.

Practice Question: Is the growth in A ‘real growth’?

For the B’s , it is real growth because it represents the number of physical bodies that the B’s are going to have to get back under control

For the A’s, it is NOT real growth, but transformation in relations. There is no sense amongst the A’s that ‘aha, our numbers are growing, and soon we will have sufficient numbers to overpower the B’s. The A’s are not interested in overpowering the B’s. The A’s are like the Zapatistas and other indigenous anarchists who are getting out of this insane game of having to put some Supremo power in control over themselves that imposes moral contracts and ethical duties.

If it is not yet clear, the logic of the included third is what associates with non-euclidian space aka 'curved space' aka 'relational space' while the moralist logic of the excluded third associates with euclidian space, aka 'rectangular space' aka 'non-relational, absolute space'.

Western mainstream scientific thinking is 'moralist thinking'.

Did you ever consider modifying your own behaviour until people aren't compelled to spend so much time trolling you?

I don't feel compelled, that's moralist.

I wouldn't say niggas can modify their behavior, cause behavior is like an account, and (anticipating to the negro) cause it's not their own behavior.

Nope. Back to the dictionary you go.

your behavior is like your body, a linguistic puppet

Seriously dumbass, compel means force … one of countless possibilities could be morality but in no way does the word imply that. Maybe try to brush up on the definitions you use during your pointless trolling, then you'd be gaining something.

Saying "you make me do it" is moralist and it doesn't have to do with the "meaning" or definition of make or any of the components. The reference of terms depends on the phrases and grammatical patterns in which they occur; "make" alone is attached to nothing specifically.

Are you actually that bad at logic or just still trolling? Is everything you dislike either leftist, moralist or liberal because you can't take your anews troll glasses off? Sad fate, that.

Worker, how bout you take the ability of theirs away to post taken names to begin with. I'll take their toilet scrubbing existence but leave my taken name out if it. My little undermench recently posted again in the primitivist thread.

you say; "impersonator"

'impersonator' is ALL PING NO PONG the scrubbing of real physically physical experience like modern physics prove and our physically real physical sensory experience validates

ping pong

in the interim, because the emile impersonator saw my above comment expressing two views, one of which i favoured over the other, and blurted 'moralist' in response, i wrote a little blurb to clarify his confusing of the two types of logic [excluded third, and included third].

in case anyone might be interested, i will post it even though the 'moralist' comment by the emile impersonator has been removed.

* * *

Basic Logic Lesson for an emile impersonator

show that you know the difference between the logic of the excluded third [moralist logic] and the logic of the included third.

the logic of the excluded third assumes that A=A and B=B and A≠B and there is no third element C such that A=C and B=C so that A=C=B which would contradict A≠B

the logic of the included third assumes that THERE IS a third element C such that while A≠B is true, at the same time, A=C=B, so that A=B is also true.

this is sometimes termed the ‘yin/yang equation’ A = not.A

this logic fits well with the relational space of nature; e.g. the convection cell is A and everything that is NOT the convection cell is B so A≠B. however C is the energy-charged flow-space that the convection cell forms in so that A=C and B=C so that A=C=B or A=B. in other words, the convection cell is at the same time, the relational flow-space it is included in. one sees this in social-philosophical commentaries like;

“In extending his living space in a manner that destroys the space of others, he destroys his own space. Not initially his inside space, his ‘self’, but his outside space, this real outside-of-self which nourishes his ‘inside-of-self’. The protection of this outside space now becomes the condition without which he is unable to pursue the growth of his own powers of being.” — Frédéric Neyrat, ‘Biopolitics of Catastrophe’

‘logic of the included third’ aka 'quantum logic' is also embodied in Mach’s principle and of course, in the physical reality of our natural experience. there is no such thing in our physical experience as the logic of the excluded third since it requires the independence between the foreground elements or figures and the reference ground. it is not a coincidence that the foundations of gestalt psychology (the ‘gestalt’ is the unum of figure-and-ground) were developed by Mach.

impersonations of emile will look more authentic if one shows that they know where to use which logic. moralist logic is logic of the excluded third. for people with only the one logic (excluded third) in their logic toolbox to hammer on issues with, every A≠B looks like a nail.

here’s an exercise so that you can practice a more discriminating usage of logics.

Permission to have a life: a group of powerful people colonize and take control over the entire surface space of the globe and sell tickets of residency-entitlement to all the people of the world. everyone must buy a ticket. there is no choice. the tickets are in the form of passports and the price is swearing an oath of compliance to the directives of an overall authority, which may include a call-up for military duty if there is any uprising such as where a faction forms which refuses to buy residency-entitlement tickets.

The faction which refuses to buy residency is designated ‘A’ and the faction which supports the issuing of residency-entitlement tickets is designated ‘B’. The two factions are polarized against each other, or are they? The B faction insists that the enforcement arm of the overall authority must take control and force the A faction to buy residency tickets. The B faction sees the behaviour of the A’s as ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ and their own compliant behaviour as ‘right’ and ‘good’. The B’s feel deep animosity towards the A’s. the A’s on the other hand, don’t care diddly squat about ‘authority’ so they are not polarized against the B’s, they just think the B’s are stupid [and, of course, will defend against the B's trying to impose stuff on them].

The B’s are frightened as they watch the growth in the size and number of the A faction since the A’s need to be controlled and they are growing out of control. The A’s, meanwhile, do not see themselves as a faction, there is no theory driving them and no task ahead like having to re-establish control, as is burdening the B’s ['white man's burden?']. The A’s are refuseniks who don’t like theory and control. The A’s thus do not see any ‘growth in their numbers’ in the sense of a 'growing physical force' or 'growing military might'. that is , all the A's see is transforming relations; i.e. for every increment in the count of A’s, there is a reciprocal complementary decrease in the count of B’s. in other words, it is all the same thing (C). for the A’s, A≠B, but at the same time, A=B. There is no real physical growth associated with rising number of A's since they are not building an army to mount an attack against the B's.

But for the B’s, the growth of A’s is a physically real growth; i.e. it is the number of rebel bodies that are going to have to be brought back under control. This problem is growing larger and scarier as the number of A’s grows, ... real physical bodies that the B’s are going to have to get back under control. For the B’s A≠B and there is no common ground, ‘C’ such that A=C=B.

What the growth of A's induces in the B's is paranoid schizophrenia, as we see transpiring between oppositely polarized Christian and Islamic moralists.

Practice Question: Is the growth in A ‘real growth’?

For the B’s , it is real growth because it represents the number of physical bodies that the B’s are going to have to get back under control

For the A’s, it is NOT real growth, but transformation in relations. There is no sense amongst the A’s that ‘aha, our numbers are growing, and soon we will have sufficient numbers to overpower the B’s. The A’s are not interested in overpowering the B’s. The A’s are like the Zapatistas and other indigenous anarchists who are getting out of this insane game of having to put some Supremo power in control over themselves that imposes moral contracts and ethical duties.

If it is not yet clear, the logic of the included third is what associates with non-euclidian space aka 'curved space' aka 'relational space' while the moralist logic of the excluded third associates with euclidian space, aka 'rectangular space' aka 'non-relational, absolute space'.

Western mainstream scientific thinking is 'moralist thinking'.

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.
CAPTCHA
Human?
U
F
x
R
t
e
a
Enter the code without spaces.